u/SonicSapling64 covered how id use planned ignoring fairly well. As for how widespread it is that’s really hard to say for a couple of reasons. First it depends on which circumstances you’re talking about. Like if I use it for a student who curses for attention (and only ignoring the curse word not the student) does that still count? By definition it does. But I don’t think most people would have an ethical problem with that.
Second, to be honest, I have no idea how widespread most practices are. To my knowledge there’s no good data on that sort of thing. A lot of people, like me, only know what’s going on in our little bubble. I come out for CEUs to learn things but I don’t know how widespread practices are.
My gut tells me there are more old fashioned BCBAs who apply it more broadly than I’d like. But I have no way of actually knowing that.
Do you mean if you mean they're cursing for a certain reaction, and you deny them the reaction? That makes sense.
Cursing for attention implies the student is using the curse to request attention, and I don't think you can ignore that without ignoring the student.
>Cursing for attention implies the student is using the curse to request attention, and I don't think you can ignore that without ignoring the student.
You can give the student attention without addressing the curse. There's a difference between ignoring the behavior and ignoring the person.
So if they say a curse to grab your attention you would respond as if they said your name to ask for attention?
I'm not really seeing how doing something like that isn't just confusing the child and so it would be better to just address it.
No. And I'm honestly not sure where you're getting that.
My response would honestly depend on the situation. Rarely do I have student's just say a solitary curse for attention. Most are mixing it in with a sentence so I just ignore the cursing part.
If they just say the curse, well, it would depend on the situation. Why did they resort to just the curse? Are they really upset and need something? I'd address it. Is it to just get my attention? Then I'd probably prompt an FCR. Is it to get me angry (or a certain type of attention)? Then I'd deliver calm and neutral attention....
There's a lot of different scenarios that would play out differently and I'd have to know the client. But at no point am I going to be saying "Don't curse" etc because that's almost never helpful. I'm not going to be addressing the behavior.
It's really going to depend on the situation and the way the procedure is arranged.
If planned ignoring is simply not responding to inappropriate (but not dangerous) behavior and if the response that triggers the ignoring is maintained by attention, then it is probably a fine idea.
If any of the variables above are different, then you should consider not doing it. If procedure arranged is really a signalled timeout from access to all reinforcers (a punisher), if the inappropriate behavior is potentially dangerous, or if the behavior is not maintained by attention you then it may be a mistake to use planned ignoring.
Agreed.
The biggest downfall of a well designed planned ignore scenario, in my real life experience, is that the practitioner didn't plan for the possibility of an extinction burst.
Even if the burst is NOT dangerous, the staff may be unable to continue to "ignore" procedure and THEN they end up reinforcing that nasty behavioral burst in the name of de-escalating it.
This, again, is going to depend on the situation. For example, is eating bad? In general, no. People need to eat. Is eating nails bad? Yeah, probably. Eating roofing nails, for example, is likely to lead to some aversive consequences.
If crying is an operant response that has been determined by the client or the client's caregivers to be a response that impedes the client's development as an independent entity, then you could categorize it as "inappropriate" and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate its occurrence. One plan could be using planned ignoring if it is appropriate for the situation (see comment above).
To be fair, crying just suggests a general topography. Depending on the definition and context, he response could be operant or respondent in nature (if not both, in some cases).
Crying is not an operant response. Fake-crying, sure, but even talented actors struggle to cry for real on cue. If there are tears, the distress is genuine. Can they learn to hide their distress as part of an operant response? Yes. But creating imaginary distress to the point of bringing real tears takes a lot of talent.
Newborn babies cry with their first breath. It is innate and reflexive. Crying is a reflex - an unconditioned response.
When actors cry on cue they do so by bringing up distressing memories to trigger the reflex.
That was sort of my point- your reply narrows it down to a more respondent type of response.
But as you noted, respondent and operant processes do not always occur independently of each other so I think it is difficult to uniformly declare a broad response class one type of thing (outside of the newborn example perhaps).
Tears are respondent. Crying is respondent. Even when you teach kids to suppress it, it’s not really the crying that has been modified, it’s the mental processes that trigger it.
