A BCBA's Guide to Shaming as a Behavior Change Strategy: Ethical and Behavioral Analysis

Overview & Clinical Significance

The question of whether shaming changes behavior, and if so through what behavioral mechanisms, represents one of the more uncomfortable intersections of behavioral science and ethical practice. For Board Certified Behavior Analysts, this topic demands careful analysis because shaming as a behavior change strategy exists both in everyday social interactions and, more disturbingly, in some professional contexts where it may be employed deliberately or inadvertently by practitioners.

Shaming, broadly defined, involves publicly or privately exposing an individual's behavior, characteristics, or failures in a way that produces feelings of inadequacy, humiliation, or social exclusion. From a behavioral perspective, the question is whether this exposure functions as punishment, reducing the future probability of the targeted behavior, or as a motivating operation, altering the value of certain consequences and the probability of behaviors that produce or avoid those consequences.

The clinical significance of examining shaming lies in several interconnected concerns. First, behavior analysts operate in contexts where shaming can occur at multiple levels, between practitioners and clients, between supervisors and supervisees, within professional communities, and in public discourse about behavioral practices. Understanding the behavioral mechanisms and ethical implications of shaming is essential for recognizing it when it occurs and responding appropriately.

Second, the professional obligations of behavior analysts under the BACB Ethics Code (2022) explicitly prohibit practices that cause unnecessary harm, that fail to prioritize reinforcement-based approaches, and that compromise client dignity. A thorough behavioral analysis of shaming reveals that it carries substantial risks of harm that are difficult to predict or control, making it ethically problematic as a deliberate behavior change strategy.

Third, the broader cultural context matters. Social media has amplified shaming as a social control mechanism, and behavior analysts are not immune to participating in or being subjected to public shaming within professional communities. Understanding the behavioral dynamics of these interactions helps practitioners navigate them with greater awareness and ethical clarity.

This panel discussion format is particularly valuable because it brings multiple professional perspectives to bear on a topic where reasonable practitioners may disagree about specific applications while sharing core ethical commitments. The complexity of shaming as both a naturally occurring social phenomenon and a potential clinical tool requires the kind of nuanced analysis that emerges from disciplined dialogue.

Background & Context

Shaming has a long and complicated history as a social control mechanism across human cultures. Public shaming, social ostracism, and reputation-based consequences have functioned as community behavior management strategies for millennia. Understanding this historical context is important for behavior analysts because it helps explain why shaming can seem intuitively effective, even when a careful behavioral analysis reveals significant problems.

From a behavior analytic perspective, the question of how shaming functions requires distinguishing between its potential roles as a punisher and as a motivating operation. If shaming functions as a punisher, it would be expected to reduce the future probability of the behavior that preceded it. The shaming stimulus, which might be public criticism, social exclusion, or expressions of disappointment and contempt, would be an aversive consequence that the individual subsequently works to avoid by not engaging in the targeted behavior.

However, the motivating operation analysis offers a more nuanced account. A motivating operation is an environmental variable that alters the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of a consequence and alters the current frequency of behavior related to that consequence. Shaming may function as an establishing operation that increases the aversive value of social disapproval and increases the probability of behaviors that produce social acceptance, while simultaneously decreasing the reinforcing value of the shamed behavior.

The distinction matters practically because it changes how we predict the effects of shaming. If shaming functions purely as punishment, we might expect relatively straightforward suppression of the targeted behavior. But if it functions as a motivating operation, the effects are more diffuse and less predictable. The individual may engage in a wide range of escape and avoidance behaviors, not just ceasing the targeted behavior but also withdrawing from social situations, concealing behavior rather than changing it, or developing counter-control responses including aggression and resentment.

Research on the psychological effects of shame and humiliation provides important context. The distinction between guilt and shame is relevant here. Guilt is focused on a specific behavior and tends to motivate reparative action. Shame is focused on the self as a whole and tends to motivate withdrawal, concealment, and defensive responses. When a behavior change strategy produces shame rather than guilt, the behavioral effects are likely to be maladaptive rather than constructive.

The behavior analytic literature on punishment more broadly is also relevant. Even when punishment effectively suppresses behavior, it carries well-documented side effects including emotional responses, escape and avoidance of the punishing agent, and modeling of aversive control strategies. These side effects are amplified when the punishment involves social humiliation because the social consequences extend beyond the immediate interaction.

Clinical Implications

The clinical implications of understanding shaming as a behavior change strategy extend across multiple domains of behavior analytic practice. Practitioners need to consider how shaming dynamics may operate in their clinical work, their supervisory relationships, and their organizational culture.

