Re-evaluation of constant versus varied punishers using empirically derived consequences.
One well-checked punisher beats a rotating menu for self-injury.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested whether switching punishers works better than using one.
They picked punishers that already stopped self-injury for each child.
Then they compared one punisher every time versus rotating several.
What they found
Variety gave only a tiny edge to one child.
When the single punisher was already strong, rotation added nothing.
A weak punisher got a small boost from mixing, but the effect was thin.
How this fits with other research
Milo et al. (2010) flipped the question to reinforcers and saw the opposite.
They found that rotating edibles kept kids with autism working harder and longer.
The clash is simple: variety helps rewards but not punishers.
Thomas (1968) showed one strong punisher can stop dangerous climbing without side effects.
That old study backs the new rule: pick one effective punisher and stick with it.
Why it matters
You can stop shopping for new punishers every week.
Test one consequence, prove it works, then use it every time.
Save your energy for teaching replacement skills instead of rotating aversives.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a brief punishment assessment, pick the top consequence, and stay with it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Charlop, Burgio, Iwata, and Ivancic [J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 21 (1988) 89] demonstrated that varied punishment procedures produced greater or more consistent reductions of problem behavior than a constant punishment procedure. More recently, Fisher and colleagues [Res. Dev. Disabil. 15 (1994) 133; J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 27 (1994) 447] developed a systematic methodology for predicting the efficacy of various punishment procedures. Their procedure identified reinforcers and punishers (termed "empirically derived consequences" or EDC) that, when used in combination, reduced the destructive behavior of individuals with developmental disabilities who displayed automatically maintained destructive behavior. The current investigation combines these two lines of research by comparing the effects of constant versus varied punishers on the self-injury of two individuals with developmental disabilities. The punishing stimuli were selected via the procedures described by Fisher et al. and were predicted to be at varying levels of effectiveness. The varied presentation of punishers resulted in enhanced suppressive effects over the constant presentation of a punisher for one of two individuals, but only in comparison to a single stimulus predicted to be minimally effective. Even then, the differences were small. These results suggest that the additive effects of varied punishment are negligible if clinicians use stimuli predicted to be effective and are discussed in terms of the conditions under which stimulus variation could potentially enhance the effects of punishers.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2004 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.03.005