An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUNISHMENT AS A BEHAVIOUR
MODIFICATION TECHNIQUE 1
An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique
Vinayak Dev
University of Auckland

Abstract
Punishment is an important behaviour modification technique that has been under contention
for as long as it has been used. Hence, the following essay sought to explore the contention
around its use, while comparing and analysing the evidence in the literature for and against it,
while also exploring two of its dominant models, that is, the direct-suppression model and the
competitive-suppression model. In doing so, it was discovered that the effectiveness of
punishment outweighs its potential risks and ethical issues. This was due to the observation
that the majority of the literature against the use of punishment highlighted its potential to
induce aggression and negative emotions; while the literature for it, demonstrated a vast array
of potential benefits, which included, its effectiveness in the treatment of stereotypy, self-
stimulatory behaviours, and drugs and alcohol issues, modification of socially disruptive
behaviours in sociopaths and criminals with MR, potential to induce complete and immediate
response suppression especially when the problem-causing variables cannot be identified,
controlled or manipulated, and when response-reinforcement relationship cannot be disrupted
completely, and the need for limited resources. Hence, the analysis concluded that punishment
is a viable and effective behaviour modification technique which has its limitations but none
that cannot be outweighed by its potential benefits.
Keywords: Punishment, models, effectiveness, behaviour, modification, comparison

An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique
Punishment, under a behaviourist paradigm, is defined as an environmental change or
a stimulus that leads to the reduction in the probability of a behaviour occurring in the future
(Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Negus, 2005). This is in contrast to the more traditional view of
punishment as behaviour modification technique that leads to lower levels of responding
(Holth, 2005). According to Skinner (1953), punishment is contingent on the ‘punished’
responses being followed by either a removal of a reinforcing stimulus or the presentation of
an aversive stimulus. Skinner (1953) also highlighted the possible ways in which punishment
leads to reduction in the probability of behaviour occurring in the future. These three ways
include, provision of an incompatible environment for the behaviour to occur in, elicitation of
a previously punished conditioned stimulus, and reinforcement of the behaviour that reduced
conditioned aversive stimulation, respectively (Skinner, 1953). There are two types of
punishment, that is, positive punishment and negative punishment, which involve the addition
and removal of stimuli, respectively (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002).
There is evidence in the literature to demonstrate the effectiveness of punishment,
which, in certain contexts and situations, even surpasses that of reinforcement strategies
(Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). However, in comparison to reinforcement, punishment is thought
to lead to unintended negative consequences in the long-run for both the punished and the
punisher, which include amongst others, generation of negative emotions, anxiety, and
development of a predisposition to escape or retaliate (Skinner, 1953). Considering the positive
and negative facets of punishment, the following essay seeks to evaluate its effectiveness as a
behaviour modification technique by evaluating and comparing evidence in the literature for
and against it.

Models of punishment
The two dominant models of punishment prevalent in the literature include, the direct-
suppression model (Figure 1; de Villiers, 1980) and the competitive-suppression model (Figure
2; Deluty, 1976). The direct-suppression model was proposed under a study by de Villiers
(1980) that sought to extend the matching law
equations (Figure 3 and Figure 4) to include
situations involving punishment. The study
involved having two sets of experiments
conducted on pigeons (n = 6) maintained at about
80% of their free-feeding weights (FFW), with three
of them being used in each experiment (de Villiers,
1980).
The two experiments involved giving the
pigeon the choice to peck on either of the two buttons,
one of which resulted in the provision of food (green
for two pigeons and red for one), while the other
(green for one pigeon and red for two), in the
provision of a 115V electric shock, under varying
initial probabilities of pecking on each key and frequencies of food reinforcement (de Villiers,
1980). If at least five sessions had past, and there was no noticeable trend in the relative and
absolute response rates, the conditions were swapped (de Villiers, 1980).
The experiments demonstrated the relative reinforcement frequency on the VI 1-min
schedule to increase but the relative response rate to overmatch relative reinforcement rate, at
the highest shock intensities (de Villiers, 1980). This overmatching was predicted by the
subtractive model (Figure 1) derived from the matching law equations (Figure 3 and Figure 4),
Figure 1. Direct-suppression model (de
Villiers, 1980)
Figure 2. Competitive-suppression
model (Deluty, 1976)
Figure 3. Matching law equation 1 (de
Villiers, 1980)
Figure 4. Matching law equation 2 (de
Villiers, 1980)