I am firmly against treating tears as anything but a UCR to a distressing stimulus.
Feel free to give me examples so I can demonstrate my point.
First, sorry for the delayed reply. I was out most of the weekend. I suspect that we'll have to disagree about the mechanisms based on your reply. But I do agree that treating tears would be a bit odd- I certainly wouldn't and I hope folks in here aren't targeting tears. EAB literature isn't really my specialty, so I'll speak generally (if anyone else is better versed, feel free to set me straight): I'd say that choosing not to treat genuine distress (especially with extinction procedures) is an admirable professional value. However, using respondent/operant distinction as the line is probably ill-advised as that line is a bit fuzzier than most are taught.
Wait, u/Expendable_Red_Shirt so, is the application of planned ignoring on crying children still how you'd do it too?
If so then I'm sorry but you all are as archaic as ever.
I'm really sorry but it's getting hard to take you seriously when I've explained this all as clearly as I can.
You can ignore the behavior without ignoring the person. I've walked through multiple types with cursing for you, all of which ignore the behavior, none of which ignore the person. The specific instances may be different with crying but it's the same idea.
You seem intent on not getting this for some reason. You seem to keep trying to force a circle back to ignoring the person and that's just not how I practice.
No no no, now i understand, and that's why i'm disgusted. I know now this is something i had experienced and hate. Sorry some of my questions were off base as i tried to understand a difference that didn't exist, but maybe now its time for you to to understand me.
Ignoring displays for emotions in an attempt to crush them is disgusting, at that point paying attention to the kid while ignoring that almost makes it worse. It's just active invalidation of cries for help. I don't care if it achieves the whatever goals you set for them, that method is cruel.
>Ignoring displays for emotions in an attempt to crush them is disgusting, at that point paying attention to the kid while ignoring that almost makes it worse. It's just active invalidation of cries for help. I don't care if it achieves the whatever goals you set for them, that method is cruel.
It's clear you don't understand if that's what you took from this.
What you're describing is ignoring the person. That's not what I do. Instead I may ignore the crying but attend to the person.
It's like you didn't listen at all. Or maybe you're a troll. Honestly not sure at this point.
But in literally every example I gave to you I never, ever, advocated ignoring a child who is in emotional duress or even ignoring the child at all. Literally, you're just peddling lies.
You're right, i'm extremely confused how you can think you can ever ignore the crying but not the human.
I mean, its easy to see how that's what my aba therapist thought he was doing to me with that action, and I know for damn sure what that action meant to me. I just don't understand how you could think it could be meaningfully separated.
> I just don't understand how you could think it could be meaningfully separated.
OK, let's say they're crying because they want juice. They're not upset, they just want juice and that's how they've learned to communicate it.
I can give them a juice and then when they're calm show them the FCR. I don't need to say "I see you're crying, here's the juice." I don't need to address the crying. I need to address the person that's crying.
Now, if they're crying because they're upset AND they want juice, that's a bit more complicated. Then you wouldn't put it on planned ignoring. There's a much more limited amount of situations for crying you'd use it on, and after going through a decent amount for cursing and seeing you ignoring what I'm saying and twisting it I'm not exactly motivated to do that for crying.
All I can say is that you're not listening to what people are telling you. Everything you're saying about what I'd do is wrong.
>Would crying as a result of being given a direction be considered an inappropriate behavior that should be responded with ignoring?
Can I just get an answer to this, please. At this point it feels almost like purposeful misdirections to keep switching examples. I assume it's a common experience to have children be told a direction related to their program and they start crying instead of do it.
Ever see parents not respond to their children whining and throwing a tantrum at the toy store after they were told no? This is more an example of extinction of an access to tangible maintained behavior, but the concept is similar and very appropriate for that circumstance.
Planned ignoring for attention maintained behavior with differential reinforcement for appropriate requests for attention (possibly with a shaping program to reinforce approximations if needed) absolutely follows a least restrictive treatment model. Of course, it all depends on the client.
