Using Punishment In Behaviour Modification

Treatment Technique Based On Aversive Stimuli Is Controversial

Nov 7, 2009

The use of punishment as a behaviour modification technique can be successful however using aversive stimuli as a treatment technique has potential disadvantages.

Punishment is a technique used in behaviour modification based on operant conditioning principles. Definitions of punishment in the literature vary however all definitions have a common theme that punishment is the imposition of an aversive stimulus in response to an unwanted behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002, Spradlin, 2002).

Operant conditioning was developed by BF Skinner in work following on from Thorndike’s Law of Effect. Operant conditioning utilises reinforcement and punishment to shape and/or modify behaviours (Mazur, 2002). Skinner’s theory suggests that reinforcement can lead to an increase in a behaviour and punishment a decrease in the behaviour (Mazur, 2002).

Punishment can be used in positive and negative manners; an example of positive punishment is the use of a water-mist spray into the face of the subject when the subject exhibits an unwanted behaviour, such as mouthing for self-injurious subjects. The use of timeouts and response-cost systems are examples of negative forms of punishment (Mazur, 2002).

Punishment and the “Aversives Controversy”

Punishment has a controversial history in psychology, particularly in behaviour modification; the “aversives controversy” which focused on the use of aversive stimuli when working with developmentally disabled subjects of the 1980s led to the increased use of reinforcement based therapies as the preferred behaviour modification approach (Johnston, 1991).

In recent history, the rising use of functional analysis to identify behaviour reinforcers has also lead to a decrease in the use of punishment as a behaviour modifier (Thompson et al, 1999). However prior to the “aversives controversy’ and as early as the 1950s, Skinner had outlined potential concerns with using punishment as a behaviour modifier (Johnston, 2006, Mazur, 2002).

Advantages of Using Punishment In Behaviour Modification

Punishment has the advantage of being effective over the long term and can change behaviour permanently (Mazur, 2002, Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Punishment can also create a faster decrease in the incidents of unwanted events than using reinforcement techniques, which is of benefit when the behaviour to be changed may result in self-injury or injury to others (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).

Reported studies have found that using punishment as a behaviour modification technique may also increase the incidents of wanted behaviours (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002, Johnston, 2006). The use of punishment is also considered important when it is difficult or impossible to identify the reinforcers that are contributing to the ongoing problematic behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).

Punishment Elicited Aggression and Other Potential Disadvantages

Disadvantages of punishment include the potential for punishment-elicited aggression, poor transference to settings outside the treatment room, dehumanisation and shaming of the punished individual (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002) and the potential for abuses by caregivers/therapists (Vollmer, 2002). Punishment elicited aggression has been found in animal subjects subjected to punishment (Mazur, 2002) and may create a dangerous situation for caregivers or other people and objects surrounding the punished person. The use of punishment may lead to the subject attempting to avoid the punishment and may elicit unwanted behaviours (Mazur, 2002, Spradlin, 2002).

A further disadvantage of using punishment is the potential to violate codes of ethics, statue and/or common law. This is particularly a concern when using aversive techniques with subjects who are developmentally disabled (Lohrmann-O’Rourke & Zirkel, 1998).

Although controversial, punishment may be an appropriate strategy to reduce unwanted behaviours and should be considered by mental health practitioners on case by case basis, trialling least restrictive measures, such as positive reinforcement initially.

Johnston, J. M. (1991). "What can behaviour analysis learn from the aversives controversy." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 14 Iss 2, 187-196.

Johnston, J. M. (2006). “'Replacing' problem behaviour: an analysis of tactical alternatives." The Behavior Analyst, Vol 29, Iss 1, 1-11.

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). "On the status of knowledge for using punishment: implications for treating behaviour disorders." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 431-464.

Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S. & Zirkel, P. A. (1998). "The case law on aversive interventions for students with disabilities." Exceptional Children, Vol 65 No 1, 101-123.

Mazur, J. E. (2002). Learning and behaviour (5th ed). Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Spradlin, J. E. (2002). "Punishment: a primary process?" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 475-477.

Thompson, R. H., Iwata, B. A., Conners, J., & Roscoe, E. M. (1999). "Effects of reinforcement for alternative behaviour during punishment of self-injury." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 32, Iss 3, 317-328.

Vollmer, T. R. (2002). "Punishment happens: some comments on Lerman and Vorndran’s review." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol 35 Iss 4, 469-473.

The copyright of the article Using Punishment In Behaviour Modification in Behavioural Therapy is owned by Tracey Lloyd. Permission to republish Using Punishment In Behaviour Modification in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.