The 'Science' of Punishment?

I found a link a little while back posted on a Facebook group to a short article titled titled ‘How to Correctly Punish a Child, Based on Science’ in review of a paper presented at the APA’s 2015 conference in Toronto. A link to the full paper appears in the article (http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-discipline-child-compromising-reasoning-and-timeouts-help-promote-better-behavior-346500#.VcXQ8v0yMFU.facebook).

There are, to say the least, number of primary questions to be asked based on this paper. The website article titled of ‘How to....Punish a Child, Based on Science’ was an immediate and primary concern.

The science which needs to be understood and engaged is the comprehensive discipline of Applied Behavior Analysis. Without behavior analysis as a principal referent, much of the rest only becomes conjecture blended with individual perceptions and collections of often scattered and less connected anecdotal information.

One specific flaw in the paper was the focus on behavioral topography…or what the behavior looks like…as a primary way to determine the subsequent adult response (consequence) or interventions for child problem/interfering behavior.

We've long known – ‘we’ being Clinical Behavior Analysts and behavior psychologists correctly and fully trained in Applied Behavior Analysis – that the selection of behavioral consequences (interventions/responses) must be driven by and aligned with the function and purpose of identified behavior(s) in combination with primary attention to the environment in which the identified behaviors occur.

Context - certainly not topography - is a key....

There are too often made claims that ‘this’ is what one does when a child does ‘that;’ in this study, when a child is ‘defiant’ or ‘violent,’ is not only most often incorrect but greatly increases the risk that punitive/aversive consequences, rather than instructional and structural priorities, will be prioritized. In addition, using behavioral topography to determine response can quickly make the circumstances far more challenging and still more difficult, disrupted and self-sustaining.

The observable behavioral category – whether identified as ‘defiance’ or ‘violence’ (and 'aggression' should be the referent rather than 'violence') – does not infer causal properties.

Because a child becomes aggressive during a lower preference task routine, for instance, does NOT at all presume escape related behavior and strategies to include escape extinction, therefore, are not only NOT the 'go to' but may, in fact, greatly intensify the interfering behavior. And when should this happen, the intervenor (clinician, teacher, caregiver...) is more likely to 'blame' the child; the child's 'diagnosis' rather than re-evaluate their own clinical recommendations

There could be…most often is…a lot more going on.

Behavior identified as ‘defiance’ may be shaped by negative reinforcement due to problems embedded in the interaction and/or the environmental conditions in which it occurs. The child may have learned that acting out (being ‘defiant’ or 'aggressive,' in this instance) allows them to end a stressful or otherwise aversive interaction that they can't otherwise identify due to functional communication skill deficits.

Though ‘timeout,’ the example far over focused upon in the APA paper and article review may not be the child’s next first choice, he or she may still decided that a 'timeout' sure beats the heck out of an undesired alternative and 'time in.'

After all, a number of children (adults, too) would much prefer to spend time sitting by themselves rather than doing something they really don't want to do OR don't know how to do. Again, though sitting alone may not be the child’s first choice, it can still quickly become a better alternative to the undesired or unfamiliar demand.

The failure to identify that behaviors are also actively triggered by skill deficits – ranging from cognitive/academic, social, expressive, functional and adaptive to self-regulation and disinhibition – is another typical and significant gap in understanding and responding to interfering behaviors. How many times do adults 'punish' children for skills/competencies that they don't actually have? Not a particularly effective behavioral or instructional strategy, that....

When skill deficits are involved, proactive support and instruction is key since ‘timeout’ and other punishment strategies only, at best, teach what not to do rather than what to do or how to do it. Timeout under these conditions often becomes reinforcing in its ability to allow the child to further avoid the unfamiliar task/activity And use of punishment and aversives under such circumstances will often, very understandably, only tick the child off still further.

How many of us would appreciate being told to do something we can't and then being punished for not getting it done? Use of punitive strategies in this way is simultaneously abusive and a direct breach of professional ethics.

Similarly, behavioral events to include those often broadly classified as defiance or ‘violence’/aggression - can result from attempts to force fit a child into what is an incredibly unsuccessful environment for them and/or be based on poorly constructed adult/environmental interactions. Above all, we have to first understand and respect such behavioral events as a form of expressive communication and figure out what's going on before using 'canned' topographically driven interventions.

The perception of ‘defiance,’ as is true with many other behaviors, can also be highly individualized. That is, the child may simply not like a particular adult/clinician, that adult/clinician may be using less than effective and efficient interactive skills and/or the environmental conditions may not be conducive to success. Such a dynamic would hardly indicate ‘ODD’ but, instead, be viewed as adult and environmentally created.

How many 'ABA' programs, for instance, continue to use proscribed 'active play' activities ranging from Mr. Potato Head to bean bag boards? Besides the contradiction that most other younger children often have active input into with what they play, such games very rarely even show up in public school primary grade classrooms. When a child then opposes or acts out because she doesn't like Mr. Potato Head or enjoy aiming beanbags at a small hole, rather than effectively identifying preference and peer 'normative' activities, punitive programs are more often written.

Behavioral topography should not drive the intervention response to interfering behaviors since the behavioral plan must be functionally aligned with and connected to the connected interfering behavior(s).

