Corporal Punishment

This paper examines the reasons why corporal punishment in the judicial sphere has fallen into moral disfavour in recent decades. Standard objections to the practice, both practical and ethical, are considered and found to be inconclusive. It is argued that corporal punishment is not inevitably more cruel or demeaning than conventionally preferred punitive methods and that consideration should be given to its limited experimental reintroduction.     

MULTICOMPONENT ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT OF CIGARETTE PICA

We conducted a multicomponent assessment and treatment for 4 individuals who engaged in cigarette pica. During Phase 1, three stimulus preference assessments were conducted to identify (a) the reinforcing component of the cigarette, (b) potential alternative reinforcers that may be used during treatment, and (c) whether the alternative reinforcer would compete effectively with cigarettes. Results were successful in identifying the reinforcing component of the cigarette and suggested the feasibility of using alternative reinforcers during treatment to eliminate cigarette pica. During Phase 2, the effects of two treatment procedures were evaluated. Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) with the alternative edible reinforcer reduced the pica of 2 of the participants, but effects were not maintained when the initial dense schedule of NCR was thinned. Subsequently, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior with the alternative edible reinforcer was effective in reducing pica for 3 participants. An evaluation of nine treatment procedures failed to identify an effective intervention for the remaining participant; consequently, preventive measures were designed to minimize occurrences of cigarette pica.     

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EXTINCTION AND PUNISHMENT EFFECTS OF RESPONSE BLOCKING: A REPLICATION

Lerman and Iwata (1996) described a method for distinguishing between sensory extinction and punishment effects of response blocking on self-injurious behavior maintained independent of social contingencies. Results of their study suggested that blocking decreased the self-injurious hand mouthing of their participant via punishment. The current replication of these procedures with the self-injurious eye poking of a woman with developmental disabilities produced patterns of responding indicating that, for this participant, blocking functioned as an extinction procedure.     

Time-allocation matching between punishing situations

In the presence and absence of white noise, response-independent aversive events were delivered to rats according to several variable-time electric-shock schedules. The animals could switch from the noise component to the no-noise component and vice versa by making a single lever-press response. If the schedule in one component was not in operation when the animal was in the other component, the proportion of time allocated to one component equalled or matched the proportion of obtained punishers in the other component. If both schedules were always in operation, minimizing tended to occur: the animals allocated almost all of their time to the component having the lower shock rate. An analysis of these results, in terms of the expected time until an aversive event, is presented.     

Effects of ratio contingencies on responding maintained by schedules of electric-shock presentation (response-produced shock)

Squirrel monkeys' lever pressing was established under fixed-interval schedules of electric-shock presentation (response-produced shock). After appropriate temporal patterns of lever pressing were engendered, either fixed-ratio schedules of shock presentation were added to the fixed interval, or yoked variable-ratio schedules were substituted for the fixed-interval schedules. When fixed-ratio schedules were added, there was an initial rise in response rate and schedule-appropriate patterns of responding developed. After many sessions, however, responding ceased abruptly, in some cases with remarkable quickness. When variable-ratio schedules were substituted, responded declined gradually and eventually was poorly maintained. Ratio contingencies may not support responding as well as interval contingencies when electric shock is the maintaining event.     

Punishment-specific effects of pentobarbital: dependency on the type of punisher.

Pigeons were trained to peck a key under a multiple random-interval 1-minute, random-interval 6-minute schedule of food presentation. Subsequently, over three phases, additions were made during the random-interval 1-minute component as follows: pecks during the component occasionally were punished by timeout presentation (Phase 1), timeouts were presented independently of responding during the component (Phase 2), pecks during the component occasionally were punished by electric-shock presentation (Phase 3). In Phases 1 and 3, response-dependent timeout and shock suppressed responding and established equivalent rates in both components of the multiple schedule. Intermediate doses of pentobarbital increased responding suppressed by electric-shock punishment but had little or no effect on responding suppressed by timeout punishment. Response-independent presentation of timeouts did not result in suppression of responding (thus showing that response-dependent timeout acted as a punisher), and pentobarbital did not reliably increase unpunished responding. Pentobarbital's selective "punishment-attenuating" properties depend on the nature of the punisher.     

