We Still Have a Lot to Learn

Perone (2023) wrote a position paper. He argues that punishment tools like electric skin shock should stay on the table.

He says some severe, long-lasting problem behavior does not stop with reinforcement alone.

Ethics codes allow punishment when safety is at risk, so he asks us not to rule it out.

The paper does not give new data. It reminds us that reinforcement-only plans sometimes fail.

When failure puts the client in danger, punishment can be the ethical next step.

Perone (2003) makes a similar warning. He shows that positive reinforcement can back-fire and hurt the client. Both papers push us to question “reinforcement only” rules.

Fontes et al. (2025) add a twist. Their lab work shows that punishment effects depend on relative rates, not simple suppression. This weakens the old model Perone leans on, so we need smarter punishment plans, not just harsher ones.

Bland et al. (2018) offer a middle path. They proved that a non-harmful S- stimulus can act like a punisher. This gives us an ethical tool that keeps punishment in the toolbox without using shock.

You may never use shock, but you will face cases where reinforcement is not enough. Perone tells us to keep punishment as an option, and the neighbor studies show how to use it wisely. Check for side-effects of your reinforcers, pick the least intrusive punisher that works, and track relative rates. Document everything, get consent, and review often.