which also proposes that we can directly reduce the strength of response under reinforcement,
by using punishment, that is, punishment subtracts from the effect of the reinforcement (de
Villiers, 1980). There is evidence in the literature to support a subtractive model of punishment,
including studies by, Lie and Alsop (2009) on human signal detection, and Critchfield, Paletz,
MacAleese and Newland (2003) on using monetary loss as punishment.
The contrary, competitive-suppression, model was proposed by Deluty (1976) in a
study that sought to analyse the effects of punishment delivered on a random interval schedule,
on the lever pressing behaviour of rats (n = 3), in an experiment that also had them on a random
interval reinforcement schedule for the same behaviour. The experiment involved reinforcing
the rats with food on the pressing of one of the two levers presented to them while also
punishing them, with electric shocks, intermittently on the pressing of the other one of the two
levers, both on a random interval schedules (Deluty, 1976). The shock frequency was constant
on one of the levers, while being varied on the other (Deluty, 1976). In doing so, it discovered
that the pressing behaviour of the rats decreased steadily as the punishment severity increased
(Deluty, 1976). It also discovered that the response rate on the lever with lower punishment
severity increased as compared to the other lever, despite still being punished on pressing that
lever and being reinforced for pressing both (Deluty, 1976). Based on this observation, the
contribution of this model, to the corresponding literature and the field in general, was to
propose that the punishment of one behaviour will proportionally increase the effect of
reinforcement on a contrary behaviour (Deluty, 1976). As it essentially proposes that the effects
of punishment on one response add to the effect of reinforcement on another, it is an additive
model (Figure 2), unlike the direct-suppression model (Figure 1) proposed by de Villiers
(1980). There is limited evidence in the literature to support the validity of an additive model
of punishment, which primarily includes studies by, Lie and Alsop (2007) on signal detection,
and Negus (2005) on choice behaviour in rhesus monkeys.

Despite providing models for punishment, which had not existed until the publication
of the two studies, and demonstrating the effectiveness of punishment as a behaviour
modification strategy, both the aforementioned studies focussed on analysing the effects of
punishment on behaviour in conjunction with reinforcement. Thus, the effect and useful of
punishment implicated in the two studies might not be valid in the absence of reinforcement,
which makes punishment seem redundant as a behaviour modification strategy in and of itself;
even though the competitive-suppression model hypothetically predicts the effect of
punishment in maintaining the responding to the alternative stimuli, which, in the case of
Deluty (1976) study, was the pressing of the lever that resulted in less severe punishment. More
studies focussing on analysing the effects of punishment on behaviour in the absence of any
reinforcement schedules are therefore needed to make any inferences and generalisations about
the potential effects and effectiveness of punishment in influencing the behavioural responses
of the organisms it is implemented on. Some of the studies that have sought to do so will be
discussed in the sections below.
Evidence for effectiveness
Basic research findings have consistently demonstrated that certain types of
punishments, such as, noise, blasts of air, shock and time-out can produce complete and
immediate response suppression in certain organisms, including pigeons, rats and humans,
which can be especially useful in situations where problem behaviour needs to be suppressed
immediately to prevent the host of the problem behaviour severely harming themselves or other
people in their environment (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). In situations where the problem-
causing variables cannot be identified and controlled and manipulated, punishment can be
effective strategy for treatment (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Repp & Singh, 1990; Vollmer &
Iwata, 1993).

Punishment is an effective strategy to be used when response-reinforcement
relationship cannot be disrupted completely (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Punishment can also
be an effective strategy to use when the resources are limited and reinforcement cannot be
continuously provided or be provided in progressive increasing magnitude to compensate for
any habituation effects. This can be observed in the results of a study conducted by Kubanek,
Snyder and Abrams (2015), focussing on analysing the difference between reinforcement and
punishment in guiding behaviour. The study involved having its participants engage in a
computer-based activity whereby reinforcement and punishment were implemented by the
provision and deduction of monetary points, respectively (Kubanek et al., 2015). In doing so,
it discovered that the increase in behaviour following a reinforcement, that is, monetary-points
gain, was proportional to the magnitude of the reinforcement; however, in the case of
punishment, that is, monetary-points deduction, the magnitude of the punishment-induced
avoidance effect was flat and had no association with the magnitude of the punishment
(Kubanek et al., 2015). Hence, the participants had to be provided with an increasing amount
of reinforcement to maintain the same behaviour over time, whereas with punishment, the same
amount was enough to maintain the behaviour over time. This can be quite important and
beneficial for applied settings in which funding and resource provision is limited and therefore,
is likely to benefit from a strategy that does not require a constant increase in magnitude, which
potentially also requires an increasing amount of money and resources to maintain, as opposed
to a strategy that maintains the same rate of responding despite being provided at the same
magnitude over time.
Another study that demonstrated the effectiveness of punishment in maintaining a
behaviour even after the punishment schedule had been withdrawn, was a study by Kelleher
and Morse (1968) that explored the effects of using electric shocks to maintain the behaviour
of a squirrel monkeys. The study had the monkeys being put on a 10-min fixed-interval (FI)