Fixed-ratio discrimination: effects of intermittent reinforcement

Four pigeons had discrimination training that required the choice of a left side-key after completing a fixed-ratio 10 on the center key, and a right side-key choice after fixed-ratio 20. Correct choices were reinforced on various fixed-interval, fixed-ratio, random-interval, and random-ratio schedules. When performance was examined across successive 15-second intervals (fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules) accuracy was high in the first 15-second interval, decreased in one or several of the next 15-second intervals, and then increased again as reinforcement was approached. When performance was examined across correct trials on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules, accuracy was lowest immediately after reinforcement, followed by a systematic increase in accuracy as the number of correct choices increased. These patterns were due primarily to errors on fixed-ratio 20 trials. Systematic accuracy patterns did not occur on random-interval or random-ratio schedules. The results indicate that when choice patterns differed on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules, the differences were due to the method of data analysis.     

SIDE EFFECTS OF THERAPEUTIC PUNISHMENT ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND EYE CONTACT

The effects of therapeutic punishment delivered following inappropriate behavior on the academic responding and eye-to-face contact of 2 persons with developmental handicaps was examined using a counterbalanced alternating treatment design. Each subject was sequentially taught by two therapists each day. While one of the therapists taught the subject, the second therapist stood in close proximity directly behind the subject. During baseline, neither therapist delivered punishment following inappropriate behavior. During the treatment condition, one of the therapists delivered all punishment regardless of whether she was teaching or standing behind the subject. The therapist who delivered all punishment for 1 subject did not deliver any punishment for the other subject. During the last condition, the therapist delivering all punishment was reversed for 1 of the subjects. The results indicated that the task being taught was mastered by each subject only when the therapist delivering punishment was teaching. Data collected also indicated that each subject made more eye-to-face contact when the therapist delivering all punishment was teaching. Although neither therapist had to deliver punishers often, punishment had to be administered less often when the therapist teaching the subject was also the therapist delivering punishment.     

AVERSIVE CONTROL: A SEPARATE DOMAIN?

Traditionally, aversive control has been viewed as a separate domain within behavior theory. Sometimes this separateness has been based upon a distinction between reinforcement and punishment, and sometimes upon a distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. The latter is regarded here as the more compelling basis, due to some inherent procedural asymmetries. An approach to the interpretation of negative reinforcement is presented, with indication of types of experiments that support it and that also point to promising directions for further work. However, most of the interpretive issues that arise here are relevant to positively reinforced behavior as well. These include: possible reformulation of the operant/respondent distinction; the place of emotional concepts in behavior analysis; the need for simultaneous, complementary analysis on differing time scales; the understanding of behavioral situations with rewarding or aversive properties that depend as much upon the contingencies that the situations involve as upon the primary rewarding or aversive stimuli that they include. Thus, an adequate understanding of this domain, which has been traditionally viewed as distinct, has implications for all domains of behavior-analytic theory.     

Interresponse-time punishment: a basis for shock-maintained behavior.

Lever pressing of squirrel monkeys postponed brief electric shock according to a free-operant shock-postponement procedure. Pressing also produced shock with a probability proportional to the duration of the current interresponse time in some conditions, or to the fifth ordinally-preceding interresponse time in others. These conditions provided equal frequencies and temporal distributions of response-produced shocks either contingent on or independent of the current interresponse-time duration, respectively. Shock delivered contingent on the current interresponse-time duration resulted in shorter mean interresponse times and higher overall response rates that shock delivered independent of the current interresponse time. In subsequent conditions, response-produced shocks were sufficient to maintain responding following suspension of the postponement procedure only when those shocks were contingent on the current interresponse time. Presenting shock independent of the current interresponse time, conversely, suppressed response rate and ultimately led to cessation of responding in the absence of a conjoint shock-postponement procedure. These results demonstrate interresponse-time punishment in the absence of any indirect avoidance contingencies based on overall shock-frequency reduction, and strongly support similar interpretation at the more local level of shock-frequency reduction correlated with particular interresponse times. Differential punishment of long interresponse times also provides both an a priori basis for predicting whether a schedule of shock presentation will maintain or suppress responding and a framework for interpreting many of the functional relations between overall response rate and parameters of consequent shock presentation. Finally, these results and others indicate the importance of response-consequence contiguity above and beyong any notion of noncontiguous contingency in the control of behavior.