Punishment
Definitions?
• Learning from the consequences that produce pain or
discomfort
• The loss of reinforcers: This has survival value for the
individual and for the species.
• Punishment teaches us not to repeat responses that
cause us harm
• Any stimulus or event, when used contingently,
decreases the probability of a response.
Nature of Punishment
• Punishment is defined neither by
– the actions of the person delivering the
consequences
– nor by the nature of those consequences.
• A decrease in the future frequency of the
occurrence of the behavior must be
observed before a consequence qualifies
as punishment.
Definitions of Punishment
• Positive or Type I Punishment :
– Presentation of a stimulus (or an increase in the intensity of an
already present stimulus) immediately following a behavior
– results in a decrease in the frequency of the behavior.
– Spanking, electric shock, etc.
• Negative or Type II Punishment:
– termination of an already present stimulus (or a decrease in the
intensity of an already present stimulus) immediately following a
behavior
– results in a decrease in the future frequency of the behavior.
– Response cost, overcorrection
Discriminative Effects
• Stimulus condition in the presence of which a response
has a lower probability of occurrence than it does in its
absence
• Response-contingent punishment:
– Delivery occurs in the presence of a stimulus cue
– Punishment only occurs when emitting contingent response.
• Stimulus control is important:
– If punishment occurs only in some stimulus conditions and not in others: the
suppressive effects of punishment will be most prevalent under those
conditions
– Organism learns the setting conditions as to when punishment will occur
– E.g.: Teacher has to see you misbehave
Punishment is also Known as
Aversive Control
• Note that aversive events are associated with
both:
– positive punishment
– negative reinforcement
• Term aversive control is often used to describe
intervention involving either or both of these two
principles.
Aversive but not contingent?
• Aversive stimuli can also affect operant
behavior when given noncontingently
– That is, a targeted behavior neither produces
nor prevents the punisher
– when aversive stimuli occur independently of
responding.
• Most famous example is conditioned
emotional response (CER)
Conditioned Emotional
Response (CER)
• Basic set up:
– Rat must lever press to obtain food.
– Rat receives periodic pairings of tone with electric
shock. (tone signals the shock)
– Rat eventually press lever at a lower rate when
tone is on than when it is off.
• Phenomenon is called conditioned
suppression or conditioned emotional
response (CER; Estes & Skinner, 1941).
Why are CER’s important?
• The “threat” of an upcoming aversive event can
decrease responding
– Even when noncontingent
– Unpredictability produces GREAT CERs
• Because the aversive event is likely, organism
“prepares” or “gets ready” for the event
– Can be cued or uncued
– Really gets in the way of ongoing responses
• E.g., in dog training: if dog is afraid of being punished
– Rate of overall responding goes down
– Animal is afraid of punisher, so doesn’t ‘risk’ behaving
Parameters of Punishment
• Is all we learned about positive reinforcement
true, in mirror-image form, of punishment?
– Yes and no.
– Are some additional characteristics of punishment
• Any operant punishment situation is really a
punishment plus reinforcement situation.
– Just like any reinforcement situation =Sr + P
– If get punished, don’t get the reinforcer.
– If get the reinforcer, don’t get punished.
Punishment + Reinforcement?
• For punishment to suppress operant responding,
responses must already be occurring with some
frequency.
• For responses to occur, they must be producing
reinforcement.
• So, effect of punishment reflects interaction of two
contingencies--reinforcement and punishment.
• Jointly operate in most situations.
Punishment Effectiveness
• Punishing only reinforced response is often not an
effective procedure.
– Suppresses responses
– Doesn’t provide a “replacement” response
• If you give organism an alternative, unpunished route
to reinforcement, then effects of punishment are
enhanced.
• Always shape an incompatible response!
– A response that is the opposite of the inappropriate
response
– E.g., punish getting out of seat but reinforce sitting in seat
Punishment Intensity:
• As intensity of punishing stimulus
increases, degree of suppression
increases.