electric shock schedule which was administered using electric chairs that the monkeys were
restrained to (Kelleher & Morse, 1968). The response behaviour of the monkeys was measured
using the pressing of keys that were placed in reach of the monkeys while they were restrained
to the chairs (Kelleher & Morse, 1968). In doing so, the study observed the key pressing
behaviour of the monkeys being maintained under the same schedule as the shock presentation,
even after the shock presentation schedule was discontinued (Kelleher & Morse, 1968). The
results of this study were expanded on, in a subsequent study, by Kelleher and Morse (1969)
which noted that the key pressing behaviour of monkeys was unlikely to be maintained by FI
schedules and more likely to be maintained by a positively accelerated (whereby the intensity
and frequency of the shock needs to be increased over-time) combination of fixed-ratio (FR)
and FI schedules. However, considering that the monkeys were restrained to chairs and given
electric shocks, this study is quite dubious when considered from a current ethical viewpoint;
which also makes any replication of such a study unlikely to happen in the near future.
The results of Kelleher and Morse (1968) and Kelleher and Morse (1969) were,
however, replicated in a study by Galbicka and Platt (1984) that too focussed on analysing the
effectiveness of using electric shocks as punishment in maintaining the lever-pressing
behaviour of squirrel monkeys. As with Kelleher and Morse (1968) and Kelleher and Morse
(1969), the study too noticed the response behaviour of the monkeys being maintained post-
punishment schedule, even during the absence of it (Galbicka & Platt, 1984). In addition to
replicating and verifying the results of the Kelleher and Morse (1968) and Kelleher and Morse
(1969) studies, the Galbicka and Platt (1984) study also highlighted the importance of inter-
response time (IRT) between punishment and response in predicting the strength of
maintenance of response behaviour, whereby the shorter the IRT, the higher the magnitude of
the response behaviour, thereby highlighting the importance of response-consequence
contiguity.

The effects of punishment on the future probability of a behaviour become observable
much more rapidly than can be explained by extinction, satiation and differential reinforcement
(Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Additionally, in contrast to what is observed with reinforcement,
in punishment, a continuous instead of an intermittent schedule is more effective in modifying
the behaviour (Carvalho et al., 2005). This was demonstrated in a study by Carvalho et al.
(2005) that separately compared the effects of both continuous and intermittent punishment
schedules on the lever pressing behaviour of rats by exposing them to hot air blasts, and in
doing so, discovered that the continuous punishment schedule condition led to a 98.4%
suppression in the pressing behaviour, while the intermittent punishment condition led to a
71.15% suppression (Carvalho et al., 2005).
Punishment can also be an effective strategy compared to reinforcement-based
measures in the treatment of stereotypy and self-stimulatory behaviour. This is because it is
practically difficult to find reinforcers that can compete with automatic reinforcement in terms
of sensory gratification, which consequently also makes such behaviours difficult to control
and reduce. The evidence for this comes from a study conducted by Doughty, Anderson,
Doughty, Williams and Saunders (2007) that sought to reduce the frequency of stereotypic
behaviours using punishment in adults with severe to profound ‘mental retardation’ (n = 3).
The study gave discriminative punishment training to the three participants and measured their
stereotypic behaviour before and after the intervention (Doughty et al., 2007). In doing so, it
discovered that the stereotypic behaviours of its three participants reduced from being, 60.6%
(range = 40 - 75%) of the intervals during baseline to 0.6% (0 - 1.7%) post-intervention, 66.4%
(48.3 - 86.7%) to 0.6% (0 - 3.3%), and 74.5% (70 - 80%) to 0.9% (0 - 1.7%), respectively
(Doughty et al., 2007).
A similar issue with using reinforcement strategies is also present in the case of drugs
and alcohol use (and abuse) behaviour due to the difficulty of finding reinforcers to compete

