JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2020, 53, 508–521 NUMBER 1 (WINTER)

Assessment and treatment of self-control with aversive events

ALLEN PORTER
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

JOLENE R. SY
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Self-control can be defined as choosing a smaller, immediate aversive event over a larger, delayed
aversive event (e.g., flossing daily instead of risking major dental problems later). Children with
developmental disabilities have been found to respond impulsively when given the choice
between aversive events that differ based on magnitude and difficulty. However, qualitative dif-
ferences between events may also impact aversiveness. This study attempted to replicate and
extend prior research by (i) empirically identifying a hierarchy of qualitatively different aversive
tasks for three individuals with developmental disabilities by evaluating their average latency to
escape responses when presented with each task, (ii) assessing baseline levels of self-control
(i.e., selection of immediate, low-aversive tasks over delayed, high-aversive tasks), and
(iii) implementing an empirically validated treatment (i.e., adding a delay to both tasks). Each
participant initially made impulsive choices, but self-control increased following treatment.
Key words: aversive events, developmental disabilities, preference reversal, self-control

Choices available in daily life can have either
favorable or unfavorable short- and long-term
outcomes. For example, one might install
energy-efficient appliances today to avoid pay-
ing higher energy bills in the future. In this
context, self-control involving appetitive stimuli
can be defined as choosing a larger, delayed
reinforcer over a smaller, immediate reinforcer
(Rachlin, 1974). Behavioral studies conducted
with both nonhuman animals (e.g., Rachlin &
Green, 1972) and humans (e.g., Solnick,
This project was completed at the Kennedy Krieger
Institute in partial fulfillment of the M.A. degree from the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County by the first
author.
We wish to thank Jennifer Zarcone and Nicole
Hausman for guidance with the project, and all of those
at Kennedy Krieger for their assistance with data collec-
tion. A special thank you to Cara Phillips for providing
constant motivation to complete this study. It might still
be in the planning phase if it was not for her.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Jolene R. Sy, Department of Psychology,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop
Circle, Baltimore, Maryland 21250 (e-mail: jsy@
umbc.edu)
doi: 10.1002/jaba.604
© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
508
Kannenberg, Eckerman, & Waller, 1980) have
assessed self-control in this manner. For exam-
ple, Ainslie (1974) allowed pigeons to peck a
red key and immediately gain access to 2 s of
grain, or refrain from pecking for the 3 s in
which the red key was present and receive 4 s
of grain. Results showed that 80% of pigeons
responded impulsively (i.e., chose 2 s of grain
immediately). Impulsive responding also occurs
in other populations, such as young children
(e.g., Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988), chil-
dren with developmental disabilities
(e.g., Vollmer, Borrero, Lalli, & Daniel, 1999),
and individuals with drug dependency
(e.g., Bickel & Marsch, 2001).
Self-control may also be measured by pre-
senting choices between a smaller, immediate
aversive event and a larger, delayed aversive
event (Rachlin, 1974). For example, Deluty,
Whitehouse, Mellitz, and Hineline (1983)
presented rats with a choice between a 0.5-s
shock immediately and a 5-s shock after a 5-s
delay. Likewise, Perrin et al. (2011) presented
college students with a choice between studying
a small magnitude of material each day and
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS
studying a large magnitude of material at the
end of the week. In both studies, participants
made impulsive choices by selecting the larger
magnitude event following a delay.
Impulsivity is not necessarily static; by
manipulating the delay-to and/or magnitude-of
consequent events, impulsivity can be decreased
(e.g., Ainslie, 1974; Deluty et al., 1983;
Mazur & Logue, 1978; Solnick et al., 1980).
For example, Lerman, Addison, and Kodak
(2006) presented two children diagnosed with
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) choices
between smaller, immediate tasks (e.g.,
inserting three puzzle pieces immediately) and
larger, 60-s delayed tasks (e.g., inserting 24 puz-
zle pieces after a 60-s delay). Each participant
exhibited escape-maintained behavior with
these tasks during prior function analysis. One
participant initially responded impulsively,
whereas the other participant did not respond
impulsively until experimenters increased the
magnitude of the immediate task. Once impul-
sive responding occurred, the delay to the out-
comes associated with each choice was
increased by the same amount, which resulted
in increased self-control for one participant. It
is unclear whether adding longer delays to both
tasks or increasing the magnitude of the del-
ayed task would have increased self-control
choice for the second participant. As another
example, Perrin and Neef (2012) assessed, and
subsequently increased, the self-control
responding of children who were diagnosed
with ASD and had a history of noncompliance
or other problem behavior associated with math
assignments. Specifically, participants were
given a choice between immediately completing
an easier task (i.e., one associated with a high
response rate and accuracy during a prior skill
assessment) and 60-s delay to completing a dif-
ficult task (i.e., one associated with a low
response rate and accuracy during a prior skill
assessment). Initially, participants chose the dif-
ficult, delayed task. The experimenters then
increased the delay to both tasks in 10-s
509