Caregivers and other providers (professional and non-professional alike) who may routinely reprimand, demean, use threats of punishment and/or consistently ignore child perspective and preferences – whether deliberately or not – can quickly create ‘defiance’ and related acting out behaviors by the child. Again, this is a problem of the adults; the environment and not the child.

With consideration to Response Class theory, we also now that the specific behavioral topography selected by the child far more often depends on where the child is and with whom. The fact that behavioral topography can change based on different conditions and circumstances while the function/reason for the behavior remains is a critically important principle of human behavior and yet another reason why a selective focus on behavioral form should not be the priority.

Such practices also risk triggering substantial and often difficult to manage ‘Response Class Effects.’ Punishing a single member of a larger Response Class without teaching appropriate alternative skills across the Response Class based on the common behavioral function while ignoring (not being aware of) other behaviors in that same Response Class will be a problem.

While such a selectively targeted intervention may work to eliminate a particular behavior, there is also an excellent probability that other members of that functional Response Class will subsequently strengthen and intensify in a way which may sometimes seem ‘spontaneous’ thereby inviting more aversive strategies from and by providers rather than needed individualized instruction.

Punishing a child for skill deficits, negative/improper adult interactions and/or unsuccessful environments is unethical and ‘Blaming the Victim.’ And punishing a child for behavior which more reflects aspects of their personality and uniqueness adds to the confusion and ethical violation. Such practice can also quickly create ongoing cycles of problem events between the child and his or her caregiver/provider.

Towards this end, check out the comprehensive concept of and interventions for the occurrence of 'Coercive Cycles' originally designed by Gerald Patterson formerly of the Oregon Social Learning Center.

While use of a carefully targeted, limited and criteria-based time out procedure referenced in the APA paper can be relevant – at times – a key remains whether ‘time in’ is being correctly adapted and utilized based on an appropriate functional assessment process. Otherwise, ‘timeout’ can, itself, quickly become a primary reinforcer and way to avoid negative returns over which the child has no choice or alternatives.

There is also a body of literature on ‘non functional behavioral interventions.’ For instance, what happens when your child unexpectedly starts to throw everything out of the shopping cart or your student decides during an assembly to go after another child he/she doesn't like and you don't have time to administer a functional assessment and analyze data before directly intervening?

Well, there are intervention and response systems which can be immediately implemented that are neutral in nature (intended to have no or minimal history as either a previous aversive or a reinforcer) and, therefore, do not need to be immediately aligned with behavioral function/cause.

The most effective ‘nonfunctional interventions’ are those which are not explicitly punitive. I have a number of such ‘nonfunctional interventions’ which I teach to others and am always ready to employ! With this in mind, a specific risk of holding to a primary focus on behavioral topography is that adults will skew towards the use of punishment-based and aversive consequences.

In addition to the important ethical questions which arise; the important other side of this same coin is that a more punitive/aversive response will not only often not work but can become much more likely to greatly intensify and sustain the behavioral event.

Implementation of punitive strategies without taking time to understand (assess) the ecology of and basis/reasons for problem/interfering behaviors is always a problem. Understanding and providing needed changes and/or more directed support first (to always include individualized instruction) is vital.

One last thought is that the reference to ‘positive’ parenting, just as in ‘Positive’ Behavior Support, does not at all negate the relevance of correctly aligned, LIMITED and very individualized punitive (reduction) styled strategies. Wacker and friends discussed this at some depth in their initial research and work on Functional Communication Training (FCT) published in the early 1990s.

Rather than ‘punishment,’ I tend to refer to such interventions as ‘Reduction Strategies’ since their principle purpose is to undermine and neutralize the function or cause of a given behavioral event. There is are also no ‘baseline’ times for a particular punishment/reduction strategy like timeout and no magical formula exists. Punishment can also quickly create a host of highly problematic and difficult to manage side effects.

When carefully targeted punishment/reduction strategies are individually aligned with a functional assessment, they must also have clearly identified Initiation and Termination Criteria and - always - be secondary to skill instruction, proactive supports, environmental rearrangement and the targeting of appropriate alternative behaviors for ALL involved.

A timeline for fading punitive/reduction and other more prescriptive intervention and instructional strategies must also be identified and pursued. Any intervention which continues to be used at about the same frequency and intensity over a period of time, even if it interrupt the targeted behavior about every time, is one which is not successful. Remember, too, that the very best way to respond to problem/interfering behavioral events is before they occur.

_________________________________________

I offer:

Telebehavior and Face to Face Clinical Behavioral Services focus on autism/developmental behavioral/socioemotional; in-network western region Tricare for services to children/adolescents with a primary autism diagnosis

Higher intensity/persistent behavioral need to include comorbid DSM (dual) diagnoses; FAS/FAE; low incident genetic disorders to include but not limited to Fragile X, Angelman, Prader-Willi, Williams Syndromes....

Persistent; medically at risk and/or medically involved Feeding issues

Sleep disruption/refusal; delayed independence with toileting/self-care

Need to increase independence in the home and the community

Learning readiness; individualized instructional support/instructional program planning and implementation

Social and communication deficits; focus on verbal expression/development of individualized augmentative communication systems

Specialized In-Your-Home tutoring

Enhanced Therapeutic In-Home Respite Service

BCBA/BCaBA Supervision

BCBA/BCaBA Test Preparation

RBT Training & Support

Support for working BCBAs

Bridging Behavior