with the sensory gratification achieved by drug use. Thus, punishment-based strategies can also
be useful in these situations. A study by Negus (2005) provided evidence for this by analysing
the effects of punishment in influencing the choice of rhesus monkeys in selecting cocaine or
food. The study trained the monkeys (n = 3) under a concurrent choice schedule of food (FR-
100, 1g) or cocaine injection provision (FR-10, 0 - 0.1mg/kg) (Negus, 2005). Cocaine
functioned better as a reinforcer than food and led to the monkeys consistently selecting it over
food over time; however, pairing cocaine with histamine, which acted as a punishment,
decreased the frequency and probability of that behaviour occurring the future and caused the
monkeys to start selecting food over cocaine (Negus, 2005). This demonstrates the over-
powering effect of punishment over reinforcers in modifying the behaviours of the organisms
they are implemented on. Additionally, the magnitude of the preference of one choice over
another, was directly proportional to the magnitude of the punishment, that is, the amount of
histamine provided (Negus, 2005). This observation, however, is in direct contrast with an
observation of Kubanek et al. (2015) study, whereby the effect of punishment on its
participants’ behaviour and response rate was not contingent on its magnitude and there was
no apparent correlation between an increase in punishment and the corresponding amount of
avoidance behaviour. This makes the credibility of each of those observations dubious and
validates the need for more research to be conducted focussing on this aspect of punishment,
in future.
Punishment is also shown to be effective in managing the behaviours of sociopaths
(Schmauk, 1970). A study by Schmauk (1970) demonstrated the effectiveness of using tangible
punishment (loss of money), social punishment (saying ‘wrong’) and physical punishment
(electric shock) in the listed order, in reducing the learned behaviours of sociopaths (n = 90),
by exposing them to various learning tasks, such as drawing a path through maze and punishing
them for the incorrect responses. A Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) reading was also taken

from the participants as they were performing the learning tasks, which too reduced after the
punishment interventions (Schmauk, 1970). For the purpose of the analysis, the participants
were equally divided into three punishment groups, that is, tangible punishment, social
punishment and physical punishment which included the use of loss of money, saying ‘wrong’
and electric shock as punishers, respectively (Schmauk, 1970).
The study noticed that the incorrect and GSR responses of the sociopaths in these
conditions decreased in the order, and being reflective, of the perceived severity of the
punishment conditions, whereby the most reduced responding was observed in the tangible
punishment, social punishment and physical punishment conditions, respectively (Schmauk,
1970). Though, the study has not been replicated since and no corresponding reinforcement-
based studies exist in the currently accessible literature to provide a comparison between the
effectiveness of punishment and reinforcement in modifying sociopathic behaviour.
Furthermore, if drawing through mazes and other such problems can be generalised to socially
problematic behaviours of sociopaths, is arguable, which the study provides no substantial
argument or evidence for. The study also did not explicitly explain the relevance of using GSR
and how data obtained from it relates, and contributes, to the outcome of the study.
A study by Hopfensitz and Reuben (2009) that focussed on analysing the factors
influencing the effectiveness of social punishment, discovered that emotions such as guilt and
anger need to be present in order for social punishment to have an effect. When this is
considered in conjunction with the fact that the study by Schmauk (1970) focussed on
sociopaths, who by definition are anti-social or socially detached (Mealey, 1995), it becomes
difficult to comprehend how social punishment could have had a greater effect than tangible
punishment (loss of money) in modifying their behaviour. This indicated towards the results
of either of the studies being potentially dubious.

