Changes in a multiple-response repertoire during response-contingent punishment and response restriction: Sequential relationships.

The team punished or blocked one response in a chain. They watched how the whole chain changed.

The study used single-case lab methods. The goal was to see which other behaviors would rise.

Only the most likely backup response grew. The rest of the list stayed flat.

The response that usually came right after the punished one also dropped. Suppression spread to the next link.

Frederiksen et al. (1978) and Fantino (1968) showed that errorless prompting cuts mistakes. Their work focused on building new skills, not on what happens when you punish one that already exists.

Aragona et al. (1975) warned that even "errorless" training still creates inhibitory control. The 1982 study adds a mirror image: punishment also reshapes the whole chain, not just the target.

Emmelkamp et al. (1986) tested correction after errors. Both papers look at sequential behavior, but M asked how to fix errors while J asked how blocking one move changes the rest.

When you use response blocking or mild punishment, do not assume all other responses will bloom. Only the top alternate is likely to rise. Plan for that by making the desired replacement the easiest one to reach. Also check the next step in the chain; it may drop even though you never touched it.