JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT ONNONCOMPLIANCE: A COMPARISON WITH TIMEOUT AND

POSITIVE PRACTICEDANIEL M. DOLEYS,1 KAREN C WELLS, STEVEN A. HOBBS,

MARK W. ROBERTS, AND LORA M. CARTELLIUNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

The effects of social punishment, positive practice, and timeout on the noncompliant be-havior of four mentally retarded children were assessed in a multitreatment withdrawaldesign. When programmed, the experimental procedure occurred contingent on non-compliance to experimenter-issued commands. Commands were given at 55-sec intervalsthroughout each experimental session. The results showed (1) lower levels of noncom-pliance with social punishment than with the positive-practice or timeout conditions,and (2) that relatively few applications of social punishment were required to obtainthis effect. The advantages of social punishment over other punishment procedures, con-siderations to be made before using it, and the various aspects of the procedure that con-tribute to its effectiveness were discussed.DESCRIPTORS: social puAishment, noncompliant behavior, punishment procedures,

mentally retarded children

Suppression of the deviant or noncompliantbehavior of children has often been attemptedthrough the systematic application of timeout(i.e., isolation), ignoring, removal of attention,and overcorrection (Forehand and Baumeister,1975; MacMillan, Forness, and Trumbull,1973). Certain undesirable effects, however,have occasionally been associated with each ofthese procedures. Wahler (1969) and Herbert,Pinkston, Hayden, Sajwaj, Pinkston, Cordura,and Jackson (1973), for example, showed thatignoring noncompliance and other behavioralproblems not only failed to reduce the frequencyof these behaviors but, in some instances, wasassociated with an increase in the target behav-iors. Sajwaj, Twardosz, and Burke (1972) alsoreported an increase in disruptive behavior whena single response, "nagging", was ignored. Inaddition, certain behaviors threaten bodily in-jury to the child himself or to others, and may

'Appreciation is expressed to Cynthia Shields forher assistance in conducting this study. Reprints maybe obtaiiwd from Daniel M. Doleys, CDLD, Univer-sity of Alabama in Birmingham School of Medicine,P.O. Box 313 University Station, Birmingham, Ala-bama 35294.

be frequent or severe enough to preclude theuse of ignoring.

Overcorrection has been shown to be effectivein reducing a variety of deviant behaviors (Azrinand Wesolowski, 1974; Foxx and Azrin, 1973),but this procedure can require a considerableamount of time to deliver and, therefore, maynot be practical in some environments. Further-more, the use of manual guidance may set theoccasion for aggressive responding by the sub-ject.

Although timeout (isolation) has been showneffectively to suppress some undesirable be-haviors (Bostow and Bailey, 1969; Hamilton,Stephens, and Allen, 1967), it can also serve asa positive reinforcer (Steeves, Martin, and Pear,1970). In addition, increased attention is; beingdrawn to the practical (Anderson and King,1974), procedural (McDonough and Forehand,1973), and ethical (Anderson, 1974; White,Neilsen, and Johnson, 1972) problems inherentin the use of this procedure. Indeed, the use oftimeout has been eliminated or severely cur-tailed in many institutional settings due to re-cent court action (Wyatt versus Stickney, CourtCase, 1974). This emphasizes the need to ex-

471

1976, 93, 471-482 NUMBER 4 (WINTER) 1976

DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

plore and develop other effective procedures,particularly for use with the mentally retarded.

Social punishment may be an alternative tothe use of timeout, ignoring, or overcorrectionprocedures in the control of deviant and non-compliant behavior. Several classroom studieshave shown that social punishment in the formof a verbal reprimand (Hall, Axelrod, Found-opoulos, Shellman, Campbell, and Cranston,1971; McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, and Con-derman, 1969; O'Leary and Becker, 1968;O'Leary, Kaufman, Kass, and Drobman, 1970)or verbal reprimands variously combined withphysical closeness or contact with the subject,disapproving facial expression, and praise (Jonesand Miller, 1974; McAllister et al., 1969;O'Leary et al., 1970; Sajwaj, Culver, Hall, andLehr, 1972) will reduce disruptive student be-havior. Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong (1968)and Madsen, Becker, Thomas, Koser, and Plager(1970), however, reported an increase in thetarget behavior when a contingent reprimand ordisapproving statement was issued by theteacher; Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden(1968) and Azrin and Powers (1975) notedteacher reprimands to be relatively ineffective.The presence of peers when social punishmentwas delivered, inconsistent results, and within-and between-study variations in the type andcomplexity of the social punishment admin-istered limit the generality of the findings.Two studies (Forehand, Roberts, Doleys,