increments until preference switched. Collec-
tively, this research suggests that adding a delay
to aversive events that differ in terms of magni-
tude or difficulty can increase self-control of
children with ASD.
However, it may be necessary to also increase
self-control with alternatives that have qualita-
tive differences. For example, the tasks of
cleaning a messy room and doing homework
may not differ in terms of difficulty or magni-
tude, yet one option may be relatively more
aversive. This is akin to how two appetitive
stimuli, similar in duration or magnitude, can
be differentially preferred. To assess and treat
self-control involving choice between qualita-
tively different aversive events, it is necessary to
formally assess relative task aversiveness.
Call, Pabico, and Lomas (2009) provided
one example of a formal assessment of aversive-
ness. Participants were given a task to work on
for 10 min, and the first instance of problem
behavior terminated the trial. Tasks associated
with the shortest average latency to problem
behavior were assumed to be most aversive. By
using a similar procedure to identify a hierarchy
of aversive events, one could incorporate empir-
ically derived information into the assessment
and treatment of self-control. Thus, the pur-
pose of the current study was to replicate and
extend work by Lerman et al. (2006) and Per-
rin and Neef (2012) by (i) empirically creating
a hierarchy of qualitatively different aversive
tasks for three children admitted to an inpa-
tient unit who engaged in problem behavior to
escape demand contexts, (ii) assessing each
individual’s initial choices between a low-aver-
sive, immediate task and a high-aversive (HA),
delayed task, and (iii) implementing treatment
in the form of adding a delay to both tasks to
increase each individual’s self-control choices.
This study replicates that of Lerman et al. and
Perrin and Neef by assessing self-control with
aversive events and increasing self-control by
adding a delay to each option. In addition, this
study extends prior research by assessing and
510 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY
treating self-control that involves choice
between aversive events that have qualitative
differences.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were three children admitted to
an inpatient unit who engaged in problem
behavior (e.g., aggression, disruption, and self-
injury) to escape from demand contexts, as
determined by prestudy functional analyses
(Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman,
1994) that included escape and control condi-
tions (functional analysis data available from
the first author upon request). During the
escape condition, participants experienced
10 min of continuous presentation of demands,
which were derived from their Individualized
Education Program (IEP) goals. Participants
received escape for 30 s contingent on each
instance of problem behavior. During the con-
trol condition, participants had access to pre-
ferred items, demands were not presented,
attention was provided every 30 s, and all prob-
lem behavior was ignored. Elevated rates of
problem behavior during the escape condition
relative to the control condition indicated that
demands were aversive.
Jeremy was an 11-year-old boy diagnosed
with ASD, stereotypic movement disorder with
self-injurious behavior, disruptive behavior dis-
order, intermittent explosive disorder, obsessive
compulsive disorder, tic disorder, and mood
disorder—not otherwise specified. He followed
vocal and gestural instructions and communi-
cated via exchanging picture icons. Jeremy’s
problem behavior was found to be maintained,
in part, by escape from demands (both aca-
demic and vocational).
George was a 10-year-old boy diagnosed
with ASD, stereotypic movement disorder with
self-injurious behavior, attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder, bipolar disorder, and a severe
intellectual disability. He followed vocal and
gestural instructions and communicated via
gestures and an augmentative communication
device. George’s problem behavior was found
to be maintained, in part, by escape from
demands.
Marcia was a 5-year-old girl diagnosed with
Tourette syndrome, attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder, and disruptive behavior disor-
der. She followed vocal and gestural
instructions and communicated vocally.
Marcia’s initial functional analysis conducted
with staff was inconclusive due to low rates of
problem behavior. However, when Marcia’s
mother conducted sessions, Marcia engaged in
elevated rates of problem behavior when
prompted to comply with demands.
Materials and Setting
The experimenter selected five academic and
vocational tasks for each participant based on
their IEP goals and correct completion of tasks
with least-to-most prompting. Many of these
tasks were the same as or similar to those used
during the prestudy functional analyses. There-
fore, similar to Lerman et al. (2006), many of
the selected tasks were previously associated
with problem behavior. Participant-specific
tasks are listed in Table 1. Sessions were con-
ducted in a bedroom of an inpatient unit, away
from other patients and staff. Bedrooms
included tables, chairs, and task materials.
Measurement and Interobserver Agreement
During the aversiveness evaluation, trained
observers recorded data on laptop computers
with data-collection software while either
directly observing or watching video recordings
of the sessions. Observers collected data on
escape responses and reported them as the latency
to escape responses, which was calculated as sec-
onds from the presentation of the first demand
to the first instance of an escape response.
Participant-specific escape responses are listed
in Table 1. If no escape response occurred
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS 511

Table 1
Specific Escape Responses, Task Names, and Task Definitions for each Participant During the Aversiveness Evaluation