In direct clinical practice with clients, shaming can occur through several mechanisms that practitioners may not immediately recognize. Displaying disappointment when a client does not meet expectations, comparing a client's performance unfavorably to others, using sarcasm or condescension during teaching interactions, publicly discussing a client's challenging behavior in front of peers or other staff, and setting up situations where failure is likely and then drawing attention to that failure all contain elements of shaming. These practices may suppress the targeted behavior in the moment, but they undermine the therapeutic relationship and create conditions for avoidance, withdrawal, and reduced trust.

For clients who have experienced trauma, including many individuals with autism who have experienced repeated social rejection and failure, shaming interactions can be particularly damaging. The therapeutic relationship should be a context in which the client experiences safety, acceptance, and unconditional positive regard for their personhood even as specific behaviors are targeted for change. When shaming enters the therapeutic interaction, it violates this safety and can produce lasting harm.

In supervision relationships, shaming dynamics deserve special attention. Supervisors hold significant power over supervisees, including the power to evaluate performance, recommend for certification, and influence career advancement. When supervisory feedback is delivered in ways that produce shame rather than constructive learning, the effects can be devastating. Supervisees may become reluctant to disclose errors, may avoid seeking supervision when they most need it, and may develop avoidance of the supervisor that undermines the entire supervisory process. The BACB Ethics Code (2022) requires supervisors to provide feedback that is constructive and supportive of professional development.

Within organizational culture, shaming can become normalized in ways that are difficult to recognize from inside the system. Cultures that publicly rank employees, that use punitive rather than supportive responses to documentation deficiencies, or that create competitive rather than collaborative environments may be inadvertently establishing shaming contingencies. These cultures tend to produce high turnover, low morale, and defensive rather than growth-oriented behavior among staff.

The implications for behavior analysts working in interdisciplinary teams are also significant. When other professionals or family members use shaming strategies with clients, behavior analysts have an obligation to address this through education and modeling of alternative approaches. This requires the ability to articulate clearly why shaming is problematic from both ethical and scientific perspectives, and to offer effective alternatives that achieve the desired behavior change without the accompanying harm.

Practitioners should also consider their participation in professional discourse, including on social media, where public shaming of other professionals has become increasingly common. While accountability is important, there is a meaningful difference between holding colleagues to professional standards through appropriate channels and engaging in public humiliation that produces shame rather than constructive change.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical analysis of shaming as a behavior change strategy is unambiguous in its core conclusion: deliberate use of shaming to modify behavior violates multiple provisions of the BACB Ethics Code (2022) and is inconsistent with the values of the profession. However, the nuances of this analysis are worth examining in detail.

Code 2.15 (Minimizing Risk of Behavior-Change Interventions) requires behavior analysts to select interventions that minimize risk of harm and to use the least restrictive effective intervention. Shaming carries inherent risks that are difficult to predict or control, including emotional harm, relationship damage, and maladaptive behavioral side effects. These risks make shaming inconsistent with the least-restrictive-effective standard, particularly given the availability of reinforcement-based alternatives that can achieve comparable behavior change without the accompanying harm.

Code 2.14 (Selecting, Designing, and Implementing Behavior-Change Interventions) states that behavior analysts should prioritize reinforcement-based interventions. The use of shaming as a behavior change strategy represents a reliance on aversive control that is inconsistent with this priority. Even if shaming were shown to be effective in reducing a targeted behavior, its aversive nature and the availability of positive alternatives would make it ethically indefensible as a first-line or routine strategy.

Code 1.06 (Having Sensitivity to Diversity) requires behavior analysts to consider how their practices may differentially impact individuals based on various dimensions of diversity. Shaming has culturally specific meanings and impacts. Practices that might be experienced as mildly embarrassing in one cultural context may produce profound shame and social consequences in another. This variability in impact makes shaming particularly dangerous as a behavior change strategy because the practitioner cannot reliably predict its effects across diverse individuals and contexts.

Code 3.01 (Responsibility to Clients) establishes the primacy of client welfare. The potential for shaming to cause emotional harm, damage the therapeutic relationship, and produce maladaptive avoidance behavior places it in direct tension with this fundamental responsibility. Even when shaming produces short-term behavior change, the collateral damage to the client's emotional wellbeing and trust in the therapeutic relationship undermines long-term outcomes.

The ethical analysis extends to the question of whether behavior analysts have an obligation to intervene when they observe shaming being used by others. Code 2.16 (Describing Conditions for Behavior-Change Program Success) and the broader commitment to client welfare suggest that behavior analysts should address shaming practices in their environment, whether perpetrated by colleagues, other professionals, or family members. This advocacy role requires both the clinical knowledge to explain why shaming is harmful and the interpersonal skills to navigate potentially difficult conversations.