Hobbs, and Resick, 1975; Moore and Bailey,1973) explored the effects of social punishmentadministered by parents. In a group comparisondesign, Forehand et al. (1975) found negativeattention (a loud reprimand followed by a silent"glare") to be more effective than repeated com-mands, isolation, ignoring, or a combination con-

dition in reducing the noncompliant behavior ofnormal children. Moore and Bailey (1973)showed that a loud verbal reprimand by themother decreased "autistic-like" behavior in a

3-yr-old and increased social responsiveness.Redd, Morris, and Martin (1975) found that

when adults, other than parents or teachers, ad-

ministered reprimands for off-task behavior, theywere better able to establish and maintain theon-task behavior than were adults who providedonly social positive reinforcement and adultswho completely ignored the subject's behavior.Preference tests, however, showed the "negative"adults to be the least preferred by the children.Some studies have examined the effects of

social punishment with the mentally retarded(Baumeister and Forehand, 1972; Repp andDeitz, 1974; Risley, 1968), but each poses amethodological problem that makes interpreta-tion of the efficacy of social punishment difficult.Baumeister and Forehand (1972) reported datafor a group of six subjects with no discussion ofindividual variation. Repp and Deitz (1974)combined a response-contingent "No" with pos-itive reinforcement for appropriate behavior.Risley (1968) combined shouting with physicalshaking of the subject, and reported data foronly one subject who had earlier been exposedto other intervention procedures for other targetbehaviors.

The present study investigated the effects ofa social-punishment procedure, a loud verbalreprimand followed by a silent "glare", on thenoncompliant behavior of four mentally re-tarded children. It was designed to provide amore comprehensive experimental analysis ofthe effects of social punishment when used asthe only intervention procedure. In addition, itis one of the first attempts to compare systemati-cally social punishment to a brief timeout and aprocedure referred to as positive practice, whichmight be considered a form of overcorrection.

METHOD

SubjectsFour residential students from a local center

for the developmentally handicapped served assubjects. Keith, an 8-yr-old male, and Paula, a10-yr-old female, were both identified as edu-cably mentally retarded (IQs of 52 and 31 re-spectively) with no apparent organic disorder.Ricky, a 10-yr-old male, was diagnosed autistic

472

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT

and mentally retarded (IQ of 52). He was de-ficient in expressive language skills but had beenobserved on occasion to respond appropriatelyto instructions delivered by his teacher. Scott, a10-yr-old male, had been variously diagnosedautistic, childhood schizophrenic, and mentallyretarded (IQ of 40).

Each of the children was described by theirteachers and parents as being noncompliant oruncooperative. In addition, Scott emitted severalbizarre and aggressive behaviors in his class-room, which included jumping and hoppingaround the room, loud inappropriate verbaliza-tions, and frequent threats or physical attackson his classmates. For these reasons, the childrenwere referred by their teachers to the presentstudy.

Setting and ApparatusThe experiment was conducted in a room

containing two large tables some 3 m apart. Avariety of toys and playthings, with which thesubjects were commanded to play, was arrangedon each table. The objects on one table weredesignated as A-task toys and included: (a)chalkboard and chalk, (b) sheets of "connect-the-dots" and a pencil, (c) paint book and paints,(d) paper with designs for cutting and scissors,and (e) a coloring book and crayons. The toyson the second table were referred to as B-tasksand included: (a) plastic cars and trucks, (b)tinker toys, (c) plastic cowboys and Indians, (d)wooden blocks, and (e) four hand-puppets. Non-compliance with B-task commands producedthe treatment procedures during the study. TheA-tasks were used to determine the cross-taskgenerality of changes in noncompliance. A jig-saw puzzle and a plastic telephone were used asprobe-tasks, which were introduced periodicallythroughout the experiment to assess whetherrates of noncompliance would remain stablewhen unfamiliar tasks were employed. Theprobe task toys were present during only thosesessions when they were used.

Observations and recordings were made froman adjoining room equipped with one-way mir-

rors. A standard tape recorder was used to cueeach recording interval. An auditory stimulussignalled the end of a recording interval, atwhich time the observer(s) scored the child's be-havior. A standard flashlight was used by theobserver to cue the experimenter when to givea command and when to terminate the session.

ProcedureIntroduction to the toys. At the beginning of

the first session, the subject was taken to each ofthe toys or tasks, told what it was called, andshown how to play with it. This was done toensure that the subject knew to which task hewas being directed when commands were given.Commands. Direct commands, cued as de-

scribed above, to engage in a particular taskwere given by the experimenter at 55-sec inter-vals after introduction to the toys during thefirst sessions and throughout each subsequentsession. A subject was never commanded to playwith a toy if he was already in contact with it,but was always directed to another one. Com-mands relating to the A-tasks were of the formof "Color in the coloring book with the colors".For the probe and B-tasks, the subject was di-rected to "Play with the ". The order ofthe commands was mixed and varied from ses-sion to session. A- and B-task commands wereevenly distributed throughout each session.Probe task commands were issued only duringbaseline conditions. The mean number of com-mands issued per session was 24 (range 18 to28).

