Skip to main content
Log in

Continuous vs. Intermittent punishment: A case study

  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of two different delivery schedules of two different therapeutic punishers on two behaviors of a child with autism were investigated. Contingent application of lemon juice immediately suppressed behavior on both a continuous and a VR 4 schedule of delivery. Manual guidance overcorrection resulted in an immediate reduction of behavior under an FR 1 schedule, but took nine sessions to produce the same level of response suppression under a VR 4 schedule. Implications for future research and the limitations of the present study are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig's (Ed.),Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. S., & Bostow, D. E. (1981).Research methods in applied behavior analysis. Tallahassee, FL: Copy Grafix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, L. E., Brulle, A. R., & Repp, A. C. (1987). Effects of differential scheduling at timeout to reduce maladaptive responding.Exceptional Children, 53, 351–356.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. B., Rowbury, T., Baer, C. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Timeout as a punishing stimulus in continuous and intermittent schedules.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 443–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crider, A., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (1970). Operant suppression of electrodermal response rate as a function of punishment schedule.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 333–334.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deur, J. L., & Parke, R. D. (1968). Resistance to extinction and continuous punishment in humans as a function of partial reward and partial punishment training.Psychonomic Science, 13, 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, M. F., Iwata, B. A., Ong, D., & McSween, T. (1980). Treatment of self-injurious behavior using a water mist: Initial suppression and generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 343–353.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976).Single Case Experimental Designs:Strategies for Studying Behavior Change. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1975).Behavior Modification in Applied Settings. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaVigna, G. W., Willis, T. J., & Donnellan, A. M. (1989). The role of positive programming in behavioral treatment. In E. Cipani (Ed.),The Treatment of Severe Behavior Disorders: Behavior Analysis Approaches (pp. 59–83). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matson, J. L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (1984).Punishment and Its Alternatives: A New Perspective for Behavior Modification. New York: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cipani, E., Brendlinger, J., McDowell, L. et al. Continuous vs. Intermittent punishment: A case study. J Dev Phys Disabil 3, 147–156 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045930

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045930

Key Words

Navigation