Manipulation of Potential Punishment Parameters in the Treatment of Self‐injury1

Abstract

The self-injurious behavior (SIB) of a blind, profoundly retarded male was observed within a field setting as multiple forms of punishment were applied. The effects of hairtug punishment were first systematically examined, then hair-tug and electric shock punishment were administered in varing ratios (of punishment deliveries per SIB response) supplemented by continuous restraint contingencies and made contingent on recurrent antecedents of SIB cycles. Treatments were applied over six months of consecutive daily sessions ranging from 30 min to 8 hr duration. Posttreatment followup observations were taken 12, 24, and 34 months after treatment. Partial suppression was produced as a direct function of hair-tug punishment in the initial phase. A generally progressive decrement was produced on already lowered SIB rates with the succeeding components of the treatment package. Extended periods of total SIB suppression occurred as punishment was rendered contingent on antecedent components of each SIB response cycle. Followup observations of nearly 3 yr duration indicated total suppression generalized over all settings in which the subject functioned. The findings were related to the contrasting limits prevailing in most reports of punishment-based SIB suppression.

Behavioral Coaching in the Development of Skills in Football, Gymnastics, and Tennis

“…The reduction and elimination of a variety of unwanted responses have been achieved through various behavioral procedures. Among these are: extinction (Griffin, Locke, & Landers, 1975;Pinkston, Reese, LeBlanc, & Baer, 1973;Sajwaj, Twardosz, & Burke, 1972); time out (Bostow & Bailey, 1969;Burchard & Barrera, 1972;Clark, Rowbury, Baer & Baer, 1973;White, Neilsen, & Johnson, 1972); and response cost (Burchard & Barrera, 1972;Doty, McInnis, & Paul, 1974).…”

Behavioral suppression of seriously disruptive behavior in psychotic and retarded patients: A review of punishment and its alternatives.

“…Its use is presently more conservative than at its inception, [n 1964, Lovaas, Freitag, Kinder, Rubenstein, Schaeffer, and Simmons (Note 1) described the application of shock to treat psychotic behavior in children. This set the stage for a series of studies using shock to treat SIB (Browning, 1971;Bucher & Lovaas, 1968;Corte et al, 1971;Duker, 1976;Griffin, Locke, & Landers, 1975;Kohlenberg, Levin, & Belcher, 1973;Lovaas & Simmons, 1969;McFarlain, Andy, Scott, & Wheatley, 1975;Merbaum, 1973;Prochaska, Smith, Marzilli, Colby, & Donavan, 1974;Romanczyk & Gorcn, 1975;Tate & Baroff, 1966;Whaley & Tough, 1970;Young & Wincze, 1974). Electric shock was also used to modify such varied and hazardous behaviors as stereotyped screaming (Hamilton & Standahl, 1969), chronic ruminative vomiting (Cunningham & Linscheid, 1976;Kohlenberg, 1970;Lang & Melamed, 1969;Luckey, Watson, & Musick, 1968;Toister, Colin, Worley, & Arthur, 1975;Watkins, 1972;J.…”

“…In those studies examining maintenance the period of follow-up has been relatively limited. Although many have no follow-up, others have followed subjects for periods ranging from 3 to 10 months (e.g., Baumeister & Forehand, 1972;Birnbrauer, 1968;Corte et al, 1971), and in a few cases there has been a full year or more of follow-up (e.g., Griffin et al, 1975;Hamilton & Standahl, 1969;Lang & Melamed, 1969;Merbaum, 1973).…”

Introductory remarks: long-term follow-up of behavioral interventions for challenging behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities

“…In the final paper McGlynn and Locke present a unique report of a 25 year follow-up of the paper by Griffin, Locke, and Landers (1975) on treating selfinjury with punishment procedures. No relapse was observed during the 25 year period.…”