The effects of shock as a punisher for cigarette smoking.
A shock cigarette case cuts smoking only while people agree to wear it, but friendly prompts work just as well and do not scare users away.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers built a cigarette case that gave a quick shock each time it opened. They asked adults who smoked to carry the case and use it for their cigarettes.
The team tracked how many cigarettes the adults smoked while they wore the shocking case.
What they found
Shock cut smoking only while the adults kept the case on them. Many adults soon left the case at home or in a drawer.
When the shock stopped, smoking quickly returned to the old level.
How this fits with other research
Wolchik et al. (1982) got a big drop in campus smoking with simple verbal prompts and no-smoking signs. No shock was needed, and people did not avoid the area.
Hawkes et al. (1974) showed that letting athletes publicly self-record attendance also cut skipped practices, again without any aversive device.
Together the three studies show that mild, easy-to-accept cues often beat harsh gadgets that people learn to dodge.
Why it matters
If you plan to reduce a client's smoking, skip painful tools. Try a brief prompt or a self-monitoring card first. Clients stick with gentle plans, so you get longer-lasting change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start a simple self-count card: have the client tally each cigarette before lighting up.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
An attempt was made to reduce the cigarette smoking of three subjects by means of a special cigarette case that delivered aversive shock when opened. The number of cigarettes smoked was recorded by a counter in the cigarette case. The validity of the counter readings as a measure of smoking was obtained by a specially designed participant-observer technique. It was found that the rate of smoking decreased as a function of the intensity of the shock. Also, the smoking returned to its previously unpunished level after the shock punisher was discontinued. Both of these findings confirm the results of laboratory studies of punishment of simpler responses and extends them to more complex responses in a naturalistic situation. Surprisingly, the duration for which the apparatus was worn also decreased as a function of the intensity of the shock. This finding reveals that this aversive shock technique produced avoidance behavior that prevents the technique from having extensive applicability for eliminating smoking. The same limitation may apply to the use of aversive shock for eliminating other undesirable behaviors.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1968 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-63