Participant Escape responses Task Name of task Task definition

Jeremy Self-injurious behavior A Folding towels Folding a towel in half.
(SIB)
Aggression (AGG) B Name identification Handing over a card with his name on it when told,
“Hand me your name.”
Disruption (DIS) C Function identification Handing over a picture card of an object (e.g., a
spoon) when given an instruction (e.g., “Hand me
something that you use to eat.”)
Handing over an icon D Sorting silverware Matching a comparison stimulus (e.g., fork) with a
that said, “All sample stimulus when told, “Match.”
Done.”
E Tracing lines Tracing a straight line.
George SIB A One-step instructions Touching a body part (e.g., his nose) or completing a
simple demand (e.g., clap hands) following an
instruction.
AGG B Emotion identification Handing over a picture card of a person displaying
characteristics of an emotion (e.g., crying) when
given an instruction (e.g., “Hand me the person
who is sad.”).
DIS C Wiping surfaces Wiping surfaces (e.g., a table) with a wash cloth.
Tantrum D Location identification Handing over a picture card of a location (e.g., a
kitchen) when given an instruction (e.g., “Hand
me the place where you cook food.”)
Requesting “All Done” E Posture identification Handing over a picture card of a person who is either
or “Bathroom” standing or sitting when given an instruction.
(After a bathroom
trip) with his
communication
device.
Marcia AGG A Matching rhyming words Matching a sample stimulus card with a card
depicting a rhyming word when told, “Match the
words that rhyme.”
DIS B Mixed math Adding or subtracting single-digit numbers.
Vocally asking, “Can C Counting Counting up to 15 items displayed on a card.
we stop, now?”
D Writing letters Writing a specific letter after given an instruction.
E Shape identification Writing the name of a shape depicted in a picture.

during a session, the latency equaled the entire
duration of the session (i.e., 300 s). Latency to
escape responses was averaged across sessions
for each task, and arranged hierarchically. The
task with the shortest average latency to escape
behavior served as the HA task, and the task
with the longest average latency served as the
low-aversive (LA) task.
The exact agreement method (Mudford,
Taylor, & Martin, 2009) was used to assess
interobserver agreement (IOA) on occurrence
or nonoccurrence of an escape response during
the aversiveness evaluation. Sessions were sepa-
rated into consecutive 10-s bins. Agreements
occurred when both data collectors similarly
scored whether an escape response occurred in
a bin. The number of intervals with agreements
was then divided by the total number of inter-
vals and multiplied by 100 to create the overall
percentage. We calculated IOA for 24%, 20%,
and 25% of aversiveness evaluation sessions for
Jeremy, George, and Marcia, respectively.
Mean IOA on escape responses was 93.2%
(range, 88.2% to 100%), 86.9% (range, 75%
to 100%), and 100% for Jeremy, George, and
Marcia, respectively.
During the aversiveness verification, delay
assessment, and self-control assessment and
512 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY
treatment, trained observers collected paper-
and-pencil data while either directly observing
or watching video recordings of experimental
sessions. Frequency data were collected on the
number of trials in a five-trial session that a
participant sat in a chair (i.e., had their bottom
touching the seat for any amount of time) in
front of a given task. The first chair that the
participant sat in (e.g., the one in front of the
immediate, low-aversive task or the one in front
of the delayed, HA task) was scored as their
choice for that session. The experimenter
blocked all attempts by the participants to
switch chairs in the middle of a trial.
Agreement on the chair in which the partici-
pant sat was calculated on a trial-by-trial basis.
For each session, the number of trials in which
both observers agreed that a participant picked
a given chair was divided by the total number
of trials and multiplied by 100. For the aver-
siveness verification, agreement was calculated
during 33.3% of sessions for each participant
and was 100%. For the delay assessment, IOA
was calculated during 28.6, 33.3, and 33.3% of
sessions for Jeremy, George, and Marcia,
respectively, and was 100%. For the self-
control assessment and treatment, IOA was cal-
culated during 25, 33.3, and 31.3% of sessions,
and averaged 100, 95 (range: 80–100%), and
100% for Jeremy, George, and Marcia,
respectively.
Treatment Integrity
During the aversiveness evaluation, observers
scored whether the experimenter terminated
the aversiveness evaluation within 5 s of an
escape response. The number of timely termi-
nations was divided by the number of opportu-
nities and multiplied by 100. Treatment
integrity was calculated during 20, 26.7, and
25% of sessions, and averaged 100, 94.4
(range: 77.6–100%), and 100% for Jeremy,
George, and Marcia, respectively. Treatment
integrity IOA was calculated using the scored
interval method. That is, sessions were sepa-
rated into consecutive 10-s bins. For bins in
which at least one observer scored an escape
response, an agreement was scored if both data
collectors agreed that an escape response
occurred within that bin and the experimenter
either did or did not terminate the session
within 5 s of the escape response. The number
of intervals with agreements was divided by the
total number of intervals in which at least one
observer scored an escape response, multiplied
by 100. Treatment integrity IOA was calcu-
lated during 40, 50, and 40% of sessions in
which treatment integrity was assessed for
Jeremy, George, and Marcia, respectively, and
was 100% for all participants.
During the aversiveness verification, delay
assessment, and self-control assessment and
treatment, treatment integrity was calculated by
dividing the number of times the experimenter
provided the correct task within 5 s of sched-
uled task delivery by the number of opportuni-
ties and multiplying by 100. Treatment
integrity was calculated during 26.9, 33.3, and
24% of sessions, and was 98.4 (range:
88.8–100%), 96.7 (range: 80.2–100%), and
96.9% (range: 81.4–100%) for Jeremy,
George, and Marcia, respectively. Treatment
integrity IOA was calculated on a trial-by-trial
basis by dividing the number of trials in which
both observers agreed that an experimenter pro-
vided the correct demand within 5 s of sched-
uled demand delivery by the total number of
trials, multiplied by 100. Treatment integrity
IOA was calculated during 28.6, 33, and 33%
of sessions in which treatment integrity was
assessed, and was 100, 90 (range: 80–100%),
and 100% for Jeremy, George, and Marcia,
respectively.
Procedures
Aversiveness evaluation. The purpose of this
evaluation was to determine a hierarchy of aver-
sive tasks for each participant. The evaluation
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS 513