During the session, the experimenter re-mained in one part of the room, from which heissued commands. The experimenter movedabout the room (a) if it was necessitated by anexperimental condition, or (b) to relocate thetoys in their designated places if the subject hadgathered two or more of them around himselfor had thrown the toys about the room. A neu-tral facial expression was maintained by theexperimenter, thus neither approving nor disap-proving of the subject's behavior, unless other-wise defined by an experimental condition.

473

4DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

Except for giving the commands, no other inter-action took place unless specified by an experi-mental procedure.

Experimental ConditionsBaseline (B.L.). During baseline, commands

were delivered as described above. The experi-menter engaged in no other interaction with thesubject and made no differential response to hisbehavior.

Social punishment (S.P.). Social punishmentwas instituted upon the noncompliance of thesubject to B-task commands (i.e., failure to touchthe toy or task specified in the command within10 sec after the command was given). Socialpunishment was defined by the experimenter'swalking over to the subject, holding him firmlyby the shoulders and in a loud scolding voicesaying "(Scott), you did not do as I asked rightaway and I don't like it when you disobey me!"The experimenter then released the subject, puthis hands on his hips and "glared" silently athim for 40 sec. The "glare" consisted of lookingcontinuously at the subject.

Positive practice (P.P.). Positive practice wascarried out only after the occurrence of noncom-pliance to B-task commands. Positive practiceinvolved the experimenter leading the subjectto the commanded task and manually guidinghim through appropriate play activities. Manualguidance consisted of assuming a position be-hind the subject, taking the subject's hand anddirecting the task-related activity for 40 sec.Whatever pressure or force was necessary to getthe subject to move his hands was applied. If thesubject engaged in task-relevant behavior withminimal guidance, the experimenter terminatedmanual guidance but remained behind the sub-ject during the positive-practice period. Manualguidance was initiated again if at any time dur-ing the 40-sec period the subject ceased appro-priate play behavior.

Timeout (T.O.). As with social punishmentand positive practice, timeout was contingenton noncompliance with B-task commands. Iso-lation within the experimental setting was used

as the timeout procedure. It was executed by theexperimenter approaching the child, stating ina calm voice, "(Scott), you did not do as I askedright away so you will have to sit in the corner",then leading the subject to a corner of the roomand standing quietly by him for a 40-sec periodto ensure that he remained in the corner. Theexperimenter ignored the subject unless he at-tempted to escape from the corner and had to bereturned.

Measurement and ReliabilitySubjects were observed individually in 30- to

40-min sessions five days a week. A trained ob-server recorded each subject's behavior after thecommand was given. "Noncompliance" wasscored if the subject did not touch the prescribedtoy within 10 sec after the command was given.

The frequency of aggressive responses wasalso recorded for Scott beginning at Session 5.An aggressive response was defined as anythrowing or kicking behavior, threatening ges-tures, or physical attacks toward the experi-menter.

Interobserver agreement for noncompliancewas checked during selected sessions for each ofthe subjects by utilizing a second trained ob-server in the observation room. Scored-interval(S-I) reliability scores were calculated by theformula

total number agreementstotal number of intervals inwhich at least one observer

recorded the behavior

(Hawkins and Dotson, 1975).

Experimental DesignA withdrawal design (Leitenberg, 1973), in

which baseline conditions preceded and followedeach experimental condition, was employed toassess the effects of the three experimental pro-cedures on the noncompliant behavior of thefour subjects. In addition, the effects of socialpunishment, when it was preceded by none,one, or both of the other experimental proce-

474

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT

dures, were investigated by exposing Keith tosocial punishment only, Paula to positive prac-tice followed by social punishment, and Scottand Ricky to both timeout and positive practicebefore social punishment. This design provideda partial control for order effects that can occurin multitreatment single subject designs (Birn-brauer, Peterson, and Solnick, 1974).

For each of the four subjects, baseline condi-tions remained in effect until a stability criterionof 12% deviation or less in the per cent of non-compliance across five sessions was met. Eachexperimental condition continued for a maxi-mum of five sessions or a minimum of two. Thebaseline condition was re-instated after two ses-sions under an experimental condition if non-compliance was reduced to 50% or less in atleast one of the two sessions. This latter criterionincreased the likelihood of re-establishing base-line levels of performance by returning to base-line before complete and sustained suppressionof noncompliance, permitting the effects of sub-sequent procedures to be adequately determined.In addition, conditions were never changed onthe first day of the week.

