Suppression Of The Specific Punished Behaviour example essay topic

Introduction Punishment is a process through which "the consequence of a response decreases the likelihood that the response will recur" (Gray, 2002, pp. 115). Further, punishment can be seen as an effort to decrease the response rate to stimuli by either removing a desired stimulus or presenting one which is undesired (Gray, 2002). Recent studies suggest that punishment can be an effective method of behaviour modification. However, as reported in Lerman and Vorndran (2002), there are a number of limitations to punishment as an intervention and subsequent negative side effects. For this reason, certain principles upon which the implementation of a successful punishment is dependent must be adhered to. In accordance to these findings, this essay will contend that whilst there are alternative means to operant conditioning, certain punishment techniques have been proven to be effectual and in some aspects advantageous.

The effectiveness of punishment "Punishment is one of the most used, but least understood and badly administered, aspects of learning" (Luthans, 1977, pp. 300). As mentioned earlier, punishment is anything which weakens behaviour and tends to decrease it in subsequent frequency. Positive punishment is the method of administering negative consequences upon the occurrence of an action whereas Negative punishment involves the termination of positive consequences. In order to work, either case must weaken and decrease the behaviour which preceded the application or withdrawal of the stimuli. Skinner (1953) stipulated that we must defy the urge to label a form of stimuli as "desired" or "undesired" as a whole but rather to identify them by their effect on the observed subject.

Whether punishment is effective depends on the criteria applied or the objectives to be achieved. That is, before we can say it is useful we must ask whether we desire an immediate or a lasting effect, and at how high a cost. There is some evidence to suggest that when punishment is administered in the form of aversive stimulation, it acts to suppress behaviour temporarily. When it is withdrawn, the punished behaviour rapidly gains strength. If the punishment is more severe and given consistently, it may act to suppress behaviour for a longer period of time (Skinner, 1953). Historically, the efficacy of punishment has been appreciated only in the past few decades.

Early experimentation with punishment was restricted by a reluctance to inflict pain. For this reason, experimenters such as Skinner and Thorndike either chose not to resort to punishment or to implement relatively minor stimuli as punish ers. These constrained techniques allowed for the eventual return of the performance that was being disciplined, once the punishment was discontinued. However due to the recent use of more intense punish ers, proof of the effectiveness of punishment has emerged, thus reversing the prior negative conclusions (Lieberman, 2000).

Certain case studies, as reported in Browning and Stover (1971), have incurred results to support the value of punishment in modifying behaviour. One particular subject, Heidi, was referred to a treatment centre having been diagnosed with childhood autism. Heidi experienced little improvement from the application of social reinforcers and so it was determined that punishment may deliver more favourable results. The main behaviour that was targeted was self-biting and the punishment used was an electric shock administered immediately upon display of this behaviour. Whilst some complications had to be overcome "it was noted that, in the first day in which the electro-shock apparatus was employed by the investigator in an experimental setting, the self-injurious and aggressive behaviour's dropped out... ".

(Browning & Stover, 1971, pp. 208). Successful punishment techniques A relatively mild form of punishment, which is seen as one of the most effective in reducing mis behaviour, is that of 'time-out'. This technique involves "the withdrawal of an individual from a situation in which reinforcement is operating" (Blackham & Silberman, 1971, pp. 50). A study reported by Tyler (1965, cited in Blackham & Silberman, 1971) revolved around conditioning the behaviour of a group of delinquent juvenile boys that had been exhibiting undesirable actions around a pool table (e.g. throwing cue balls). The experiment was comprised of three phases. In the first phase the boys were sent to a time-out room for fifteen minutes of solitary confinement upon misbehaving.

The given explanation was; "You fouled up". During phase two, no punishment was implemented and the effects of a simple verbal reprimand were observed. As a result, mis behaviour quickly returned and the punishment was reinforced. In phase three, with the time-out consequence resumed, cumulative records of the undesirable actions decreased. The conclusion determined that a swift, brief period of time-out was a successful method in modifying behaviour.