was identical to that used by Call et al. (2009), deemed stable. Stability was determined via
except that participants’ IEPs, as opposed to a visual inspection with a criterion of three con-
survey, were used to select tasks, and escape secutive sessions with latencies to escape behav-
responses also included appropriate requests to ior that fell within 90 s of their mean and an
terminate the demand context. At the start of absence of an increasing or decreasing trend.
each session, the experimenter placed one task Aversiveness verification. A concurrent-chains
on a table and prompted the participant to sit arrangement was used to verify that the partici-
in the chair at the table using least-to-most pants preferred to complete a single trial of the
prompting (i.e., vocal prompt, model prompt, low-aversive (LA) task over a single trial of
and physical guidance, delivered sequentially the HA task. The first panel of Figure 1 depicts
every 5 s until the participant sat down). The the general procedures. The experimenter
session began once the participant sat down. brought the participant into a bedroom with a
The experimenter presented a demand LA task on top of one table and the HA task
(e.g., “Hand me your name”) and provided on top of the other table, each with chairs.
praise if the participant complied within 5 s. If Tables were approximately 30.5 cm apart and
an incorrect response occurred or compliance 1.2 m away from the participant. The tasks
did not occur within 5 s of this prompt, the were visible from where the participant stood at
experimenter modeled how to comply and pro-
vided praise if the participant complied within
5 s of the model prompt. If an incorrect
response or no responding occurred for 5 s after
the model, the experimenter physically guided
the participant to comply with the demand but
did not provide praise. The experimenter pro-
vided a new demand following each instance of
independent or prompted compliance. If an
escape response occurred at any time in this
sequence, the experimenter immediately termi-
nated the session. Otherwise, each session con-
tinued for 5 min. Five tasks were evaluated for
each participant. The experiment presented
tasks in a fixed order across sessions, but ran-
domized demands within each task (e.g., “sort
spoon,” “sort fork”) across trials. Sessions
occurred consecutively unless an escape
response occurred. In such cases, the experi-
menter did not initiate the next session until
2 min elapsed without escape or avoidant
behavior in order to provide a period of escape
following escape responses and minimize carry-
over effects. Figure 1. The temporal sequence of events (read left
to right) within a choice trial in each evaluation con-
Each participant completed no more than
ducted after the Aversiveness Evaluation. The numbers
five sessions per day. Participants were exposed reflect the duration, in seconds, of the delay between each
to each task at least three times, until tasks with step. Two steps connecting without numbers reflect a 0-s
the lowest and highest mean latency were delay.
514 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY
the start of each trial. Prior to each session, par-
ticipants experienced two presession exposure
trials to ensure they contacted the contingencies
associated with each choice. Presession trials
began with the experimenter instructing the
participant to sit in a specific chair. If the partic-
ipant did not sit in the chair after 5 s, the exper-
imenter prompted the participant to sit in that
chair using least-to-most prompting. Once sit-
ting, the experimenter provided the participant
with a preferred edible, identified by either
a prior paired-stimulus (Fisher et al., 1992)
or multiple-stimulus without replacement
(DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) preference assessment,
to reinforce sitting in the chair. Following edible
delivery, the experimenter prompted the partici-
pant through a single task demand associated
with that choice (e.g., writing the name of the
shape depicted in a picture). Experimenters used
least-to-most prompting, like that used during
the aversiveness evaluation, except escape
responses did not result in session termination.
Following prompted or unprompted comple-
tion of the demand, the experimenter prompted
the participant to sit in the other chair. Once
the participant was sitting, the experimenter
presented an edible and the associated contin-
gency. Presession exposure trials occurred in a
randomized order.
Following the preexposure trials, participants
experienced five free-choice trials per session.
Experimenters began free-choice trials by plac-
ing participants equidistant from each table
(approximately 1.2 m away) and telling them
to choose a chair. After the participant chose a
chair, all procedures were identical to those
implemented for that option during the pre-
exposure trials. Following the initial choice and
completion of one task demand (e.g., sorting
one fork), the trial ended, and a new trial
began. Participants were led back to the starting
position and told to pick again. The experi-
menter did not change the location of the tasks
across trials, but did randomize the position
tasks prior to the start of each session to control
for potential side biases. Data were summarized
as the percentage of trials in each session in
which the LA task was chosen.
Sessions were separated by 1-min breaks,
during which time the participants walked out-
side of the room to allow the experimenter time
to randomize the task location. If the partici-
pant engaged in an escape response during the
break, the next session was not initiated until
