Punishment has been shown as effective and rapid in correcting negative behavior. Numerous studies have been conducted to assess the impact that punishment has in correcting behavior with results indicating that the approach is more successful than positive reinforcement. However, some forms of punishment as corrective behavior approaches have come under significant criticism, especially when such treatment is directed towards individuals with developmental as well as intellectual disabilities. Aversive behavioral therapies are defined as therapies that cause an intense disgust, feeling, or dislike for undesirable behavior to eliminate negative behavior.
Aversive behavior therapies are founded on learning theory holding that every behavior is learned and under the appropriate circumstances, unwanted behavior can be unlearned. Unlike when using the insight-oriented approaches to remedy undesirable behavior, aversive behavior therapies aim at correcting specific behavior rather than working to demystify the unconscious motives that are responsible for a particular behavior to produce change. Three aversive behavioral therapies including contingent shock, use of lemon juice, and aromatic ammonia have been used as aversive behavioral therapies. In this essay, the aromatic ammonia approach will be studied describing the procedure, pro statements, and con statements as well as ethical compliance code elements.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The procedure
Aromatic ammonia is used in aversive behavioral therapy due to its unpleasant odor and has shown effectiveness where other behavioral therapies have failed. The procedure involves using a small handheld vial of ammonia or a crushed capsule of 0.33 cc alcohol 36% (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975). The aromatic ammonia is released every time an individual with undesirable behavior exhibits the behavior. Exposure for the aromatic ammonia is limited to about three seconds or when the individual shows signs of inhaling aromatic ammonia, for example, through coughing.
Pro statements for using aromatic ammonia
One of the pro statements that have been indicated regarding the use of aromatic ammonia as an aversive behavioral therapy is the fact that it has a significantly unpleasant odor which does not have a lasting impact (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975). As such, using the procedure appropriately and in a diluted form works with high efficacy to achieve positive behavioral changes.
The second pro statement that promotes the use of aromatic ammonia as an aversive behavioral therapy is founded on the understanding that aromatic ammonia cannot have any impact on individuals more than two feet radius (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975). Consequently, the procedure can be performed without negatively affecting third parties. Another pro statement in support of the procedure is the cost-effectiveness of performing the procedure. Studies have pointed out that one capsule of aromatic ammonia is considerably affordable, thus making it possible for the capsule to be given to several staff members to administer to individuals with undesirable behavior.
It is also worth mentioning that the ease of application for the procedure promotes its suitability as an aversive behavioral therapy. Each therapist may can a capsule of aromatic ammonia, making it possible to adopt several therapists for the same client thus increasing behavioral changes. The effectiveness of the procedure makes it more preferable over other behavioral therapies such as using electric shock to achieve behavioral change. Unlike other treatments such as contingent skin shock, aromatic ammonia does not have incidences of avoidance as the client may not be aware that the therapist is going to use the procedure.
Con statements for aromatic ammonia procedure
Even though as an aversive behavioral therapy aromatic ammonia procedure is highly effective and cheap as well as being an easy procedure to undertake, it has numerous challenges that make it appealing to use. First, studies have pointed out that the irritation resulting from inhalation of the fumes make subjects to react violently, thus struggling with therapists (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975).
Additionally, clinical experiments indicate that there is intense damage to the nasal mucosa as well as the skin when individuals are exposed to aromatic ammonia for a long time. Chemical properties of ammonia support the findings noting that ammonia is highly corrosive with an irritating as well as suffocating odor. Consequently, does not only aromatic ammonia cause damage to the nasal mucosa but also exposes other parts such as eyes to irritation and damage in the long term.
Another con statement that would discourage the use of aromatic ammonia is the fact that it is usually completed immediately after the subject is involved in the erratic behavior that is being corrected (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975). As such, it would mean that there has to be constant observation so that punishment may be made immediately. Often, it might not always be possible to observe and track the subject always.
Ethical compliance code elements
I would opine that even though the procedure is effective in remedying negative behavior, it may not be an ethical procedure to conduct. One of the ethical codes that I feel is violated is the right to effective treatment ("Behavior Analyst Certification Board", 2019). The effectiveness of this treatment is downplayed by the potential aggression that the subjects exhibit when the procedure is performed. Further, the procedure violates the ethical code requiring that harmful reinforcers should be avoided ("Behavior Analyst Certification Board", 2019). The potential of aromatic ammonia to cause nasal mucosa damage is in contravention of the code. Finally, there is a risk of harm to third parties if the procedure is not administered appropriately.
References
Behavior Analyst Certification Board® : Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. (2019). A Workbook of Ethical Case Scenarios in Applied Behavior Analysis , 227-243. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815893-7.00026-5
Tanner, B. A., & Zeiler, M. (1975). Punishment of self-injurious behavior using aromatic ammonia as the aversive stimulus. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 8 (1), 53-57. doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-53