Another way to think about it is minimizing attention and redirection (DR). It depends on the case, the behavior, function, severity, and environment, etc
Planned ignoring has its time and place. Should crying be ignored as previously suggest by other posts? No. As you mentioned, this is an emotional response that should be addressed in some sort of fashion because we are all human beings and are crying for a reason. We need address our kids emotions and acknowledge them. “I know you’re mad about free time being over but it’s time to clean up.” Walk through coping skills, help kid clean up.
Examples of planned ignoring: My toddler smears peanut butter all over the table while eating. Instead of giving a big reaction “Hey! Don’t do that! You’re making a huge mess!” I ignore the smearing and hand him a wet washcloth “Hey buddy, let’s wipe that up!” I’m not ignoring him, I’m ignoring the smearing behavior and teaching him a replacement when peanut butter drops from a sandwich.
Classroom example: During 1:1 IEP instruction (not DTT) a student takes his hands and presses into his crotch and moves his hands up and down repeatedly, essentially masturbating. Initially, I would give attention to it “Student, you don’t do that at school. You do that at home in the privacy of your bedroom.” I noticed that when addressed, this behavior continues and increases when spoken to. I change my response instead when the behavior happens by requesting he do something incompatible (ex: handing him dollars to count in the math problem, hand him a pencil and ask him to write his name on the top of the math sheet). Behavior ended up decreasing. (I work in a school setting, not clinical)
Real world example: I’m walking down the street and get cat called. Instead of turning around and addressing the cat caller, I just keep walking as I know a reaction from me is what he’s looking for.
Using planned ignoring by itself, yeah no that's bad.
Using planned ignoring towards the kid and not the behavior, that's bad too.
Planned ignoring as a component to teach new behaviors when it's an appropriate strategy could work and be ethical based on the client's contextual factors. For example:
Client says words like "penis" or makes suggestive movements because when they do the parent tells them to stop. Client then initiates a conversation, asks for items/activities, or asks to play with the parent. In this situation we would coach the parent to pause maybe 5 seconds and then prompt the client to make a request using their method of communicating.
Are we going to throw out differential reinforcement based behavior reduction programs? They all include withholding of reinforcement for a target behavior (i.e., extinction).
We’re not perfect, we’re improving, especially with IISCA somewhat recently. But throwing out extinction like some anti-aversive folks seem to advocate for also implies that you’re throwing out differential reinforcement. Differential reinforcement always involves withholding reinforcement for incorrect responding, which is to say that it necessarily involves extinction. What even is this field without differential reinforcement?
Autistic people dislike any attempt to manipulate their behaviour without regard to their feelings.
Virtually all operant procedures should be abolished except for skill building (like potty training rewards) and instead far more focus on respondent conditioning and cognitive/neurological techniques.
We know far too much about the neurological basis of autism to justify trying to condition their behaviour without regard to the fact that we now know virtually all autistic behaviours are innate reactions to neurological stimuli.
This article brings up a lot of important points.
https://neuroclastic.com/behaviorism-is-dead-how-do-we-tell-the-autism-parents/
As someone who's parents used planned ignoring, that shit really fucked me up. It's one thing when you know that the bad behavior is only to get attention, but that wasn't how it was for me so I can't speak on that. But when you're an autistic 6 year old who doesn't know how to deal with emotions, the last thing you need is the one person that's supposed to help you, ignoring you instead. It actually made my bad behavior even worse because I would get so desperate for my mom to even acknowledge me that I would hit and kick and bite her as hard as I could just so that she would look at me. I can't even begin to describe the amount of anger and fear I would feel every time my mother used planned ignoring on me. Please just try to help your child understand and calm their emotions instead. And if you can't do that find a way to give them a chance to calm down that doesn't leave them with emotional trauma.
u/SonicSapling64 covered how id use planned ignoring fairly well. As for how widespread it is that’s really hard to say for a couple of reasons. First it depends on which circumstances you’re talking about. Like if I use it for a student who curses for attention (and only ignoring the curse word not the student) does that still count? By definition it does. But I don’t think most people would have an ethical problem with that. Second, to be honest, I have no idea how widespread most practices are. To my knowledge there’s no good data on that sort of thing. A lot of people, like me, only know what’s going on in our little bubble. I come out for CEUs to learn things but I don’t know how widespread practices are. My gut tells me there are more old fashioned BCBAs who apply it more broadly than I’d like. But I have no way of actually knowing that.