RESULTSReliability

The mean interobserver agreement and thepercentage of the total sessions during whichmeasurement reliability was obtained are shownfor each subject in Table 1. The mean reliability

Table 1

Scored Interval Reliabilities

NoncomplianceaMean Range b% Intervals

Keith 0.95 0.80-1.00 24Paula 0.88 0.57-1.00 20Ricky 0.93 0.72-1.00 25Scott 0.98 0.90-1.00 20aWhen no instances of noncompliance were re-

corded, the S-I formula became 0/0. These occur-rences, of which there were only three, were not in-cluded in calculating the mean.

bPercentage of session in which reliability waschecked.

estimates ranged from 0.88 to 0.98, with indi-vidual session scores extending from 0.57 to1.00. The sessions in which reliability was ob-tained are indicated by an asterisk (*) in Figures1 and 2. The presence of a second observer didnot appear to increase or decrease systematicallythe reported per cent of noncompliance.

Noncompliance Data

Table 2 gives the mean per cent of noncom-pliance to A- and B-task commands across thevarious experimental conditions. Each of thesubjects demonstrated consistent responding toboth sets of tasks. When noncompliance to theB-task commands decreased as a result of pun-ishment, a lower mean per cent noncompliancewas also recorded for the A-task commands. Thelargest discrepancy in per cent noncomplianceoccurred for Scott under social punishment(S.P.) when noncompliance to A-task com-mands was 27 percentage points higher thanfor B-task commands.

Figures 1 and 2 show the percentage of non-compliance for each of the four subjects acrossthe experimental conditions. Data for the A- andB-tasks are combined because of the similarity inresponding to the two sets of tasks. The numberof times that social punishment, positive prac-tice, or timeout was employed during the ses-sions when they were scheduled to follow non-compliance is also indicated. In addition, thedata obtained from the use of the probe tasksare presented separately.

Keith's mean level of noncompliance at theend of the initial baseline was above 90% (Fig-ure 1). The introduction of social punishmentcontingent on noncompliance to B-task com-mands immediately decreased noncompliance.Social punishment was administered only twiceduring the two sessions. Noncompliance gradu-ally increased on return to baseline, meeting thestability criterion at about 80%.

Paula's noncompliant behavior met the stabil-ity criterion at approximately 98% in the firstbaseline period. Relatively small changes in non-compliance were recorded in the subsequent pos-

475

DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

S E S S IO N S

P.P. B.L S.P.0 .4- o --on _ Ch

0

B.L.

u l l ,I1 2 3 4 5

I I I I

l I 1 1I 1

**1 1I I I I10 15 20 25 30

SESS I ONS

Fig. 1. The per cent of noncompliance per session is shown for Keith (upper panel) and Paula (lower panel)across the baseline (B.L.), social punishment (S.P.), and positive practice (P.P.) conditions. The horizontal linesindicate the mean per cent noncompliance for the sessions over which they extend. The numbers on the upperportion of each panel represent the number of occasions on which a particular experimental procedure wasapplied in that session. Asterisks mark the sessions when interobserver agreement was obtained. The open cir-cles denote percentage of noncompliance on probe tasks.

476

1WN

B.L.

o NObPi.CE To PI-TuES

LiI.aLi-a

1-aCLICcm

LJJ4-a

LL

PML

B.L.

1'3-,10090-

ii 80-

_i 70-

2o 60-'a

= 50-

- 30-

9 20-

10-

alb

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT

Table 2Mean percentage of noncompliance to A and B Task commands for each subject acrossthe experimental conditions

ConditionTask

A B Subject ConditionTask

A B

Keith B.L. 98 92 Scott B.L. 95 98S.P. 23 14 T.O. 100 100B.L. 85 78 B.L. 97 98

P.P. 88 75B.L. 98 100S.P. 52 25B.L. 8 10

Paula B.L. 100 98 Ricky B.L. 100 99P.P. 97 95 T.O. 74 56B.L. 98 95 B.L. 100 100S.P. 37 27 P.P. 55 48B.L. 25 2 B.L. 97 100

S.P. 23 10B.L. 100 90

amean percentage of noncompliance for B.L. condition based on last five sessions under B.L. for T.O., P.P.,and S.P. Mean percentage of noncompliance is based on total number of sqssions in each condition.

itive practice and baseline conditions. Noncom-pliance decreased to a mean of 30% when socialpunishment was applied. This procedure was

employed an average of 4.5 times for the two

social-punishment sessions, in comparison to a

mean of 10.8 positive-practice trials for each ses-

sion under that condition. Her levels of noncom-pliance during the final baseline remained wellbelow those recorded in previous baselines,meeting the stability criterion at 13%.

