Aversive

Control 6
1. Distinguish between positive and negative punishment.
2. Investigate negative reinforcement as the basis of escape and avoidance.
3. Discover how reduction in shock frequency regulates avoidance.
4. Inquire about learned helplessness induced by inescapable aversive stimuli.
5. Distinguish between respondent and operant aggression.
6. Learn about coercion and its negative side effects in our society.

Aversive stimuli are events or happenings that organisms escape from, evade, or avoid. Insect
stings, physical attacks, foul odors, bright light, and very loud noises are common events that organ-
isms are prepared to evade on the basis of phylogeny. Escaping or avoiding these primary aversive
stimuli was adaptive, presumably because those animals, which acted to remove or prevent contact
with these events, more often survived and reproduced. In other words, organisms do not learn how
to react to aversive stimuli; they are biologically prepared to avoid or escape such events.
Other stimuli acquire aversive properties when associated with primary aversive events during
an animal's lifetime. For people, conditioned aversive stimuli (Save) include verbal threats, public
criticism, a failing grade, a frown, and verbal disapproval. To affect behavior, these events usually
depend on a history of punishment. A 1-week-old infant is not affected by a reprimand such as
"Don't do that!" By the time the child is 2 years old, however, the command may stop the toddler
from tearing pages out of your favorite book. Animals also learn responses to conditioned stimuli
as aversive events. People commonly shout "No!" when pets misbehave, and this auditory stimulus
eventually reduces the probability of the response it follows (e.g., chewing on your new chair).

AVERSIVE CONTROL IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Aversive Control, Elephants, and Bees
Elephants are said to run away from mice, but research indicates that they are more likely to escape
from the sounds of African bees (King, Douglas-Hamilton, & Vollrath, 2011). The "buzz" of bees
is conditioned as an aversive stimulus when followed by bee stings inside the elephant's trunk—an
apparently extremely painful event, with swelling that can lasts for weeks. In Kenya, farmers and ele-
phants are often in conflict over crops that elephants raid and destroy. Rumors among game wardens
suggested that elephants avoid trees with beehives, leading King and her colleagues to test the behav-
ioral effects of a 4-min recording of bee sounds with 17 herds of elephants in Kenya's Buffalo Springs
and Samburo National Reserves. The "buzzing" worked as 16 of the 17 herds took off running, and
one herd even ran across a river to get away (Figure 6.1). On average, the elephants moved 64 m away

175
176 Aversive Control of Behavior

from the speakers when "buzzing"

FIG. 6.1 A herd of African elephants is shown. These herds
often invade the crops of farmers, eating the crops and
destroying the property. Sounds of bees and the presence of
beehives keep the elephants away, based on the elephants
conditioning history involving bee stings to the inside of the
trunks.
Source: Shutterstock.
sounds were played, but only 20 m
when the sound of random white noise
was played. The equipment for play-
ing bee sounds is too expensive (think
of the extension cords that would be
needed) for farmers. Beehives with
real bees, however, are a feasible
alternative that also provides farmers
with extra food and income from the
honey. The scientists placed beehives
every 10 m along a 1700-m "beehive
fence" on farms in Northern Kenya,
which were usually protected only
by thorn-bush barriers. Over a period
of 2 years, only one elephant broke
through the beehive fence, compared
with 31 invasions through only the
thorny barriers. The evidence suggests
that bees and their "buzz" are a deter-
rent for elephants, presumably as a
result of a conditioning history of bee
stings and social learning.

