Punishment Technology: Positive & Negative

Positive Punishment

• Positive punishment involves presenting a stimulus to decrease the likelihood of a behavior in the future.
• Examples of positive punishment variations include verbal reprimands, brief physical restraint, and demands.

Negative Punishment

• Negative punishment involves removing a stimulus to decrease the likelihood of a behavior in the future.
• Subcategories of negative punishment procedures include response cost and time out.
• Response cost is the contingent removal of a specific amount of a positive reinforcer.
• Time out is the contingent loss of access to reinforcement for a specific time.

Development of Punishment Technology

• Research with nonhumans has helped shape effective punishment techniques.
• Applied literature spanning over 45 years has highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of using punishment.
• Research aims to create safe, effective punishers for individuals with intellectual developmental disorder (IDD).
• Effective especially for severe problem behaviors that risk harm to the individual, caregivers, or environment.

Current Trends in Punishment Research

• Research on punishment has been declining in recent decades.
• The decline in use is thought to be from advances in functional analysis of problem behavior
• There are also more function-based treatments available

Considerations for Using Punishment

• Punishment is still important for individuals with severe forms of problem behavior.
• Punishment may be needed if a behavior analyst cannot identify or control reinforcers maintaining the behavior.
• This also applies when function-based treatments are not effective.
• Punishment can be the best choice for life-threatening behavior requiring rapid reduction to prevent physical harm.

Function-Based Punishment

• Clinicians should only use punishment with some knowledge of the relevant consequences.
• Function-based punishers are more likely to be effective, given relevant information.

Clinical Indications for Punishment

• Initial interventions involving reinforcement, extinction, and establishing operations do not have clinically acceptable results.
• Problem behavior requires immediate intervention using procedures to produce rapid decrease in responding.

Punishment Classification

• These classifications can be by form, function, or both for procedural variations of punishment.
• Commonly used procedures include multiple potential punishing stimuli.
• Procedures are often categorized as punishment based on behavioral effects.
• Procedures effective as punishment for some might have different functions for others.

Organization of Punishment Procedures

• The positive-punishment group involves presenting an aversive stimulus contingent on behavior.
• The negative-punishment group involves removing preferred or reinforcing stimuli contingent on behavior.

Positive-Punishment Procedures

• Stimuli like verbal reprimands, demands, physical contact, water mist, tastes, smells, noise, and shock may decrease problem behavior.
• Some stimuli have not been evaluated as much as others

Verbal Reprimands

• Brief statements of disapproval or instruction can effectively punish problem behaviors for SIB, aggression, pica, rumination, and stereotypy.
• Researchers have been able to turn reprimands into punishers
• Reprimands paired with eye/physical contact, and physical nearness increased effectiveness.
• Effectiveness occurred when reprimands are provided for the issue behavior of other individuals

Response Blocking

• Response blocking is the use of brief physical contact to prevent a response from occurring.
• Response blocking may be due to extinction rather than punishment in some cases.

Physical Restraint

• Physical restraint limits an individual's movement, unlike response blocking that only prevents the response.
• Types can include hands down, baskethold, and movement suppression time out.
• Physical restraint is implemented with other potential punishers.
• Time out from positive reinforcement is a component of any physical restraint.

Overcorrection

• Requires an individual to engage in an effortful response following problem behavior.
• Restitutional overcorrection involves restoring the environment to a state better than before the problem behavior
• Positive-practice overcorrection requires repeatedly practicing an appropriate/related behavior.
• Overcorrection has similar affects to other contingent-effort procedure.
• Results of studies examining the effects of overcorrection on the practiced response have been inconsistent

Other contingent-effort procedures include

• Contingent demands required completing tasks unrelated to the problem behavior.
• Negative practice required repeatedly exhibiting the problem behavior.
• Contingent exercise required performing motor movements unrelated to the problem behavior.
• Response interruption and redirection require vocal responses or questions when vocal stereotypy occurs

Water Mist

• Water mist can decrease problem behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities.
• A water bottle at room temperature is pointed away from the eyes, and a water mist is deployed for each problem behavior

Aversive Tastes and Smells

• Aversive tastes such as vinegar or lemon juice, or smells such as aromatic ammonia can be used for problem behavior
• Therapists squirted a small amount of unsweetened concentrated lemon juice or vinegar in the mouth for self-stimulatory behaviors
• They also applied aromatic ammonia by holding a capsule under the individual's nose for a certain time.