• If very intense shock is used, then
suppression may be virtually complete.
• Partially due to physiological effects;
partially due to contingency effects
Role of past experience!
• Experience with the punisher is important
– If never experienced shock, don’t know it hurts!
– Punishment effects are relative: What has been prior
experience and how is the punisher COMPARED to
previous punishers?
• Lots of research showing this:
– Suppressive effect of intermediate shock intensity depends
on animal’s past experience with shock.
– If animal has experienced intensities going from mild to
intermediate, then there will be little suppression.
– If animal has experienced intensities going from severe to
intermediate, then there will be substantial suppression.
Immediate is Best!
• For punishment to be maximally effective, it
must immediately follow operant response.
• As delay interval between response and
punishment increases, amount of
suppression decreases.
• Too many other behaviors can occur
between R and P; contingency not as
effective when initially using P
Probability of a punisher
• Initially: should be certain and follow each operant
response.
– Probability of punishment should be 1.0
– When responses are punished intermittently,
effectiveness of punishment procedure is reduced.
• Can shape towards partial schedule of punishment
• Is this different than what observe with
reinforcement? Think about it!
Recovery from Punishment:
Extinction
• When punishment is discontinued, suppressive
effects on responding ARE not permanent
• The rate of responding after punishment is
discontinued will
– not only recover
– But briefly exceed level at which it was occurring prior
to punishment
– Opposite of extinction burst
– Is this really surprising?
Unconditioned Punishers
• Unconditioned punisher: stimulus whose presentation
functions as punishment without having been paired with
any other punishers.
– Innate
– Biologically relevant
– Still, all organisms not respond the same!
• Unconditioned punishers will suppress any behavior that
precedes their onset.
• Again, is this similar to reinforcement?
How are Conditioned
Punishers different?
• Conditioned punisher is a stimulus that
functions as punishment as a result of a
person’s conditioning history.
– E.g., the word “no” is a conditioned stimulus
– A child’s name can become a punisher!!!!
• Acquires capability to function as punisher
through stimulus-stimulus pairing with one or
more unconditioned or conditioned punishers.
Extinction of Conditioned Punishers
• If responses occur in absence of punisher, the
response will return, potentially to prepunishment levels
• If the conditioned punisher is repeatedly
presented without the punisher with which it was
initially paired, effectiveness as punishment will
diminish until it is no longer a punisher.
Generalization and Discrimination
• Stimulus that has been paired with numerous forms of
unconditioned and conditioned punishers becomes a
generalized conditioned punisher.
• Stimulus that has been paired with only one specific
conditioned or unconditioned punisher becomes a
discriminated punisher.
Other factors influencing
effectiveness of punishment:
• Schedule or frequency of punishment
– Continuous punishment schedules knock down behavior more
quickly
– Partial punishment schedules keep behavior suppressed more
effectively
• Availability of reinforcement for the target behavior
– Must eliminate inadvertent sources of reinforcement for your
behavior targeted for punishment
– Teacher may punish, but the other kids may keep reinforcing “class
clown” behavior
• Availability of reinforcement for an alternative behavior.
– Punishment more effective if reinforce the opposite behavior
– Again, must give organism alternative path to the reinforcer that was
maintaining the unwanted behavior
Is time out a punisher?
• Yes, by definition it is a negative punisher
– Losing the opportunity to get reinforcement from
many other sources
– Again, to be effective, must really isolate so can’t
get reinforced.
• Time out is not isolation
– Time out is brief, focused and contingent
– Isolation is of long duration, often noncontingent,
and often not effective.