Figure 2 shows the data for Ricky and Scott,both of whom were exposed to the three experi-mental conditions in the same order. Ricky'slevel of noncompliance decreased from a base-line of nearly 100% to a mean of 64% for thetwo timeout sessions. Total noncompliance(100%) was recorded again in the sixth ses-

sion of the second baseline period. The decreasein noncompliance noted in Session 16 occurredfollowing Ricky's three-week vacation fromschool. Noncompliance decreased to below 50%under positive practice but immediately returnedto 100% during the following baseline. Thegreatest suppression of noncompliance was as-

sociated with social punishment, even thoughthe procedure was applied fewer times (five) as

compared to positive practice and timeout,

which were invoked on 12 and 15 occasions re-

spectively. As in the previous baselines, noncom-pliance returned to nearly 100% during thefinal baseline condition for Ricky.

Scott's (Figure 2) high levels of noncom-

pliance at the end of the first baseline were not

substantially modified during the timeout or

second baseline conditions, remaining above90% throughout. Although noncompliance de-creased under positive practice, it remained near

80% and increased when the baseline conditionwas re-instated. Scott became much less non-

compliant (mean noncompliance of 39%) un-

der social punishment than he had in any pre-

vious condition, although fewer applications(three per session) of the procedure were re-

quired in comparison to positive practice (9.4per session) and timeout (11.2 per session). Un-like the previous two baseline periods, Scott'sper cent of noncompliance continued to declinein the final baseline condition and met the sta-

bility criterion at 6%.

Aggressive ResponsesScott also emitted aggressive behaviors, in-

cluding attacks on the experimenter, at a highrate during the initial baseline (AGG. RESP.,

Subject

477

--* In0 tmLE T0 IkinUA

B.L. P.P. 3.L. S.P.

Ir1 II II I

ILTII

I

II

I-A * I

I'l I I I I I12 3 5 10 is 20 25 U0

3.L. T.O. B.L. P.P. B.L. S.P.

B.L.

35

B.L.

NCco

I-.

"I

SCMA

I

I

I

I

I

_ _ _ a, In I.

I I

Ir II I II

SESS I ONS

Fig. 2. The per cent of noncompliance per session is shown for Ricky and Scott across the baseline (B.L.),timeout (T.O.), positive-practice (P.P.), and social-punishment (S.P.) conditions. The horizontal lines indicatethe mean per cent compliance for the sessions over which they extend. The numbers in the upper portion ofeach panel represent the number of occasions on which a particular experimental procedure was applied inthat session. The frequency of aggressive responses emitted per session by Scott is shown at the very top ofthat graph. Asterisks mark the sessions when interobserver agreement was obtained. The open circles denotepercentage of noncompliance on probe tasks.

478 DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

3.L. T.O.

U

100.

80a-

U

-J 70'a.

o~2 60.0

o 50-0

= 40z

49aS. 20*

10I 11I llI110

*1I*I.

,s 5:a f2Nt__SSSDIr-OC 5 NS- O O O O .OOOOO O

Sam

o en o..d _ _4 _ _

m m I I -p A lqp -F

lbary

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT

Figure 2). These attacks became more violentin timeout and resulted in the substitution of amale experimenter (Session 17), which reducedthe frequency of attacks but not the level of non-compliance. The aggressive behaviors, however,were totally suppressed under social punishmentand did not recur.

Probe DataThe data recorded from the introduction of

the.probe tasks are indicated separately in Fig-ures 1 and 2. In general, it can be seen that theper cent of noncompliance recorded in responseto the probe-task commands was similar to thatfor the other tasks. These data indicated that theeffects of the experimental procedures extendedto commands to play with unfamiliar as well asfamiliar tasks.

DISCUSSION

These data indicate that social punishment inthe form of a loud scolding reprimand followedby a silent "glare" can effectively reduce non-compliance. Based on (a) the extent to whichnoncompliance was suppressed, (b) the numberof times each procedure was administered, and(c) the rapidity and degree of response recoverywhen the procedures were withdrawn, socialpunishment also appeared to be relatively moreeffective than the timeout and positive-practicetechniques used. Further research is needed toverify this relationship and to determine if itexists for different subject populations and re-sponses. Also, the effects of social punishmentdid not appear to be attenuated when social pun-ishment followed other procedures.

