Functional Analyses Figuring out the source of the problem, the problem, and the resolution of the problem

Functional Analyses Has long been established in behavior analysis that, in order to change behavior, one must understand the Antecedents of the situation The Behavior(s) that occur in that situation Consequences of the situation Hence Functional Analyses of behavior were created

Functional analyses Initially developed by Brian Iwata Investigates potential maintaining consequences for problem behavior Initially for kids, Self-injurious behavior Now many organisms (e.g., Farmer-Dougan, in press, for captive wild animals!). Involves Direct observation and repeated measurement Across several situations that attempt to mimic possible maintaining situations

Functional Analysis Must get baseline assessments first: Examine environment and conditions maintaining behavior before implementing an intervention Assess validity by comparing rates of behavior across the different settings/conditions Repeat assessment until 1 or more settings found to elicit target behavior at highest and most steady rate

In Humans: Typically 4 Settings Alone: Behavior is self reinforcing Client is alone in room with no obvious reinforcer See if behavior is self-reinforcing or self-maintaining E.g., self stim behavior (excessive licking) Attention: Attention contingent upon behavior Provide client with attention only when client exhibits behavior E.g., child hits head, you run and get him to stop Can look at attention vs. access to food or tangible

Four Settings Demand: Behavior occurs in response to demand client is asked to engage in contingent activity Demands made on client to engage in behavior E.g., doing math problems, obeying commands See if behavior increases (to escape demands) Play: No contingencies for behavior A control procedure Client allowed to play in room No contingencies or demands Attention given for any behavior

Let’s apply this to dogs #1 reason dogs are returned to shelter: Tuber, et al., 1999 Behavioral problems! About 26% Previous owners not always complete/honest about why dog is being returned Over emphasize “bad” behavior Under emphasize “bad” behavior Under what conditions does this “misbehavior” occur and what are the maintaining consequences?

Gazzano, et. Al (2015). Stress in aggressive dogs towards people Examined 26 cases of aggression towards people by dogs Dogs divided into aggressive and nonaggressive groupings Behavioral consultation First videotaped 3 time periods across 30 min assessment Examined variety of behaviors including Exploratory behaviors Sleeping/grooming Stress related behaviors (Barking, trembling, etc.) Aggressive Behaviors Play Behaviors and Social Behaviors

Gazzano, et. Al (2015). Stress in aggressive dogs towards people Exploratory behavior Aggressive dogs showed more exploratory behavior early in session, lessened over time Same pattern for non aggressive dogs Non social behavior/stress Aggressive dogs showed significantly more stress responses Especially attention seeking from owner and sniffing the owner by Aggressive dogs More autogrooming by aggressive dogs Suggests aggressive dogs were more stressed; were seeking comfort and reassurance from owners

Hall, Protopopova and Wynne (2015): Role of environmental and owner-provided consequences on canine stereotypy and compulsive behavior Interested in which environmental variables reinforced and maintained canine stereotypic behavior Examined how remov al of these environmental variables affected rate of behavior Online survey: owners asked to report Stereotypy of dog What antecedents Consequences for the stereotypy Found owners tended to respond to stereotypy in 4 ways Ignoring the dog and giving attention Saying “stop” and blocking the dog from the behavior Giving a desirable object AND taking object away Distracting dog or giving dog a command

Study 2 of Hall, et al., 2015 Case study of 5 dogs Conducted functional analysis on behavioral stereotypy Dogs engaged in circling, licking and light chasing Results of analysis showed Owner-provided consequences maintained circling and licking in 2 dogs Light movement alone maintained light chasing in 2 dogs 1 dog did not show clear results on FA Implemented an intervention based on FA for 3 of dogs Stereotypic Behavior was significantly reduced.

Dorsey, et al., Functional Analysis with dogs Recruited dogs who jumped on people No aggression Young adult dogs No known health issues Conducted both a Questionnaire and an Assessment phase

Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire

Assessment Each of 4 conditions presented for 5 min (2 min ITI) Play, ignore, tangible, demand, attention All 5 presentations = 1 cycle; no more than 2 cycles/day Continued with cycles until problem area was identified

Assessment Conditions Began with walking in door/greeting (SD) Ignore: entered room but gave no attention or eye contact to dog Attention: Entered room; only gave attention when dog jumped up; petted, hugged dog for 20 sec after each jump Play: Dog given squeaky toy Dog allowed to play with toy Attention given for 5 of every 20 seconds (noncontingent)

Assessment Conditions Demand Entered room Gave commands that were within the dogs’ behavioral repertoire Food require for compliance with command Repeated commands until complied Tangible Entered room; Experimenter held high-demand toy Tried to elicit jumping by holding toy up high (yes, reinforced jumping)

Treatment Phase Once identified sustaining variable, used this as part of treatment Treatment based on maintaining variable of the behavior: the function of the behavior Why the dog jumped up Not that the dog hurt you or pushed you over

Treatment Types Attention: Demand: Tangible Gave no attention for 20 sec If dog did not jump up for 20 sec, lots of attention If dog did jump up; timer restarted Demand: If dog jumped up during command, was ignored Command was carried through anyway Attention ONLY for compliance Tangible No toy unless no jumping for 20 sec Again, timer restarted if jumped

Results Note that used nonparametric stats Used when have small N or lopsided data Looked to see what drove jumping! Noted that the assessment matched survey

Results of treatment: Was successful!