Response-cost is another punishment technique which has been noted for its success. This is a negative punishment whereby a reinforcer, often points or money, is removed upon the occurrence of the targeted behaviour (Lieberman, 2000). Reynolds and Kelley (1997, cited in Lieberman, 2000) reported effective treatment of aggressive behaviour with the use of response-cost. This study involved four preschool children that were exhibiting highly aggressive traits. One subject in particular, Randy, responded very well to this method of punishment. To control Randy's behaviour, a chart was set up in his classroom which had attached to it a number of smiley badges.

When Randy misbehaved, a badge was removed. Small rewards could be bought with at least one of the 'smileys' at the end of the day and if this happened four times in a week, a toy could be obtained. This motivating technique saw a definite improvement in Randy's performance, lowering his initial rate of 31 aggressive incidents per hour, to just 6. Limitations and negative side effects of punishment Perhaps the main reason that punishment is such a contentious form of conditioning is that there are a vast number of requirements that need to be met to ensure its effectuality. There are certain areas in which a punishment will fail its objectives if a corresponding criterion is not satisfied. One restraint on the administration of discipline is its tendency to act in a temporary manner only.

Response recovery, as mentioned in Lerman and Vorndran (2002), can be attributed to less intense punish ers such as low-voltage shock with pigeons. It was found that sustaining the suppression of a certain response once punishment routines had ceased was generally unsuccessful. Another downfall of the utility of punishment is its inability to encourage the proper actions, contrary to those being penalized. "While punishment may lead to the suppression of the specific punished behaviour, it is unlikely to promote desired substitutes for that behaviour" (Gray, 2002, pp. 116).

For this reason, punishment alone cannot be expected to shape individuals to conform to appropriate behaviour. As cited in Lieberman (2000), a possible consequence of the presentation of an aversive stimulus is that it may cause reactions of aggression from the subject. An experiment conducted by Ulrich and Azrin (1962, cited in Lieberman, 2000), involved a litter of rats being coupled and placed in a test cage. Upon administering an electric shock through the cage floor, the authors reported that the rats would begin to rear onto their hind legs and push each other. Once the shocks were intensified, the rats would resort to biting one another in response.

Cancer ns have been raised about the unintended effects that punishment may have on other aspects of behaviour apart from those being rectified. "It can often be observed that the employment of aversive stimulation may act on behaviour other than the punished response and strengthen behaviour that is not desirable (e. g., lying to avoid an aversive consequence) " (Blackham & Silberman, 1971, pp. 47). The obvious problem here is that individuals may respond to punishment by directing their efforts toward avoiding detection rather than remedying the actions that are being disciplined, hence defeating the purpose of punishment. Components of an effective punishment It is important to note that the detrimental implications punishment may have can be removed if certain guidelines are followed in the administration process.

One significant determinant of the efficacy of a punishment is the intensity or magnitude of the punished being implemented. Lieberman (2000) argues that whilst it is undesirable to inflict more pain than is necessary, it is essential that the punishment be at least proportional to the mis behaviour. A study performed by Azrin, Holz and Hake (1963, cited in Lieberman, 2000) proved the effect that a difference in the severity of a punishment can have. By punishing pigeons at two different voltage levels of shock, for pecking a key that produced food, it was determined that the greater shock of 80 volts was sufficient to suppress the behaviour whereas a shock of 60 volts had little effect. This would suggest that the intensity of a punishment is relative to the extent that it modifies a certain behaviour al trait and can determine whether or not the behaviour is successfully removed. Another parameter that the utility of punishment depends on is that of adherence to a schedule.

"Basic findings indicate that the characteristics of responding during punishment may depend on the reinforcement schedule that maintains the behaviour, a factor that is especially relevant to application because problem behavior is likely to be maintained by some form of reinforcement during treatment" (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002, pp. 438). In the Azrin, Holz and Hake (1963, cited in Lieberman, 2000) study mentioned earlier, for example, the pigeons were initially trained to peck a key in order to receive food and then a shock was also made contingent on the pecking, while the reinforcement dependency was still in effect. The presentation of the shock was in accordance to a schedule varying from fixed ratio 1 (where every response was penalized) to fixed ratio 1000 (where 1 in 1000 were penalized). Punishment of every response was successful in completely suppressing pecking, however as the probability of punishment was reduced, the effect on responding decreased. These findings suggest that punishment must be implemented as consistently as possible to be effective. Timing of the impact of punishment is also critical in achieving its potential as a deterrent.