There are several plausible explanations forthe inconsistent and minimal effectiveness of thetimeout procedure used. First, most current data(McDonough and Forehand, 1973; White,Nielsen, and Johnson, 1972) suggest the needfor timeout periods longer than 40 sec, althoughBarton, Guess, Garcia, and Baer (1970) reducedinappropriate mealtime behavior with a 15-sectimeout period. Second, the positively reinforc-

ing value of the command situation is question-able, in which case timeout, especially of shortduration, would not be expected to modify be-havior effectively. Third, inappropriate behaviormay actually have been adventitiously strength-ened by the noncontingent release procedure(Hobbs and Forehand, 1975). And fourth, ac-cording to teacher reports, each of the four sub-jects had experienced timeout duration of 5 minor longer on several occasions, an experiencewhich tends to attenuate the effects of shortertimeout duration (White et al., 1972).

Positive practice did have some effect on non-compliance, but it was not consistent across sub-jects. It is difficult to compare these results withthose originally obtained by Foxx and Azrin(1973), and more recently by Azrin and Powers(1975); because of the brevity of the presentprocedure and the absence of verbal directionduring positive practice. But as noted by Epstein,Doke, Sajwaj, Sorrell, and Rimmer (1974), Pos-itive practice involves several components, anyone or combination of which could be respon-sible for any observed effect.

Social punishment seems to have a number ofpractical advantages over other discipline orpunishment procedures. It can, for example, bedelivered immediately and at maximum inten-sity. If necessary, the intensity can be easily mod-erated. Social punishment requires no specialfacility, space, or apparatus, can be easily taughtto others, and administered in a variety of situa-tions. The actual time required to deliver socialpunishment is small, yet it appears to be im-mediately effective in suppressing some inap-propriate behavior, whereas ignoring or extinc-tion may initially result in a response increase(Sajwaj, Twardosz, and Burke, 1972). Further-more, it does not appear to pose the threat of anyphysical damage or harm to the subject. This lastpoint is an especially sensitive one, given thecurrent moral, ethical (Ross, 1974; White et al.,1972), and legal (Anderson and King, 1974;Wyatt versus Stickney case, 1974) issues relatingto the use of certain punishment procedures,particularly with the mentally retarded.

479

DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

Several variables relevant to an experimentalanalysis of the effects of social punishment re-quire systematic examination. One of these isthe intensity of the reprimand. O'Leary et al.(1970) and O'Leary and Becker (1968), for ex-ample, found soft reprimands to be equally ormore effective than loud reprimands in reducingdisruptive behavior in the classroom. It may be,however, that it is the contrast between theauthority agent's usual vocal intensity and theintensity of the reprimand that is important. Thisnotion is supported by O'Leary et at.'s (1970)recommendations for the use of occasional loudreprimands in combination with soft ones.

Social punishment that involves loud repri-mands may be effective because the reprimands"startle" the subject (McAllister et al., 1969; Ris-ley, 1968). This appeared to be the case with thepresent subjects, each of whom appeared"stunned" following initial administration ofsocial punishment. This was particularly appar-ent with Paula, who wet or soiled her pants dur-ing the first social-punishment session and ineach of the eight subsequent sessions, and withScott, who crouched down and covered his earsafter the first reprimand. It might be expectedthat the "startle effect" would diminish, ac-companied by increases in noncompliance. Thefact that this was not observed may be a functionof the low frequency of reprimands and thebrevity of the social-punishment condition. Therate of "adaptation" to an aversive event and therate of response recovery following the with-drawal of punishment are both important fac-tors in the selection of an effective disciplineprocedure and require more attention than theyare usually afforded, especially in terms of mak-ing a comparative analysis of various techniques.

Other factors involved in an analysis of socialpunishment include proximity to the subjectduring and after the reprimand and the presenceof peers. Both of these factors may account fordifferences between the present data and thoseobtained in a classroom, where loud reprimandswere ineffective or counterproductive (Madsenet at., 1970; O'Leary et at., 1970; Thomas et at.,

1968). Content of the reprimand may also exertinfluence, although in the present study verbalstatements issued at the onset of timeout andsocial punishment were very similar, while theeffects of the two procedures were not.

Both positive and negative side effects havebeen noted as a result of the application of socialpunishment. Hall et at. (1971), Moore andBailey (1973), and Risley (1968) each reportedincreases in responsiveness and appropriate be-havior, whereas Redd et at. (1975) reported adecrease in the reinforcement value of an adultafter he had delivered several reprimands. In thepresent study, a substantial and enduring de-crease in aggressive response was noted for Scottwhen social punishment was applied for non-compliance. Isolation enhanced aggression, whilepositive practice appeared to produce littlechange. Some "emotional" behavior (i.e., soil-ing, wetting, and brief periods of crying) wasalso observed during social punishment in thepresent study, but this did subside, even thoughthe suppressive effects of social punishment re-main relatively stable. It should also be notedthat the effects of social punishment were nottask-specific but generalized to commands in-volving unpunished and unfamiliar tasks. Inaddition, other observations indicated that thedecreases in noncompliance extended over theentire postcommand period and were not re-stricted to the 10-sec interval immediately fol-lowing the command.2 Although the side ef-fects of punishment are of great concern, fewstudies have explored this or other issues usinga multitreatment design.

