Countercontrol and Associated Challenges in Residential Treatment

B. F. Skinner described countercontrol as a response to socially mediated aversive consequences that is primarily reinforced through negative reinforcement (i.e., removal or weakening of aversive stimuli) and may be strengthened further through positive reinforcement (e.g., peer approval or other attention). Skinner considered the empirical analysis of the phenomenon to be essential for a complete understanding of human behavior and recognized countercontrol as a necessary but complex aspect of treatment in vulnerable populations. Residential treatment settings are inherently restrictive, potentially aversive to consumers, and thus may evoke countercontrol by clients, especially when assent/consent is withheld or provided by someone other than the individual receiving treatment (e.g., guardian, conservator, or substituted judgement). We identify treatment challenges presented by countercontrol and considerations associated with: (1) setting events; (2) conditioned aversive stimuli; (3) topographies and other dimensions of behavior; (4) competing contingencies of reinforcement; and (5) functional behavior assessments. We conclude with a call to action for the long overdue experimental analysis of countercontrol in residential treatment settings and society at large.