Side effects of therapeutic punishment on academic performance and eye contact.
Have the same therapist deliver both punishment and instruction to protect learning and eye contact, but consider newer reinforcement-only methods instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used an alternating-treatments design. They compared two setups while teaching kids with developmental delays.
In one setup the same adult gave a brief punisher for problem behavior and also ran the lesson. In the other setup one adult gave the punisher while a second adult did the teaching.
Sessions were mixed across the day. The kids never knew which setup was coming next.
What they found
Academic mastery and eye contact only rose when the punisher and the lesson came from the same person.
When two different adults handled punishment and teaching, learning stayed flat and eye contact barely moved.
How this fits with other research
Brodhead et al. (2019) later dumped punishment entirely. They used a gentle prompt-and-fade plan and still got eye contact in most kids. Their work shows you can reach the same goal without any punisher at all.
Espinosa (2025) goes further, telling us to stop drilling eye contact. The paper says make social interaction fun and eye-looking will follow naturally. This sounds like a clash, but the two papers target different views. Winett et al. (1991) asked “who should deliver the punisher?” while Espinosa asks “why punish at all?”
Bryant et al. (1984) already proved you can boost gaze without punishment. Adults simply copied the child’s play moves and eye contact grew. Their method is kinder and matches today’s standards.
Why it matters
If you still use punishment, keep one therapist in both roles. The child links the correction and the lesson to the same friendly face. This small staffing choice protects learning and social gains. Better yet, follow newer work: drop punishment, imitate the child’s play, and let social rewards do the job. Either way, plan your staff schedule with intention.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check your session sheet—if one staff member gives timeouts and another runs trials, swap to one consistent therapist or switch to a prompt-and-reinforce protocol.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects of therapeutic punishment delivered following inappropriate behavior on the academic responding and eye-to-face contact of 2 persons with developmental handicaps was examined using a counterbalanced alternating treatment design. Each subject was sequentially taught by two therapists each day. While one of the therapists taught the subject, the second therapist stood in close proximity directly behind the subject. During baseline, neither therapist delivered punishment following inappropriate behavior. During the treatment condition, one of the therapists delivered all punishment regardless of whether she was teaching or standing behind the subject. The therapist who delivered all punishment for 1 subject did not deliver any punishment for the other subject. During the last condition, the therapist delivering all punishment was reversed for 1 of the subjects. The results indicated that the task being taught was mastered by each subject only when the therapist delivering punishment was teaching. Data collected also indicated that each subject made more eye-to-face contact when the therapist delivering all punishment was teaching. Although neither therapist had to deliver punishers often, punishment had to be administered less often when the therapist teaching the subject was also the therapist delivering punishment.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1991 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-763