Punishment? The Elements of Behavior Module #6 Reinforcement (positive or negative) increases behavior. OK, what about when what we want to do is decrease behavior? Recall that sometimes we can use extinction, but what about something more direct? How about spanking a child (or caning a vandal); how about using electric shock to stop life-threatening self-injury; how about bombing the Serbs? Obviously, we're in deep and murky waters here, and there is significant scientific and ethical debate about these questions. Let's start with the science (the easy part). Behavior that occurs regularly is often reinforcing in some way (positively or negatively). Punishment doesn't erase that. Imagine you love to eat chocolate truffles, and there is an unlimited supply of them in front of you. But imagine that your loving friend wants you to be healthy. So every time you reach for a truffle, s/he screams (very aversive). You probably will stop reaching for the truffles. Now, imagine that s/he takes a bathroom break. What happens? Could be you pig out. So, here's part of the rub; punishment doesn't reduce the "tendency to behave." Why doesn't building more prisons reduce crime, do you suppose? The other issue is emotional side-effects. How will you feel as you stare longingly at the chocolate truffles? Deprived, sad, angry? And how will you feel about your friend who's acting like a fire alarm? Less warm and cuddly? People don't really like to be punished, and the punisher often becomes associated with the punishment. So, does this mean we should avoid all punishment? This is actually a tricky issue. Punishment is "natural"--walking without watching where you are going is punished by bruises or worse, and people learn to be careful in this way at a young age. And certain punishment procedures have stopped self-injurious behaviors that could have resulted in blindness, neurological injury, and death with some developmentally delayed persons. We will need to continue this discussion . . . for now, we continue to take the position that punishment should be minimized to the extent possible, both for humane and for practical reasons, and that building alternatives using positive reinforcement, perhaps along with extinction, is usually the better way to begin, especially when trying to change the behavior of other people (self-chosen punishment, tho, is not always masochistic--see the next module!). Technical details: Punishment usually needs to be very consistent, and really quite aversiveif these conditions don't apply, it probably will be ineffective. Note that perfect consistency is often not essential with reinforcement procedures. This module covers only "positive punishment"the application of an aversive condition following an undesirable behavior. The other form of punishment, removal of a positive following undesirable behavior, will be considered in the next module. That procedure is sometimes (precisely but rather confusingly) called "negative punishment," but we will use the alternate term, "response cost." Ethical issues involved in the "aversives debate" are discussed in the books listed below; consensus about them has not yet been reached. Please complete the following: 1. Diagram and describe an example of a punishment contingency that someone has applied to you. (Use an example in which they do something unpleasant after your behavior, not one in which they take away something nice--that's for next time!) Provide gory details: 2. Do you think this was an effective way to deal with your behavior? Why or why not? 3. Why doesn't building more prisons reduce crime? (In 50 words or less . . .) For further information, see: Malott, R. W., Whaley, D. L., & Malott, M. E. (1997). Elementary principles of behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sidman, M. (1989) Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative. If you would like feedback on your answers, provide your email address and click on the submit button! Email Address: Cancel and Return to BFSR Home Page Copyright 1999 Walden Fellowship, Inc.
The Elements of Behavior Module #6
Behavior that occurs regularly is often reinforcing in some way (positively or negatively). Punishment doesn't erase that. Imagine you love to eat chocolate truffles, and there is an unlimited supply of them in front of you. But imagine that your loving friend wants you to be healthy. So every time you reach for a truffle, s/he screams (very aversive). You probably will stop reaching for the truffles. Now, imagine that s/he takes a bathroom break. What happens?
Could be you pig out. So, here's part of the rub; punishment doesn't reduce the "tendency to behave." Why doesn't building more prisons reduce crime, do you suppose? The other issue is emotional side-effects. How will you feel as you stare longingly at the chocolate truffles? Deprived, sad, angry? And how will you feel about your friend who's acting like a fire alarm? Less warm and cuddly? People don't really like to be punished, and the punisher often becomes associated with the punishment.
So, does this mean we should avoid all punishment? This is actually a tricky issue. Punishment is "natural"--walking without watching where you are going is punished by bruises or worse, and people learn to be careful in this way at a young age. And certain punishment procedures have stopped self-injurious behaviors that could have resulted in blindness, neurological injury, and death with some developmentally delayed persons. We will need to continue this discussion . . . for now, we continue to take the position that punishment should be minimized to the extent possible, both for humane and for practical reasons, and that building alternatives using positive reinforcement, perhaps along with extinction, is usually the better way to begin, especially when trying to change the behavior of other people (self-chosen punishment, tho, is not always masochistic--see the next module!).
Technical details: Punishment usually needs to be very consistent, and really quite aversiveif these conditions don't apply, it probably will be ineffective. Note that perfect consistency is often not essential with reinforcement procedures. This module covers only "positive punishment"the application of an aversive condition following an undesirable behavior. The other form of punishment, removal of a positive following undesirable behavior, will be considered in the next module. That procedure is sometimes (precisely but rather confusingly) called "negative punishment," but we will use the alternate term, "response cost." Ethical issues involved in the "aversives debate" are discussed in the books listed below; consensus about them has not yet been reached.
Please complete the following:
1. Diagram and describe an example of a punishment contingency that someone has applied to you. (Use an example in which they do something unpleasant after your behavior, not one in which they take away something nice--that's for next time!)
Provide gory details:
2. Do you think this was an effective way to deal with your behavior? Why or why not?
3. Why doesn't building more prisons reduce crime? (In 50 words or less . . .)
For further information, see:
Malott, R. W., Whaley, D. L., & Malott, M. E. (1997). Elementary principles of behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sidman, M. (1989) Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
If you would like feedback on your answers, provide your email address and click on the submit button!
Email Address: