Response blocking refers to physically preventing a maladaptive behavior from occurring.

Examples of maladaptive behavior include self-injury (e.g., eye poking), pica, aggression,
throwing objects, loud clapping, inappropriate touching, and mouthing (i.e., placing one's
mouth on inedible surfaces). Typically, a clearly visible motor response is required for
response blocking to be used. In many cases, maladaptive behaviors are maintained by
sensory reinforcement or a desire for tactile, auditory, visual, or other stimulation. As a result,
maladaptive behaviors often become habitual, automatic responses that are not easily selfcontrolled. Response blocking is often utilized, therefore, as a means of preventing a
maladaptive response and providing feedback to the person that the behavior has occurred.
Because maladaptive behaviors can also be maintained by attention, tangible reinforcement,
and escape from aversive situations, however, these factors must be considered carefully as
well when designing a response-blocking intervention.
Response blocking is typically conducted by a teacher or other person who works closely with
a client in situations where a maladaptive behavior is most likely to occur. As a first step, the
behavior in question is operationally defined so that occurrences of the behavior may be
accurately targeted. The behavior and its definition should be specific, motorically based, and
clear to those who will engage in response blocking. Ideally, teachers and relevant others are
trained to observe and accurately record the maladaptive behavior. In addition, they are taught
the specific response-blocking gesture that will be used to prevent the maladaptive response
as well as ways of addressing untoward consequences (e.g., aggression).
Following this training procedure, a baseline period is implemented to record frequency,
severity, duration, latency, and other relevant factors of the maladaptive behavior. Care should
be taken to note times when the behavior is most common as well as its common antecedents
(e.g., extended work time, frustration, hunger). In this way, response blocking can be used at
selected times of the day rather than the entire day. However, if the maladaptive behavior is
truly automatic and reinforced by sensory consequences, then response blocking may be
necessary for extended periods of time.
Following baseline, response blocking and any accompanying treatments (e.g., functional
communication training) begin. The person conducting the response blocking procedure
typically places himself or herself near the client, often in a sitting position, and interacts with
the client in some way. In many cases, response blocking is integrated with educational
programs but can be used in self-care, recreational, or other situations as well. Whenever the
client begins to engage in the maladaptive behavior, the teacher physically blocks the
behavior from occurring. For example, a client who picks up an inedible substance and begins
to place it in his or her mouth may be prevented from doing so by a teacher who blocks the
mouth and gently guides the hand away. In many cases, this preventive behavior can be
accompanied by verbal feedback to enhance the effect (e.g., Remember, you do not eat lint).
In general, the procedure is conducted in a matter-of-fact and quick manner so as not to
further reward the maladaptive behavior via attention.
During the response-blocking phase, the teacher or an independent observer records the
frequency or other relevant factors of the maladaptive behavior. The data are then examined
over time to see if the procedure is effective and whether it needs modification. In the case of
pica, for example, it is possible that a simple touch of the hand is necessary to prevent the
response. In other cases, a more forceful blocking of the maladaptive response is necessary.

The final phase of response blocking involves fading. In this phase, the teacher continues to
block the response but does so in a less intrusive way (e.g., shadowing a person's hand). If
treatment gains are maintained, then less intrusive blocking continues until very little physical
intervention is necessary. Indeed, response blocking may progress to the point where only
verbal feedback is necessary to arrest the maladaptive behavior. Eventually, of course, one
final goal is for the person to control the maladaptive behavior himself or herself without
external control or feedback. Another final goal is to generalize treatment effects from the
initial training setting to more naturalistic settings and to other persons.

RESEARCH BASIS
The behavior analysis literature is rich with singlecase experimental designs that support the
effectiveness of response blocking for treating various maladaptive behaviors. Response
blocking has been evaluated as a single procedure and as a component of a larger treatment
protocol. In most cases, the procedure is supplemented with other interventions for people
with developmental disorders, such as differential reinforcement of other behavior,
punishment, and functional communication training.

RELEVANT TARGET POPULATION

Response blocking is primarily used for people with maladaptive behaviors with severe
developmental disorders such as severe or profound mental retardation, autism, and
neurological impairment. However, it could be useful as well for any clinical population (e.g.,
schizophrenia) that engages in maladaptive motor behavior (e.g., perserverations).

COMPLICATIONS
A key drawback of response blocking is that it is extremely labor intensive, requiring a
teacher to physically block a high-frequency maladaptive behavior for extended periods of
time. As a result, response blocking may be reserved for times when the behavior is most
frequent or for intermittent times during the day. Another key drawback of the procedure is
that initial success may decline when the physical blocking is faded or withdrawn. This often
occurs with entrenched behaviors that have been reinforced over long periods of time. In this
case, very gradual fading, lengthy extensions of response blocking, prosthetic devices (e.g.,
goggles, helmets), or some combination with other treatment procedures may be necessary.

CASE ILLUSTRATION
Alan was a 17-year-old male with severe mental retardation in a large residential facility.
Over the past 15 months, Alan had begun to scratch his arm repeatedly to the point that
serious damage was occurring. A functional analysis indicated that the behavior was due to
sensory reinforcement. Baseline measures revealed that most of the scratching occurred prior
to lunch and dinner and following educational and self-care tasks. As a result, a combination
of procedures was used. Alan's scratching was prevented by having a staff member gently
move his hand away from the arm area that was most often damaged. In addition, Alan was
presented with a choice of meals and allowed to play video games (a competing response)
prior to lunch and dinner. Treatment reduced scratching by 90% in 3 weeks, and gains were
maintained even following fading of the response-blocking component.

Christopher A. Kearney, Lisa Linning, and Krisann Alvarez

Further Reading

Entry Citation:
Kearney, Christopher A., Lisa Linning, and Krisann Alvarez. "Response Blocking."
Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE
Publications. 15 Apr. 2008. <http://sage-ereference.com/cbt/Article_n2105.html>.