DECREASING UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIORS

When teachers want to decrease children’s undesirable behaviors (such as teasing, hogging a
class discussion, or smarting off to the teacher), what are their options? Applied behavior analysts
Paul Alberto and Anne Troutman (2017) recommend using these steps in this order:

1. Use differential reinforcement.

2. Terminate reinforcement (extinction)
3. Remove desirable stimuli
4. Present aversive stimuli (punishment)

Thus, the teacher’s first option should be differential reinforcement. Punishment should be used
only as a last resort and always in conjunction with providing the child with information about
appropriate behavior.

Use Differential Reinforcement

In differential reinforcement, the teacher reinforces behavior that is more appropriate or that is
incompatible with what the child is doing. For example, the teacher might reinforce a child for
doing learning activities on a computer rather than playing games with it, for being courteous
rather than interrupting, for being seated rather than running around the classroom, or for
completing homework on time rather than late.

Terminate Reinforcement (Extinction)

The strategy of terminating reinforcement involves withdrawing positive reinforcement from a
child’s inappropriate behavior. Many inappropriate behaviors are inadvertently maintained by
positive reinforcement, especially the teacher’s attention. Applied behavior analysts point out that
this can occur even when the teacher gives attention to an inappropriate behavior by criticizing,
threatening, or yelling at the student. Many teachers find it difficult to determine whether they are
giving too much attention to inappropriate behavior. A good strategy is to get someone to observe
your classroom on several occasions and chart the patterns of reinforcement you use with your
students (Alberto & Troutman, 2017). If you become aware that you are giving too much attention
to a student’s inappropriate behavior, ignore that behavior and give attention to the student’s
appropriate behavior. Always combine taking attention away from inappropriate behavior with
giving attention to appropriate behavior. For instance, when a student stops monopolizing the
conversation in a group discussion after you withdraw your attention, compliment the student on
the improved behavior.

Remove Desirable Stimuli

Suppose you have tried the first two options, and they haven’t worked. A third option is to remove
desirable stimuli from the student. Two strategies for accomplishing this are “time-out” and
“response cost.”

Time-Out The most widely used strategy that teachers use to remove desirable stimuli is time-
out. In other words, take the student away from positive reinforcement. For example, a teacher
might use time-out with a student who won’t stay in his seat or engages in loud confrontations
with the teacher.

Response Cost A second strategy for removing desirable stimuli involves response cost, which
refers to taking a positive reinforcer away from a student, as when the student loses certain
privileges. For example, after a student misbehaves, the teacher might take away 10 minutes of

1
recess time or the privilege of being a class monitor. Response cost typically involves some type
of penalty or fine. As with time-out, response cost should always be used in conjunction with
strategies for increasing the student’s positive behaviors.

I recently asked teachers how they use applied behavior analysis in their class- room. Following
are their responses.

Present Aversive Stimuli (Punishment)

Most people associate the presentation of aversive (unpleasant) stimuli with punishment, as when
a teacher yells at a student or a parent spanks a child. However, in accordance with the definition
of punishment given earlier in the chapter, an aversive stimulus is punishment only if it decreases
the undesirable behavior. All too often, though, aversive stimuli are not effective punishments, in
that they do not decrease the unwanted behavior and indeed sometimes increase the unwanted
behavior over time.

The most common types of aversive stimuli that teachers use are verbal reprimands. These are
more effectively used when the teacher is near the student rather than across the room and when
used together with a nonverbal reprimand such as a frown or eye contact. Reprimands are more
effective when they are given immediately after unwanted behavior and when they are short and
to the point. Such reprimands do not have to involve yelling and shouting, which often just raise
the noise level of the classroom and present the teacher as an uncontrolled model for students.
Instead, a firmly stated “stop doing that” with eye contact is often sufficient to stop unwanted
behavior. Another strategy is to take the student aside and reprimand the student in private rather
than in front of the entire class.