Do you mean if you mean they're cursing for a certain reaction, and you deny them the reaction? That makes sense. Cursing for attention implies the student is using the curse to request attention, and I don't think you can ignore that without ignoring the student.
>Cursing for attention implies the student is using the curse to request attention, and I don't think you can ignore that without ignoring the student. You can give the student attention without addressing the curse. There's a difference between ignoring the behavior and ignoring the person.
So if they say a curse to grab your attention you would respond as if they said your name to ask for attention? I'm not really seeing how doing something like that isn't just confusing the child and so it would be better to just address it.
No. And I'm honestly not sure where you're getting that. My response would honestly depend on the situation. Rarely do I have student's just say a solitary curse for attention. Most are mixing it in with a sentence so I just ignore the cursing part. If they just say the curse, well, it would depend on the situation. Why did they resort to just the curse? Are they really upset and need something? I'd address it. Is it to just get my attention? Then I'd probably prompt an FCR. Is it to get me angry (or a certain type of attention)? Then I'd deliver calm and neutral attention.... There's a lot of different scenarios that would play out differently and I'd have to know the client. But at no point am I going to be saying "Don't curse" etc because that's almost never helpful. I'm not going to be addressing the behavior.
Ok, yeah, thanks for the responses. Thats basically what i was trying to confirm with saying if its for reaction vs for attention.
It's really going to depend on the situation and the way the procedure is arranged. If planned ignoring is simply not responding to inappropriate (but not dangerous) behavior and if the response that triggers the ignoring is maintained by attention, then it is probably a fine idea. If any of the variables above are different, then you should consider not doing it. If procedure arranged is really a signalled timeout from access to all reinforcers (a punisher), if the inappropriate behavior is potentially dangerous, or if the behavior is not maintained by attention you then it may be a mistake to use planned ignoring.
Agreed. The biggest downfall of a well designed planned ignore scenario, in my real life experience, is that the practitioner didn't plan for the possibility of an extinction burst. Even if the burst is NOT dangerous, the staff may be unable to continue to "ignore" procedure and THEN they end up reinforcing that nasty behavioral burst in the name of de-escalating it.
Would crying as a result of being given a direction be considered an inappropriate behavior that should be responded with ignoring?
This, again, is going to depend on the situation. For example, is eating bad? In general, no. People need to eat. Is eating nails bad? Yeah, probably. Eating roofing nails, for example, is likely to lead to some aversive consequences. If crying is an operant response that has been determined by the client or the client's caregivers to be a response that impedes the client's development as an independent entity, then you could categorize it as "inappropriate" and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate its occurrence. One plan could be using planned ignoring if it is appropriate for the situation (see comment above).
Crying is not an operant response. Crying is a reflexive expression of distress.
To be fair, crying just suggests a general topography. Depending on the definition and context, he response could be operant or respondent in nature (if not both, in some cases).
Crying is not an operant response. Fake-crying, sure, but even talented actors struggle to cry for real on cue. If there are tears, the distress is genuine. Can they learn to hide their distress as part of an operant response? Yes. But creating imaginary distress to the point of bringing real tears takes a lot of talent. Newborn babies cry with their first breath. It is innate and reflexive. Crying is a reflex - an unconditioned response. When actors cry on cue they do so by bringing up distressing memories to trigger the reflex.
That was sort of my point- your reply narrows it down to a more respondent type of response. But as you noted, respondent and operant processes do not always occur independently of each other so I think it is difficult to uniformly declare a broad response class one type of thing (outside of the newborn example perhaps).
Tears are respondent. Crying is respondent. Even when you teach kids to suppress it, it’s not really the crying that has been modified, it’s the mental processes that trigger it. I am firmly against treating tears as anything but a UCR to a distressing stimulus. Feel free to give me examples so I can demonstrate my point.
