DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

Antecedent control procedures are environmental changes implemented prior to the behavior in
order to control the frequency of that behaviorusually the reduction of challenging behavior, often
with clients requiring pervasive support.

The Law of Effect

Antecedent control procedures started with a cat in a box. In 1898, Edward L. Thorndike published
the following observation concerning a cat placed in a cage (puzzle box) containing dangling ropes,
levers, and latches: When the cat made the proper response with these manipulanda, the cage door
would open and the cat would exit and eat the food placed just outside. Over the following trials, the
cat would less and less frequently make irrelevant responses and more and more quickly make the
door-opening response, exit, and eat the food.
Over the following decades, Thorndike would develop and evolve his famous law of effect. Here is a
modern statement of that law of effect: The results of our actions determine whether we will repeat
those actions; some results will cause the frequency of those actions to increase, and other results
will cause that frequency to decrease. (The cat will more and more frequently make a response that
results in food, and it will less and less frequently make a response that results in water mist sprayed
in its face or results in nothing.)
Thorndike's simple but profound law of effect now serves as the foundation of essentially all
behavior analysis, including applied behavior analysis (behavior modification): To increase the
frequency of desirable behavior, make sure that behavior results in a reinforcer (reward) or the
removal of an aversive condition. (When the autistic child properly completes a puzzle, give him or
her a hug. When the disruptive child properly asks permission to take a break from a difficult task,
allow him or her to escape that task.) And to decrease the frequency of undesirable behavior, make
sure that behavior results in an aversive condition, the loss of a reinforcer, or the withholding of a
reinforcer. (When the child plays violently with a toy, briefly remove the toy.) The traditional applied
behavior analysis intervention has been to apply the law of effect in a very straightforward manner,
by directly reinforcing or punishing the behavior of interest, either to increase or to decrease the
frequency of that behavior. However, in recent years, behavior analysts have been developing two
related, integrated approaches that provide some alternatives to this traditional, straightforward
application of the law of effect.

Two New Approaches

Primarily, these two new approaches address the reduction in the frequency of challenging behavior
for clients classified as autistic, mentally handicapped, or emotionally impaired. Challenging
behavior (problem, dysfunctional, maladaptive, inappropriate behavior) includes self-injury,
aggression, property destruction, inappropriate or interfering self-stimulation, and disruptions.
However, the goal is not just to reduce challenging behavior but to do so in a way that will also
increase functional, adaptive, appropriate behavior, including behavior that facilitates learning,
behavior such as orienting toward the trainer or the instructional materials. (Giving a sedative to a
disruptive child might reduce the frequency of disruptive behavior, but it might also interfere with
increases in the frequency of functional behavior.)
One of these two new behavior-analytic approaches is positive behavioral support. A major goal of
this approach is to reduce challenging behavior without using aversive control procedures
(punishment and penalties).
And the other new approach, antecedent control, provides some procedures for accomplishing that
goal of reducing challenging behavior in a nonaversive way. Antecedent control procedures
emphasize changing conditions prior to the occurrence of the behavior of interest; they contrast with
1

consequence control procedures, which emphasize changing conditions following a behavior.

Therefore, when using antecedent control procedures to reduce problem behavior, behavior analysts
tend to provide positive behavioral support by concentrating on the conditions prior to the problem
behavior, rather than by adding aversive consequences after the problem behavior.
Antecedent control procedures do not involve a rejection of the law of effect. (The frequency of
Thorndike's cat's exiting the cage is not only a function of the consequence of that responsethe
food but also of the conditions antecedent to that responsehow food-deprived the cat is and
perhaps how cramped the cage is.) Rather than a rejection of the law of effect, antecedent control
procedures are a more subtle application of that law than traditionally has been practiced by applied
behavior analysts. (Instead of punishing the disruptive behavior of a child, the behavior analyst using
antecedent control procedures would assess the function of the disruptive behavior. If the assessment
revealed that the behavior was reinforced [rewarded] by escape from an aversively difficult task,
then the behavior analyst might reduce the difficulty of that task, a condition antecedent to the
behavior.)

How New Are Antecedent Control Procedures?

