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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Results of treatment:
Was successful!

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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!

30. 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!

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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