Views on the efficacy and ethics of punishment: Results from a national survey.

Abstract

Punishment is typically defined as a reduction in behavior due to a consequence made contingent on the performance of that behavior (Azrin & Holz, 1966). The consequence can be the introduction of an aversive stimulus (i.e., positive punishment) such as electric shock, loud noise, a reprimand, etc., or the removal of a reinforcing stimulus (i.e., negative punishment) such as food, money, or access to the social environment. Punishment-based strategies developed for clinical use include overcorrection, time-out, response cost, visual screening, and many more (Axelrod & Apsche, 1983; Conyers et al., 2004). Punishment-based interventions are among the most controversial treatments for behavior disorders in the applied behavior analysis literature (e.g., Johnston, 1991; Matson & Kazdin, 1981; Repp & Singh, 1990). The controversy is actually double, concerning both the efficacy and the ethics of punishment, and both researchers and practitioners tend to argue for or against the morality of punishment by developing a position on its efficacy. Some scholars (e.g., LaVigna & Donnellan, 1986) have argued that punishment is unnecessary, claiming that reinforcement-based strategies provide the efficacy of punishment without harmful side effects, thereby making punishment unethical. Alternatively, other scholars (e.g., Axelrod, 1990; Foxx, 2005) have argued that punishment, especially when used in conjunction with reinforcement, has efficacy superior to that of reinforcement alone, making punishment at least sometimes ethical. Controversy over punishment has led to dozens of position papers (see chapters in Repp & Singh, 1990), as well as debates over the legality of aversive stimuli (Lohrmann-O'Rourke & Zirkel, 1998), the long-term effects of punishment-based discipline (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003), and even the interpretation of B. F. Skinner's position on punishment (Dinsmoor, 1992). However, despite frequent comments about the diversity of opinion on the ethics and efficacy of punishment, no empirical research has focused on this diversity itself. That is, no systematic survey has examined attitudes toward punishment in a representative sample of the general public, professionals in the field of behavior analysis, or psychologists in general. Without such data, it is difficult to assess whether either side in the punishment debate constitutes a mainstream view or a radical one. Although no general survey exists, there has been a small amount of research on attitudes toward punishment among professionals who work with individuals with disabilities. Irvin and Lunderworld (1988) asked special education teachers to rate various punishment procedures on four dimensions: restrictiveness, intrusiveness, acceptability, and efficacy. These investigators found that teachers' perceptions of efficacy was closely related to acceptability but not to restrictiveness or intrusiveness, suggesting that these participants were able to separate their judgments of efficacy from other judgments that focused more on the ethics of punishment procedures. Harris, Handleman, Gill, and Fong (1991) conducted a related study investigating the relationship between use of aversives and job satisfaction in a sample of direct care staff working in programs serving individuals with autism. Harris and colleagues divided participants into two groups, depending on whether the participants' programs permitted the use of aversives, and found that participants who were permitted to use strong aversives had a greater sense of personal accomplishment in their work. This finding, taken in the context of other results, suggested that giving staff a fuller range of treatment strategies increases a sense of satisfaction and control in one's work and prevents the burnout so common in clinical work. Research on service providers has recently been supplemented by studies investigating perceptions of punishment among typically developing children. …