In a sense, antecedent control procedures are nothing new. From the time of B. F. Skinner's 1930s
research with rats in his Skinner box, experimental behavior analysts have paid careful attention to
the antecedent control procedure of food deprivation, to ensure that the food would be an effective
reinforcer for the rat's lever-pressing behavior. Since Theodore Ayllon and Jack Michael's 1950s
research with back ward mental patients, applied behavior analysts have paid careful attention to the
antecedent control procedure of reinforcer deprivation, to ensure that the snack or whatever preferred
reinforcer would be an effective reinforcer for the client's appropriate behavior.
Nonetheless, the emphasis on antecedent control procedures as an intervention of choice is new.
Traditionally, when challenging behavior would occur, the first intervention would often be the
implementation of a consequence control procedure (punishment, penalty, or extinction). However,
with this new emphasis on positive behavioral support and antecedent control procedures, when
challenging behavior occurs, the first intervention often follows an assessment of the function and
causes of that behavior. Based on that assessment, the behavior analyst implements an antecedent
control procedure, for example, a procedure involving the reduction of the aversiveness of the setting
or an increase in the reinforcing value of the setting. Thus, the antecedent control approach often
addresses the challenging behavior itself only indirectly, whereas the consequence control approach
usually involves applying an added performance-management procedure directly to the challenging
behavior.

Consequence Control Procedures for Challenging Behavior

The traditional behavior-analytic approach to challenging behavior is to implement a consequence
control procedure that decreases the frequency of the challenging behavior. The first step is to
perform a functional assessment or functional analysis to determine the function of the behavior (i.e.,
to determine what consequence of that behavior is reinforcing it).
Extinction
Perhaps staff attention is reinforcing the challenging behavior. In that case, a consequence control
intervention would involve being especially careful to ignore that behavior (an extinction procedure
the withholding of the reinforcer).
Extinction and DRA
Perhaps escape from an aversive condition is reinforcing the challenging behavior, for example, a
difficult learning task. In that case, a consequence intervention would be to take care that the client
2

not succeed in escaping from the learning task (also an extinction procedure). Another consequence
intervention would be to reinforce a more appropriate alternative behavior such as asking or
signaling for permission to take a break (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior or DRA).
Punishment
Perhaps performing tasks that are too difficult for the client's skill level may generate too few
reinforcers and too many aversive stimuli. This frustrating circumstance may be a motivating
operation (formerly called establishing operation) that increases the value of intrinsic aggression
reinforcers that support aggression to others or to physical property or that support self-injury. In that
case, a consequence intervention could be to implement some sort of punishment or penalty
procedure that decreases the frequency of the challenging behavior.
Or it might be that the challenging behavior is some form of self-stimulation such as hand flapping
that is automatically or intrinsically reinforcing. In that case, a consequence intervention again could
be to implement some sort of punishment or penalty procedure.

Antecedent Control Procedures for Challenging Behavior

In contrast, the antecedent control approach would be for the behavior analyst to view the
challenging behavior as a warning that the environment is too aversive for the client or that the
environment does not contain procedures that effectively reinforce (strengthen) positive behavior.
The first step is to perform an antecedent conditions assessment to determine the sources of aversive
stimulation, the frequency of reinforcers, and the effectiveness of those reinforcers. In addition, the
behavior analyst will often do a functional assessment of the challenging behavior to determine how
that behavior functions to produce consequences that are reinforcing it (e.g., is the behavior
producing reinforcing attention or allowing the client to escape a difficult task?). These assessments
will allow the behavior analyst to change the conditions antecedent to the challenging behavior, in an
effort to decrease the frequency of that behavior.
Decreasing the Aversiveness of Antecedent Conditions
Task Difficulty. Often the training tasks or activities of daily living are too difficult for the client to
perform with reliable success. As a result, the tasks become sufficiently aversive that the client will
refuse to do them or will engage in challenging escape behavior. For example, a man with Down
syndrome was noncompliant and aggressive when instructed to bathe using a bar of soap with
graduated physical assistance. However, when the difficulty was reduced by pouring liquid soap in
his hand, the challenging behaviors essentially stopped.
Direct Sources of Aversive Stimulation. It may be possible to remove the source of the aversive
stimulation that evokes aggressive behavior. For example, a child with autism aggressed against an
infant sibling when the sibling made aversive noise by banging a metal plate on the high chair. Both
the aversive noise and the subsequent aggression were reduced when the parents replaced the metal
plate with a plastic one.
Cumulating Aversive Conditions. Sometimes a slightly difficult task or activity of only mild
aversiveness will evoke challenging escape or aggressive behavior only when combined with other
sources of aversive stimulation such as sleep deprivation, constipation, noise, heat, and/or medical
problems. When those sources of additional aversive stimulation are decreased, the challenging
behavior will also decrease.
Increasing Reinforcer Frequency