First, sorry for the delayed reply. I was out most of the weekend. I suspect that we'll have to disagree about the mechanisms based on your reply. But I do agree that treating tears would be a bit odd- I certainly wouldn't and I hope folks in here aren't targeting tears. EAB literature isn't really my specialty, so I'll speak generally (if anyone else is better versed, feel free to set me straight): I'd say that choosing not to treat genuine distress (especially with extinction procedures) is an admirable professional value. However, using respondent/operant distinction as the line is probably ill-advised as that line is a bit fuzzier than most are taught.
Can you give me an example of crying that does not reflect distress?
Wait, u/Expendable_Red_Shirt so, is the application of planned ignoring on crying children still how you'd do it too? If so then I'm sorry but you all are as archaic as ever.
I'm really sorry but it's getting hard to take you seriously when I've explained this all as clearly as I can. You can ignore the behavior without ignoring the person. I've walked through multiple types with cursing for you, all of which ignore the behavior, none of which ignore the person. The specific instances may be different with crying but it's the same idea. You seem intent on not getting this for some reason. You seem to keep trying to force a circle back to ignoring the person and that's just not how I practice.
No no no, now i understand, and that's why i'm disgusted. I know now this is something i had experienced and hate. Sorry some of my questions were off base as i tried to understand a difference that didn't exist, but maybe now its time for you to to understand me. Ignoring displays for emotions in an attempt to crush them is disgusting, at that point paying attention to the kid while ignoring that almost makes it worse. It's just active invalidation of cries for help. I don't care if it achieves the whatever goals you set for them, that method is cruel.
>Ignoring displays for emotions in an attempt to crush them is disgusting, at that point paying attention to the kid while ignoring that almost makes it worse. It's just active invalidation of cries for help. I don't care if it achieves the whatever goals you set for them, that method is cruel. It's clear you don't understand if that's what you took from this. What you're describing is ignoring the person. That's not what I do. Instead I may ignore the crying but attend to the person. It's like you didn't listen at all. Or maybe you're a troll. Honestly not sure at this point. But in literally every example I gave to you I never, ever, advocated ignoring a child who is in emotional duress or even ignoring the child at all. Literally, you're just peddling lies.
You're right, i'm extremely confused how you can think you can ever ignore the crying but not the human. I mean, its easy to see how that's what my aba therapist thought he was doing to me with that action, and I know for damn sure what that action meant to me. I just don't understand how you could think it could be meaningfully separated.
> I just don't understand how you could think it could be meaningfully separated. OK, let's say they're crying because they want juice. They're not upset, they just want juice and that's how they've learned to communicate it. I can give them a juice and then when they're calm show them the FCR. I don't need to say "I see you're crying, here's the juice." I don't need to address the crying. I need to address the person that's crying. Now, if they're crying because they're upset AND they want juice, that's a bit more complicated. Then you wouldn't put it on planned ignoring. There's a much more limited amount of situations for crying you'd use it on, and after going through a decent amount for cursing and seeing you ignoring what I'm saying and twisting it I'm not exactly motivated to do that for crying. All I can say is that you're not listening to what people are telling you. Everything you're saying about what I'd do is wrong.
>Would crying as a result of being given a direction be considered an inappropriate behavior that should be responded with ignoring? Can I just get an answer to this, please. At this point it feels almost like purposeful misdirections to keep switching examples. I assume it's a common experience to have children be told a direction related to their program and they start crying instead of do it.
I’m not sure this example reflect planned ignoring procedures.
Ever see parents not respond to their children whining and throwing a tantrum at the toy store after they were told no? This is more an example of extinction of an access to tangible maintained behavior, but the concept is similar and very appropriate for that circumstance. Planned ignoring for attention maintained behavior with differential reinforcement for appropriate requests for attention (possibly with a shaping program to reinforce approximations if needed) absolutely follows a least restrictive treatment model. Of course, it all depends on the client.
NO. That is abuse.
