Punishment is a controversial topic that is often misunderstood. The promotion of lasting behavioral change in children is a complicated endeavor facilitated by the use of various outcomes. Punishment is meant to suppress particular behaviors and prevent them from reoccurring in the future. A consequence that promotes a certain level of discomfort prompts an individual to cease behaving in a way that leads to the discomfort. A contingency's effectiveness in functioning as a punisher is determined by certain principles, which help distinguish ineffective contingencies from effective contingencies. Parents and professionals face various issues when trying to decide how to utilize punishment. When evaluating the effectiveness of punishment, it is important to consider the punisher’s effect on the child's behavior. This paper describes six fundamental concepts of successful punishment that are most important for consideration when using procedures that may serve as punishments to alter the behavior of any child and whether these considerations determine whether a particular contingency acts as a punisher.
Cipani (2004) described six basic principles of effective contingencies. The first principle states that a behavioral contingency must exist, which purports that a specific behavior must produce a given consequence. This means that for a given strategy to act as a punisher, there must be a particular temporal relationship between the specific behavior and the consequence (Malott & Shane, 2016). This relationship can be illustrated when a parent tells children that if they finish their homework, they will be allowed to watch television. Often, they are the if-then conditions that parents or professionals set for a child, for the probable occurrence of specific behavior and its consequence. For the effect of a punishment to occur, there must be a reliable link between the specific behavior and intended outcome. Additionally, this dependable relationship is associated with a reduced behavior level. Therefore, if a parent ensures that the child does not watch television every time they fail to complete the homework, its influence on behavior will establish whether punishment has occurred. A behavioral contingency is crucial in understanding what changes human behavior. When punishing a child, it is important to focus on one particular behavior, rather than modify a child's numerous behaviors at once. This increases the punishment's effectiveness, but it also reduces the likelihood of using consequences haphazardly. Cipani (2004) asserts the need for a punisher to put subjectivity aside and emphasize objective targets. For example, focusing on one behavior and establishing a contingency eliminates subjectivity and focuses on the behaviors that need to be addressed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, consistency is the second principle that influences whether a certain contingency functions as a punisher. For a punishment to be effective, the contingency must be inevitable. Without consistency, the behavioral contingency loses its capability to cause behavior transformation. The more the targeted behavior generates the anticipated consequence, the more likely the punishment effect is achieved. This, therefore, means that the lack of consistency reduces the possibility of success being achieved. One important aspect concerning consistency is the work that a parent has to put in. When a specific contingency is used, it is important to ensure that the child does not have a specific escape strategy, since this can lower the punishment's effectiveness. If the planned consequence does not occur as expected, the punishment may not change the child's behavior (Cipani, 2004). Consistency, therefore, means that the punishment should always incorporate a full implementation of the punishing consequence. This reduces the chances of the punishment being weakened, which may render it ineffective. The contingency of behavior may not be reliable if the consistency is not 100%. Also, immediacy plays a significant role since it establishes a bridge between behavior occurrence and the consequence appeal.
The third principle, the "even swamp," focus on implementing both reinforcement and punishment at the same time. This means that if a desirable behavior occurs, reinforcement should be used complementarily with the punishing consequences in undesirable behavior (Cipani, 2004). Therefore, a contingency can be more effective if the punishment for a behavior problem is combined with reinforcement for an alternate behavior. The reduction of target behavior by developing another desirable behavior is more effective than focusing on decreasing targeted behavior alone (Malott & Shane, 2016). When planning a punishment that targets a certain behavior, it is equally important to determine the behavior that needs to be increased. This will consequently create an even swamp, such that for every undesirable behavior that is eliminated, a suitable replacement is developed. This further increases the punishment effectiveness by resulting in a reduction in behavior problems. For instance, a child who behaves aggressively towards others may be punished by removing television privileges. The behavioral contingency may state, "If you become aggressive towards your brother, then there are no TV privileges in the evening. " This reinforces good behavior through the punishment of inappropriate behavior, hence the even swamp. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a parent to jump to the use of a punishment consequence alone, as this reduces the likelihood of the contingency to work effectively as a punisher.
The effectiveness of a contingency as a punisher is also influenced by removing competing consequences (Cipani, 2004). If a child acts inappropriately, the punishing consequence should not create room for the development of an unintended reinforcement. A classic example is the use of time-out for an aggressive child, such that every time he becomes aggressive to his sister, he is sent to his bedroom for a time-out. This creates room for the development of unintended behavior, such as sleeping. Consequently, the aggressive child’s punishment may induce sleep, but not reduce the aggressiveness towards their sitter. This is a direct indication of how competing consequences influence a given contingency's effectiveness as a punisher (Malott & Shane, 2016). In some cases, punishment may lead to a child's realization that certain behavior can get him or her what she wants. For instance, in a children's home, a child who has mental issues may be restrained more often than everyone else because when in restraints, he can get coffee, which the caregivers do not provide if he asks for it. Therefore, the child may learn that for him to get coffee, he has to display maladaptive behaviors, which can get him restrained. For a behavioral change intervention to work, one should consider this principle since it is a direct explanation of why a certain contingency may seem infective when, in fact, it is implemented as required.
Being specific when delivering a certain contingency as a punishment for undesirable behaviors is a key aspect that influences the punishment's effectiveness. Specifying the punishing consequence is vital as it ensures that the punishment is delivered in the same fashion every time (Cipani, 2004). Adhering to the behaviors increases the likelihood of behavior change. Ambiguity, in this case, leads to ineffectiveness and, consequently, the lack of behavior change. Specificity removes the gaps and ensures that the child does not have a chance to engage in other undesirable behaviors (Malott & Shane, 2016). A specified behavior change plan is more likely to accurately and effectively treat the targeted behavior. Specificity also ensures that a parent or the punisher is sure of the consequences of implementation and when they should be implemented. The punishing consequence should be specified before the beginning of the behavioral change plan. Lack of specificity may lead to a lack of consistency, thereby resulting in the contingency's ineffectiveness as a punisher.
Over the years, the developed principles of punishment have been replicated din application and research, which has verified the effectiveness of their application in behavioral change plans (Meissner & Celiberti, 2010). Before implementing a given intervention, it is important to prove that it works. If an intervention works for a particular child or adult, it is not necessary that the same intervention will work for another child or adult. While planning a contingency plan, it is critical to ensure that all the attempts that a child may make to escape the punishment are well thought of in advance.
In conclusion, the six principles of effective punishment guide parents and professionals in implementing behavioral change plans. These principles help in determining the effectiveness of a contingency as a punisher. Additionally, setting a standard of how the behavioral change plan will be implemented ensures consistency such that the same punishing consequence is implemented each time. The behaviors that need to be changed should be clearly defined. A behavioral change plan should reduce an undesirable behavior provided that the consequence targets a particular behavior, there is consistency, the punishing consequence is specific, creates an even swamp, and the effectiveness of the procedure has been proven. Additionally, the removal of competing consequences ensures that the behavioral contingency plan produces the desired results.
References
Cipani, E. (2004). Punishment on Trial . Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/Resources/Documents/otrp/resources/cipani09.pdf
Malott, R. W. & Shane, J. T. (2016) Principles of Behavior. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meissner, A., & Celiberti, D. (2010). Book review: Punishment on trial. [Review of the book Punishment on Trial, by E. Cipani]. Science in Autism Treatment, 7(4), 20-21.