Rules for Using Time-Out
• 1 minute per year of age
– Not really effective for children under 6-9 mos
– For really little ones, VERY brief withdrawal of
attention
• Must be quiet to get the timer to start
• Cannot use for dangerous, disruptive or selfstimulatory behavior
• Must really be “time out” from other rewards
Negative Punishment
• Response cost: your response costs you
something or some behavior
• OVERCORRECTION: two parts
– Restitution: reinstatement of environment
(clean up)
– Positive practice: practice better response for
situation
– Can also use satiation/habituation
Guidelines for using
positive punishment
• Behavior must be (immediately) dangerous to
person or others
• Rate of responding is so high that there is NO
chance to interrupt and reinforce “good” behavior
• Must have tried other alternatives
• An example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13UcT1FVVts
Examples:
• Severe self injurious behavior (SIB)
• Highly aggressive behavior to others
• Behavior which creates in immediate
danger for self or others
– Running into the street
– Pulling a hot pan off the stove
Using Punishment?
Side effects and ethical issues:
• Elicitation of undesirable emotional response and aggression
• Escape and Avoidance
• Increased rate of the problem behavior under nonpunishment
• Modeling undesirable behavior
• Not teaching the learner what to do
• Overusing punishment because of the negative reinforcement it
provides the punishing agent.
Punishment effects
• Traditional Definition: Any contingent event
which results in a decrease in operant
responding
• New Definition: Punishment effects are
Produced when schedule constraints produce
a state of of disequilibrium
• Give the individual “Too much” of something
contingent on a behavior
Positive Punishment Interventions:
Reprimands
• Delivery of verbal reprimands following the occurrence of
misbehavior is an example of attempted positive
punishment.
• Reprimands given repeatedly may lead to habituation to
the reprimand.
Why not use negative reinforcement?
• Side effects: don’t like the person
delivering negative reinforcer
• Uneven and sporadic behavior
• Strong stimulus cues: only behave when
“sD” is around: when teacher not there,
the kids go wild!
Response Blocking
• Physically intervening as soon as the person begins to
emit the problem behavior
– prevent or “block” the completion of the response
– show to be effective in reducing the frequency of some problem
behaviors.
• Suppressive effects of response blocking may be due to
punishment or to extinction.
• Side effects: aggression and resistance to the response
blocking procedure
Overcorrection:
• contingent on the problem behavior, the organism is required
to engage in effortful behavior that is directly or logically
related to the problem.
• Two Forms:
– Restitutional: Restoring environment
– Positive Practice: practicing the correct response
• Contingent Exercise: organism is required to perform a
response that is not topographically related to the problem
behavior.
• Both overcorrection and contingent exercise developed out of
Premack’s principle/Disequilibrium
Contingent Electric Stimulation
• More than 100 studies have demonstrated that
contingent electric stimulation can be a safe and highly
effective method for suppressing chronic and lifethreatening self-injurious behavior (SIB).
• Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS)
– Functional analyses have shown that these behaviors occur for
• Attention
• Escape
• Pain or self stim
– Extinction is ineffective; sometimes must punish
– But also must reinforce!
Guidelines for punishment
• Behavior must be dangerous to person or
others
• No chance to interrupt and reinforce
“good” behavior
• Tried other alternatives
Remember:
• Punishment as part of a behavior change program has
nothing to do with retribution.
• Punishment is not about threats.
•
When punishers are threatened and not delivered, the
organism learns that your verbal threats are not
associated with the actual punishing behavior.
Using Punishment Effectively
Use the Least Intensity of Punishment That is Effective
• Ethical guidelines and the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative
require that punishment be:
– the most effective
– but least intrusive form of punishment
• Punishment is most effective when the learner can make other
responses for reinforcement.
• The more reinforcement the learner obtains by emitting appropriate
behavior, the less motivate he will be to emit the problem behavior
Using Punishment Effectively
Deliver the Punishment Unemotionally
• Punishment should be delivered in a business-like,
matter-of-fact manner.
• Resist statement such as, “I told you so.” “Now, you’ve
gone and done it.” and “What do you have to say for
yourself?”
• All you want to do is modify behavior, not make people
atone for their sins.
Least Restrictive Alternative
• less intrusive procedures should be tried and found to be
ineffective before more intrusive procedures are implemented.
