Introduction
The majority of people have been trying to change something in their lives for years, struggling to find an effective solution to their problems. According to the trans-theoretical model of behavioral change, change is a process with a number of stages (Hanson, 2020). They cannot be missed; everyone has to go the same way. Punishment can be used as a means of changing behavior and can be both positive and negative; its effect varies from case to case. Some patterns may disappear due to extinction and its mechanisms that may dissipate negative conduct. Numerous procedures, including antecedent manipulations, can be implemented to either facilitate or complicate behavioral tendencies. In general, behavior is a changeable variable and it is normally used for a wide range of limitations, alterations, and other interventions that will be described in this paper.
Punishment and Its Effectiveness
Punishment is a form of realization of criminal responsibility and a measure of coercive influence on a convicted person in order to deprive or restrict the freedom and other rights of a citizen. The totality of its types is a system of punishments, which is based on the principle of transition from a less severe punishment to a more severe one (Hughes & De Houwer, 2020). The most lenient punishments are those that do not entail restrictions or imprisonment, while the most severe punishment is the death penalty.
There are several factors affecting the degree of its effectiveness. The criterion for evaluating the efficacy of punishment is understood as a certain feature, a measure of the quality of achieving its goals. The primary aspect is immediacy – the faster one is punished, the less time it will take to contemplate the reasons for one’s impunity (Hughes & De Houwer, 2020). Moreover, it makes people commit fewer wrongdoings because of the idea of being judged right away. The other element is the intensity of punishment; it defines the severity of punishment and the sanction suitable to the individual. The more severe the wrongdoing is, the rougher the penalty they will receive.
What is more, the effectiveness of punishment is determined by the reinforcement of target behavior. It means that some people are taught to behave better to avoid misconduct. By praising and encouraging positive acts, individuals feel less prone to committing wrongdoings. The final efficacy criterion is the stimulus for alternative behavior (Nairne & McBride, 2021). Once a human is motivated to stick to a different pattern, they are less keen on repeating deviant deeds.
Positive and Negative Punishment
Positive punishment does not necessarily mean that it affirmatively affects one. For example, if a small child touches a working stove, they will get burned. The consequence of this is that they are burned, but in this way, they learn that when the stove is burning, it cannot be touched. If applied regularly, positive punishment could become a rewarding tool that prevents undesirable behavior (Nairne & McBride, 2021). Nonetheless, one may return to previous behavioral patterns if it is withdrawn quickly. Another problem is that it can easily eradicate the issues but it does not teach the wanted alternative behavior.
For instance, a teacher could use writing a letter as a method of positive punishment that is used in many schools. A child can be forced to write something over and over again or even complain about unreasonable behavior. Children usually understand that this is a waste of time that can be spent on something else, and it will help to avoid certain behaviors in the future (Nairne & McBride, 2021). For parents, housework is a great way to keep children from engaging in unwanted behavior. If a child has smeared peanut butter on a sofa or carpet, he can be forced to clean it or do other household chores.
In contrast, negative punishment eliminates the incentive, reducing the likelihood of repetition of undesirable behavior. In this case, the removal of a stimulus is usually unpleasant to a person (Boninger & Pelham, 2020). For example, a child may misbehave and an adult threatens to take away all his toys for misconduct. Thus, this concept concerns the removal or deprivation of the items. As a result of such a penalty, one may develop a sense of fear for their future and hatred towards the people.
Extinction
In psychology, the extinction of the conditioned reflex is understood as a gradual weakening of the conditioned reflex, which leads to a gradual rejection of the learned behavior model. In terms of classical conditioning, this happens when the conditional stimulus ceases to bind with the unconditional. That is, if a conditional stimulus in classical conditioning is presented independently, without an unconditional one, the conditional reaction eventually disappears.
For example, in a classic study by I.P. Pavlov, a dog was taught to salivate in response to the sound of a bell. When they stopped giving the dog food and left only the sound of the bell, the reaction eventually came to naught (Vargas, 2020). In operant learning, extinction occurs if the desired behavior no longer receives reinforcement or if the reinforcement used loses its power (encouragement has become less attractive to the object, punishment less intimidating). A few hours or even days after the extinction, a spontaneous recovery of the reaction may occur – that is, a sudden re-manifestation of a previously extinguished reflex.
Sensory extinction is a phenomenon when a patient loses the ability to perceive tactile irritation on one side of the body while applying them on both sides, but perceives this irritation in the case of their sequential application. Specialists often encounter rather limited sensitivity disorders in unusual combinations, primarily with cheiro-oral syndrome (Piazza et al., 2021). When it comes to demeanor, sensory extinction is perceived in the following way: a person refuses to respond to the stimulus simultaneously (Cooper, 2020). For instance, a teacher offers to read a text based on the video and listen to the same text. A student might be confused since they would concentrate only on one aspect, whereas when presented subsequently, they would comprehend it better. The sensory extinction procedure can be implemented after other reinforcement-based manipulations have been tested and failed. For example, a child may misbehave, while a teacher ignores it to change their reaction. It also can be used in people who are prone to self-injury since it helps mitigate their response to certain stimuli. Finally, the technique may be implemented to promote adaptive behaviors in children with disorders.
DRO vs. DRL
Differential reinforcement is one of the most commonly used methods of correcting stereotypy and other problematic behaviors in people with developmental disabilities. The basic principle of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is that reinforcement occurs in the absence of a certain behavior after a set time interval (Giblin, 2019). A typical example is when a teacher rewards a student if they perform better on a test than they usually do. Another example is when a parent allows a child to watch TV for half an hour without interrupting their busy parents.