There is also an ethical dimension related to professional discourse. The behavior analytic community has a responsibility to model the values it espouses. When professional disagreements are handled through public shaming on social media or at conferences rather than through respectful dialogue and appropriate complaint processes, the profession undermines its own ethical commitments.

Assessment & Decision-Making

When behavior analysts encounter situations where shaming may be occurring or being proposed as a strategy, a systematic assessment and decision-making process is essential. This process should be guided by both behavioral science and ethical principles.

The first step is to identify whether shaming is actually occurring. This requires operationally defining what constitutes shaming in the specific context. Observable indicators might include public criticism that identifies the individual rather than the behavior, expressions of contempt or disgust, deliberate social exclusion as a consequence for behavior, comparisons that are designed to produce feelings of inadequacy, and the use of sarcasm, mockery, or condescension. Distinguishing between feedback that is uncomfortable but constructive and feedback that is designed to or functions as shaming requires careful analysis of the topography, context, and effects of the interaction.

Once potential shaming has been identified, assess the function of the shaming behavior itself. In many cases, shaming serves a function for the person doing the shaming rather than the person being shamed. It may be maintained by escape from the effort required for more thoughtful intervention, by social reinforcement from observers who approve of the shaming, or by the immediate behavior suppression it may produce. Understanding the function of shaming behavior helps identify replacement strategies for the person engaging in it.

Assess the impact on the individual being shamed. Look for behavioral indicators of shame including withdrawal from social interaction, avoidance of the shaming agent or context, concealment of behavior, reduced initiation and spontaneity, emotional responses such as crying or visible distress, and counter-control responses such as aggression or defiance. These indicators suggest that the shaming interaction is producing harmful effects that outweigh any behavior change benefits.

When determining alternatives to shaming, apply the standard decision-making framework for behavior change interventions. Start with the least restrictive approaches: positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior, environmental modifications that make the problematic behavior less likely, teaching replacement skills that serve the same function as the problematic behavior, and providing clear, private, behavior-specific feedback that separates the person from the behavior.

For situations where behavior analysts need to address shaming being used by others, develop a graduated response plan. Start with providing education about the behavioral and ethical concerns with shaming. Model alternative approaches that achieve the desired outcomes. If education and modeling are insufficient, escalate to more direct advocacy including formal feedback, documentation, and if necessary, reporting through appropriate channels.

Document your assessment and decision-making process, particularly when you identify shaming practices that need to be addressed. This documentation protects you professionally, creates a record of your advocacy efforts, and provides the basis for any formal complaints that may become necessary.

Finally, engage in self-assessment. All practitioners are susceptible to using shaming dynamics, particularly under conditions of stress, frustration, or time pressure. Regular self-reflection about whether your own feedback practices, supervisory style, or professional communications contain elements of shaming is essential for maintaining ethical practice.

What This Means for Your Practice

Understanding the behavioral mechanisms and ethical problems associated with shaming should fundamentally influence how you provide feedback, manage behavior, and participate in professional discourse.

In your clinical work, commit to a zero-tolerance approach to shaming interactions with clients. This means providing all corrective feedback in private, focusing feedback on specific behaviors rather than the person's character, maintaining a high ratio of positive to corrective interactions, and monitoring your own emotional state to avoid delivering feedback when you are frustrated or angry. When you observe shaming dynamics in your clinical settings, address them promptly through education and modeling.

In your supervisory relationships, whether as a supervisor or supervisee, establish norms for feedback that explicitly exclude shaming. Supervisory feedback should be specific, behavioral, private, and delivered within a context of genuine support for professional growth. If you are a supervisor, ask your supervisees for feedback about their experience of supervision and be willing to hear and act on concerns about your approach.

In professional discourse, model the behavior you expect from others. When you disagree with a colleague's practices or public statements, respond through appropriate channels rather than public shaming. Use professional reporting mechanisms when ethical violations need to be addressed. Recognize that behavior analysts are subject to the same behavioral principles they study, and that the contingencies of social media often reinforce inflammatory and shaming responses over thoughtful dialogue.

Develop and teach alternatives to shaming that are both effective and ethical. Focus on building positive relationships as the foundation for behavior change, using reinforcement-based strategies as your primary tools, providing clear expectations and consistent follow-through, and creating environments where mistakes are treated as learning opportunities rather than occasions for humiliation. These alternatives are not just ethically required but are more effective at producing lasting, generalized behavior change.