2 min elapsed without an escape response. Par-
ticipants completed no more than three sessions
per day. Sessions continued until stability was
reached (i.e., scores for three consecutive ses-
sions fell within 20% above or below
the mean).
Delay assessment. A concurrent-chains
arrangement was used to determine whether
participants would choose to delay completing
one trial of an aversive task over completing
one trial of the same task immediately. The sec-
ond panel of Figure 1 depicts the general proce-
dures for the delay assessment. The procedures
matched those in the aversiveness verification,
except that one chair was associated with the
experimenter prompting completion of one
demand of the HA task after a 60-s delay, and
the other chair was associated with the experi-
menter prompting completion of one demand
of the same task immediately, followed by a
60-s intertrial interval to hold overall trial dura-
tion constant. Just like in the aversiveness veri-
fication assessment, the experimenter provided
the participant with a preferred edible for siting
in either chair. The experimenter placed a
visual timer that was not activated on the table
with the delayed task as a discriminative stimu-
lus to help differentiate between options.
During the delay or break, the experimenter
did not initiate nor respond to any participant
initiations for interactions. The tasks remained
on their respective tables, and the experimenter
blocked any attempts by the participants to
manipulate materials. Data were summarized as
the percentage of trials in each session in which
the delayed task was chosen. Sessions continued
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS
until stability was reached (i.e., three consecu-
tive sessions with scores that fell within 20%
above or below the mean). If the participant’s
responding did not show a preference for the
delayed task, the delay increased in 60-s incre-
ments until preference for the delayed task was
observed.
Self-control assessment. A concurrent-chains
design also was used to assess self-control. The
third panel of Figure 1 depicts the general pro-
cedures for this assessment. The procedures
were identical to those in the delay assessment,
except participants were asked to choose
between completing one trial of a LA task
immediately or one trial of a HA task following
a 60-s (Jeremy and George) or 120-s (Marcia)
delay. The experimenter placed a visual timer
that was not activated on the table if there was
a delay to the task.
Self-control treatment. The purpose of this
evaluation was to determine whether an empiri-
cally supported intervention would increase
self-control choice. The fourth panel of
Figure 1 depicts the general procedures for
treatment. The procedures matched those in
the self-control assessment, except the delay to
both tasks was increased in 10-s (Jeremy and
George) or 20-s (Marcia) increments. This was
implemented because prior research has shown
that increasing the delay to both tasks can shift
responding to the self-control response
(e.g., Lerman et al., 2006; Perrin & Neef,
2012). Increases occurred each time partici-
pants exhibited stable, impulsive responding
(i.e., three consecutive sessions with scores that
fell within 20% above or below the mean).
Once participants consistently choose the self-
control option, a reversal design was initiated.
Specifically, the experimenter reversed to the
last condition that produced impulsive
responding for at least three sessions, or until
stability was reached. Subsequently, the experi-
menter reversed back to the condition that pro-
duced self-control choice for at least three
sessions to demonstrate control.
515
RESULTS
Figure 2 depicts individual session latencies
to the first escape response for each task in the
aversiveness evaluation. Jeremy’s mean latencies
to escape responses when asked to sort silver-
ware and identify object functions were
241 and 65 s, and these were determined to be
LA and HA tasks, respectively. George’s mean
latencies to escape responses when asked to fol-
low one-step demands and identify emotions
were 289 and 37 s, and these were determined
to be LA and HA tasks, respectively. Marcia’s
mean latencies to escape responses when asked
to rhyme words and identify shapes were
300 and 129 s, and these were determined to
be LA and HA tasks, respectively.
Data from the aversiveness verification are
not shown but are available from the first
author upon request. Jeremy, George, and
Marcia selected the LA task a mean of 93.3
(range: 80–100%), 86.7 (range: 80–100%),
and 93.3% (range, 80% to 100%) of trials per
session, respectively, indicating preference for
the LA task over the HA task.
Figure 3 depicts the percentage of choices
for the immediate task during the delay assess-
ment. Jeremy chose the immediate task a mean
of 20% of trials per session (range: 0–100%).
George chose the immediate task a mean of
20% of trials per session (range: 0–40%). Mar-
cia initially chose the immediate task during a
mean of 67% of trials per session (range:
60–80%), indicating slight preference for com-
pleting the task immediately. Therefore, the
delay was increased to 120 s, after which Mar-
cia chose the immediate task during a mean of
33% of trials per session (range: 20–40%).
Figure 4 depicts the percentage of choices
for the immediate, LA task during the self-
control assessment and treatment. Jeremy’s
responding during the initial assessment was
variable, but he never selected the immediate,
LA task during the last three sessions. Treat-
ment (i.e., adding a 10-s delay to each task)
516 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY

