>The reason that punishment is sometimes not effective is that the target
>behavior is still being reinforced. And, in fact, if the reinforcement
>contingency can be identified and eliminated (e.g., stop presenting food
>following lever presses), this will lead to extinction of the response, and
>punishment isn't necessary. This is another argument against the use of
>punishment, namely, that in some situations it isn't necessary because the
>target behavior can be eliminated via extinction instead, and this is
>generally less aversive for everyone.
>----------
>Patrick S. Williams
>Dept. of Social Sciences
>University of Houston-Downtown
This is a consequence of the basic asymmetry between reinforcement and
punishment.
Since reinforcement is defined as an increase or maintenance of a behavior
produced by a consequence of that behavior, one can start with a zero or
near-zero rate behavior when there is no contingency, and increase that
rate with reinforcement.
Since punishment is defined as a _decrease_ in the rate of a behavior
produced by a consequence, one must start with a behavior with a rate
greater than zero (negative rates don't have a real-world meaning). This
presumes past or present reinforcement of that behavior.
Thus, punishment cannot occur independently of the effects of reinforcement.
The difference between the effects of intermittant reinforcement and
intermittant punishment is that in the case of reinforcement, it is
possible for intermittant reinforcement to be more effective (in terms of
rate or persistence) than continuous reinforcement. Hence the interest in
reinforcement scheduling with both positive reinforcement and avoidance
(negative reinforcement).
With punishment, on the other hand, it is possible to completely suppress a
behavior with a instance of single high intensity punishment. This becomes
a limiting case; intermittant punishment cannot be more effective in terms
of its effect on behavior.
For a good current discussion of the application of intermittant
punishment, see:
Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., Shore, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (1997).
Effects of intermittent punishment on self-injurious behavior: An
evaluation of schedule thinning.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 187-201.
available online at:
<http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwvgl/jaba_articles/jaba_articles.htm>
"ABSTRACT
Although the use of punishment often raises ethical issues, such procedures
may be needed when the reinforcers that maintain behavior cannot be
identified or controlled, or when competing reinforcers cannot be found.
Results of several studies on the effects of intermittent schedules of
punishment suggest that therapists must use fairly rich schedules of
punishment to suppress problem behavior. However, residential caretakers,
teachers, and parents often have difficulty implementing programs that
require constant monitoring of the client's behavior. In this study, we
examined the feasibility of gradually thinning the delivery of punishment
from a continuous schedule to an intermittent schedule during the course of
treatment for self-injurious behavior (SIB). Results of functional analyses
for 5 individuals who had been diagnosed with profound mental retardation
indicated that their SIB was not maintained by social consequences.
Treatment with continuous schedules of time-out (for 1 participant) or
contingent restraint (for the other 4 participants) produced substantial
reductions in SIB. When they were exposed to intermittent schedules of
punishment (fixed-interval [FI] 120 s or FI 300 s), SIB for all but 1 of
the participants increased to levels similar to those observed during
baseline. For these 4 participants, the schedule of punishment was
gradually thinned from continuous to FI 120 s or FI 300 s. For 2
participants, SIB remained low across the schedule changes, demonstrating
the utility of thinning from continuous to intermittent schedules of
punishment. Results for the other 2 participants showed that intermittent
punishment was ineffective, despite repeated attempts to thin the schedule.
DESCRIPTORS: hand mouthing, punishment, intermittent punishment,
self-injurious behavior"
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
