Punishment: a behavior modification technique in childhood

The Punishment in a technical sense it refers only to the empirical operation (presentation or withdrawal of events) that reduces the frequency of appearance of a response, and does not always include physical pain. (Kazdin, 1971)

Certainly, painful events (such as tundas) may not diminish the responses for which they were designed as punishment, but more either increase the frequency of appearance of responses to punish, as well as provoke the appearance of other responses disruptive. The present article of PsicologíaOnline, intends to make an analysis Of Punishment: A Behavior Modification Technique In Childhood.

So the Punishment is a procedure of behavior modification. For many years, and from the cognitive-behavioral perspective, physical punishment has not been indicated as a method of behavior modification in children, and this criterion is shared by the author, for whom physical punishment on the one hand represents an absolute disrespect for human rights and especially of children, and on the other hand it has shown ad nauseam that it has no power to correct disruptive behavior in children. However, for the purposes of the topic, all the types of punishment that exist in the psychological literature will be touched upon.

In behavioral modification, many forms of punishment have been developed based on whether aversive events occur, they are positive events are removed, or effort or work is required on the part of the subject after the execution of a certain conduct.

Presentation of aversive events:

After a response has been made, an aversive event such as a spanking or reprimand may be applied. There are two types of aversive events: primary and secondary (or conditioned) aversive stimuli. Primary aversive events are inherently so, for example, electrical shock, physical attack intense, bright lights and loud noises are primary aversive stimuli and their aversive properties are not learned. Secondary or conditioned aversive stimuli acquire their aversive properties when they are paired (related to) with other aversive events such as physical pain or loss of privileges.

Secondary aversive stimuli include gestures, nods, frowns, and traffic tickets.

• Verbal statements:

Verbal statements in the form of reprimands, warnings, disapproval, saying no, and threats, often be used in everyday interactions between teacher and student, parent and child, and between siblings, spouses, friends, and enemies. Occasionally, verbal statements have been used to suppress conduct in applied research, for example, reprimands and statements of disapproval have been applied in classroom settings to reduce gambling during lessons, being out of place, talking without permission, and other behaviors disorganizing. (Hall et al, 1971)

The way verbal statements are made can affect their effectiveness, for example, in classroom applications. classes, reprimands are most effective in suppressing childish behavior when accompanied by a direct look and subject.

Verbal punishment is likely to lose its effectiveness over time, for example, threats have sometimes been used to suppress behaviors, when they indicate that some other aversive consequence will follow, they become conditioned aversive events whether the behavior is run or not. When threats are futile (not supported by the threatened consequence) they tend to lose their effect quickly. (Kazdin, 1971)

• Electric shock:

Electric shock is another aversive event that can occur after the behavior, it is rarely used, it has only been restricted to people engaged in conduct dangerous to themselves or others, and who have not responded to others procedures. When electric shock is used in these extraordinary situations, it is usually done briefly to a finger or arm, producing rapid and noticeable suppression of behavior. It is not currently used, partly because its use raises ethical and legal topics but also because other less objectionable but effective alternatives are available.

Withdrawal of positive consequences

Punishment often takes the form of withdrawal from positive events rather than presentation of aversive stimuli after the behavior. Familiar examples include loss of privileges, money, or driver's license after the behavior. Events rated positively and can even act as positive reinforcers are removed as a form of penalty. The two main techniques are reinforcement downtime and response cost.

• Time out of reinforcement:

Time out refers to the withdrawal of all positive reinforcers for a specified period. During the time-out interval, the subject does not have access to the positive reinforcers that are normally available on stage. For example, in a classroom a child may be isolated from others for 10 minutes; At this time, he will not have access to interact with his peers, activities, privileges, or other reinforcers that are usually available.

Time out has been very effective in modifying a variety of behaviors, including psychotic speech, bathroom accidents, thumb sucking, and self-stimulating and self-driving behavior. (Hobbs and Forehand, 1977).

The obvious advantages of time out are the relatively short duration and the absence of pain.

• Response cost:

Response cost refers to the loss of a positive reinforcer. It requires a penalty of some kind, usually in the form of a fine. Examples of the response cost in daily adult life include fines for traffic violations, “late” fee, “bouncing” check fee, etc; In children's daily life, they include staying without watching television, without playing games, without using the computer due to non-compliance with established norms. Also in the school environment includes the loss of recess, field trips and other extracurricular activities.

As a consequence for undesirable behavior, a subject may be asked to participate in responses that involve work or effort. This is different from presenting an aversive stimulus (for example, reprimand) or withdrawing a positive event (for example, response cost), here you are asked to engage in aversive behavior.

Overcorrection:

With overcorrection, the penalty for engaging in unwanted behavior is performing some other behaviors in the given situation, two components of overcorrection can be distinguished: the first called restitution, which consists of correcting the environmental defects of inappropriate behavior. Thus, if a child throws food on the dining room table, they will be asked to clean it completely. The second component, called positive practice, consists of repeatedly practicing the appropriate behavior, for example, the child will be asked place the food on your plate properly several times in a row and perhaps also serve the food to others. These answers are some of the “correct” ways to serve and handle food at the table.
Restitution and positive practice are sometimes combined and sometimes used alone, depending on the behaviors to be suppressed.

Overcorrection alone or in combination with other procedures has modified a variety of behaviors such as accidents in toilet training, aggressive acts, self-stimulating behaviors, tantrums, nail biting, and table. (Foxx and Bechtel, 1983). The results of a few minutes of corrective training after the desired behavior have led to rapid and long-lasting therapeutic effects.

The precise punishment procedure selected in any instance may be determined by various considerations, namely the severity of the conduct, the danger to the subject, and others, the ease of putting the procedure into practice in a particular setting, and the necessary training of the person (s) applying the modification process behavioral.

Whatever the punishment to be used, a series of rules or principles to be effective (Moles, 1994), these are:

1. The subject must be informed which or which are going to be specifically the behaviors to be punished.
2. He must also be informed of what the punishment will be for the conduct in question.
3. Once the previous points have been fulfilled, the punishment will be offered at the first opportunity that the subject emits the conduct and each time he does so. This implies that it should always be punished and not sometimes.
4. Punishment must be contingent on the behavior, and therefore, like reinforcement, must have a short latency. In other words, the application of the punishment must be as close as possible (in time) to the issue of the conduct in question.
5. The punishment must always be of the same intensity and not depend on the emotional state of the person applying it.
6. As with reinforcements, punishment should not be generalized, it must be individually and depending on the characteristics of each subject.

Specialists in behavior modification techniques have been concerned about the misuse and abuse of punishment, since this favors problems in children and adolescents. For example, families of children who deviate from the pattern tend to use stricter and more frequent punishment than families of children who do well in everyday life (Kazdin, 1987).

The most frequent punishment is not associated with better behavior, in fact, both physical and verbal punishment (reprimands) can increase their own behaviors (disobedience, aggression) that parents, teachers, and others desire suppress. Unfortunately the old adage "dispense the stick and spoil the child" still has many adherents, this is unfortunate because an opposite sentence could also be upheld, “use the rod and spoil the boy"