An Evaluation of the Effects of a Mild Delayed Verbal Punisher on Choice of an Immediate Reinforcer by Children With Autism.
A soft delayed scolding does not reliably stop kids with autism from picking a bigger reward—check each child’s choice before you count on punishment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three kids with autism picked between two snacks. One snack was bigger but came with a mild scolding five seconds later. The other snack was smaller and came with no scolding.
Each child did the choice task many times. Researchers watched which snack the child touched first. They wanted to see if the delayed scolding made kids avoid the bigger snack.
What they found
The kids did not all act the same. One child started picking the smaller snack to avoid the scolding. Another child kept picking the bigger snack even though he still got scolded. The third child showed no clear pattern.
In short, a mild delayed scolding did not reliably shift choice. You need to test each child individually.
How this fits with other research
Hoch et al. (2002) showed that making a reinforcer bigger or better can swing kids with autism toward peer play. Erickson et al. (2016) used the same choice setup but added delayed punishment instead of more reinforcement. Together they show both carrots and sticks can shift choice, yet punishment effects are weaker and more variable.
Ferrier et al. (2025) report that the whole field is moving toward milder punishment and more social-validity checks. The current study’s tiny delayed scolding fits that trend, but its mixed results help explain why many clinicians still lean on reinforcement first.
Coffey et al. (2005) found that marking cues during a five-second reward delay speed up learning. Their study and this one both stretch consequences across time, yet marking helps while mild delayed scolding does not. The difference is that marking signals upcoming good news; scolding signals upcoming bad news, and kids often tune that out.
Why it matters
If you assume a mild consequence will steer all kids away from a larger reward, you may be wrong. Probe choice with each learner before you bank on punishment to protect health or safety. When possible, lead with richer reinforcement first and save punishment for clear, immediate, and consistent applications.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run five quick choice trials: bigger treat plus mild verbal reprimand vs smaller treat with no reprimand, and record which the child picks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Different combinations of immediate and delayed consequences differentially affect choice. Basic research has found that nonhuman animals are more likely to choose an alternative that produces an immediate reinforcer that is followed by a delayed punisher as the delay to punishment increases. The purpose of the current effort was to examine the choices of three individuals with autism when they were given the choice between receiving a larger amount of preferred food followed by a mild, delayed verbal punisher and a smaller amount of the preferred food. A secondary purpose was to determine whether signal presence and duration would affect the efficacy of the punisher (i.e., whether children would be more likely to select the smaller reward that was not followed by a delayed punisher). Results were idiosyncratic across children and highlight the need to evaluate choice under multiple arrangements.
Behavior modification, 2016 · doi:10.1177/0145445515622382