Evidence against effectiveness
Punishment is not always effective as a behaviour modification technique. In a study
by Ayllon and Azrin (1966), whereby female patients of schizophrenia (n = 3) were exposed
to a two-response operant condition, represented by two plungers, in which, pressing of one of
the plungers led to noise as a punishment on an FR 1 schedule, while the other did have any
consequence, it was observed over a period of time, that the participants started selecting the
response that did not have any consequence. This demonstrates the effectiveness of punishment
in modifying behavioural responses of individuals. However, in another condition, punishment
was paired with a token reinforcement on FR 1 and 50 schedules respectively, and it was
observed that the participants, despite finding noise aversive, as evident in the first condition,
still selected the response that led to it, arguably due to the reinforcement they gained from the
same response (Ayllon & Azrin, 1966). However, as the participants in this study were people
with chronic schizophrenia (Ayllon & Azrin, 1966), it is not certain if the observed results can
be generalised to the larger population.
This indicates towards the reinforcing effects of at least some reinforcers, in this case,
tokens, being more effective than punishment, in this case, noise, in modifying response
behaviours. Additionally, punishment can potentially lead to unintentional negative
consequences, such as those highlighted in studies by Morris and Gibson (2011), and Turner
and Muller (2004), that focussed on analysing the long-term effects of childhood corporal
punishment and discovered that a large proportion of its participants who had experienced
corporal punishment, were, on average, more likely to exhibit symptoms indicative of
depression and substance abuse, and negative social behaviour such as, aggressiveness and
delinquency. Considering this, in cases where the effects of punishment can be overpowered
by the effects of a reinforcer, a reinforcement-based strategy, ethically should, and therefore is,
likely to be preferred.

A study by Felson and Russo (1988) that focussed on analysing the effects of parental
punishment on children and their relationship with their siblings, discovered that parental
punishment was proportional to the magnitude of aggressive behaviour demonstrated by the
children that received the punishment, which also negatively impacted the relationship between
those children and their siblings. The study also discovered that parental punishment was
usually implemented on the older and the male sibling during a conflict between siblings and
that aggression was most common amongst siblings with an age difference of six years or less
and being of the same sex (Felson & Russo, 1988). To measure the responses, the study gave
its participants (n = 292) and their parents questionnaires to fill out, which included questions
that asked them to rate their frequency and intensity of, aggression against siblings and
punishment implemented on children, respectively (Felson & Russo, 1988). As the correlations
between the questionnaire answers received from children and their parents were only
‘moderate’ at best (r = 0.33 and r = 0.25), it makes the data obtained by the study quite dubious
to then derive further conclusions from. Additionally, the layman connotations of the word
‘punishment’ might differ from the specific behaviourist definition of it, which could have led
to distorted results.
The results of this study, however, were consistent with those of a study, conducted by
Leung (1991), using almost identical methodology, with the exception of focussing on the
relationship between children and their teachers, instead of parents, in a classroom setting. The
study too highlighted the negative effects of punishment which lead to lower class engagement
and worse performance on learning outcomes, in contrast to ‘reward’-based learning strategies
that resulted in better engagement and learning outcomes (Leung, 1991).
The results of this study are in agreement with those of a study conducted by Smith
(2006) that highlighted the negative effects of punishment in their contribution towards the
development and maintenance negative developmental outcomes in children. The study

demonstrated a positive correlation between physical punishment and childhood aggression,
mental health problems (such as depression), lower intellectual achievement, antisocial
behaviour, diminished moral internalisation, and poorer quality of parent–child relationships
(Smith, 2006). Even though the study did demonstrate the effectiveness of physical punishment
in inducing short-term compliance (Smith, 2006), if the same effect cannot be achieved with
the use of a reinforcement-based strategy, is debatable.
However, a potential issue with this study, in addition to Felson and Russo (1988) and
Leung (1991) studies, was that it was conducted under a non-behaviourist paradigm, with
potential lack of understanding of the behaviourist definition of, and perspective on,
punishment, and no systematic quantitative analysis of behaviour and subsequent processing
and interpretation of the results under, and in relation to, behaviourist theories. This makes
them less credible in being used as evidence to demonstrate the ineffectiveness and counter-
productiveness of punishment as a behaviour modification strategy. Additionally, all three
studies focussed on analysing the effects of physical punishment, which still leaves no
contradicting evidence towards the effectiveness of non-physical-punishment-based strategies,
such as the ones using social or monetary punishment. Moreover, there is evidence to
demonstrate that the effects of physical punishment varying across cultural contexts and types
of parent-child relationships (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997) and the effects of culture on
teaching and learning processes (Tharp, 1989), which indicates towards the mediating effects
of these variables in distorting the results of the three studies. A major limitation of all the three
discussed studies is also that they are not experimental in nature, and cannot be so due to ethical
constraints, which therefore, limits their credibility in asserting a definite direction of causation
from physical punishment to detrimental behavioural outcomes.
One of the major issues with the use of punishment-based interventions as highlighted
by Felson and Russo (1988), Leung (1991) and Smith (2006), especially in applied settings, is