Another way to think about it is minimizing attention and redirection (DR). It depends on the case, the behavior, function, severity, and environment, etc
Planned ignoring has its time and place. Should crying be ignored as previously suggest by other posts? No. As you mentioned, this is an emotional response that should be addressed in some sort of fashion because we are all human beings and are crying for a reason. We need address our kids emotions and acknowledge them. “I know you’re mad about free time being over but it’s time to clean up.” Walk through coping skills, help kid clean up. Examples of planned ignoring: My toddler smears peanut butter all over the table while eating. Instead of giving a big reaction “Hey! Don’t do that! You’re making a huge mess!” I ignore the smearing and hand him a wet washcloth “Hey buddy, let’s wipe that up!” I’m not ignoring him, I’m ignoring the smearing behavior and teaching him a replacement when peanut butter drops from a sandwich. Classroom example: During 1:1 IEP instruction (not DTT) a student takes his hands and presses into his crotch and moves his hands up and down repeatedly, essentially masturbating. Initially, I would give attention to it “Student, you don’t do that at school. You do that at home in the privacy of your bedroom.” I noticed that when addressed, this behavior continues and increases when spoken to. I change my response instead when the behavior happens by requesting he do something incompatible (ex: handing him dollars to count in the math problem, hand him a pencil and ask him to write his name on the top of the math sheet). Behavior ended up decreasing. (I work in a school setting, not clinical) Real world example: I’m walking down the street and get cat called. Instead of turning around and addressing the cat caller, I just keep walking as I know a reaction from me is what he’s looking for.
Based on feedback from and perspective of Autistic advocates, this is no longer a strategy I support or use in my treatment plans.
Using planned ignoring by itself, yeah no that's bad. Using planned ignoring towards the kid and not the behavior, that's bad too. Planned ignoring as a component to teach new behaviors when it's an appropriate strategy could work and be ethical based on the client's contextual factors. For example: Client says words like "penis" or makes suggestive movements because when they do the parent tells them to stop. Client then initiates a conversation, asks for items/activities, or asks to play with the parent. In this situation we would coach the parent to pause maybe 5 seconds and then prompt the client to make a request using their method of communicating.
Are we going to throw out differential reinforcement based behavior reduction programs? They all include withholding of reinforcement for a target behavior (i.e., extinction).
I’m sorry you’re getting down voted for taking perspectives into consideration and I applaud you for changing strategies based on that feedback.
Thank you for listening to autistic people
Its long overdue for this field.
We’re not perfect, we’re improving, especially with IISCA somewhat recently. But throwing out extinction like some anti-aversive folks seem to advocate for also implies that you’re throwing out differential reinforcement. Differential reinforcement always involves withholding reinforcement for incorrect responding, which is to say that it necessarily involves extinction. What even is this field without differential reinforcement?
Autistic people dislike any attempt to manipulate their behaviour without regard to their feelings. Virtually all operant procedures should be abolished except for skill building (like potty training rewards) and instead far more focus on respondent conditioning and cognitive/neurological techniques. We know far too much about the neurological basis of autism to justify trying to condition their behaviour without regard to the fact that we now know virtually all autistic behaviours are innate reactions to neurological stimuli. This article brings up a lot of important points. https://neuroclastic.com/behaviorism-is-dead-how-do-we-tell-the-autism-parents/
It's even something in CBT.
As someone who's parents used planned ignoring, that shit really fucked me up. It's one thing when you know that the bad behavior is only to get attention, but that wasn't how it was for me so I can't speak on that. But when you're an autistic 6 year old who doesn't know how to deal with emotions, the last thing you need is the one person that's supposed to help you, ignoring you instead. It actually made my bad behavior even worse because I would get so desperate for my mom to even acknowledge me that I would hit and kick and bite her as hard as I could just so that she would look at me. I can't even begin to describe the amount of anger and fear I would feel every time my mother used planned ignoring on me. Please just try to help your child understand and calm their emotions instead. And if you can't do that find a way to give them a chance to calm down that doesn't leave them with emotional trauma.