Aversive Control of Human Behavior

Elephants' escape from, and avoidance of, bees illustrates that a large amount of animal behavior
may be regulated by naturally occurring aversive stimuli. Humans also extensively use and arrange
aversive stimuli to control the behavior of others at the individual, societal, and institutional levels.
Nathan Azrin and William Holz, pioneers in the experimental analysis of punishment, considered
the possibility of eliminating punishment from our world. They stated:

At the institutional level, it would seem to be quite possible to eliminate the use of physical punish-
ment. Conceivably, administrative regulations could be altered such that public punishment in the
form of flogging, spankings, or other physical abuse would be excluded. At the level of individual
behavior, it seems somewhat more difficult but still not impossible to eliminate the use of physical
punishment. One type ofpunishment, however, seems to be virtually impossible to eliminate, and that
is the punishing contingencies that are arranged by the physical world. Whenever we interact with
the physical world, there are many punishing contingencies awaiting us. . . . Elimination of punishing
contingencies by the physical world would appear to require elimination of all behavior that involves
interaction with the physical world.
(Azrin & Holz, 1966, p. 438, emphasis added)

At least in the physical world, punishment is a fact of life. With regard to the social world,
Sidman (2001) has documented our excessive reliance on coercion to control human behavior. The
excessive use and advocacy of punishment by some groups is illustrated by the beating of children
as a form of Christian discipline. In 2010, CBS News reported the beating to death of 7-year-old
Lydia Schatz by her adopted parents. The beatings of Lydia and her 11-year-old sister, who recov-
ered from her injuries, ironically took place in Paradise, California. The report stated:
 Aversive Control of Behavior 177

CHICO, Calif. (CBS/KOVR) Three years ago, Kevin Schatz and his wife Elizabeth did some-
thing so noble, a local television station featured them; the pair decided to adopt three children from
Liberia. Now, they're accused of killing one of the children because she mispronounced a word. . . .
Prosecutors say that the California couple used quarter-inch plastic tubing to beat their seven-year-
old adopted daughter to death. Apparently, they got the idea from a fundamentalist Christian group,
which promotes this as a way of training children to be obedient. Butte County District Attorney
Mike Ramsey says for several hours the 7-year-old was held down by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of
times by Kevin on the back of her body, which caused massive tissue damage.
(Martinez, 2010; CBS News)

Subsequently, the couple pleaded guilty and Kevin Schatz was sentenced to 22 years in prison for
murder, torture, and misdemeanor cruelty to a child. Elizabeth Schatz received a sentence of 13 years
and 4 months for voluntary manslaughter, infliction of unlawful corporal punishment, and misde-
meanor cruelty to a child (full story on CNN video; Tuckman, 2011). In the USA, for the year 2009
there were more than two million investigations of child maltreatment (mostly neglect and physical
abuse), of which about 25% were substantiated (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children & Families, 2009). The use of punishment and aversive control in child
rearing is a pervasive practice in American culture (Figure 6.2), and is well documented (see Gershoff,
2002 and Straus, 2001 on the use of corporal punishment in America; also Park, 2002 points to the
difficulty of isolating the effects of parental punishment from a "package" of disciplinary tactics).

Aversive Control and Domestic Violence

In America, aversive control and
punishment not only occur at high 100-
frequency in parent—child relationships, 90 -

but also are prevalent aspects of domestic 80-

Use of corporal punishment (%)

violence between men and women. 70-

Domestic violence typically involves
repeated choices (stay/leave responses) 60 -
by a woman to remain in rather than 50 -
leave a marital or cohabitating 40-
relationship (Miller, Lund, & Weatherly,
30-
2012). Research shows that the dynamics
20-
of domestic violence, the so-called "cycle
of violence," operates to increase the 10-
effectiveness of reinforcement for U
staying in the relationship while Infant 4 years 12 years 14 years 17 years

unexpectedly decreasing the

effectiveness of punishment of stay FIG. 6.2 The percentage of parents in the USA using any
responses.
Furthermore, dynamics within
and outside of the abusive relationship
function to punish the alternative
behavior of leaving. Following an
abusive episode, there may be a "hon-
eymoon" or period of reconciling and
remorseful behavior on the part of the
form of corporal punishment (punishment to inflict pain)
by age of child. Use of corporal punishment begins in
infancy and rises to a peak by 4 years of age, then
declines as the child ages.
Source: Authors' illustration is based on data presented in
Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal
punishment by American parents: National data on
prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation
to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 2, 55-70. Data were extracted from
178 Aversive Control of Behavior