the consequent aggressive behaviour that it is thought to elicit. However, a study by Ulrich,
Hutchinson and Azrin (1965) that focussed on analysing aggressive behaviours in mammals,
discovered that it is mediated by the level of pain that the mammals are experiencing. This is
also consistent with the results of a study by Berkowitz, Cochran and Embree (1981) which
discovered a correlation between pain and aggressive behaviour in human female participants
who were asked to dip their hands in painfully cold water, as opposed to those in the control
group who were asked to put them in moderately warm water. Hence, the aggression observed
following physical punishment in Felson and Russo (1988), Leung (1991) and Smith (2006)
studies can potentially be explained by the pain the participants suffered before demonstrating
aggressive behaviours.
Thus, aggression can arguably be thought of as a product of pain instead of punishment,
which indicates towards the use of non-pain-eliciting punishment-based procedures to still be
justified as they arguably cannot lead to aggression with the absence of pain as a mediating
factor. This is further substantiated in a study by Azrin (1970), which focused on analysing the
relationship between punishment and aggressive behaviour in squirrel monkeys, demonstrated
that a punishment-based procedure is likely to lead to aggression when it is not contingent on
a behaviour of the animal it is being used on. The study used two conditions, whereby in the
first condition, the squirrel monkeys (n = 3) were given electric shocks which were non-
contingent on their behaviour, and in the second condition, they were given electric shocks
contingent on their biting behaviour, which was also seen as an indicator of aggression (Azrin,
1970). It was observed in the two conditions that as the magnitude of the non-contingent
punishment increased, the biting behaviour, that is, the aggression-indicator, increased too;
while, as the magnitude of the contingent reinforcement increased, the biting rate, that is, the
behaviour it was contingent on, reduced, respectively (Azrin, 1970).

This indicates towards the effectiveness of punishment-based procedures in potentially
reversing any behavioural side-effects of other punishment-based procedures. The results of
the Azrin (1970) study are consistent with those of a study by Ulrich and Azrin (1962) which
also demonstrated punishment-induced aggression in rats (n = 2) that were originally docile,
under a similar non-contingent shock procedure (Ulrich & Azrin, 1962). A strong positive
correlation was observed between shock intensity and fighting procedure that also generalised
to interaction with other animals, as the rats were observed to initiate fighting behaviour even
when put in the company of a hamster and a guinea pig; whereas no fighting occurred in the
absence of the non-contingent electric shock (Ulrich & Azrin, 1962).
Thus, more research is needed that focuses on developing and analysing the effects of
punishment-based strategies that do not cause pain in the animals they are used on and are
contingent on the behaviour of those animals, so that it can be discovered if the animal still
exhibits negative emotions or behaviours as a by-product of a punishment-based strategy,
following its use.
Punishment in the form of incarceration is also not an effective strategy in modifying
those behaviours of the incarcerated individuals for which they were incarcerated. The
evidence for this comes from a meta-analysis of 117 studies focussing on analysing the effects
of sanctions for females, juveniles and population minorities on future recidivism, conducted
by Smith, Gendreau and Goggin (2002), which discovered that incarcerations and intermediate
sanctions, as opposed to popular public perception, do not lead to a reduced probability of
future criminal recidivism.
However, an alternate punishment-based strategy devised by Foxx and Azrin (1972)
that sought to reduce the socially deviant and disruptive behaviour of criminals, demonstrated
a decrease in aggressive and disruptive behaviour of its participant after the identification of
reinforcement for the offence, removal of that reinforcement by using time-out, and an using