Challenging behavior often decreases and appropriate behavior often increases when the frequency
of reinforcement is high in a training or work setting.
Reinforcing Approximations to the Desired Response. When a client is acquiring a new skill, it is
important to reinforce approximations to the desired response, rather than reinforcing only perfect
responses. This is true for language skills as well as motor skills. In so doing, it is easier to maintain
a frequency of reinforcer delivery high enough to prevent challenging behavior. As the client
becomes more skilled, closer approximations to the desired response can be required before giving
the reinforcer.
Interspersing Maintenance Tasks. The frequency of overall reinforcer delivery can also be increased
by interspersing previously mastered tasks in sessions where a new, difficult task is being trained.
This can increase task involvement and decrease challenging behavior.
Reinforcer Latency. The quicker the reinforcer, the more effective the reinforcer; the quicker the
response acquisition, the higher the frequency of reinforcers and the lower the frequency of
challenging behavior. One way to decrease the latency between the response and the reinforcer is to
train tasks with automatic, built-in, intrinsic reinforcers (e.g., computer games, music boxes, and toy
pianos immediately reinforce the appropriate responses).
Free (Noncontingent) Reinforcers. Presenting occasional free reinforcers independent of the desired
behavior also increases the reinforcer frequency in the training or work setting and can thereby
decrease the frequency of challenging behavior such as inappropriate escape responses.
Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior. Sometimes it is easier to prevent an inappropriate behavior if
at the same time a more appropriate alternative behavior is provided. For example, a child with
neurological impairment was grabbing objects and mouthing them. But when given a more
appropriate object to chew, she got the sensory-stimulation reinforcer in a much less disruptive
manner and could work on her educational tasks more effectively. Another example: Grade school
children were being disruptive and noisy throughout the class, but when allowed brief, periodic
opportunities to create chaos in the classroom, the teacher was more able to prevent the disruptions
during the remainder of time. And still another example: To further reduce the autistic child's
aggression against his noisy infant sibling, the child was taught to give the infant a pacifier or bottle
and also to say Baby needs help to a parent when the infant was crying.
Rate of Task Presentation. A high rate of task presentation can increase the reinforcer frequency
when the task has some intrinsic reinforcing value or when completing the task often leads to
immediate reinforcers. In fact, often challenging behavior is most frequent during the intertrial
(intertask) intervals and also during transition intervals and while waiting for staff to begin a new
activity.
Increasing Reinforcer Effectiveness
Motivating Operations. Reinforcer effectiveness is most frequently discussed in terms of motivating
operations (previously called motivating operations), for example, making sure the client has not just
eaten a large meal, if you are planning to use food as a reinforcer in a training session. In so doing,
you will not only get more appropriate learning and performance but also less challenging behavior.
In addition, the concept of motivation operation has recently been applied to training children to
make requests (mand training): The trainer uses response blocking to make sure a strong reinforcer is
not readily available (e.g., a preferred toy might be out of reach on a shelf). An appropriate form of
request would then be reinforced with the presentation of that preferred toy.
Reinforcer Assessment. The lack of effective reinforcers is one of the biggest causes of failure of
performance management and failure of instructional programs, and the lack of effective reinforcers
4

is also one of the biggest causes of challenging behavior. Often what the trainer assumes is an
effective reinforcer isn't. And what was effective yesterday isn't today. Prior to the training or task
maintenance sessions, assessing which potential reinforcers the client most frequently looks at,
approaches, reaches for, or interacts with can allow the behavior analyst to use the reinforcers that
are currently most effective. But even what was most reinforcing a few minutes ago might not be
now, so allowing the client to select from among an array of reinforcers, throughout the training and
maintenance sessions, can also increase the likelihood that an effective reinforcer is being used.
However, sometimes it is necessary to select among options that are not currently present. In that
case, for example, the client might select from pictures of lunch options. Being allowed such options
decreased the challenging behavior of a young man with autism.
In addition, some tasks themselves may be less aversive or more inherently reinforcing. So, being
allowed to select from among vocational tasks can result in the client spending more time engaged in
functional activities. And children with autism and mental retardation less frequently emitted serious
problem behavior when given the opportunity to select their instructional tasks as well as their
reinforcers. However, the opportunity for choice does not always reduce the frequency of
challenging behavior.
Choice. In addition, simply the choice of the task and of the reinforcer may reduce the frequency of
challenging behavior, even when the choices are among highly preferred tasks and reinforcers. This
may be because choosing, itself, has become a learned reinforcer, and thus the overall reinforcer
density is higher when given the opportunity to choose.

