Parental Discipline and the Use of Aversive Procedures

Pat Veleno University of Calgary

Aversive procedures an introduction Types of aversive procedures Aversive procedures advantages and disadvantages Statistics Conclusion/Future Directions Questions

A stimulus that functions as a punisher can be considered an aversive stimulus Aversive procedures affect learning Types of aversive procedures include: reprimands, response cost, time-out, overcorrection and physical punishers

Unconditioned Aversive Stimuli Result in physical pain or discomfort for the individual Can include slapping, pinching, ear/hair pulling, etc. Are unlearned Can also include mild aversives, such as: the administration of substances, i.e., soap in the mouth; or the use of physical control, i.e., restraint Conditioned Aversive Stimuli Stimuli may be conditioned as a result of being paired before or with powerful aversive stimuli, i.e., No! spoken in a harsh tone of voice Can include consequences such as words and warnings, vocal tones, or gestures

Punishment

Punishment occurs when a behaviour is followed by an unpleasant consequence An unpleasant consequence will decrease the probability that the behaviour will occur again in the future Punishment is considered to be aversive In behavioural terms, punishment occurs only when a functional relationship can be established between the use of a punisher and the change (decrease) in behaviour There are many different types of punishment

Reprimands are strong negative verbal stimuli, contingent on behaviour, i.e., NO!!, bad boy/girl!, etc. Are usually accompanied by a fixed stare or firm grasp (which later develop to become conditioned punishers)

Response Cost the withdrawal of specific quantities of reinforcers contingent on a response otherwise known as contingent reinforcement loss Is considered an aversive procedure, though relatively benign and minimally intrusive Nonconstructive and may promote countercontrol responses

1. 2.

3.

4.

Strong and rapid behaviour reduction Promotes discrimination can promote discrimination learning; combining response cost with reinforcement is a useful way to promote rapid discriminations and behavioural change Possible long-lasting effects response cost has produced persistent suppression of unwanted behaviour, though other studies have shown recovery of responses when response cost was removed Convenient easy to implement, efficient

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Does not produce long-lasting response suppression Danger of misuse tempting to over-use or to be too harsh with penalties If misused/abused, clients will have tendency to give up Must have lots of reinforcers readily available to choose from May provoke escape and/or aggression

Describes a procedure whereby access to varied sources of reinforcement is reduced for a particular time period, contingent upon a response, (Reese, 1966; Ferster & Skinner, 1957) Involves the contingent withdrawal of reinforcement for a specific amount of time Is considered to be aversive Involves nonreinforcement Associated with environmental change, contingent upon the response: 1. either the individual is removed from the reinforcing environment, or, 2. the reinforcing environment is removed from the individual

1.

2.

3.

Effectively reduces behaviour can be a powerful method that does not require directly presenting aversive consequences General management procedure used to control aggressive acts in a variety of settings, i.e., playground, ice rink, etc. Can be used with DRA and DRO successfully the reinforcement of alternate, more appropriate and/or desired behaviour

1. 2. 3.
4. 5.

6.

7.

Loss of learning time Not universally effective Negative, nonconstructive contingency doesnt teach new skills or replacement behaviours Legal restrictions legal implications associated with secure isolation, i.e., seclusion Potential for abuse can easily become abusive; is negatively reinforcing for the mediator, therefore temptation is greater Public concern safeguards have to be implemented in order to quell public concern; needs to be closely monitored Suppression of other behaviours may lead to the suppression of other acceptable behaviours

Overcorrection

Developed by Foxx & Azrin (1972) requires that individuals restore the environment to a condition the same or better than before the target behaviour occurred Therefore it includes training in appropriate behaviours Correct behaviour is taught through exaggerated experience, i.e., someone who spits on the ground would be told, NO! No spitting!, and then would be required to get a cloth and liquid cleanser and clean the area where the spitting took place, and then would be required to clean the surrounding area Involves repeated practice of acceptable alternative behaviour, i.e., positive practice overcorrection Two types of overcorrection: 1. restitutional overcorrection; and 2. positive practice overcorrection

Include all punishers that follow a behaviour, which evoke feelings of discomfort or pain Are considered aversive procedures Examples of unconditioned punishers include: spanking, electric shock, cold baths, loud noises, hair-pulling these are punitive without prior training or conditioning

>90% of American families use physical punishment to discipline their children Parents who use physical discipline tend to do so frequently, i.e., > 8 times per year Use of physical discipline associated with higher levels of parental depression, drug use, intraparental conflict, history of sexual abuse, and authoritarian parenting style High levels of physical discipline associated with lower income environments and with younger parents Physical (corporal) punishment banned as a means of discipline in several countries, including: Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Norway and Sweden

Individuals who experienced physical punishment as children experienced higher levels of:
Symptoms of depression and anxiety, i.e., 23% greater incidence of depression amongst men who experienced physical punishment during adolescence Adolescents who experience physical punishment are more likely to contemplate suicide this is especially true for females Associated with less positive family affect, increased family worries, greater family conflict and negative parental relationships Associated with increased identity problems, negative social relationships, and greater feelings of nonsupport Physical discipline associated with increased child aggression, delinquency and criminality

* Gershoff (2002)

The Usefulness of Punishment

The use of aversive procedures should be considered very carefully ethical and legal complications exist Highly controversial can be viewed as dehumanizing Effects of very mild/infrequent spanking are unclear; further study is warranted Physical or other strong aversive consequences are justified only under the most extreme instances of inappropriate behaviour Can be considered appropriate only when safety is jeopardized or in instances of long-standing serious behaviour problems Can be considered only after all nonaversive methods for changing unacceptable behaviour have been exhausted

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tends to elicit aggression Can produce other undesirable emotional side effects May cause the situation and people associated with the aversive stimulus to become conditioned punishers It does not establish any new behaviour; it only suppresses behaviour (nonconstructive) Consider the modeling effects Can be easily misused and abused Can influence social status of recipient Can promote negative self-esteem Lack of moral internalization

Why do people use punishment more than they should? Mediator behaviour is positively reinforced by attaining the desired goal, i.e., behaviour suppression Mediator behaviour is negatively reinforced by eliminating aversive stimuli Modeling influences have shaped mediator behaviour Punishment often produces rapid (but short-lived) cessation of problem behaviour People dont always and immediately consider the negative side effects associated with the use of aversives Lack of consideration to teaching new skills, i.e., replacement behaviours

It is likely that any effects of parenting discipline practice are moderated by many variables related to the child, parent, family and contexts, including cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, education, etc. Clearly, the use of harsh punishment, including corporal punishment, can have significant negative influence on many developmental processes Effects of very mild/infrequent spanking are unclear; further study is warranted Alternative, constructive, i.e., positive, techniques exist which can effectively accomplish behavioural goals

 Gershoff, E.T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated

child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 4, 539-579. Kazdin, A.E., & Corina, B. (2003). Spanking children: Evidence and issues. American Psychological Society, 12, 3, 99-103. Leary, C.E., Kelley, M.L., Morrow, J., & Mikulka, P.J. (2008). Parental use of physical punishment as related to family environment, psychological well-being, and personality in undergraduates [Electronic version]. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 1-7. Martin, G. & Pear, J., (2003) Behaviour Modification: What it is and How to do it. 7th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Mulvaney, M.K., & Mebert, C.J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 3, 389-397. Sulzer-Azaroff, B. and Mayer, G.R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change: Second edition. Fort Worth, Tx: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Troutman, A., & Alberto, P. (1999) Applied Behaviour Analysis for Teachers. 6th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.