Because social punishment as described hereindoes appear to elicit some "startle" and emo-tional responses, to be immediately effective, andto have the potential to function as a strongpunisher, it should be used judiciously. Forexample, social punishment may be appropriatein the suppression of a high-rate behavior sothat incompatible behavior can be reinforced.

2A detailed description of the data is available fromthe authors.

480

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL PUNISHMENT 481

It could also be employed to suppress self-de-structive behavior, which cannot go ignored dueto harmful effects to the subject. Finally, low-rate behavior that should not go unattended, i.e.,running into a busy street, may also be an ap-propriate occasion for the use of social punish-ment. If the target behavior persists, it is likelythat the procedure is not functioning as an ef-fective aversive stimulus and should be discon-tinued. As was recommended by Baer, Rowbury,and Baer (1973) and Wahler (1969) with theuse of timeout, and by O'Leary et al. (1970)and O'Leary and Kent (Note 1) with repri-mands, positive reinforcement should be usedin conjunction with social punishment as ameans of strengthening appropriate incompati-ble behavior and thus decrease the likelihood ofrecovery of the deviant behavior.On the basis of these and earlier findings

(Baumeister and Forehand, 1972; Forehand eta4., 1975; Hall et al., 1971; Jones and Miller,1974; Moore and Bailey, 1973; Reed et al.,1975; Risley, 1968; Sajwaj et al., 1972), socialpunishment appears to warrant further consider-ation as a behavioral control technique. Furtherjustification for continued research in this areacomes from evidence indicating the rather exten-sive use of social punishment in the classroom(Hall et 4l., 1968; Hall et al., 1968; Thomaset al., 1968) and by parents (Forehand, King,Peed, and Yoder, 1975; Johnson and Lobitz,1974) in the absence of guidelines relating to itsefficacy and proper use. Perhaps social punish-ment could best be viewed as one of several pun-ishment or discipline procedures available to theparent, teacher, and paraprofessional. The spe-cific procedure used may vary according to thechild's history and current environmental condi-tions in the same way that the type of positivereinforcer used is varied.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. O'Leary, K. D. and Kent, R. M. A behavioralconsultation program for parents and teachers ofchildren with conduct problems. Paper presented

at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological As-sociation, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 1974.

REFERENCE NOTE

Anderson, K. A. and King, H. E. Time-out recon-sidered. Instructional Psychology, 1974, 1, 11-17.

Azrin, N. H. and Powers, M. A. Eliminating class-room disturbances of emotionally disturbed chil-dren by positive practice procedures. BehaviorTherapy, 1975, 6, 525-534.

Azrin, N. H. and Wesolowski, M. D. Theft re-versal: an overcorrection procedure for eliminat-ing stealing by retarded persons. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 577-581.

Baer, A. M., Rowbury, T., and Baer, D. M. The de-velopment of instructional control over classroomactivities of deviant preschool children. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 289-298.

Barton, E. S., Guess, D., Garcia, E., and Baer, D. M.Improvement of retardates' mealtime behaviorsby timeout procedures using multiple baselinetechniques. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1970,3, 77-84.

Baumeister, A. A. and Forehand, R. L. Effects ofcontingent shock and verbal command on body-rocking of retardates. Journal of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 1972, 4, 586-590.

Birnbrauer, J. S., Peterson, C. R., and Solnick, J. V.Design and interpretation of studies of singlesubjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,1974, 79, 191-203.

Bostow, D. E. and Bailey, J. B. Modification ofsevere disruptive and aggressive behavior usingbrief timeout and reinforcement procedures.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2,31-37.

Epstein, L. H., Doke, L. A., Sajwaj, T. E., Sorrell, S.,and Rimmer, B. Generality and side effects ofovercorrection. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 1974, 3, 385-390.

Forehand, R. L. and Baumeister, A. A. Decelerationof aberrant behavior among retarded individuals.In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, and P. M. Miller(Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. NewYork: Academic Press. (In press).

Forehand, R. L., King, H. E., Peed, S., and Yoder, P.Mother-child interactions: Comparison of a non-complaint clinic group and a non-clinic group.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1975, 13, 79-84.