Okay, so….. Functional analysis works But, hard for general shelter workers to use Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles Not want to have to do data analysis How can shelter/rescue workers develop assessment system that: Doesn’t involve prior owner Doesn’t involve long and complicated process or questionnaires Is quick, effective and efficient

Okay, so….. Functional analysis works Alternative? A canned method Emily Weiss of the ASPCA PhD in animal behavior; now is director of behavior for ASPCA Uses knowledge of many species to develop intervention programs for shelters Designed to assess behaviors of dogs in shelters and to create treatment plans NOT for deciding if dog is adoptable, aggressive, etc. NOT for screening for euthanasia

Okay, so….. Developed a “canned” method of functional analysis Assess behavior of animal (using a system similar to 4 functional analysis situaitons) and determine “type” of dog Then: match the dog to the new owner in terms of behavioral needs Developed the Meet Your Match program Both a functional analysis AND a behavioral assessment program Two components SAFER Canine-ality

The MYM SAFER Examines behavior in several domains Look (touch) sensitivity Tag (play) Squeeze (again touch sensitivity) Food behavior (in dish) Toy behavior (reinforcer assessment) Dog to dog behavior

The MYM Canine-ality Examines behavior across several domains: Left alone Greeting Crate Play Food motivation Manners Sum score to get activity level Then assess motivation Social (all people) Independent (not attached to people) One person dog Includes treatment plans for different problem areas and levels of scoring

Is the Canine-ality a functional assessment? Yes Look at domains: Alone/ignore Attention Demand Play Tangible and food Is a quick and dirty way to conduct a FA DOES include treatment plans, although these are often ignored by shelters….which means they are missing the point of the program!

Problems with the Canine-ality? Should you use when the dog first arrives at shelter or class? Why or why not? Could environment alter the results? Could who gives the assessment alter the results? Need to use with care and understand its limits For shelters/rescues ALSO use the adopter survey Adopter survey looks at what kind of activity level/expectations the family might have. MYM = meet your match Attempt to match right dog to right family Works very well when used appropriately!

Patronek & Bradley, 2016 No better than coin flipping! Suggested that use of functional analysis in the hands of individuals not sufficiently trained in scientific principles and testing is worse than nothing at all. Highly unlikely that you CAN predict and accurately diagnosis problem behavior in shelter situations Shelter conditions elicit certain behaviors Not know history of dog Too many uncontrolled variables Assessments often stress the dogs What is the alternative? Spend quality time interacting with dogs. We can use FA with known dogs to assess problem behaviors within the home.

Functional Analysis Assessment This assessment uses 3-min segments or intervals Intervals include: ignore, attention, play, demand, tangible Ignore: approach dog but give no attention or eye contact to dog for three minutes. Count the number of times the dog attempts to get your attention via vocalizations, jumps up, touching you, etc.   Attention: Only give attention when dog jumps up; pet and/or hug dog for 10 sec after each jump Count number of jumps up for the three minutes. Stop the watch during the 5 sec reinforcement- the three minute period should just be the time the dog can jump up

Functional Analysis Assessment 3-min segments Play: give dog squeaky toy, allow dog to play with toy, give attention for 5 seconds every 20 seconds (noncontingent) Count the number of times the dog responds to your attention Stop the watch during the 5 sec reinforcement time Demand: Give cues that are within the dogs’ behavioral repertoire Food require for compliance with the cue Repeated each cue until the behavior is completed within 3 seconds of the cue. Count the number of times the cue is given for each behavior.   Tangible: hold high-demand toy, try to elicit jumping by holding toy up high Count the number of times the dog jumps up within three minutes.

Data Collection: Task: Number of Count: 1. Ignore Attention attempts:   2. Attention Jumps up: 3. Play     4. Demand Cues given: Sit Down Touch    5. Tangible (toy) Jumps up

Data Collection: Ignore: Contingent Attention: Play: Look to see where the highest amount of responses occurs: Ignore: Specify which behavior occurs as means of attention when ignored High number = human attention is strong reinforcer Low number = humans are not strong reinforcer Contingent Attention: High number of responses: Dog is responding to your reinforcement of inappropriate behavior; human attention is strong reinforcer Low number of jumps: Human attention is not strong reinforcer Play: High number of attempts for attention; human is stronger reinforcer Low number of attempts for attention: toy is stronger reinforcer

Data Collection: Demand: Tangible: Look to see where the highest amount of responses occurs: Demand: High number of cues given = not responding to your cues; C/T and attention not high reinforcer in demand settings Low number of cues given = C/T and attention is strong reinforcer Tangible: High number of jump attempts: Toy is strong reinforcer Low number of jump attempts: Toy is not strong reinforcer