perpetrator. A behavior analysis suggests that this erratic shift in behavior from abuse to displays
of affection serves as intermittent reinforcement for responding in the relationship (staying) and
ensures that these staying responses become resistant to extinction—increasing the probability that
a woman usually will choose to stay in the abusive relationship. Staying in the abusive relationship
also may be maintained by negative reinforcement, which arises from a pattern of mounting conflict
and tension followed by a "cooling off' period with reduction in the immediate threat (for more on
negative reinforcement and conditioned reinforcement in the violence cycle, see Miller et al., 2012).
Thus, intermittent positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement operate to establish and main-
tain staying in the abusive relationship by the victims of domestic violence.
Surprisingly, punishment of victim's staying in the relationship by the perpetrator actually may
decrease in effectiveness over time, as the punitive contingencies often violate the principles of
effective punishment (see "How to Make Punishment Most Effective" in this chapter). For example,
punishment is most effective when introduced at high intensity, but survivors of domestic violence
report that the abuse did not happen suddenly overnight, but came on gradually from a man who
was previously appropriate, courteous, and thoughtful. In this scenario, punishment begins with less
severe forms of verbal abuse, slapping, and striking that escalate in severity. One implication is that
punishment arranged by the abuser may not be effective in reducing behavior (responding in the
relationship) upon which it is contingent, but only succeeds in inflicting severe physical injuries and
suffering on the victim.
Although punishment of staying may be relatively ineffective in suppressing this behavior, the
response costs for alternative behavior (responding outside the relationship) operate as punishment to
deter leaving the abusive relationship. Costs of leaving would include all the arrangements and effort
required to obtain food, shelter, and security; the social costs imposed by judgments and behavior
of family and friends; and fear of pursuit and intimidation by the abuser. Overall, domestic violence
involves a complex interplay of behavioral contingencies both within and outside of the abusive rela-
tionship. Behavioral interventions often focus on changing the conditions that influence the victim's
stay/leave behavior by altering contingencies and changing motivational operations (Miller et al., 2012).
Given the acceptance and pervasiveness of punishment in our society, it is notable that today
there is almost no basic research on aversive control and how best to minimize its side effects and
reduce its prevalence (Catania, 2008). Most studies of the basic principles of punishment (and neg-
ative reinforcement) were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, at which point studies of punishment
almost stopped. A major reason for this was that ethics committees at universities, influenced by
changing cultural values and the animal activist movement, made it almost impossible to conduct
experiments on punishment, believing it to be inhumane to subject animals to punishment proce-
dures. In this chapter, we present the accumulated findings on punishment and other forms of aver-
sive control, assuming that this knowledge about the effects and side effects of aversive control is a
better strategy for improving the human condition than continued ignorance of the facts.

CONTINGENCIES OF PUNISHMENT
When a behavioral contingency results in a decrease in the rate of response, the contingency is
defined as, and called, punishment. Any event or stimulus that decreases the rate of operant behav-
ior is called a punisher. Figure 6.3 makes it clear that it is the relationship between the consequence
and its effects on behavior that defines the contingency (see Sidman, 2006, p. 138, for an alternative
definition of punishment by Skinner that does not include a decrease in behavior). At this point, we
now discuss contingencies of punishment; negative reinforcement is addressed later in this chapter
 Aversive Control of Behavior 179

(see also Hineline & Rosales-Ruiz, 2013 chap- Effect on behavior

ter on punishment and negative reinforcement graphStimulus
of "Prevalence of corporal punishment by
in the APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis). child's age," p. 59.
Following Increase Decrease
Many operations other than a punish- 2
ment contingency reduce the rate of response. Positive
On/ punishment
These include satiation, extinction, behav- presented
ioral contrast, exhaustion, restraint, precom-
mitment, and richer alternative schedules of 3 4
reinforcement. Each of these procedures is Negative Negative
Off/ reinforceme punishm
discussed throughout this textbook. Punish-
ment is defined when an event is contingent FIG. 6.3 Aversive contingencies of reinforcement
on the occurrence of a specified response and and punishment (adapted from Figure 4.3 in
the probability of that response is reduced. If Chapter 4). When a stimulus or event follows
electric shock is repeatedly contingent on lever operant behavior, then the behavior increases
or decreases in frequency. It is this relationship
pressing, and lever pressing repeatedly has between behavior and consequence that defines
produced shocks, the rat is less likely to press the contingency.
the lever. The effect and the contingency are
called positive punishment.