Forehand, R. L., Roberts, M. W., Doleys, D. M.,Hobbs, S. A., and Resick, P. A. An examinationof disciplinary procedures with children. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 1975 (inpress).

Foxx, R. M. and Azrin, M. H. Restitution: Amethod of eliminating aggressive-disruptive be-havior of retarded and brain damaged patients.

482 DANIEL M. DOLEYS et al.

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1972, 10, 15-27.

Hall, R. V., Axelrod, S., Foundopoulos, M., Shell-man, J., Campbell, R. A., and Cranston, S. S.The effective use of punishment to modify be-havior in the classroom. Educational Technology,1971, 11, 24-26.

Hall, R. V., Lund, D., and Jackson, D. Effects ofteacher attention on study behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1-12.

Hall, R. V., Panyan, M., Rabon, D., and Broden, M.Instructing beginning teachers in reinforcementprocedures which improve classroom control.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,315-322.

Hamilton, J., Stephens, L., and Allen, P. Controllingaggressive and destructive behavior in severely re-tarded institutionalized residents. American Jour-nal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 852-856.

Herbert, E. W., Pinkston, E. M., Hayden, M. L.,Sajwaj, T. E., Pinkston, S., Cordura, G., andJackson, C. Adverse effects of differential par-ental attention. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1973, 6, 15-30.

Hobbs, S. A. and Forehand, R. L. Effects of differ-ential release from time-out on children's deviantbehavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Ex-perimental Psychiatry, 1975 (in press).

Johnson, S. W. and Lobitz, G. K. Parental manipu-lation of child behavior in home observations.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7,23-32.

Jones, F. H. and Miller, W. H. The effective use ofnegative attention for reducing group disruptionin special elementary school classrooms. ThePsychological Record, 1974, 24, 435-448.

Leitenberg, H. The use of single-case methodologyin psychotherapy research. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 1973, 83, 87-101.

MacDonough, T. S. and Forehand, R. L. Response-contingent time-out: Important parameters in be-havior modification with children. Journal of Be-havior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,1973, 4, 231-236.

MacMillan, D. L., Forness, S. R., and Trumbull, B.M. The role of punishment in the classroom.Exceptional Children, 1973, 40, 85-96.

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., and Thomas, D. R.Rules, praise, and ignoring: elements of ele-mentary classroom control. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 139-150.

McAllister, L. W., Stachowiak, J. G., Baer, D. M., andConderman, L. The application of operant con-ditioning techniques in a secondary school class-room. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1969, 2, 277-285.

Moore, B. L. and Bailey, J. S. Social punishment inthe modification of a preschool child's "autistic-like" behavior with a mother as therapist. Jour-

nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 497-507.

O'Leary, K. D. and Becker, W. E. The effects of theintensity of a teacher's reprimands on children'sbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 1969,7, 8-11.

O'Leary, K. D., Kaufman, K. F., Kass, R. F., andDrabman, R. S. The effects of loud and softreprimands on behavior of disruptive students.Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 145-155.

Redd, W. H., Morris, E. K., and Martin, J. A. Ef-fects of positive and negative adult-child inter-actions on children's social preference. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 19,153-164.

Repp, A. G. and Deitz, S. M. Reducing aggressiveand self-injurious behavior of institutionalized re-tarded children through reinforcement of otherbehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1974, 7, 313-325.

Risley, T. R. The effects and side effects of punish-ing the autistic behaviors of a deviant child.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,21-34.

Ross, P. Human rights and behavior modification.Mental Retardation, 1974, 12, 3-6.

Sajwaj, T., Culver, P., Hall, C., and Lehr, L. Sim-ple punishment techniques for the control ofclassroom disruptions. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavioranalysis and education. Lawrence: University ofKansas, 1973. Pp. 331-341.

Sajwaj, T., Twardosz, S., and Burke, M. Side effectsof extinction procedures in a remedial preschool.journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5,163-175.

Steeves, J. M., Martin, G. L., and Pear, J. J. Self-imposed time-out by autistic children during anoperant training program. Behavior Therapy,1970, 1, 371-381.

Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., and Armstrong, M.Production and elimination of disruptive class-room behavior by systematically varying teacher'sbehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1968, l, 35-45.

Wahler, R. G. Oppositional children: a quest forparental control. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1969, 2, 159-170.

White, G. D., Nielsen, G., and Johnson, S. M.Timeout duration and the suppression of deviantbehavior in children. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 1972, 5, 111-120.

Wyatt vs. Stickney Court Case. In B. J. Ennis andP. P. Friedman (Eds.), Legal rights of the mentallyretarded, Vol. 1. New York: Practicing Law In-stitute, 1974.

Received 24 June 1975.(Final acceptance 12 January 1976.)