AN INTRODUCTION TO
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 1
DEFINITION OF BEHAVIOR
MANAGEMENT
• How can this child’s behavior be changed?
Should I change it?
• Should I punish this behavior? Is it right to
punish students?
• Should I discuss this behavior with the
individual? Should I ignore it? Does he or she
even know it is a problem?
• Will this intervention work? Is it ethical?
What if there are side e ects?
• Behavior management is a teacher
function that must be studied,
planned, and objectively used and
evaluated, with equal emphasis
given to all relevant variables: the
individual or group whose behavior is
being studied, the behavior under
consideration, the setting in which
the behavior occurs, the individual
applying the intervention, and the
purpose of the intervention.
• Behavior management interventions
are de ned as all those actions (and
conscious inactions) teachers and
parents engage in to enhance the
probability that children, individually
and in groups, will develop e ective
behaviors that are personally
ful lling, productive, and socially
acceptable (Shea & Bauer, 1987).
• According to Garbarino (2008), we
live and function in an increasingly
complex society and, as teachers,
we are confronted with increasing
amounts of disruptive student
behavior. School personnel must
demonstrate leadership, creativity,
and patience as they develop more
e ective methods for preventing
and responding to inappropriate
student behaviors.
Evaluation for Intervention
• 1. Identify strong evidence of
e ectiveness, such as the use of
control groups, collection of outcome
data, and the size of the e ect of the
intervention.
• 2. If there isn’t strong evidence, is it
supported by evidence, such as
comparison groups and prospective
measurement of outcomes?
• Self-discipline, the goal of all
behavior management, is the
process of attaining control over
one’s personal behavior in a
variety of circumstances in
association with many
individuals and groups
ETHICS OF BEHAVIOR
MANAGEMENT
• The principles of learning have
caused confusion, concern, and in
some cases anxiety among those
individuals holding more traditional
views of human behavior. In the
application of behavior
management interventions, the
following questions are considered:
• Who shall decide who will be the
manager of behavior? Whose
behavior is to be managed?
• Who will control those who strive to
control behavior?
• What type of interventions shall be
applied? Why will they be applied?
Who determines that they are
legitimate? Why have they been
determined to be legitimate?
• The central issue is the
contributions of nature and
environment on behavior. The
behaviorist emphasizes the
external environment and
maintains that the in uence of
the environment is systematic,
constant, and the prime
determinant of behavior.
• Formalism suggests that all
individuals are born with rights
and needs that are superordinate
to the interests of society.
Formalism in uences an
individual’s ethical awareness by
rule- or principle-based rationales.
• Utilitarianism suggests that the
interests of society precede the
interests of the individual. From this
perspective, the use of aversive
management is deemed acceptable
if it facilitates the movement of the
individual from the position of
“burden on society” to “contributing
member.” Yet in U.S. society, the
formalist perspective of ethics is the
most acceptable for governing our
The Rights of Children
• In his seminal work, Allen (1969) proposed
three principles to guide individuals in the
helping professions in their actions toward
clients (children and adults) with disabilities.
These principles serve as the foundation of
all behavior management decision made
by teachers of both general and special
education students. They are (a) the
principle of normalization, (b) the principle
of fairness, and (c) the principle of respect
for the dignity and worth of the individual
Principle of Normalization
• The principle of normalization is to let the
person with a disability or who varies from his
or her peers obtain an existence as close to
the “norm” as is possible (Farrell, 1995).
Winance (2007), argues that practitioners
must avoid interpreting normalization as
bringing individuals with disabilities into line
with some sort of “able-bodied” norm. Rather,
normalization should involving working with
individuals with disabilities to provide
supports in the environment to reduce the
impact that the disability may have on typical
interactions with others and the environment.
PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS.
• The principle of fairness is
fundamental fairness—due process of
law—which requires that in decision
making a ecting one’s life, liberty, or
vital interests, the elements of due
process will be observed, including the
right to notice, to a fair hearing, to
representation by counsel, to present
evidence, and to appeal an adverse
decision (Allen, 1969).
• Although this principle is phrased in
legal terminology, it can be simply
stated: Is the intervention selected to
change this child’s behavior fair to
the child as an individual? Is the
impact of the consequence
equitable in terms of the impact of
the behavior?
• At times interventions are arbitrarily applied
on the whim of a practitioner without
concrete evidence that the child is, in fact,
exhibiting the target behavior. Frequently,
interventions are applied that only serve to
prohibit the child from nding any success in
school. For example, a child who has di culty
learning French grammar is prohibited from
going to recess, playing on the school athletic
teams, and so on. This child may be capable
of meeting success only in these prohibited
activities. As do all humans, the child has a
need for success. Interventions such as these
are unfair.
• Unfairness also occurs when a
practitioner refuses to apply an
intervention that is obviously
needed if the child is to function in
school. For example, we are
confronted with practitioners who
will not use tangible rewards simply
because they do not “believe in
them.” Yet the child whom they are
attempting to help is found to
respond only to tangible rewards.
Other examples of unfairness
might include the following:
• • refusal to try to modify a child’s
behavior systematically
• • unwillingness of teachers to provide
needed services or request consultation
because they believe that seeking help
is a sign of incompetence.
If the principle of fairness is to be
implemented, we must begin all decisions
from the point of view of the child’s
welfare: What does this child need?
PRINCIPLE OF RESPECT
• The principle of respect is one’s right to be
treated as a human being and not as an
animal or a statistic (Allen, 1969). In actions
toward children, are practitioners
demonstrating respect for them as human
beings? All interventions must be judged
against this question. When the
intervention is evaluated from this point of
view, many common “therapeutic”
practices are found to violate the principle
of respect.
The following are examples:
• • physical punishment (spankings, slaps, and
paddling);
• • psychological punishment (sarcasm,
embarrassment, and name-calling);
• • deprivation (prohibiting a child normal
opportunities for success, food, water, or typical
school activities);
• • segregation (arbitrary special class placement);
• • isolation (inconsistent, long-term use of time-out);
• • medication (capricious use of symptom-control
medications or failing to consistently and
appropriately administer mediation); and
• • extrahuman punishment (use of aversives,
restraints, and electric shock)
• All behavior management practitioners
must develop an ethical system that
incorporates the principles of normalization,
fairness, and respect for the dignity and the
worth of the child. This value system must
avoid the pitfall of justifying any means to
attain a desired end.
• Any intervention can be misused and
abused if the person using it lacks an
ethical system of personal and professional
values. Practitioners must never forget that
knowledge is power and that with power
comes the responsibility to apply that
power for the bene t of all persons