300
240 LA
180
120
Latency (s) to Escape Response

60 HA
Jeremy
0

300 Task A
240 LA Task B
Task C
180
Task D
120 Task E
60 HA George
0

300
240 LA
180
120
60 HA
Marcia
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Session

Figure 2. Latency, in seconds, to the first escape response for each task assessed in the aversiveness evaluation. Indi-
vidual data points represent the latency to escape responses in each session. Open data points denote when the maxi-
mum latency per session was met (i.e., 300 s). See Table 1 for tasks descriptions. “LA” indicates the task identified as
low aversive, and “HA” indicates the task identified as high aversive.

increased his percentage of immediate task
selections to 100%. When the treatment was
removed, Jeremy never chose the immediate,
LA task. When treatment was reintroduced,
Jeremy frequently chose the immediate, LA
task (M = 93.3% of trials per session; range:
80–100%).
During the self-control assessment, George
chose the immediate task during 40% of trials
in each session. Adding a 10-s delay to each
task shifted preference to the immediate task
(M = 80% of trials per session), and choice was
stable. When the treatment was removed,
George rarely chose the immediate task
(M = 13.3% of trials per session; range:
0–20%). Reinstatement of treatment shifted
preference to the immediate task (M = 86.7%
of trials per session; range: 80–100%).
During the self-control assessment, Marcia
never chose the immediate task (M = 0% of
trials). A 20-s delay (as opposed to a 10-s delay)
was added to both options. This value was dou-
ble that programmed with other participants
because, during the delay assessment, Marcia
only selected the delayed task after the delay
was doubled from 60 to 120 s. Adding a 20-s
delay to both tasks did not shift preference to
the immediate task; therefore, another 20 s was
added to each task so that the choice was
between a LA task following a 40-s delay and a
HA task following a 160-s delay. This manipu-
lation shifted preference toward the immediate
task (M = 60% of trials per session; range:
40–80%). Next, we reintroduced the last con-
dition that resulted in a preference for the del-
ayed task (i.e., choice between a LA task
following a 20-s delay and a HA task following
a 140-s delay). This reduced selection of the
immediate task (M = 13.3% of trials per ses-
sion; range: 0–20%). Programming a return to
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS 517

0 HA / 60 HA 
100
80
Percentage of  Choices for the Immediate Task
60 Jeremy
40
20
0
0 HA / 60 HA
100
80
60 George
40
20
0

100 0 HA / 60 HA 0 HA / 120 HA

80
60
Marcia
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Session

Figure 3. Percentage of choices for the immediate task per session during the delay assessment for each participant.
The numbers in each condition label depict the delay, in seconds, to the high-aversive (HA) immediate task followed by
the delay, in seconds, to the HA delayed task.

the treatment (i.e., choice between a LA task Thus, a simple modification produced substan-
following a 40-s delay and a HA task following tial increases in self-control.
a 160-s delay) shifted preference to the imme- These results are similar to previous studies
diate task (M = 66.7% of trials per session; in which children with developmental disabil-
range: 60–80%). ities responded impulsively when presented
with choices between aversive events, but made
more self-controlled choices when delays were
DISCUSSION added to both tasks (e.g., Lerman et al., 2006;
A hierarchy of aversive events was identified Perrin & Neef, 2012). Preference reversals,
for three individuals who exhibited problem which occur when delays are added to both
behavior to escape task demands. Aversiveness alternatives, may occur because relative values
and delay assessments confirmed that all partic- of options reverse across time (Rachlin &
ipants preferred LA tasks over HA tasks and Green, 1972). For example, the aversiveness of
delayed HA tasks over immediate HA tasks. In the immediate task may decrease when a
the self-control assessment, all participants small delay is added, thereby increasing the
responded impulsively, but impulsive probability of self-control. A large body of
responding was only moderate for George. research has demonstrated that adding delays to
When a 10- (Jeremy and George) or 40-s both options results in preference reversals
(Marcia) delay was added to both tasks, prefer- (e.g., Ainslie, 1974; Deluty et al., 1983;
ence shifted toward the self-control option. Mazur & Logue, 1978; Solnick et al., 1980);
518 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY

0 LA / 60 HA 10 LA / 70 HA 0 LA / 60 HA 10 LA / 70 HA
100
80
Percentage of  Choices for the Immediate Task

60
40
20
0

0 LA/ 60 HA 10 LA / 70 HA 0 LA / 60 HA 10 LA / 70 HA

100
80
60
40
20
0

0 LA / 120 HA 20 LA / 140 HA 40 LA / 160 HA 20 LA / 140 HA 40 LA / 160HA

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Session

Figure 4. Percentage of choices for the immediate task (self-control responses) across each condition during the self-
control assessment and treatment for each participant. The numbers in each condition label depict the delay to the
sooner, low-aversive (LA) task and the delayed, high-aversive (HA) task.

