Module F

Contents

	Task 1: Some thoughts on uses of punishment		Task 4: Acoustic processing
	Task 2: operant training		Task 5: The complexity of our lives
	Task 3		Task 6

Task 1: Some thoughts on uses of punishment

Consider the following comments on punishment prepared by Art Kohn (1990).
 

The effectiveness of punishment

Skinner's early work suggested that punishment only suppressed behavior on a temporary basis, and that the behavior would recur once the direct threat was removed. Recent research has shown, however, that punishment can effectively eliminate behavior when alternative behaviors can produce necessary outcomes.
 

Eliminating self-mutilation: A case study

A paper by Cowart and Whaley (1972) describes their work with a nine-year-old self-mutilating child named Dickie. In the first phase of the work, Cowart and Whaley tried to cure Dickie by using extinction. They placed Dickie in a padded room where he could not possibly injure himself, and they observed him bang his head against the floor a total of 1,440 times. Sadly, Dickie gave no indication of slowing down. Extinction had failed.

In the next phase of their work, they attached small electrodes to his legs, and when Dickie banged his head on the floor, the experimenters administered a mild electric shock. Immediately, Dickie, who looked terribly surprised, stopped his head banging and did not repeat it for three minutes. He then quickly banged his head on the floor three times in quick succession, and the experimenters delivered a shock after each one. Again he stopped head banging for a period of time, and only banged his head one more time. Following the last mild shock, he did not bang his head at all during the remainder of the one-hour session. During subsequent sessions, the experimenters generalized the training to other areas of the hospital.
 

A case study of punishment, One with a sad ending

Kohn had worked in a home with self-mutilating children. Unfortunately the children had to remain restrained for most of the day because there was a very small staff and the state government forbade the use of aversive contingencies. Then one day one of the staff members came up with an ingenious idea. She bought each of the staff a bright red water pistol. Her plan was that each time a child began to self-mutilate, the staff member would squirt a stream of water onto his wrist.

It was decided to test the squirt guns on six children, and to the pleasant surprise of the staff, it eliminated self-mutilation in five of them. Although the squirt gun did not work as quickly as electric shock, the boys stopped their self-mutilation within four or five days. And once the self-mutilation had stopped, the staff were able to proceed with their efforts to teach language to the boys.

Kohn mentions two interesting asides to help illustrate other operant principles. First, one of the children was not affected by the squirt and even seemed to enjoy it, so he no longer included him in this treatment. However, this does not present theoretical difficulties since, by definition, the squirting was not a punisher for him. Second, Kohn mentions that there were occasional incidents of spontaneous recovery. Without exception, these occurred when strangers would visit the house. The staff carefully warned visitors to ignore the behavior, however, and the behavior quickly subsided.

The story ends, from Kohn's point of view, sadly. During a periodic visit, a state inspector was amazed at how well the children seemed to be doing, and the staff enthusiastically explained the squirt gun technology. The inspector was appalled. "Do you mean you have punished these children?! Don't you realize that they have a mental handicap? You have no right to punish them!" Within a week the director of the program was in front of a state board, and in spite of his best efforts to explain the program, he was ordered to discontinue any punitive measures. Lacking the means to fight the bureaucracy, he did so, and gradually the self-mutilation recurred. Kohn left the center shortly after they had to place one of the five successful children back into a straightjacket.
 

Punishing normal children

"Should parents spank their children?" This question inevitably leads to a vigorous and lively class discussion that can be used to better illuminate the principle of punishment. I like to focus the discussion around two central points: (1) Does punishment work? That is, does it cause the child to redirect her behavior? and (2) Does it lead to undesirable side effects? In the past, I have found that student opinions varied in interesting ways. For example, I have found that while most students oppose spanking because of its side effects, they also believe that it does suppress behavior. However, the majority of subjects support spanking, but doubt that it is particularly effective.

Psychological research provides us with direction in, if not clear answers to, these questions. First, we know that spanking can be effective as long as it is consistent, is not too severe, and either occurs soon after the misdeed or is accompanied by an explanation for the punishment. Finally, it is important that the child be given alternative ways to accomplish his goals. For instance, a hungry child is likely to continue stealing food if he has no other way to satisfy his appetite.

Source: Kohn (1990)

Return to Top

The reading by Smeets et. al. (1985) contained in the print copy of your Workbook, indicates how a learning theory (operant or Shinnerian) is applied to a difficult human problem.

This paper can be used as a model for writing Assignment 2 if that looks useful.

Smeets, P.M., Lancioni, G.E., Ball, T.S. & Oliva, D.S. (1985). Shaping self-initiated toileting in infants. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 303-308.

Return to Top

For your interest you may like to read this article on the fear that people feel in going to the dentist and how they are assisted in overcoming their fears.

See: Juan, S. (1980, August 10). Dentist? give me the pliers. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 13, in the print copy of your Workbook.

Return to Top

Below are two sets of stimuli. Copy one of them on paper in the subject's view at the rate of about one letter per second. When the list is complete leave the subject for a few seconds to review the list. Take the list away and ask the subject to recall as many of the letters as possible (sequence is unimportant). Later test them on the other list. What is found is that subjects do much better on the second list because acoustic similarity of the letters in the first list causes interference and therefore memory is perturbed.
 

(adapted from Kohn, 1990)

Return to Top

William James once commented upon the booming, buzzing confusion that a newborn faces initially then gradually sorts out as she develops. There are many explanations for forgetting but it is also true that many of the stimuli that impinge upon us never get to be considered because they are not attended to and thus do not arise in consciousness. To an extent we learn to cope with the booming buzzing confusion by ignoring most of it. Here is a brief quotation from C.S. Lewis which comments on this.
 

Each of us finds that in his own life every moment of time is completely filled. He is bombarded every second by sensations, emotions, thoughts, which he cannot attend to for multitude, and nine-tenths of which he must simply ignore ... The past ... was a roaring cataract of billions upon billions of such moments: any one of them too complex to grasp in its entirety, and the aggregate beyond all imagination ... At every tick of the clock, in every inhabited part of the world, an unimaginable richness and variety of "history" falls off the world into total oblivion.

Return to Top

Your essay has gone to the marker and you should have data for Assignment 2 (partially analysed). You should be starting your reading and beginning to organise your response.

            Return to Schedule