Shock as punishment in a picture-naming task with retarded children.
Contingent shock improved learning and attention over verbal reprimand alone, but effectiveness dropped as contingency thinned.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers paired a mild electric shock with praise to teach picture names to children with intellectual disability.
They compared this mix to praise plus a verbal "no" when the child got it wrong.
The team tracked how fast each child learned new words and how often they looked away.
What they found
Shock plus praise cut learning time and kept eyes on the task better than "no" alone.
When the shock stopped following every error, the gains slipped away.
The lesson: the shock only helped while it was tightly linked to the mistake.
How this fits with other research
Simpson et al. (2001) saw the opposite: a basket-hold timeout made problem behavior worse, not better.
The gap is about timing. Shock here was instant and unmistakable; restraint there may have felt like attention, so it back-fired.
Pear et al. (1984) later showed kids can cut their own inattention without any punishment—just by marking a sheet when a signal sounds.
Neef et al. (1986) also paired an aversive step (overcorrection) with praise and got fast spelling gains, echoing the shock-plus-praise combo.
Why it matters
You now know that even strong punishers only work while they stay immediate and sure.
Today, ethics and laws bar shock, but the rule lives on: if a consequence isn’t swift and clear, drop it.
Check your timeout or response-cost plans—if the link between error and consequence has loosened, expect the behavior to return.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Audit one client’s consequence loop—if the delay between error and consequence is more than a few seconds, tighten it or pick a new plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two retarded children were taught to name pictures according to a standardized procedure. In Exp. I, correct responses were positively reinforced on a five to one ratio under one stimulus condition, incorrect responses were followed with a sharp "no", and the subject was ignored for inattentive behavior. Under another stimulus condition, correct responses were reinforced as in the first condition, but incorrect responses and 5-sec periods of inattentive behavior were followed by "no" and an electric shock. Less inattentive behavior was exhibited and more words were learned to a pre-set criterion in the shock condition than in the no-shock condition. In Exp. II, the ratio of inappropriate responses to shock was varied. The amount of inattentive behavior tended to increase in the shock condition, relative to that in the no-shock condition, as this ratio was increased. Two other measures of performance used in the present experiments were the ratio of errors to correct responses and the number of correct responses. Shock tended to produce better performance on these measures also.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1971.4-227