Noise

• Noise is a punisher for finger/thumb sucking, hair pulling, and auditory hallucinations.
• Participants would wear a device that detected hands moving towards the mouth and produced a 65-decibel tune.
• The thumb sucking decreased to near zero.
• The tone may have functioned as a punishing stimulus.

Shock

• Society considers shock the most concerning punishment, but it creates durable and rapid reductions in SIB/aggression.
• Previous studies delivered brief, moderate-intensity shocks through electrodes attached via movement detection devices

Limitations of Shock

• Shock isn't shown to increase the risk of side-effects
• Some cases show it is a safe alternative to other procedures

Negative-Punishment Procedures

• This is the contingent loss of reinforcement or the chance to obtain reinforcers for some period.

Time Out

• Removing someone to, or away from, a less reinforcing environment (exclusionary/seclusionary time out)
• Discontinuing reinforcement in the current environment (nonexclusionary time out).
• Research has examined a range of time-out durations, but there are inconsistent results
• Lengthens based or contingent release have not conferred any additional benefits

Variations of Nonexclusionary Time Out

• Visual screen involves placing a hand/mask/cloth over a participant's eyes.
• The time-out ribbon is a ribbon worn by participants that is removed when they misbehave
• Contingent observation makes participants stay near the reinforcement environment.
• Item removal terminates stimulation sources, like music, materials, and food.
• Time out might be response cost to some, but time-based reinforcement loss is time out.

Response cost

• Time out may involve physical restraint.
• No studies have examined the effects of physical contact for time outs

Response cost vs Token Economy Systems

• Effective punishment through contingent removal of a specific amount of reinforcement, like tokens.
• Much response cost research comes in the form of token-economy systems
• Books/Audio-tapes, money, and participation in events all have been lost to response cost

Identifying Reinforcers

• Remove items to avoid food, and/or refusing to accept a bite of food, contingent on bite acceptance
• Researches do have little evalutation of methods for determining appropriate types and amounts of reinforcers in response cost

Selection of Punishment Procedures

• Guidelines mandate the analyst prioritizes the least restrictive procedure, which is clinically effective.
• Necessary to arrange punishment procedures based on restrictiveness/intrusiveness or aversiveness.
• Nonexclusionary time out and response cost are the least restrictive, followed by exclusionary time, overcorrection, and others

Case studies and examples

• Levels: system usage and guidelines
• States: policies that categorize procedures by restrictive level

Trial and Error system

• Clinicians evaluating punishment procedures start with less restrictive, then move more restricted till they become effective
• Starts with 5 minute time out for children, and scales up to overcorrection if symptoms persist
• Assumption that restrictive is high probability of success, there is also no empirical support

Topography of the Procedure

• The hierarchical approach emphasizes this over functions; it ignores the possibility that intrusive tactics might act as reinforcers
• Concern that exposure to progressively intrusive interventions increase the chances of habituation to said interventions
• Clinicians should consider a range of factors: effects, relevance, severity, willingness to partake

The best process

• The best process is one that assessment identifies the intervention for concern
• Selects punishment based on severity, restrictive, with caregiver willingness
• The assessment avoids the trial-and-error approach that is commonly used

Analyzing Function

• Function is especially important when a clinician decided to include punishment
• Procedures are indicated vs contraindicated for functions
• Punishment is effective combined with extinction/differential reinforcement.
• Withold identified functional reinforcers and give only for preferred issues

Multi Level Analysis

• Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) has a useful comprehensive analysis
• The experiment effectively identifies the function
• Tests can reveal any sensitivity or lack there-of to what could punish the behavior
• The analyst tests for: reprimands (verbal) with time out, and various conditions to test

Water Mists and Physical Contacts

• Verbal + Physical Contact: Deliver for no effect with the specific issue + behavior, and you can not punish
• If lower behavior exists in attention, consequence can signal intervention
• Results may show that attention is reinforcer, which will contract any efforts
• On the other hand, those with decrease in behavior may signal that a time out is needed
• Those issues can be analyzed in demand (attention) with verbal ( increase or decrease) contacts and (physical) touch