RESEARCH BASIS
Most of the antecedent control procedures have a strong research base, starting with the basic animal
laboratory Skinner box research, proceeding through applied behavior-analysis research using expert
behavior analysts working with real clients with real problems, but in somewhat restricted settings,
to more practical systems-oriented research with the actual technicians working with their clients in
typical settings. Like most areas of applied behavior analysis, though, much more research is needed
to determine if typical technicians with typical clients in typical settings actually can and actually
will implement these procedures properly and reliably.

RELEVANT TARGET POPULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

Though antecedent control procedures are potentially applicable to any population with any
behavior, most of the research has addressed the reduction of challenging behavior (the issue of most
concern to most staff), especially for clients who need pervasive support (probably the population
with the highest frequency of challenging behavior). No particular population has been reported for
which antecedent control procedures are inappropriate, nor is there any reason why there should be
such populations.

COMPLICATIONS
Antecedent control procedures should be conducted in a context where there are reinforcement
procedures for appropriate behavior; however, reinforcer assessment may not reveal any effective
reinforcers for the client. Alternatively, in the absence of reinforcer assessment, the staff may
erroneously assume they are using effective reinforcers, though it is common for staff to implement
reinforcement procedures where the presumed reinforcer clearly is not functional. And even given an
effective reinforcer, the frequency of challenging behavior may be so high that it is difficult to
reinforce appropriate behavior, especially if the staff is not highly skilled. Also, functional
assessments and analyses may fail to reveal the motivation operations and reinforcement and escape
options causing self-injurious, aggressive, and violent behavior for mentally handicapped clients.
5

Although essentially all of these antecedent procedures have a solid research base, any specific
application may require careful expert analysis, implementation, evaluation, and recycling before
success is achieved.
Implementing applied behavior analysis procedures in general and antecedent control procedures in
particular not only requires considerable technical expertise on the part of the staff, but it also
requires a client-centered philosophy and gut reaction that is not easy to establish and maintain, even
among those with the best intentions. For example, having just been the recipient of violent
aggression from a client, it is difficult for the staff to resist violent retribution, let alone to stop and
think how to make antecedent conditions more reinforcing and less aversive for the person who just
perpetrated the violent aggression. Having just been attacked, it is hard to coddle the client rather
than to teach him a lesson for his own good and to prepare him for what the real world will be
like.
In fact, in spite of our best efforts, many of our clients will never be ready for the real world or even
a traditionally sheltered world, without considerable added positive behavioral support with great
concern for the antecedent conditions of life.

CASE ILLUSTRATION
A mentally handicapped woman showed extremely challenging behavior when instructed to take her
morning shower. She would tantrum and resist staff efforts to help her, in spite of the use of
consequence control proceduresreinforcement of compliance and time-out for challenging
behavior (which actually might have been reinforcement of escape behavior). Functional assessment
(antecedent assessment) showed that challenging behavior was infrequent during the rest of the day.
So on the assumption that the woman was not enough of a morning person to cope with the rush of
demanding morning activities, the behavior analyst rescheduled the shower for the evening, with a
resulting elimination of challenging behavior at shower time and without the need of complex
consequence control procedures needing skilled staff and staff monitoring.
A functional assessment suggested that escape from instructional demands might be reinforcing the
aggression, screaming, and self-injury of a child with autism. The overall demand level (and
presumably the aversiveness) of the instructional sessions was decreased by interspersing many less
difficult tasks among the demanding tasks. In addition, the child was allowed to select from among
the training tasks and, when behaving inappropriately during a task, was encouraged to select from
among more appropriate activities. Challenging behavior was almost eliminated, and correct
responding to the demanding instructional tasks increased from zero to 75%.
Richard W. Malott
Further Reading

Entry Citation:
Malott, Richard W. "Antecedent Control Procedures." Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and
Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008. <http://sageereference.com/cbt/Article_n2002.html>.