Positive Punishment
Positive punishment occurs when a stimulus is presented following an operant and the operant
decreases in frequency. The contingency of positive punishment is shown in cell 2 of Figure 6.3.
When a parent spanks a child for running into the street and the child stops doing it, this is positive
punishment. Of course technically, spanking is functioning as punishment only if it decreases the
probability of running into the street. This is an important point because in usual language people
talk about punishment without considering its effects on behavior. For example, you may shout
and argue with another person when she expresses a particular political position. Your shouting is
positive punishment only if the other person stops (or decreases) talking about politics. In fact, the
person may increase her rate of political conversation (as often happens in arguments). In this case,
you have actually reinforced rather than punished arguing with you. Thus, positive punishment is
defined as a decrease in operant behavior produced by the presentation of a stimulus that follows it.
By this functional definition, punishment always works.

Overcorrection as Positive Punishment

In applied behavior analysis, overcorrection is a positive punishment procedure that uses "resti-
tution" to reduce or eliminate destructive or aggressive behavior. The person emitting aggressive/
destructive responses is required to "restore the disturbed situation to a greatly improved state"
(Foxx & Azrin, 1972, p. 15). Thus, a patient in a mental institution who throws around the fur-
niture in the lounge, scaring or annoying the other residents and ward staff, must overcorrect the
environmental effects of his actions by rearranging the furniture of the entire room and apologiz-
ing to staff and residents. Overcorrection may also involve positive practice, requiring the violator
to intensively practice an overly correct form of the action. Thus, Foxx and Azrin (1973) treated
the self-stimulatory behavior of four children with autism using positive practice overcorrection.
The children were required by commands or physical guidance to make a series of head and arm
movements (approximations of self-stimulatory behavior) following bouts of self-stimulation. This
procedure eliminated self-stimulatory behavior in each of the children.
180 Aversive Control of Behavior

Although Foxx and Azrin (1972) viewed overcorrection as an "educational" procedure, reviews
of the literature make it clear that both restitution and positive practice involve behavioral effects
similar to punishment imposed by electric shock (Mackenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990). Note
that overcorrection works to instill compliance with the rules and commands of an authority (par-
ents, teacher, or staff). When the wrongdoer fails to comply, the authority adds other punishers such
as physical restraint or removal from the situation. These backup punishers make overcorrection an
effective punishment contingency. Even so, overcorrection includes additional procedures such as
differential reinforcement of alternative behavior or extinction, which contribute to the effectiveness
of overcorrection as an intervention package. To date, detailed component analysis of the "package"
has not been a primary focus of applied behavioral research. Behavior targeted for punishment,
however, is typically maintained by reinforcement, which decreases when the punished behavior
stops. Thus, the density of reinforcement in a person's life declines and life often gets worse with
the use of punishment in a treatment program. One strategy is to arrange alternative sources of
high-density reinforcement whenever punishment is used as part of a treatment program, including
programs using overcorrection (Cautela, 1984).

Negative Punishment
Negative punishment is portrayed in cell 4 of Figure 6.3. When an ongoing stimulus is removed con-
tingent on a response and this removal results in a decrease in the rate of behavior, the contingency
is called negative punishment (or omission). In other words, if the organism responds, the stimulus
is taken away and behavior decreases. A hungry bird is given continuous access to food, but if it
pecks the key, food is removed. A child is watching TV, but if the she runs around, the television is
turned off. A driver has earned money and is fined for speeding. In these cases, positive reinforce-
ment (i.e., provision of food, TV is turned on, or earned money) is removed contingent on behavior,
and the behavior decreases.
Negative punishment is often confused with extinction. Extinction occurs when a previ-
ously reinforced response no longer produces reinforcement. In this case, a response has pro-
duced reinforcement; extinction for that response
is in effect when the response —> reinforcer contin-
gency is discontinued. A pigeon may peck a key for
food, but when extinction is programmed, pecking
no longer produces food reinforcement. Similarly, a
sr+ child may be allowed to watch a favorite television
show after completing homework assignments. But
R1 T if the TV is broken the contingency is no longer in
R2 effect and doing homework is on extinction.

