The Effects of Social Punishment on Noncompliance: A Comparison With Timeout and Positive Practice

Abstract

The effects of social punishment, positive practice, and timeout on the noncompliant behavior of four mentally retarded children were assessed in a multitreatment withdrawal design. When programmed, the experimental procedure occurred contingent on noncompliance to experimenter-issued commands. Commands were given at 55-sec intervals throughout each experimental session. The results showed (1) lower levels of noncompliance with social punishment than with the positive-practice or timeout conditions, and (2) that relatively few applications of social punishment were required to obtain this effect. The advantages of social punishment over other punishment procedures, considerations to be made before using it, and the various aspects of the procedure that contribute to its effectiveness were discussed.

A method to establish stimulus control and compliance with instructions

“…Compliance, or cooperation, has been the target of intervention for several decades (Forehand, Gardner & Roberts, 1978). Although a wide variety of interventions have targeted compliance by manipulating antecedents (e.g., Stephenson & Hanley, 2010) and/or consequences for compliance (e.g., Russo et al, 1981) and noncompliance (e.g., Doleys et al, 1976), we are unaware of interventions aimed expressly at establishing the stimulus control of instructions. We designed our intervention to maximize the number of experiences the participants had with the S-R-S contingency and, at the same time, minimizing the number of experiences participants had with S-noR-noS contingencies.…”

“…Several interventions have been used to improve compliance, including positive reinforcement of compliance (Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef & Egel, ; Russo, Cataldo & Cushing, ); timeout (Rortvedt & Milenberger, 1994); spanking (Forehand & McMahon, ); social punishment (Doleys, Wells, Hobbs, Roberts & Cartelli, ); escape extinction (Zarcone, Iwata, Mazaleski & Smith, ); the high‐probability instructional sequence (Austin & Agar, ; Davis, Brady, Hamilton, McEvoy, & Williams, ; Mace et al ); graduated guided compliance (Wilder et al, ); a package of antecedent interventions (proximity, posture, eye contact, attention and response interruption; Stephenson & Hanley, ); and video self‐modeling (Axelrod, Bellini & Markoff, ), among others. Although these interventions have been shown to improve compliance, and none has significant limitations, some can be time consuming to implement or impractical (e.g., video self‐modeling requires multiple video clips to be made of the child that capture the child being compliant in multiple contexts and video viewing prior to evaluation of the intervention; Axelrod et al, ).…”

Positive Practice Overcorrection: The Effects of Duration of Positive Practice on Acquisition and Response Reduction

“…Overcorrection procedures, in general, have been criticized for the time required (Doleys, Wells, Hobbs, Roberts, & Cartelli, 1976) and for producing negative side effects in clients and staff (Axelrod et al, 1978). The present findings indicate that these problems could be reduced by shortening the treatment duration.…”

Comparison of Response Cost and Timeout in a Special Education Setting

“…Most current research (MacDonough & Forehand, 1973;White, Nielsen, & Johnson, 1972) suggests that timeout periods longer than 40 seconds are needed to suppress behavior. The Doleys et al (1976) study does, however, suggest that social punishment is a useful alternative to timeout and positive practice and that it may circumvent certain legal and ethical stipulations regarding punishment procedures with the mentally retarded.…”

“…While timeout usually functions as a punisher, Solnick, Rincover, and Peterson (1977) have demonstrated it can also operate as a reinforcer, depending upon the state of the &dquo;time-in&dquo; environment. Doleys, Wells, Hobbs, Roberts, and Cartelli (1976) compared the relative effects of social punishment, timeout, and positive practice on noncompliance in four mentally retarded children. Social punishment consisted of a loud, scolding verbal reprimand and a glare (lasting for 40 seconds) contingent upon the child's noncompliance.…”