effort-requirement strategy to change the criminal behaviour into more productive, socially
acceptable behaviours (Foxx & Azrin, 1972). Though, as the participant recruited in this study
had MR and brain damage, it is arguable if its results can be generalised to the larger
population, especially in relation to the removal of reinforcement for the offence, as for some
criminals at least, the reasons for committing a crime, or the reinforcement they receive from
it, are likely to be too complex to completely comprehend and counter.
Developing more effective and less intrusive punishment-based procedures is,
therefore, necessary, especially considering that the popular perception of punishment-based
procedures is negative, while some administrators consistently perceiving and labelling
punishment-based procedures as ‘unethical’ and ‘dehumanising’ (Griffith, 1983), and the
general population preferring the use of reinforcement-based behaviour modification
procedures over electric shocks, drug therapy and time-out from reinforcement (Kazdin, 1980).
Conclusion
Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that punishment, as a behaviour modification
technique, is both effective and ineffective in certain situations, as compared to other strategies.
Most of the evidence against punishment primarily focusses on its potential of inducing
aggression-like behaviours and negative emotions, which thereby restricts its utility, especially
in applied contexts. However, most of the studies that demonstrate this correlation tend to
exclusively focus on physical punishment and its influence on children (Felson & Russo, 1988;
Leung, 1991; Morris & Gibson, 2011; Turner & Muller, 2004; Smith, 2006) or criminals
(Gendreau & Goggin, 2002).
Additionally, there is evidence to demonstrate that the aggressive behaviour that seems
to have been induced by punishment is likely to be a result of pain acting as a mediating factor
(Berkowitz et al., 1981; Hutchinson & Azrin, 1965), especially when the punishment is non-

contingent on the behaviour of the organisms it is implemented on (Azrin, 1970; Ulrich et al.,
1965). Hence, making punishment-based strategies non-painful, and specific and contingent
on organisms’ behaviour, with the use of procedures, such as, loss of points or money, time-
out, and lack of access to previously accessible reinforcers, can potentially lead them to
overcome the issue of inducing aggression and negative emotions in the organisms they are
implemented on. This also validates the need for further research that needs to be conducted in
developing and exploring the effects of non-painful and non-intrusive types of punishment-
based strategies.
Punishment, in its presently used forms, does have its limitations, however, there is
substantial evidence in the literature to demonstrate its effectiveness in the treatment of
stereotypy and self-stimulatory behaviours (Doughty et al., 2007) and drugs and alcohol issues
(Negus, 2005), modification of socially disruptive behaviour in sociopaths (Schmauk, 1970)
and criminals with MR (Foxx & Azrin, 1972), in inducing complete and immediate response
suppression (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002) especially where the problem-causing variables
cannot be identified, controlled and manipulated and when response-reinforcement relationship
cannot be disrupted completely (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Repp & Singh, 1990; Vollmer &
Iwata, 1993), and when the resources are limited and reinforcement cannot be continuously
provided or be provided in progressively increasing amounts to compensate for any habituation
effects (Galbicka & Platt, 1984; Kelleher & Morse, 1968; Kelleher & Morse, 1969; Kubanek
et al., 2015).
However, punishment is not selective and specific in terms of the behaviour that it
makes the organism it is implemented on, learn, as the punished organism only learns what not
to do, in order to prevent getting punished (Thorndike, 1932). This can make it potentially
difficult to devise a practical strategy based on punishment, and implement it in an applied
setting, compared to reinforcement. Additionally, there is also related a risk of suppressing

non-targeted behaviours and leading to the development of unwanted new behaviours, by using
a non-specific punishment-based strategy. If these issues are not managed, then the
punishment-based strategy can potentially lead to the abuse of the organisms it is implemented
on (Griffith, 1983); thereby leading to more ethical issues.

References
Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1966). Punishment as a discriminative stimulus and conditioned
reinforcer with humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9(4), 411-
419. doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-411
Azrin, N. H. (1970). Punishment of elicited aggression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 14(1), 7-10. doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.14-7
Carvalho, M. B. D., Maestri, T. C., Tobias, G. K. D. S., Ribeiro, T. C., Coutinho, E. C. N. N.,
Miccione, M. M., Oliveira, R. C. V., Ferreira, F. S. S., Farias, D. C., & Moreira, D.
(2005). The hot air blast as punisher stimulus in rattus norvegicus. Psicologia: Teoria
e Pesquisa, 21(3), 335-339. doi:10.1590/S0102-37722005000300010
Critchfield, T. S., Paletz, E. M., MacAleese, K. R., & Newland, M. C. (2003). Punishment in
human choice: Direct or competitive suppression. Journal of the Experimental
analysis of Behavior, 80(1), 1-27. doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.80-1
De Villiers, P. A. (1980). Toward a quantitative theory of punishment. Journal of the
experimental analysis of behavior, 33(1), 15-25. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-15
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalising behavior problems and discipline
revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context and gender.
Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 161-175. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1448881
Deluty, M. Z. (1976). Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules. Journal of
the experimental analysis of behavior, 25(1), 75-80. doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.25-75
Doughty, S. S., Anderson, C. M., Doughty, A. H., Williams, D. C., & Saunders, K. J. (2007).
Discriminative control of punished stereotyped behavior in humans. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87(3), 325-336. doi:10.1901/jeab.2007.39-05

