Related Experiment Videos
Re-evaluation of constant versus varied punishers using empirically derived consequences
Lisa M Toole1, Iser G DeLeon, SungWoo Kahng
1Kennedy Krieger Institute and University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 707 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Research in Developmental Disabilities
|November 16, 2004
Summary
Varied punishment procedures showed minimal benefit over constant procedures for reducing self-injury in individuals with developmental disabilities when effective punishers were used.
Area of Science:
- Behavioral Psychology
- Developmental Disabilities
- Applied Behavior Analysis
Background:
- Previous research indicated varied punishment is more effective than constant punishment.
- A systematic methodology was developed to predict the efficacy of punishment procedures using empirically derived consequences (EDC).
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effects of constant versus varied punishers on self-injury in individuals with developmental disabilities.
- To integrate findings on varied punishment with methods for predicting punisher efficacy.
Main Methods:
- Two individuals with developmental disabilities exhibiting self-injury were studied.
- Punishing stimuli were selected using Fisher et al.'s methodology and predicted to have varying effectiveness.
- Constant and varied presentations of these punishers were compared.
Main Results:
- Varied punisher presentation enhanced suppressive effects over constant presentation for one individual, but only compared to a minimally effective stimulus.
- Differences in effectiveness between constant and varied punishment were small.
- The additive effects of varied punishment appear negligible when effective stimuli are employed.
Conclusions:
- Stimulus variation may offer limited additional benefits if clinicians utilize predicted effective punishers.
- The conditions under which stimulus variation could enhance punisher effectiveness require further investigation.