Another significant component is the delay between when the behaviour occurs and when the punishment is administered. This time period can affect the strength of the association between the behaviour with the aversive stimulus and therefore influence the likelihood of the behaviour decreasing (Leiberman, 2000). Research findings by Misanin, Campbell and Smith (1966) with rats show that the longer the delay between the episode of the behaviour and the delivery of the punishment, the smaller the amount of response suppression under punishment. This delay effect can be minimised when an explanation is used to describe that the behaviour stimulus had resulted in the punishment; although clearly this is not possible for animals (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Furthermore, punishment that is administered shortly after the behaviour has occurred is more resistant to extinction, since the association is stronger (Leiberman, 2000). Therefore, if the delay of punishment is much after the behaviour has occurred the association may not be made as a cause – effect relationship or may be quite weak so that if the same situation occurs again then the undesired behaviour will most likely be observed (Leiberman, 2000).
Furthermore the schedules of punishment play a significant role in the maintenance of the modified behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). In Skinner’s research, rats that had been previously taught to press a lever to obtain food were now either punished for pressing the lever (experimental group), or did not receive any food once the lever had been pressed (control group) (Ferster, Culbertson & Boren, 1975). In this experiment the rats in the experimental group were only administered punishment for the first ten minutes on the first day, in which the rate they pressed the lever dramatically fell; however after a 48- hour period both the experimental and control group pressed the lever an approximately equal amount of times, as shown in Figure 1 (Ferster, Culbertson & Boren, 1975). This provides evidence that unless constant administering of punishment continues the behaviour is only temporarily suppressed (Leiberman, 2000). Since it is unethical and impractical to continually administer punishment, many including Skinner concluded that punishment was an ineffective and undesirable technique for changing behaviour (Leiberman, 2000). However, this thinking was not completely justified as it was based on very little evidence (Leiberman, 2000).
PRESERVATION OF MODIFIED BEHAVIOUR
The durability of treatment using punishment is a key component to whether punishment is an effective way of modifying behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). The durability of the modified behaviour seems to vary according to the effectiveness of the punishment (Leiberman, 2000). Such factors that influence the effectiveness of punishment have already been discussed earlier such as intensity, delay and schedules of punishment (Leiberman, 2000). However, it seems that there is no correct method to ensure that the punished behaviour is suppressed indefinitely (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Conclusions from research findings on the preservation of modified behaviours have proven hard to establish as many of the research involved administering electric shock currents and therefore may not be applicable to other more mild punishment (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Also, in many cases the reinforcing consequences of the undesired behaviour were not known prior to the start of the treatment and therefore maintenance of the modified behaviour could have been increased if the reinforcer was withheld or made readily available depending on the resultant behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Furthermore, in many studies components of the original experiment were modified over time and therefore made it difficult to determine which, if any, treatment was responsible for the reduction in the undesired behaviour (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).
ROLE IN BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
Punishment can play a crucial role in behaviour modification if the problem behaviour must be suppressed quickly to prevent serious physical harm (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). This has been used to treat the self-destructive behaviour in severely retarded children (Foster, 1974). This research conducted by Foster (1974) showed that severe punishment was able to completely suppress the self-destructive behaviour and reinforcement was able to then increase the frequency of a modified behaviour. In these extreme circumstances the undesired behaviour needs to be reduced or completely suppressed immediately and usually only punishment enables this modification within the timeframe allocated (Leiberman, 2000.)