thus, the intervention in the present study is behavior in applied contexts, to ensure that a
not novel. However, results from the current self-control choice is in the best interest of all
study add to applied research that bridges the involved individuals. Specifically, if the self-
gap between basic, nonhuman animal research control option requires a parent or teacher to
on preference reversals (e.g., Green & Estle, deliver physical prompts to complete the task
2003) and applied contexts in which delays or if the task occasions problem behavior,
could be added to response options to increase impulsive choice may be preferred. Unfortu-
self-control. Future researchers may want to nately, we did not collect data on problem
evaluate this intervention in more complex behavior during the self-control assessment and
applied contexts (e.g., when a factory employee treatment. Collecting data on the number of
has a choice between wearing protective equip- prompts required and the frequency of problem
ment now, or later having to complete qualita- behavior in future studies can inform decisions
tively different types of work during a regarding the use of this intervention.
mandatory safety retraining course, such as lis- Individualized assessments ensure that task
tening to a lecture or taking a written test). In parameters such as magnitude (Lerman et al.,
these contexts, delays could be added to both 2006) and difficulty (Perrin & Neef, 2012)
options by asking individuals to choose affect responding in predicted directions, which
between options in advance, before either is important as obtained effects may not always
option is available. match predicted effects. For example, if a par-
Future researchers may also want to evaluate ticipant is given a choice between putting three
the effect this intervention has on problem or 24 pieces into a puzzle (e.g., Lerman et al.,
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS
2006), it is possible that only inserting three
pieces into a puzzle, and thereby failing to
complete the puzzle, would be more aversive
than completing the entire puzzle for certain
individuals. Indeed, individuals diagnosed with
ASD often exhibit restricted and repetitive pat-
terns of behavior, and disruption of response
completion has been associated with increases
in problem behavior (e.g., Rispoli, Camargo,
Machalicek, Lang, & Sigafoos, 2014; Wolf,
Hupp, & Symons, 2013). In addition, for chil-
dren whose behavior is reinforced by physical
attention, it is possible that more difficult tasks
that require physical guidance, would be less
aversive than less difficult tasks that do not
require physical guidance. To prevent these
potential issues, Lerman et al. (2006) incorpo-
rated tasks associated with problem behavior
during a preexperimental functional analysis
and conducted a magnitude assessment to
ensure smaller magnitudes were more preferred.
Likewise, Perrin and Neef (2012) conducted a
preexperimental accuracy and rate assessment
to identify more and less difficult tasks, then
assessed choice between more and less difficult
tasks to ensure that less difficult tasks were
more preferred prior to evaluating each partici-
pant’s self-control. In the same vein, we empiri-
cally evaluated relative task aversiveness on an
individual basis before conducting the self-
control assessments.
The aversiveness verification in the current
study differed from evaluations conducted by
Lerman et al. (2006) and Perrin and Neef
(2012) in that we examined choice among dif-
ferent tasks. We added this component because
there may be applied situations in which non-
parametric analyses are warranted (i.e., when an
individual must choose between qualitatively
different aversive events that differ in terms of
subject matter, response effort, or response
topography, among other variables). For exam-
ple, a student may forgo working during math,
and later have to complete a larger amount of
qualitatively different types of work during
519
detention (e.g., writing a paper on why staying
on task is important). In addition, the aversive-
ness evaluation is different from those in prior
studies because task completion was not
required to determine aversiveness. We
removed this component due to the possibility
of an individual engaging in problem behavior
across all task demands, leading to escape from
task completion. Without task completion, the
rate and accuracy assessments used in previous
studies would not be able to be used to identify
low- and high-difficulty tasks. With the aver-
siveness evaluation used in the current study,
latency to escape responses could be measured
to determine relative task aversiveness, even
when those responses (e.g., problem behaviors)
interfere with task completion.
Despite notable strengths, limitations of the
aversiveness evaluation should be considered.
Specifically, only a limited number and type of
tasks were evaluated, and it is possible that
other tasks were more or less aversive. Tasks
were identified based on targeted skills listed in
each participant’s IEP; however, because all
three participants exhibited problem behavior
to escape demand contexts, the classroom
instruction they received was limited. Nonethe-
less, the goal of the current study was to evalu-
ate choice between tasks that differed in terms
of relative aversiveness, rather than evaluating
choice between the absolute most- and least-
aversive tasks. Future researchers may choose to
compare our method of determining relative
aversiveness, which was based on Call et al.
(2009), to other methods, such as the Negative
Reinforcement Rating Scale (Zarcone,
Crosland, Fisher, Worsdell, & Herman, 1999).
Marcia may have initially preferred to
complete a HA task immediately instead of
following a 60-s delay because the single HA
task demand required after a selection may not
have been as aversive as continuous demand
presentation during the aversiveness evaluation.
Indeed, researchers have found that larger mag-
nitudes of nonpreferred tasks are more aversive
520 ALLEN PORTER and JOLENE R. SY
than smaller magnitudes (e.g., Lerman et al.,
2006; Perrin & Neef, 2012). Thus, when mul-
tiple demands must be presented before an
escape response occurs, researchers should
program multiple demands in the delay
assessment.
Although not formally assessed, skill deficits
could have affected choice responding for at
least one participant. Marcia occasionally
frowned with a furrowed brow and engaged in
vocalizations that indicated that the HA task
was too difficult (e.g., “I don’t know how to
write that.”). Skill deficits may be more likely
early in the evaluation, prior to extended con-
tact with instruction, as participants often
escaped learning contexts by engaging in escape
responses. Given that the aversiveness evalua-
tion was conducted at the beginning of the
study, it is possible that the HA task became
less aversive after extended instruction
(e.g., Kodak, Lerman, Volkert, & Trosclair,
2007; Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore, 1995).