• View punishment as falling along a continuum of
restrictiveness from least to most.
• A procedure’s overall level of restrictiveness is a combined
function of
– its absolute level of restrictiveness
– the amount of time required to produce a clinically acceptable
outcome
– the consequences associated with delayed intervention.
Right to Effective Treatment
• Failing to use a punishment procedure that research has
show to suppress self-destructive behavior similar to the
client’s is unethical because
– it withholds a potentially effective treatment
– may maintain a dangerous or uncomfortable state for the person.
• Consult local, state, or professional association policy
statement regarding the use of punishment.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCWyGHno2c
Positive Punishment Interventions:
Reprimands
• Delivery of verbal reprimands following the occurrence of
misbehavior is an example of attempted positive
punishment.
• Reprimands given repeatedly may lead to habituation to
the reprimand.
Response Blocking
• Physically intervening as soon as the person begins to
emit the problem behavior
– prevent or “block” the completion of the response
– show to be effective in reducing the frequency of some problem
behaviors.
• Suppressive effects of response blocking may be due to
punishment or to extinction.
• Side effects: aggression and resistance to the response
blocking procedure
Overcorrection:
• contingent on the problem behavior, the organism is required
to engage in effortful behavior that is directly or logically
related to the problem.
• Two Forms:
– Restitutional: Restoring environment
– Positive Practice: practicing the correct response
• Contingent Exercise: organism is required to perform a
response that is not topographically related to the problem
behavior.
• Both overcorrection and contingent exercise developed out of
Premack’s principle/Disequilibrium
Contingent Electric Stimulation
• More than 100 studies have demonstrated that
contingent electric stimulation can be a safe and highly
effective method for suppressing chronic and lifethreatening self-injurious behavior (SIB).
• Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS)
– Functional analyses have shown that these behaviors occur for
• Attention
• Escape
• Pain or self stim
– Extinction is ineffective; sometimes must punish
– But also must reinforce!
Guidelines for punishment
• Behavior must be dangerous to person or
others
• No chance to interrupt and reinforce
“good” behavior
• Tried other alternatives
Remember:
• Punishment as part of a behavior change program has
nothing to do with retribution.
• Punishment is not about threats.
•
When punishers are threatened and not delivered, the
organism learns that your verbal threats are not
associated with the actual punishing behavior.
Using Punishment Effectively
Use the Least Intensity of Punishment That is Effective
• Ethical guidelines and the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative
require that punishment be:
– the most effective
– but least intrusive form of punishment
• Punishment is most effective when the learner can make other
responses for reinforcement.
• The more reinforcement the learner obtains by emitting appropriate
behavior, the less motivate he will be to emit the problem behavior
Using Punishment Effectively
Deliver the Punishment Unemotionally
• Punishment should be delivered in a business-like,
matter-of-fact manner.
• Resist statement such as, “I told you so.” “Now, you’ve
gone and done it.” and “What do you have to say for
yourself?”
• All you want to do is modify behavior, not make people
atone for their sins.
Least Restrictive Alternative
• less intrusive procedures should be tried and found to be
ineffective before more intrusive procedures are implemented.
• View punishment as falling along a continuum of
restrictiveness from least to most.
• A procedure’s overall level of restrictiveness is a combined
function of
– its absolute level of restrictiveness
– the amount of time required to produce a clinically acceptable
outcome
– the consequences associated with delayed intervention.
Right to Effective Treatment
• Failing to use a punishment procedure that research has
show to suppress self-destructive behavior similar to the
client’s is unethical because
– it withholds a potentially effective treatment
– may maintain a dangerous or uncomfortable state for the person.
• Consult local, state, or professional association policy
statement regarding the use of punishment.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCWyGHno2c
Let’s look at some examples
Warning: This may be hard to
watch
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWSz_Cuk9Q
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1lK77Jl
aI
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE8HjxOC
0G0