Abstract

MAYER, Paulo César Morales  and  GONGORA, Maura Alves Nunes. Two behavioral formulations of punishment: definition, explanation and some implications. Acta comport. [online]. 2011, vol.19, n.4, pp. 47-63. ISSN 0188-8145.

In behavior analysis, the main current formulations of punishment are Skinner's (1953/2003) and Azrin e Holz's (1966/1975). This article describes a theoretical-conceptual research aimed at explaining the theoretical conceptions and some practical implications of these two formulations. It was conducted a study that consisted in selecting and examining bibliographies that presented discussions on theory, conceptions and applications (uses) of punishment. In Skinner's (1953/2003) formulation, punishment is understood as a "procedure", defined by him as the presentation of a negative reinforcer stimulus, or the withdrawal of a positive one. Skinner focuses the analysis of punishment on two aspects: the transitory nature of its effects and on its unfortunate emotional byproducts for the punished individual and for the society at large. To explain the behavioral suppression observed in punishment, Skinner turns to the process of negative reinforcement, consisted by the strengthening of competitive responses, and to the respondent conditioning through the elicitation of emotional responses incompatible with the punished response. On Azrin and Holz's (1966/1975) formulation, punishment is understood as a procedure and also as behavioral process, characterized by the reduction of the behavior probability. Thus, their study focus is to describe and explain the process of suppression or weakening of the punished responses. Authors in favor of this definition usually contend that the emotional byproducts of punishment, pointed by Skinner, are due to the type of stimulation used or to methodological issues and not to idiosyncrasy of the procedure itself. In this conception of punishment the efficacy in suppressing responses is considered as a result of the proper contingencies arrangement, and the explanation of its suppressive effects is a function of the direct relation between the behavior and the consequence, the same way as supposed for the positive reinforcement, but in the opposite direction. On the applied field, these distinct conceptions lead to a polarity among authors that are: unconditionally contrary to the use of punishment; and those who defend its use on critical situations, with the use of moderate aversive stimulus and in controlled settings. On the theoretical field, each definition tends to promote distinct research directions: on researching punishment, Skinnerians are more interested on the study of the effects of the aversive stimulation use; but the supporters of Azrin and Holz seem to seek the proper stimulus and conditions to suppress a given response class. It was verified yet that because of these different theoretical positions, it is also discussed the role of punishment in the operant theory. That means, it is questioned if punishment should be conceived only as a procedure or also as a behavioral process. Due to the great differences observed between these two conceptions of punishment, some possible inconveniences, for the Behavior Analysis as a field, are discussed in what relates to the use of only one term to relate to both. With the dada here presented and discussed, it is expected to contribute to a better comprehension of different positions behavior analysts have about this complex theme: punishment.

Keywords : punishment; theory; definition; concept; explanation; Behavior Analysis.

        · abstract in Portuguese     · text in Portuguese     · Portuguese ( pdf )