Felson, R. B., & Russo, N. (1988). Parental punishment and sibling aggression. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 51(1), 11-18. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/2786980
Foxx, R. M., & Azrin, N. H. (1972). Restitution: A method of eliminating aggressive-
disruptive behavior of retarded and brain damaged patients. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 10(1), 15-27. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(72)90003-4
Galbicka, G., & Platt, J. R. (1984). Interresponse‐time punishment: a basis for shock‐
maintained behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41(3), 291-
308. doi:10.1901/jeab.1984.41-291
Griffith, R. G. (1983). The administrative issues: An ethical and legal perspective. In S.
Axelrod (Ed.), Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior (Chapter 10). United States:
University of Michigan.
Holth, P. (2005). Two definitions of punishment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6(1), 43.
doi:10.1037/h0100049
Hopfensitz, A., & Reuben, E. (2009). The importance of emotions for the effectiveness of
social punishment. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1534-1559. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0297.2009.02288.x
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(2), 259-273. doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-259
Kelleher, R. T., & Morse, W. H. (1968). Schedules using noxious stimuli. III. Responding
maintained with response‐produced electric shocks. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 11(6), 819-838. doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-819
Kelleher, R. T., & Morse, W. H. (1969). Schedules using noxious stimuli. VI. An
interlocking shock‐postponement schedule in the squirrel monkey. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(6), 1063-1079. doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-1063

Kubanek, J., Snyder, L. H., & Abrams, R. A. (2015). Reward and punishment act as distinct
factors in guiding behavior. Cognition, 139, 154-167.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.005
Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment:
Implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of applied behavior analysis,
35(4), 431-464. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431
Leung, Y. W. (1991). Rewards and punishments in schools: A study of their effectiveness as
perceived by secondary school students and their teachers (Masters thesis, University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong). Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/40864
Lie, C., & Alsop, B. (2007). Reinforcement and punishment in behavioral models of signal
detection. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 33, 45-55. Retrieved from
http://rmac-mx.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Vol-33-E-45-55.pdf
Lie, C., & Alsop, B. (2009). Effects of point‐loss punishers on human signal‐detection
performance. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 92(1), 17-39.
doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-17
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.
Behavioral and Brain sciences, 18(3), 523-541. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00039595
Morris, S. Z., & Gibson, C. L. (2011). Corporal punishment’s influence on children’s
aggressive and delinquent behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(8), 818-839.
doi:10.1177/0093854811406070
Negus, S. S. (2005). Effects of punishment on choice between cocaine and food in rhesus
monkeys. Psychopharmacology, 181(2), 244-252. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-2266-7
Repp, A. C., & Singh, N. N. (1990). Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive
interventions for persons with developmental disabilities. Sycamore Publishing
Company.

Schmauk, F. J. (1970). Punishment, arousal, and avoidance learning in sociopaths. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 76(3), 325-335. doi:10.1037/h0030398
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Smith, A. B. (2006). The State of Research on the Effects of Physical Punishment. Social
Policy Journal of New Zealand, 27, 114-127. Retrieved from
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-
resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj27/27-pages114-127.pdf
Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (2002). The Effects of Prison Sentences and
Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences
2002-01. Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learning
in schools. American Psychologist, 44(2), 349-359. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.349
Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York, United States: Teachers
College Bureau of Publications.
Turner, H. A., & Muller, P. A. (2004). Long-term effects of child corporal punishment on
depressive symptoms in young adults potential moderators and mediators. Journal of
Family Issues, 25(6), 761-782. doi:10.1177/0192513X03258313
Ulrich, R. E., & Azrin, N. H. (1962). Reflexive fighting in response to aversive stimulation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5(4), 511-520.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1962.5-511
Ulrich, R. E., Hutchinson, R. R., & Azrin, N. H. (1965). Pain-elicited aggression. The
Psychological Record, 15(1), 111. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.auckland.
ac.nz/docview/1301204284?accountid=8424

Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Implications of a functional analysis technology for
the use of restrictive behavioral interventions. Child & Adolescent Mental Health
Care 3(2), 95-113.

An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique

Similar to An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique (20)

More from Jessica Henderson

More from Jessica Henderson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Analysis Of The Effectiveness Of Punishment As A Behaviour Modification Technique