On the other hand, differentiated reinforcement of low rates of behavior (DRL) is a method of differentiated reinforcement of the frequency of reactions. In this method, the session is divided into equal time intervals and reinforcement is provided at the end of each interval when the number of cases of problematic behavior is not higher or not lower than the threshold value (Martin & Pear, 2019). To begin with, it is necessary to calculate how many times the child shows undesirable behavior in a certain period of time.
The instructor should inform the child that he will be given a positive reinforcement (reward) if, over a certain period of time, the number of episodes of problematic behavior is one episode less than the average indicator. For example, a teacher instructs a child to wash their hands before lunch only once, given that they had done it five times before. When the child copes with the task, it is necessary to continue to lower the permissible number of episodes of behavior until it reaches an acceptable level. The major difference between DRO and DRL is that the former does not change conduct, while the latter reduces negative patterns’ repetition.
Antecedent Manipulations
Another thing to note is that undesirable conduct can be prevented. Manipulation is the desire of one person to influence the behavior of another in order to obtain some benefit for themselves. Antecedent manipulations are those aimed at changing one’s behavior by altering the conditions that affect the present pattern (Argiro et al., 2021). Six antecedent manipulations can be identified in order to fix the unwanted pattern.
The first one is prompting, which is a technique that warns of punishment for undesirable behavior. This strategy presumes using visual or audial channels to inform individuals about the norms of conduct in a specific area and the probable penalty for misbehaving (Argiro et al., 2021). It allows for increasing positive conduct by motivating one to act in accordance with the prescribed instructions (Vargas, 2020). On the other hand, it may discourage people from behaving in a certain way since they may protest and act aggressively.
Another manipulation is providing choice; it enables one to choose the best option. For example, a teacher could offer students some options on how to complete the task before they decide to ignore this task. This could prevent one from idling or misbehaving because the choice is limited (Argiro et al., 2021). On the other hand, this technique can demotivate individuals from completing the task and promote problem behavior because of the unwillingness to choose between several options.
The third antecedent manipulation refers to non-contingent reinforcement, which signifies the choice of a preferred function based on one’s needs. For example, if the function of a student’s behavior is attention and the behavior occurs every 60 minutes, it is necessary to check with them every 45 minutes (Raymond et al., 2020). Such an option could help prevent negative patterns by stopping the undesirable behavior before it even starts. Nonetheless, if a student is no longer responsive to such checks, it is possible that the entire procedure evokes more negative reactions.
Modification of activities or schedules could prevent the occurrence of inappropriate conduct. If one’s interests are included in the syllabus, it is possible to get an individual involved in the process. For instance, if a student refuses to complete a math task, a teacher could incorporate characters from one’s favorite cartoon into a math problem so that they could solve it with ease. However, a student may get used to completing the tasks only based on their preferences and start disregarding the rest. Such an outcome is undesirable; hence, it is essential not to use it on a regular basis.
Moreover, it is indispensable to decrease response effort for problematic behavior. It means that by changing the teacher’s reaction to troublesome students, they may feel encouraged to contemplate the teacher’s reaction and start behaving differently. Whenever one responds with anger or other destructive emotions to deviations in class, they are more likely to stimulate a more aggressive demeanor (Raymond et al., 2020). Therefore, this manipulation could promote awareness related to self-reflection. On the contrary, some students may decide to disturb one even more intensively.
The final antecedent manipulation concerns removing all cues provoking negative conduct. It presumes that, for example, a teacher could seat students in a specific order, knowing that some students who sit together act inappropriately. Problematic behavior could be prevented by not seating them close to each other. According to Cooper et al. (2020), such changes may lead to significant changes as they shift mental paradigm. Nonetheless, when it comes to removing the cues, one should consider that a person can easily get distracted by other ones, which can potentially cause a misdemeanor.
Conclusion
In conclusion, behavioral changes are dependent on numerous factors coming from society, the environment, and personality. In order to change conduct, some people implement positive or negative punishment that causes either improvement or deterioration of behavioral patterns. One’s demeanor can be stimulated by different methods, such as DRL or DRO, which aim at revealing better patterns. Finally, the conduct can be altered by numerous antecedent manipulations that presume to remove some distractions before the problematic behavior occurs.
References
Argiro, S., Keohane, J., & Ashcroft, W. (2021). Success strategies for teaching kids with autism. Taylor & Francis.
Boninger, D., & Pelham, B. (2020). Introductory psychology in modules: Understanding our heads, hearts, and hands. Taylor & Francis.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.
Giblin, M. S. (2019). Implementation of differential reinforcement of other behavior and response cost procedures in children with down syndrome. University of South Florida.
Hanson, H. T. (2020). A framework for change: Utilizing the transtheoretical model for technology implementation in higher education. Gwynedd Mercy University.
Hughes, S., & De Houwer, J. (2020). The psychology of learning: An introduction from a functional-cognitive perspective. MIT Press.
Martin, G., & Pear, J. J. (2019). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it. Taylor & Francis.
Nairne, J. S., & McBride, D. M. (2021). Psychology. SAGE Publications.
Piazza, C., Roane, H., & Fisher, W. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. Guilford Publications.
Raymond, L., Randolph, K. M., & Hott, B. L. (2020). Teaching students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Plural Publishing, Incorporated.
Vargas, J. S. (2020). Behavior analysis for effective teaching. Taylor & Francis.