These answers draw in part from “Does shaming change behavior? Is it punishment or a Motivating Operation?” by Amanda Ralston, BCBA, CEO (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Shaming likely functions through both mechanisms depending on the context, but the motivating operation analysis provides a more comprehensive account. As a punisher, shaming may suppress the specific behavior that preceded it. However, as a motivating operation, shaming alters the value of social approval and disapproval more broadly, increasing the aversive value of social rejection and increasing the probability of a wide range of avoidance behaviors. This means the effects extend far beyond the targeted behavior to include withdrawal from social situations, concealment of behavior, reduced spontaneous engagement, and counter-control responses. The motivating operation analysis helps explain why shaming often produces unpredictable and widespread behavioral effects rather than the targeted behavior suppression a practitioner might intend.
The documented harms include emotional distress including anxiety, depression, and reduced self-efficacy. Behavioral harms include avoidance of the shaming agent and context, concealment of behavior rather than genuine change, reduced social engagement and spontaneity, and counter-control responses including aggression and defiance. Relational harms include damage to the therapeutic relationship, reduced trust in helping professionals, and impaired willingness to seek support. In professional contexts, shaming produces reduced disclosure of errors, avoidance of supervision, and defensive rather than growth-oriented professional behavior. For individuals with histories of trauma or social rejection, shaming can reactivate previous trauma responses and compound existing psychological harm.
Constructive feedback is behavior-specific, private, delivered within a supportive relationship context, focused on what the person can do differently, and aimed at building competence. Shaming is person-focused rather than behavior-focused, may be public or designed to be witnessed by others, delivered with expressions of contempt or disgust, focused on what the person is rather than what they did, and aimed at producing compliance through humiliation. Key indicators that feedback has crossed into shaming include the recipient showing visible distress disproportionate to the situation, subsequent avoidance of the feedback provider, concealment of behavior rather than change, and damage to the relationship. When in doubt, ask yourself whether the primary effect of your feedback is learning and growth or humiliation and withdrawal.
The BACB Ethics Code (2022) does not specifically mention shaming by name, but several provisions clearly address the ethical concerns it raises. Code 2.14 requires prioritizing reinforcement-based interventions. Code 2.15 requires minimizing risk and using the least restrictive effective intervention. Code 3.01 establishes the primacy of client welfare. Code 1.06 requires sensitivity to how practices may differentially impact diverse individuals. Collectively, these standards create a strong ethical case against the deliberate use of shaming, which relies on aversive control, carries significant and unpredictable risks of harm, and is inconsistent with the availability of effective reinforcement-based alternatives.
Effective ethical alternatives include differential reinforcement of appropriate behavior, which strengthens desired responses without relying on aversive control. Private, behavior-specific feedback delivered within a supportive relationship context provides corrective information without humiliation. Environmental modifications that reduce the likelihood of problematic behavior address the antecedent conditions rather than the person. Functional communication training provides alternative ways to access the reinforcers that maintain problematic behavior. Self-monitoring and self-management programs promote autonomy and personal responsibility. Motivational interviewing techniques engage the individual as a collaborative partner in behavior change. These alternatives are not only more ethical but consistently produce more durable and generalized outcomes than aversive strategies.
Begin with a private, respectful conversation that focuses on the observed behavior and its potential impact on the client, not on the colleague's character. Share your concerns using specific behavioral descriptions and reference the relevant ethical standards. Offer alternative strategies that could achieve the same clinical goals without the risks associated with shaming. If the colleague is receptive, follow up with support and modeling of alternative approaches. If the behavior continues after your initial conversation, escalate through appropriate channels which may include the colleague's supervisor, your organization's compliance officer, or if necessary, a formal complaint to the BACB. Document your observations and advocacy efforts. Throughout this process, avoid using shaming tactics yourself, as responding to shaming with shaming undermines your ethical position.
This argument is sometimes made for allowing natural social consequences to occur. However, there are important distinctions between naturally occurring social feedback and deliberate or facilitated shaming. When a peer expresses natural disappointment in response to a friend's behavior, that is a social learning opportunity. When a practitioner orchestrates public criticism, compares clients unfavorably, or uses sarcasm as a teaching tool, that is a deliberate use of aversive control that the practitioner is responsible for. Behavior analysts have an ethical obligation to arrange environments that support positive outcomes, not to engineer or amplify naturally occurring aversive consequences. The question of shielding clients from all negative social feedback is a separate issue from whether practitioners should deliberately employ shaming.
Social media shaming within the ABA community raises significant ethical concerns. While accountability and professional discourse are important, public shaming of colleagues on social media typically produces shame rather than constructive change, damages professional relationships and reputations in ways that may be disproportionate to the offense, models aversive control strategies that are inconsistent with the profession's values, and bypasses formal complaint and accountability mechanisms that provide due process. The BACB Ethics Code (2022) includes provisions related to professional conduct and integrity that apply to online interactions. Behavior analysts should engage in professional discourse that is respectful and constructive, use formal channels for reporting ethical concerns, and recognize that the behavioral principles they study apply equally to their own online behavior.
From a behavioral perspective, guilt and shame can be distinguished by their controlling variables and their behavioral effects. Guilt is typically controlled by a specific behavior and its consequences and tends to produce reparative behavior such as apologizing, making amends, or changing the specific behavior. Shame is typically controlled by a broader evaluation of the self as inadequate or defective and tends to produce avoidance, withdrawal, concealment, and defensive responses. When a behavior change interaction produces guilt, the individual is more likely to engage in constructive behavior change. When it produces shame, the individual is more likely to withdraw from the context entirely. Understanding this distinction helps practitioners design feedback and consequences that promote guilt-like constructive responses rather than shame-like avoidance responses.
Effective supervisory feedback that avoids shaming follows several principles. Deliver all corrective feedback in private, never in front of clients, peers, or other staff. Focus on specific observable behaviors rather than personal characteristics. Maintain a high ratio of positive feedback to corrective feedback so that supervision is experienced as supportive overall. Separate the urgency of the clinical concern from the emotional intensity of the feedback delivery. Frame feedback as an opportunity for growth rather than evidence of failure. Invite the supervisee to participate in problem-solving rather than simply receiving criticism. Follow up corrective feedback with support, modeling, and monitoring. Check in with supervisees about their experience of supervision and be genuinely open to adjusting your approach based on their feedback.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Does shaming change behavior? Is it punishment or a Motivating Operation? — Amanda Ralston · 1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $30
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
252 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $30 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.