Conversely, it is also possible that repeated
exposure to the same LA task could make that
task more aversive. Future researchers could
periodically conduct aversiveness evaluation ses-
sions to see if relative aversiveness changes dur-
ing the study.
Only one demand was conducted following
each opportunity to choose in the current
study, and the maximum delay contacted was
70 s for Jeremy and George and 160 s for Mar-
cia. Therefore, more research is needed to
determine whether this intervention would be
effective under conditions more typical in a
school setting (i.e., with tasks and delays of
greater magnitude). It may be the case that
additional intervention components
(e.g., gradually increasing the delay to the more
aversive event) would need to be included in an
applied context.
In summary, results from the present study
suggest that a hierarchy of qualitatively differ-
ent aversive events can be empirically identified
for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Self-control can then be assessed by offering
choices between LA and HA tasks that differ in
the delay to each task and strengthened by
adding a delay to both options. Results are sim-
ilar to those of prior studies (i.e., Lerman et al.,
2006; Perrin & Neef, 2012) and demonstrate
that, although individuals often prefer delayed,
aversive tasks, their preference can shift to the
self-control option by increasing the delay to
both tasks.
REFERENCES
Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21,
485–489. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.21-485.
Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behav-
ioral economic understanding of drug dependence:
Delay discounting processes. Addiction, 96, 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961736.x.
Call, N. A., Pabico, R. S., & Lomas, J. E. (2009). Use of
latency to problem behavior to evaluate demands for
inclusion in functional analyses. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 42, 723–728. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2009.42-723.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a
multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing
reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 29, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1996.29-519.
Deluty, M. Z., Whitehouse, W. G., Mellitz, M., &
Hineline, P. N. (1983). Self-control and commit-
ment involving aversive events. Behaviour Analysis
Letters, 3, 213–219.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G.,
Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992).
A comparison of two approaches for identifying rein-
forcers for persons with severe and profound disabil-
ities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
491–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491.
Green, L., & Estle, S. J. (2003). Preference reversals with
food and water reinforcers in rats. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 79, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jeab.2003.79-233.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,
Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0270-4684(82)90003-9.
Kodak, T., Lerman, D. C., Volkert, V., & Trosclair, N.
(2007). Further examination of factors influencing
preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 25–44.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.151-05.
 SELF-CONTROL WITH AVERSIVE EVENTS
Lerman, D. C., Addison, L. R., & Kodak, T. (2006). A
preliminary analysis of self-control with aversive
events: The effects of task magnitude and delay on
the choices of children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 39, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2006.90-05.
Mazur, J. E., & Logue, A. W. (1978). Choice in a “self-
control” paradigm: Effects of a fading procedure.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30,
11–17. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1978.30-11.
Mudford, O. C., Taylor, S. A., & Martin, N. T. (2009).
Continuous recording and interobserver agreement
algorithms reported in the Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis (1995–2005). Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2009.42-165.
Perrin, C. J., Miller, N., Haberlin, A. T., Ivy, J. W.,
Meindl, J. N., & Neef, N. A. (2011). Measuring and
reducing college students’ procrastination. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 463–474. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-463.
Perrin, C. J., & Neef, N. A. (2012). Further analysis of
variables that affect self-control with aversive events.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 299–313.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-299.
Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-Control. Behaviorism, 2, 94–107.
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice
and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 17, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.
1972.17-15.
Rispoli, M., Camargo, S., Machalicek, W., Lang, R., &
Sigafoos, J. (2014). Functional communication train-
ing in the treatment of problem behavior maintained
by access to rituals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 47, 580–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.130.
521
Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1988). Self-con-
trol: Teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive chil-
dren. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
50, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.
50-173.
Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Shore, B. A.
(1995). Analysis of establishing operations for self-
injury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 28, 515–535. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1995.28-515.
Solnick, J. V., Kannenberg, C. H., Eckerman, D. A., &
Waller, M. B. (1980). An experimental analysis of
impulsivity and impulse control in humans. Learning
and Motivation, 11, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0023-9690(80)90021-1.
Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Lalli, J. S., & Daniel, D.
(1999). Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in
children with severe behavior disorders. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 451–466. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-451.
Wolf, J. J., Hupp, S. C., & Symons, F. J. (2013). Brief
report: Avoidance extinction as treatment for compul-
sive and ritual behavior in autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1741–1746. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1721-7.
Zarcone, J. R., Crosland, K., Fisher, W. W.,
Worsdell, A. S., & Herman, K. (1999). A brief
method for conducting a negative-reinforcement
assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20,
107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(98)
00036-5.
Received March 13, 2017
Final acceptance April 12, 2019
Action Editor, Tiffany Kodak