Many countries, such as Sweden, have banned the physical punishment of school- children
(which usually involves school paddling) by principals and teachers. However, in 2015, 19 U.S.
states still allowed it with the greatest prevalence in southern states. Research on college
students in 11 countries found that the United States and Canada have more favorable attitudes
toward corporal punishment than many other countries (Curran & others, 2001; Hyman & others,
2001) (see Figure 6). Use of corporal punishment by parents is legal in every state in America,
and it is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of American parents have spanked their children (Straus,
1991). A national survey of U.S. parents with 3- and 4-year-old children found that 26 percent of
parents reported spanking their children frequently, and 67 percent of the parents reported yelling
at their children frequently (Regalado & others, 2004).

In U.S. schools, male minority students from low-income backgrounds are the most frequent
recipients of physical punishment. Many psychologists and educators argue that physical
punishment of students should not be used in any circumstance.

Physical or otherwise, numerous problems are associated with using aversive stimuli as intended
punishment:

• Especially when you use intense punishment such as yelling or screaming, you are
presenting students with an out-of-control model for handling stressful situations.
• Punishment can instill fear, rage, or avoidance in students. Skinner’s biggest concern was
this: What punishment teaches is how to avoid something. For example, a student who
experiences a punitive teacher might show a dislike for the teacher and not want to come
to school.

2
 • When students are punished, they might become so agitated and anxious that they can’t
concentrate clearly on their work for a long time after the punishment has been given.
• Punishment tells students what not to do rather than what to do. If you make a punishing
statement, such as “No, that’s not right,” always accompany it with positive feedback, such
as “but why don’t you try this.”
• What is intended as punishment can turn out to be reinforcing. A student might learn that
misbehaving will not only get the teacher’s attention but put the student in the limelight
with classmates as well.
• Punishment can be abusive. When parents discipline their children, they might not intend
to be abusive, but they might become so upset and angry when they are punishing the
child that they become abusive. Teachers in all 50 states are legally required to report
even reasonable suspicions of child abuse to the police or local child protective services.
Teachers should learn about their state’s laws and their school district’s policy regarding
the reporting of child abuse.

Debate about the effects of punishment on children’s development continues (Ferguson, 2013;
Gershoff, 2013; Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016; Laible, Thompson, & Froimson, 2015;
Theunissen, Vogels, & Reijneveld, 2015). One debate about punish- ment that is ongoing involves
a distinction between mild punishment and more intense punishment. A research review of 26
studies concluded that only severe or predomi- nant use of spanking, not mild spanking,
compared unfavorably with alternative dis- cipline practices with children (Larzelere & Kuhn,
2005). Indeed, there are few longitudinal studies of punishment and few studies that distinguish
adequately between moderate and heavy use of punishment. In a recent meta-analysis in which
physical punishment that was not abusive was distinguished from physical abuse, physical pun-
ishment was linked to detrimental child outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2017).

However, research on punishment is correlational in nature, making it difficult to discover causal

factors. Also, consider the concept of reciprocal socialization that emphasizes bidirectional child
and parent influences. Researchers have found links between children’s early behavioral
problems and parents’ greater use of physical punishment over time (Laible, Thompson, &
Froimson, 2015). Nonetheless, a large majority of leading experts on parenting conclude that
physical punishment has harmful effects on children and should not be used.

In a recent research review, a leading expert on punishment, Elizabeth Gershoff (2013),

concluded that the defenders of spanking have not produced any evidence that spanking
produces positive outcomes for children and that negative outcomes of spank- ing have been
replicated in many studies. Also, one thing that is clear is that when physical punishment involves
abuse, it can be very harmful to children’s development, as discussed later in this chapter
(Cicchetti & Toth, 2015, 2016).

A final lesson related to using punishment less often is to spend more class time monitoring what
students do right rather than what they do wrong. Too often disruptive behavior, not competent
behavior, grabs a teacher’s attention. Every day make it a point to scan your classroom for positive
student behaviors that you ordinarily would not notice and give students attention for them.

Source: Santrock, J.( 2018). Educational psychology. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., pp.
227-231.