Quantitative Review

• Results on research punishments are the same, even if a functional analysis existed
• If no function is present, a punishment can have the same base effect as reinforcment
• A full analysis might narrow your options, additional assessments will also typically be needed

Stimulus Avoidance

• A method that is more practical
• This researcher evaluated stimulus with response
• Evaluates participant responsiveness with 15-180 second trials with water/time-out, efforts, ect
• The Researchers presented punishers as is, with Buzzer (superstitious) to not cause over conditioning

Avoiding Behaviors

• Avoided if: (floor dropping), (tears/cries), (laughing) all are observed when you test that method
• Any processes linked with avoidance + tears, seem to function, the highest chances of punishing
• The assessment had predictive validity, where other types+parameter assessments came out

Brief Punisher

• Shorter time and quick application, is more optimal
• Combine results with restrictions and then you can prescribe most appropriate intervention
• Researchers assessed caregivers and were involved with ratings
• They rated how un/acceptable the punishments were
• The un/acceptable punishments were removed

Punisher Measurement

• Evaluate implement efforts for each process
• How hard is to reduce the issues, and allow those to continue as a test factor
• This is useful, it is important especially on the factor of caregiver
• Brief tests for punishments are useful for finding intervention
• You can obtain metrics with immediacy and side effects, as you conduct your tests

Activity Assessment

• This system is based on previous research
• This is the test between baseline and observation, for the relative time to evaluate available activities
• Research will predict activity linked to less and small chances, these chances will punish

Student Evaluation

• In a research group, students engaged in small activities
• running, tracing and playing ball, to improve and punish
• The researchers selected a few things (spontaneous) and tested

Conclusion - Activity analysis

• Activity assessments are appealing, because they create a range of potential punishers, increasing the chances of intervention
• Caregivers may find the procedures and responses to be acceptable

Choice Assessment

• Analyst may use these to guide intervention selection, as the multiple punishers become fully available
• Analyst test these by talking to caregivers, obtaining verbal reports and more
• Interventions depend on knowledge and experience of said problems
• Clients preferences are selected and recorded by the analysts

Using Punishment Effectively

• Punishment research has shown that it can be very highly effective, moreso than reinforement or extinct
• Clinicians were observed in applied scenarios, with their effectiveness not fully known
• Common punishment applications can cause less intervention effectiveness
• Some things can undermine an attack, while reinforcement helps

Contiguity effectiveness

• Analysts should also test with conditions
• Some effectiveness research has shown to not reduce responding if its been delayed, just for 10-30 seconds
• Analyst should also review material such as instructions, to establish conditions
• Some analysis has shown that stimuli has been effective with previous attacks or contact, a therapist will have to apply their skills

Time based analysis

• Is there any data and/or results where intensity reduces the problems
• Can the procedures be useful in the long run
• If not, clinicians still make use of a punishment that is brief and effective

Schedule of enforcement

• The level of research shown will increase effective behavior, mostly if the enforcer is there
• It should be done on target on the schedule, and not intermittently

Magnitude + Levels

• The higher tests cause a better understanding of said influence
• All levels will need to have higher intensity shock, where magnitude happens
• Researchers need to make clear that some durations lead to problems (habituation)
• Cliniciains will need to implement what is useful and be brief

Reinforcement resources

• As stated previously, research and levels also create better reinforement
• It is more common it is when individuals can engage on alternative sources
• Researcher are to improve that the reinforceme for this problem
• Punishment will most common when a learner starts the new tests
• Over certain conditions + with past behavior, a punished learner is a discriminated learner

Condition Punishers

• Effective enforcer (time, effect, ect) will increase and continue to reduce the enforcer through treat
• This can happen and work even when the people are using minimal force
• Researchers need to assess with new settings

Behavior changes

• Unpunished responses
• Positive side: they feel like they are improving so things are better
• Researchers has said that (people, activities + tools) has shown to affect behaviour

Unwarranted Side Effects

• Basic findings will need for learners to be exposed to difficult or negative feelings
• Collateral shifts across these responses, must be addressed in the (context + timeline)
• Minimizing vulnerability where possible
• Researcher need to have a full focus, they are meant to limit + change

Conclusion statement

• Numberable process has an overall affect with any person
• Analyst team is able to ensure that all members are to assist the tests