The Use of Mild Punishment in Combination with Reinforcement of Alternate Behaviors to Reduce the Self-Injurious Behavior of a Profoundly Retarded Individual

Abstract

A procedure involving the response-contingent presentation of a mild aversive stimulus, reinforcement of alternative behaviors, and training for stimulus control was used to suppress self-injurious behavior of a profoundly retarded individual. This procedure, implemented by several people in varied settings throughout the entire school day, produced an immediate and substantial suppression effect in the training environments. Examination of school records and extensive staff interviewing indicates that the suppression effect generalized from the training environments to the hospital living area. In addition, it was durable in both the training and nontraining settings over an 8-month interval, although 20 months after treatment termination, a large portion of the generalized suppression effect in the nontraining environment was reversed. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are presented. These records and interviews also indicate that the inhibition factor of self-injurious responding was not associated with increases in existing stereotypic behavior or the development of new stereotypic behaviors. The public school personnel who conducted the program were completely trained in one school day without disruption to their normal activities.

Positive procedures and generalized self‐choking

“…To our knowledge, in only two published studies have consequences been successfully applied to self-choking (i.e., Murphey, Ruprecht, Baggio, & Nunes, 1979;Peine et al, 1991), and both of these studies used contingent water mist treatment. Ninety-two (Murphey et al, 1979) and 100 (Peine et al, 1991) percent suppression of self-choking resulted.…”

“…To our knowledge, in only two published studies have consequences been successfully applied to self-choking (i.e., Murphey, Ruprecht, Baggio, & Nunes, 1979;Peine et al, 1991), and both of these studies used contingent water mist treatment. Ninety-two (Murphey et al, 1979) and 100 (Peine et al, 1991) percent suppression of self-choking resulted. Follow-up data showed that complete suppression of self-choking remained after 8 months in one study (Peine et al, 1991) but a reversal occurred in the other in a nontraining environment (Murphey et al, 1979).…”

“…Ninety-two (Murphey et al, 1979) and 100 (Peine et al, 1991) percent suppression of self-choking resulted. Follow-up data showed that complete suppression of self-choking remained after 8 months in one study (Peine et al, 1991) but a reversal occurred in the other in a nontraining environment (Murphey et al, 1979). Both studies employed differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in addition to water mist treatment, but neither parcelled out the effects, if any, of the DRO contingency.…”

Water Mist Punishment for Two Classes of Problem Behaviour

“…Since the subjects were mainly young people, the treatment effects on problem behaviour in older people are not well known. Follow-up data were only presented in 9 of the 16 publications (Fehr & Beckwith, 1989;Friman et al, 1984;Jenson, Rovner, Cameron, Petersen, & Kesler, 1985;Murphy, Ruprecht, Baggio, & Nunes, 1979;Osborne et al, 1992;Peine et al, 1991;Peterson & Peterson, 1977;Reilich, Spooner, & Rose, 1984;Singh, Watson, & Winton, 1986).…”