SIDE EFFECTS
The long-term effects of punishment are currently being investigated especially with its effect on children. The impact of extremely severe punishment can produce devastating psychological problems clearly seen in the experiment by Masserman and Pechtel in 1953 with their work on wild monkeys (Leiberman, 2000). However, clearly the effects are not always this devastating when milder punishment is involved (Leiberman, 2000). A more frequent side-effect observed is punisher-elicited aggression which is especially seen when the punishment is unavoidable (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). This can be seen in the experiment by Ulrich, Wolfe and Dulaney (1969) in which Squirrel monkeys were restrained in a chair equipped with a tail-shock apparatus and were exposed to varying levels of electric shocks. There was also pneumatic bite hose located in front of the subject's face (Ulrich, Wolfe & Dulaney, 1969). When no electric shock was given, bitting of the hose remained at a relatively low level, however when regularly scheduled shocks were introduced this caused a consistently higher rate of biting (Ulrich, Wolfe & Dulaney, 1969). This biting of the hose was interpreted as aggression and thus this increased when the punishment was administered (Ulrich, Wolfe & Dulaney, 1969). This phenomenon is observed to a lesser extent when subjects were able to exhibit a response to escape punishment, for example pressing a lever (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).
Another side-effect of punishment is that it may serve as a model for aggressive behaviour, especially in children (Leiberman, 2000). Bandura’s imitation experiment shows the effect of modelling. It involved exposing nursery school children to an adult that was aggressive towards a bobo doll (Leiberman, 2000). After the children were exposed to this modelling by the adult they were significantly more likely to show aggressive behaviour towards the doll, than those children in the control group that were not exposed to the model behaviour (Leiberman, 2000). This could suggest that children who are consistently punished using aggressive behaviour could then model this behaviour (Bandura, 2006).
SUCCESS OF PUNISHMENT
The overall effectiveness of punishment as a behaviour modification technique is somewhat subjective due to one’s personal beliefs (Leiberman, 2000). From the definition, if an aversive stimulus reduces the likelihood of a specific behaviour occurring then it can be considered successful (Ferster, Culberston & Boren, 1975). However if this aversive stimulus also elicits other psychological side effects it can ethically be considered a failure as a behaviour modifying technique (Leiberman, 2002). This therefore creates a controversial and ethical debate about the true nature of a successful punishment (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).
Punishment is usually characterised by the addition of an aversive stimulus which decreases the likelihood of undesirable behaviour occurring (Perster, Culberston & Boren, 1975). However, the maintenance and effectiveness to treat the problem behaviour is reliant on many components. These components require a specific balance so that punishment will completely suppress the behaviour indefinitely, however this balance is relatively unknown (Leiberman, 2000). Also, there is and may always be a controversial aspect surrounding punishment, specifically the side effects it can cause, however it has proved to be a crucial feature in behaviour modification for extreme circumstances (Lerman & Vondran, 2002). Furthermore, with the overall success of punishment being very subjective in manner, it appears that there will never be a definite answer surrounding whether this technique is effective in behaviour modification. However with further research into the effects of punishment and ways to maximise its use in changing behaviour, punishment may not be considered such a traditional technique of behaviour modification.
Figure 1 – shows the effect of punishment on responding during extinction (Leiberman, 2000). Pressing the bar was punished in the first 10 minutes is the extinction + punishment (experimental) group however not punished in the extinction (control) group.
References
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (2006) Chapter 4 – Influence of Models Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses. Bandura, A. Psychological Modelling: Conflicting Theories, (pp.112-127). New Jersey, USA: Aldine Transaction.
Ferster, C.B.; Culbertson, S.; Boren, M.C.P. (1975). Behavior Principles (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J,USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Foster, S. E. (1974). Use of behaviour modification techniques in behaviour training of severely and profoundly retarded children. Slow Learning Child, 21(1), 24-37.
Leiberman, D. A. (2000). Response suppression. In Learning: Behavior and cognition (3rd ed., pp. 249-283). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Lerman, D.C.; Vorndran, C. M. (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment: Implications for treating behaviour disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 431-464.
Misanin, J.R.; Campbell, B.A.; Smith, N.F. (1966). Duration of punishment and the delay of punishment gradient. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 20(4), 407-412.
Parke, R.D. (2002). Punishment revisited – science, salues, and the right question: Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 596-601. Retrieved from http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/
Ulrich, R.; Wolfe, M.; Dulaney, S. (1969). Punishment of shock-induced aggression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(6), 1009-1015. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1338712