In Figure 6.4, ongoing reinforcement could be

RN
FIG. 6.4 Negative punishment occurs
when operant responses R 2 through R N
do not affect ongoing reinforcement
(S1+). If the response R1 is emitted,
however,
reinforcement is removed for some
period of time (T). After that time
eating a meal with the family, and responses R, . . . R N
may involve talking to a sister, passing food around
the table, or checking Facebook postings. Talking
with your mouth full is represented by R, and results
in father telling you to leave the table for a period
of time (negative punishment). Forcing you to leave
your meal reduces your tendency to engage in this
crude habit when you next have a meal with your
family.
 Aversive Control of Behavior 181

Timeout from Reinforcement as Negative Punishment

In behavioral terms, "leaving the table" is timeout from positive reinforcement (Ferster & Appel,
1961), assuming that the procedure reduces "talking with your mouth full." With timeout the wrong-
doer loses access to positive reinforcement for a specified period (until the next family meal) for
engaging in the undesirable behavior. In the classroom, timeout can involve either exclusion or
non-exclusion (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). In timeout with non-exclusion, the student is
not physically removed from the situation. Timeout by non-exclusion occurs when the teacher uses
planned ignoring of the behavior, withdrawal of a specific positive reinforcer, or handing the per -
son a timeout ribbon exchanged later for a timeout period. Exclusion timeout, on the other hand,
involves placing the person in a timeout room, typically using a partitioned space for timeout, or
placing the violator in a barren school hallway.
For a timeout procedure to be effective, the teacher must ensure that the classroom activities
are reinforcing for the student in the first place, define the responses that lead to timeout, and decide
on the method to use (non-exclusion or exclusion). In addition, the maximum duration of timeout
(usually a brief period) must be specified, the exiting criteria should be established, and permission
to use timeout must be obtained from the relevant parties, such as the school principal and parents.
In addition, returning the child to the classroom for regular activities may be used as reinforcement
for good behavior during timeout. As in all behavioral interventions, the teacher should keep precise
records to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedure.

Response Cost as Negative Punishment

Response cost is another negative punishment procedure in which conditioned reinforcers
(tokens) are removed contingent on behavior, and the behavior decreases. In humans, common
response—cost contingencies involve the loss of money or privileges for disobedience, and this loss
decreases rule breaking. In the laboratory, response cost is arranged by token reinforcers, which
are subsequently subtracted or removed following a response. Thus, Weiner (1962) arranged for
the responses of adult humans to result in detection of light signals on variable-interval (VI) or
fixed-interval (FI) schedules; each detection response resulted in 100 points (tokens) on a counter.
In subsequent response—cost conditions, each response subtracted 1 point from the counter of
accumulated points. This point-loss contingency resulted in suppression of response rates on the
signal-detection schedules. Research with pigeons using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as tokens
exchanged for access to food has confirmed the human findings. Birds show suppression of behav-
ior by response—cost contingencies, and effects similar to traditional punishers such as electric
shock (Pietras & Hackenberg, 2005).

Relativity of Punishment

In Chapter 4, we discussed the principle of reinforcement and the Premack principle (Premack,
1959, 1962). The principle states that the opportunity to engage in a higher-frequency behavior
will reinforce a lower-frequency response. For Premack, reinforcement is relative, not absolute.
Subsequently, he extended this principle to the relativity of punishment (Premack, 1971). Con-
sider a rat that can run in an activity wheel and drink water from a tube. The wheel apparatus is
modified so that a brake can be activated, locking the wheel and preventing the rat from running In
addition, a motor is installed that permits the wheel to rotate at a set speed, forcing the rat to run. In
this modified apparatus, withholding running while giving free access to water makes running the