Weak empirical support to say that problems with punishment (increases in escape & avoidance responses, punishment‐induced aggression, countercontrol, etc) are necessarily ubiquitous, long‐lasting, or specific to punishment

Punishment and its putative fallout: A reappraisal. Rafaela M. Fontes  Timothy A. Shahan. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavio, December 6 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.653

Abstract: In his book Coercion and Its Fallout Murray Sidman argued against the use of punishment based on concerns about its shortcomings and side effects. Among his concerns were the temporary nature of response suppression produced by punishment, the dangers of conditioned punishment, increases in escape and avoidance responses, punishment‐induced aggression, and the development of countercontrol. This paper revisits Sidman's arguments about these putative shortcomings and side effects by examining the available data. Although Sidman's concerns are reasonable and should be considered when using any form of behavioral control, there appears to be a lack of strong empirical support for the notion that these potential problems with punishment are necessarily ubiquitous, long‐lasting, or specific to punishment. We describe the need for additional research on punishment in general, and especially on its putative shortcomings and side effects. We also suggest the need for more effective formal theories of punishment that provide a principled account of how, why, and when lasting effects of punishment and its potential side effects might be expected to occur or not. In addition to being necessary for a complete account of behavior, such data and theories might contribute to improved interventions for problems of human concern.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Sidman's opposition to the use of aversive control, and more specifically to the use of punishment, was clear in his writings (e.g., Sidman, 1993, 2000, 2011). Although his concerns are reasonable and highlight important aspects to be considered when using any form of behavior control, the literature reviewed above suggests a lack of strong empirical support for the notion that these shortcomings and side effects are ubiquitous, long‐lasting, or specific to punishment. The transitory nature of response suppression produced by punishment does not appear to be an inherent issue with punishment and depends on many aspects of the environment and the contingency. In addition, although stimuli associated with unconditioned punishers can indeed become punishers themselves, such effects are not indiscriminately generalized to other stimuli present and do not necessarily persist once the contingency is suspended. Similarly, increases in escape and avoidance can be observed during punishment, but the occurrence of such responses is not necessary for punishment to suppress responding. Increases in aggressive behavior in the presence of aversive stimulation have also been shown to be a reliable effect; however, it is not necessarily or exclusively a result of punishment procedures. As with conditioned punishment effects, the occurrence of punishment‐induced aggression seems to be impacted by the organism's control of the punishment delivery. Lastly, although anecdotal examples of countercontrol have been described in the literature, countercontrol has not been empirically investigated and it remains unclear when or how such behavioral strategies might develop.

The lack of undesirable side effects associated with the use of punishment has also been noted in the applied literature (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983; Harris, 1985; Johnston, 1972; van Oorsouw et al., 2008). Indeed, the use of punishment‐based interventions typically has been related to increases in positive behavior (e.g., Bostow & Bailey, 1969; Firestone, 1976; Risley, 1968; van Oorsouw et al., 2008). For example, Matson and Taras (1989) reviewed 382 applied studies employing different punishment procedures during interventions with individuals with developmental disabilities and concluded that the results reviewed did not provide evidence supporting the occurrence of undesirable side effects. Instead, the majority (93%) reported positive side effects during punishment interventions, such as increases in social behavior and responsiveness to the environment. Furthermore, the severity of the undesirable side effects, to the extent that they occur, was considered less harmful than the target behavior to be treated by punishment (Matson & Taras, 1989).

Given the considerations above, one wonders if opposition to the use of punishment might reflect a more general cultural tendency to regard its use as inherently bad. Such a view of punishment could be one of the reasons for the apparent decline in punishment research over the years (e.g., Bland et al., 2018; Johnston, 1991). Thus, the first step to renew the interest in punishment as a scientific topic is to acknowledge that aversiveness is not intrinsic to punishment but instead is contextually dependent (Leitenberg, 1965b; Perone, 2003). As noted by Perone (2003), the distinction between positive reinforcement and aversive control can be a matter of perspective, and every situation can be interpreted in terms of positive reinforcement or aversive control. As Sidman (1989/2000) noted, the use of deprivation to increase the efficacy of positive reinforcers might also be considered coercive. Thus, such concerns should not be taken as a reason to avoid seeking a better understanding of punishment (Vollmer, 2002).

Regardless of how one feels about Sidman's (1993, 2000, 2011) and others’ (e.g., Skinner, 1953, 1974) view of punishment, punishment‐based procedures are effective in reducing the behavior of several species, in both basic and applied settings (see Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 for a review). Indeed, punishment is a valuable method in the treatment of problem behavior, and is commonly used in such settings (e.g., Hagopian et al., 1998; Hanley et al., 2005; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Lydon et al., 2015; Matson & Taras, 1989; Risley, 1968; Thompson et al., 1999). However, much remains unknown about punishment and its potential side effects. These empirical and theoretical gaps emphasize the need for more research on punishment (e.g., Horner, 2002; Johnston, 1991; Todorov, 2001, 2011). The potential benefits of an increased understanding of punishment and its potential side effects could be manifold.

First, an improved understanding of punishment and its putative side effects could help shine an empirical light on preconceptions about the “dangerousness” of punishment. As noted above, there is a lack of strong empirical support for many of the putative shortcomings and side effects of punishment. In cases where those side effects do occur, many questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear under what circumstances punishment generalizes to other stimuli present during its presentation and if punishment effects generalize with unconditioned punishers besides shock. Much also remains unknown about the interactions between punishment and reinforcement. Better understanding such interactions could improve our understanding of decision‐making processes more generally by providing information about how organisms make trade‐offs between different types of consequences. Understanding such trade‐offs could provide important information about potential side effects of punishment. As one example, it is unknown if the availability of other sources of positive or negative reinforcement impacts the frequency of punishment‐induced aggression. Lastly, the complete lack of research on countercontrol makes clear the need for additional research on this potential side effect of punishment before it is considered in arguments against the use of punishment.

Second, additional research on punishment could contribute to the development of a well‐grounded quantitative theory of punishment. As discussed above, both the competitive‐suppression and direct‐suppression models have failed to adequately account for punishment data. Furthermore, to the extent that punishment side effects do occur, a good quantitative theory of punishment should provide a principled account of how, why, and when they occur. As just one example, response recovery is a robust and reliable phenomenon that needs to be accounted for by a quantitative model of punishment. If habituation indeed plays a role in response recovery during punishment, a theory of punishment will need to incorporate a formal account of habituation in order to predict the conditions under which recovery should be expected to occur.

Furthermore, a science of behavior cannot be complete without understanding how aversive consequences contribute to behavior control (e.g., Critchfield & Rasmussen, 2007; Johnston, 1991; Magoon & Critchfield, 2008; Vollmer, 2002). Punishment is a biological, behavior‐regulation mechanism critical for learning to stop engaging in maladaptive behavior (e.g., Todorov, 2011; Vollmer, 2002). Regardless of whether or not one believes that punishment should ever be a part of explicitly arranged contingencies, it will always be a part of natural ones. Thus, it is critical that punishment be effectively integrated into more general formal theories of behavior. But for that to happen, the amount of rigorous data related to punishment and its potential side effects needs to increase substantially. Not only would such data and theories be valuable in their own right, but they could also meaningfully improve applications to problems of human concern.

Finally, our call for increased empirical and theoretical work on punishment should not be misconstrued as a disregard for concerns about the use of punishment on ethical and humanitarian grounds. Nor should this call for additional research be mistaken as an argument for more widespread use of punishment‐based practices. Instead, our goal in highlighting empirical and theoretical gaps in the literature is to emphasize the need for a more complete understanding of punishment and its putative pitfalls before adopting or abandoning its use.