As stated by Luthans (1977, pp. 301), "Punishment is much more effective when applied at the time the undesirable behaviour is actually performed than at a later time". According to Lerman and Vorndran (2002) laboratory findings with rats inferred that the longer the time of delay between the performance of a response and the consequential shock, the lesser the degree of suppression that was experienced under punishment. Therefore, it is believed that the immediacy of interaction with behaviour is essential in allowing the subject being punished to associate the punished with the behaviour. Arguments have been put forward to suggest that the relationship between a disciplinarian and a subject is likely to affect the response that subject has to the punishment. Parke and Walters (1967, cited in Sanson, Montgomery, Gault, Gridley & Thomson, 1996, pp. 159) believe that "Punishment is more likely to have a deterrent effect if the punished has a close affectional relationship with the offender than if the relationship is distant and impersonal".

This belief would therefore indicate that the most valuable result of punishment able to be achieved is by someone who is close to and respected by the person being disciplined. One factor viewed as particularly important in accomplishing behaviour modification by punishment is the offer of an explanation. An explanation of why a certain punishment was used helps to clarify what behaviour is under scrutiny and why it is unacceptable (Lieberman, 2000). If the explanation assists in justifying the disciplinary action taken, this may not only increase the willingness of the individual to comply but also solves the problem of resentment. That is, understanding and acceptance should prevent aggression towards the punished and rebelliousness against the punishment. Punishment / Positive-Reinforcement strategies Discussion thus far has reported that punishment is realistically recognised as effective in weakening undesirable behaviour's.

However, it must be acknowledged that positive reinforcement is seen as a more effective measure of extracting desirable behaviour's. For this reason, as mentioned in Lerman and Vorndran (2002, pp. 439), "basic studies... have shown that the suppressive effects of contingent shock, noise or time-out were enhanced when reinforcement could be obtained in some manner other than, or in addition to, engaging in the punished response". In simple terms, behaviour modification depends on not just the removal of negative responses but also on the introduction of positive responses. Therefore, it would seem, the most effectual approach must incorporate the punishment of an act being followed by reinforcement of the correct act. Conclusion Punishment is an effective method of behaviour modification.

However, its effectiveness is reliant upon a number of factors which must be identified and acknowledged. These factors must be taken into consideration not only to improve the effects of punishment but also to prevent the outcome of a number of known negative side effects. The main advantages of punishment exist through its ability to act time-efficiently and overcome problem behaviour that reinforcement fails to discourage. In the same respect, punishment has limitations in its ability to condition, owing to the fact that it does not support correct behaviour and can spur aggressive reactions. This being said, the use of punishment to treat problem behaviour is a controversial issue which requires a vast amount of further research to properly determine its utility (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Ultimately, "if punishment is necessary, it should always be used in combination with positive reinforcement" (Luthans, 1977, p. 517).

Bibliography

Blackham, G.J., & Silberman, A. (1971).
Modification of Child Behaviour. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Browning, R.M., & Stover, D.O. (1971).
Behaviour Modification in Child Treatment. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc. Gray, P. (2002).
Psychology (4th ed. ). New York: Worth Publishers. Lerman, D.C., & Vorndran, C.M. (2002).
On the status of knowledge for using punishment: Implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35,431-464. Lieberman, D.A. (2000).
Learning, Behavior and Cognition (3rd ed. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson Learning. [Chapter 7] Luthans, F. (1977).
Organizational Behaviour. United States of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Sanson, A., Montgomery, B., Gault, U., Gridley, H., & Thomson, D. (1996).
Punishment and behaviour change: An Australian Psychology Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 31,157-165. Skinner, B.F. (1953).