Escape Training

Description of the Strategy

Escape training is a procedure for maintaining or increasing the future likelihood of a behavior. Escape training is based on the principle of negative rein-forcement, where termination or reduction of an aversive stimulus is made contingent upon the occurrence of a specific behavior. As a result, the individual or organism being trained becomes more likely to display the behavior in the presence of the aversive stimulus (i.e., the behavior is reinforced). Escape training can lead to gradual yet long-lasting increases in the frequency of the trained behavior within the training context. To maximize effective-ness, the behavior should immediately lead to a termination of the aversive stimulus. Combining escape training with positive reinforcement-based procedures may lead to quicker, longer-lasting, and more generalized changes in the behavior.

Research Basis

Research on escape training has been conducted with both animal and human populations. In the classic animal experiment, a rat is placed in a cage and an aversive stimulus, such as a bright light or mild electrical shock, is presented. A lever on the wall of the cage is attached to a switch that either reduces the intensity of or terminates the aversive stimuli. When the aversive stimulus is presented, the rat may display a variety of behaviors, until eventually it presses the lever and the aversive stimulus is terminated. Upon subsequent presentations of the aversive stimulus, the rat is more likely to press the lever, exclusive of other behaviors that do not terminate the aversive.

Human researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of escape training in teaching a variety of behaviors, including self-administration of medication, compliance with dental and medical procedures, increased work productivity, and socially appropriate play behaviors. While some studies involve termination of an experimenter-introduced aversive, such as a loud buzzer, many studies employ the termination of naturally occurring aversive stimuli, such as unpleasant dental procedures or nonpreferred work activi-ties. Studies frequently combine escape training with other procedures, such as differential reinforcement or extinction, both to maximize learning and amelio-rate potential negative side effects of aversive-based procedures.

Relevant Target Populations and Exceptions

Escape training can be effective with children and adults with a wide range of intellectual, medical, and behavioral functioning. Escape training has been used effectively with individuals diagnosed with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders, mild to severe mental retardation, disruptive behavior disorders, and simple phobias. Aversive-based procedures, particularly those employing artificially introduced aversives, should be used with caution when teaching individuals with histories of severe aggressive behavior, as the procedure may elicit aggression. Aversive procedures may be indicated when powerful positive reinforcement based procedures have proven ineffective, particularly when the client's health, or even life, is at risk.

Complications

Escape training is subject to the same caveats as are all aversive-based procedures. The introduction of aversive stimuli may elicit aggression. Individuals may avoid teaching environments (and teachers) associated with aversive stimuli. Behaviors taught through escape training may be less likely to generalize outside the teaching environment than those taught with positive reinforcement. In addition, it may be difficult to ensure that the aversive stimuli are always available and delivered or that they are terminated appropriately, thus reducing the effectiveness of the procedure.[Page 825]In addition to the above-mentioned clinical complications, the use of escape training presents some ethical dilemmas. The use of aversives, particularly artificially introduced aversive stimuli, frequently goes against community standards for acceptable treatment, particularly when used with young children or individuals with severe disabilities. Aversive-based procedures are typically subject to more regulatory oversight than more positive procedures and thus require more clinical and administrative oversight. In addition, teachers and other personnel may be either less likely to administer or more likely to abuse aversive-based procedures.

...