This is the second in as series of plain-language posts exploring behavior modification and offering an alternate framing and practice of human service, inclusion, and harm-reduction.
In a recent post, “In Plain Language: We Should Stop Using Applied Behavior Analysis,” or ABA, I offered the following definition of ABA, “In the simplest terms, ABA therapies identify and use what are called ‘reinforcements’ and ‘punishments’ in a perceived novice’s (PN’s) environment to shape their behavior. Perceived experts (PEs), using principles of ABA, create programs that reward, or reinforce, PN behaviors deemed compliant, appropriate, and/or desired; and punish PN behaviors deemed noncompliant, inappropriate, and/or undesired. The idea is that reinforced behaviors will increase and non-reinforced (i.e., neglected) or punished behaviors will decrease.” (Del Duca, 2022) I now want to spend some time with the noun, “punishment,” and the verb, “to punish.”
According to a quite thorough and plain language article explaining Operant Conditioning, “Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning.” (McLeod, 2018) Skinner’s work directly informed and influenced the field of behavior analysis, which includes three branches. 1. The philosophy, which is called “behaviorism.” 2. The research, called “the experimental analysis of behavior.” And 3. The practice, called “applied behavior analysis.” (Nickerson, 2022) McLeod offers a succinct definition of what he calls “punishers,” which are, “…responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.” Conversely, “reinforcers” are intended to, “…increase the probability of a behavior being repeated.” (McLeod, 2018)
It is notable that McLeod chooses purely passive language to identify consequences in a perceived novice’s (PN’s) environment. Certainly, the commonly used story that, “a child who touches a hot stove learns to not touch stoves,” includes an existing object (hot stove) that serves as a passive punishment (reduces the behavior of touching stoves) for a child. However, there is nothing passive about perceived experts (PEs) punishing PNs. And THERE…is where I would like to offer a different definition of punishment, or punishers.
From a behaviorist perspective, there is no consideration of the social and emotional impacts of PE behaviors directed at PNs, be they reinforcers or punishers. There is only the manipulation of PN behaviors deemed either desirable or undesirable. We reinforce the desirable. We punish the undesirable. And we, perceived experts, usually, if not always, define which behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable, often without the consent or the input of the perceived novice we are influencing.
I call my approach impact-regarding and social-and-emotional (IRSE), and my definition of “punishment” is distinctly non-behavior-modification.
A punisher, then, with an IRSE framing, is any perceived-expert-to-perceived-novice (PE->PN) behavior that causes the PN’s nervous system to respond in reliable and measurable ways indicating a sympathetic nervous system (SNS) state. Another phrase commonly used for the SNS is, “fight, flight, freeze, or appease.”
The first thing my definition of punishment does is set a power dynamic. In any helping relationship, a power dynamic exists, and that power dynamic is critical. Those with more power exert influence over those with less power.
The next thing I do is consider the impact of the PE’s behavior on the nervous system of the PN, recognizing that we can, as human influencers, observe reactions connected to our behavior modification techniques and manipulations.
Behaviorists often claim that the world of emotions is unobservable and thus functionally irrelevant. Many would state that an emotion is nothing more than a behavior, a predictable consequence in a series of antecedents and behaviors. My contention is that all observable outward behaviors are the result of previous experiences, memories, traumas, motivations, and emotions. That is, the behavior is a “symptom” with an underlying memory and emotional cause.
When we, perceived experts, observe perceived novice reactions to our inputs, we must consider three things. First, commonalities. That is, what do ALL human nervous systems do when entering a state of fight, flight, freeze, or appease? Next, individualities. That is, how does THIS nervous system in front of me display distress and the perception of danger? And finally, context. That is, how do THESE settings, times of day, person or people with us, and other external factors impact THIS nervous system’s reactions. Again, we must consider three things: commonality, individuality, and context.
It’s complex. The easiest thing to do would be to see, for example, that a child has stopped looking at me and is looking uncomfortably at the ground, perhaps has repositioned herself to be facing away from me. She does this even though I ask her to face and look at me. In fact, the more I demand, the further she shifts. I want her to face and look at me, so I apply reinforcements and/or punishments so that I get that behavior. Merely that she is facing me and staring at me.
However…what is the impact on the child? Why has the child, who previously seemed relaxed and was oriented toward me, even smiling at times and glancing up in my eyes, shifted so dramatically? Any behaviorist knows…there are reasons for this change. Reasons for any and every change in human behavior. However, the behaviorist will rarely consider the internal state of the PN; their emotions and triggers. An impact-regarding PE will immediately consider the PN’s state of being.
We know, considering commonalities, that both humans and pets who feel threatened will avert gaze, turn inward, and begin the process of either fighting, flying, freezing, or appeasing.
An impact-regarding social-and-emotional (IRSE) approach desires to resolve THAT first. The IRSE clinician desires to support the individual in shifting out of being threatened before attempting any behavior manipulations.
The IRSE approach is trauma-informed definitionally, and thus will not attempt to coach, train, teach, or manipulate in any way until the perceived novice returns to a calmer, more restful, attentive, and connected state of mind and being.
Again, we can measure this change. Human beings behave reliably differently when they feel threatened, agitated, triggered, or uncomfortable; and conversely when they feel included, welcomed, unconditionally regarded, safe, and comfortable.
Therefore, punishment, according to a person-centered, trauma-informed, IRSE perspective…is any fight/flight/freeze/appease impact an expert’s behavior has on a novice’s nervous system.
This is a radically different way of defining punishment, and would, if practiced, radically change any and all endeavors aimed at modifying and manipulating “undesirable” human behaviors. How, for example, might a first responder, or school discipline officer, or supervisor encountering an emotionally dysregulated person in an agitated state (fight/flight/freeze/appease) interact using traditional behavior modification versus trauma-informed, impact-regarding, and social-and-emotional care? Very differently, indeed.
We, as powerful people…as doctors, officers, therapists, teachers, caregivers, and parents…MUST consider the social and emotional impact that our behaviors have on the people over whom we hold power and influence. At the very least, consider. Obviously, I think we need to do more than consider, but offering regard, is important and the first step toward implementing an important thing. So let’s first regard, and we can then illuminate how to apply. Applied Person-Centeredness, perhaps. Or Applied Trauma-Informed Care? In any case, I appreciate you being here with me and look forward to communicating with you again in the near future. -G
REFERENCES:
Del Duca, G. (2022, May 10). In Plain Language: We Should Stop Using Applied Behavior Analysis [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.inclusionnow.space/index.php/2022/05/10/in-plain-language-we-should-stop-using-applied-behavior-analysis/.
McLeod, S. A. (2018, January, 21). Skinner – operant conditioning. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
Nickerson, C. (2022, Jan 18). Behavior Analysis in Psychology. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-behavior-analysis.html
Leave a Reply