Understanding the Dual Nature of Consequences 🧠
Hey, this week I want to talk about a thing. I want to talk about the dual nature of consequences.
No, this isn’t a deeply philosophical endeavor. In fact, this “duality” is probably something you’ve noticed yourself if you’ve worked in behavior analysis for a little bit.
Understanding this duality—or at least reflecting on it—could potentially reshape how we look at our learner’s motivation.
The Interplay of Reinforcement and Punishment
At the core of ABA lies the principle that every action or behavior is maintained by consequences. And there are two major types of consequences, right? All behavior is motivated by a desire to obtain something desirable or avoid something undesirable. To gain some kind of access to a reinforcer or avoid punishment.
However, what is often overlooked is that these two forces—reinforcement and punishment—are not always distinct; they are two sides of the same coin. Or at least they aren’t always as cut and dried.
For instance, consider a child who is crazy motivated by screen time on an iPad. It's easy to assume the child is simply reinforced by the use of the iPad. Yet, this situation also involves an escape from all kinds of other things that they find less desirable than playing with the iPad. In fact, you could say that there is an escape from a world where they don’t have the iPad. This is a world that is punishing compared to a world where they do have an iPad and by engaging with the iPad, they avoid that world. This dual nature of motivation suggests that what we often perceive as a straightforward reinforcing scenario is actually a complex interplay of avoiding negative states and seeking positive ones.
Why is this important? Well, most of us know that it is important because we can build programming around the reinforcer they are trying to access—aka the iPad. So that means we might throw in some FCT for teaching a mand for the iPad.
But, wait, there’s more! If we look at this scenario from both angles—we also know that the learner wants to be away from situations where the iPad isn’t in it. So, in addition to the mand for the iPad, we may teach a mand for asking “Where” the iPad is. Or we may make sure that it is on full display so that they can see it. Or we may remind them where it is at. Or we may remind them what the contingencies are to get that iPad.
All of the above reminds them that the iPad isn’t “gone” or removed from their world. It’s very much right there. And, it provides us opportunities to teach more advanced language about the iPad’s whereabouts.
Examples from Everyday Interventions
Let’s take another practical example from our everyday programming.
Hopefully this elaborates on the point a little further (and the video below should help, as well).
Let’s say you have a learner that really hates sitting down and doing worksheets. So, that learner engages in flopping to the floor to get out of doing it. Our immediate assumption would be that the learner is seeking escape from the task at hand and engaging in problem behavior to avoid the punishing aspects of the task.
And we’re likely correct. But, in addition to noting what they are trying to avoid, we should also look closely to see if they are trying to access something.
Because we know that the learner is trying to escape the worksheet, we introduce language so they can mand for a break from work. Fair enough.
But, we know what they want to get away from. Let’s look a bit closer to see if there is an item, activity, or location that they are trying to access. If our learner is flopping to the floor, than this indicates to me that we also likely carry the desire to access scenarios that are fairly incompatible with doing worksheets…like laying down…or being in a space that has anything but a pencil or worksheet.
So, how does that help us? Well, it helps us because we can build additional programming around this. We can work on mands for access to reinforcing situations—such as mands for lying down, mands for “No pencil, please” or “No worksheet, please”. We can teach mands for access to preferred items that aren’t at the table but could be like “Let’s do puzzle” or “Let’s play Candyland”.
You see, these mands not only provide escape from the aversive task…but also access to scenarios that are incompatible with worksheets. And it affords us the opportunity to build more textured, complex language and programming.
Broadening Our Perspective
In so many situations, it doesn’t hurt to look at both the potential reinforcer that the learner is looking to access and the potential punisher that the learner is looking to escape.
By acknowledging this potential “duality”, we can comprehensively sharpen our interventions and our programming. It encourages us to look beyond the apparent and explore the underlying motivations that drive behavior. It also helps us anticipate potential challenges in behavior change, helping better inform behavioral hypothesis so that we might tailor our interventions more precisely. Recognizing this, we can look for what is reinforcing about the alternative behavior the learner chooses instead and use this insight to adjust our approach.
Martin Myers is a BCBA with a passion for helping improve the field of ABA. He is the creator of BxMastery, with over 4,000 goal ideas, sequenced, to inspire your programming. With 10+ years of experience in the field, he’s dedicated to empowering others and fostering positive change through effective leadership and communication. Connect with Martin on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok for more insights and updates.