In this study 201 randomly selected adult residents of Christchurch, New Zealand, were presented with one of four case descriptions, depicting either a boy or a girl having the behavior problem of serious noncompliance occurring either at school or at home. They then read descriptions of each of five alternative punishment techniques: time-out, response cost, overcorrection, social reprimands, and physical punishment (in counterbalanced order) and completed the Treatment Evaluation Inventory following each of the descriptions. The rankings of the procedures from most to least acceptable were response cost, social reprimands, time-out, overcorrection, and physical punishment. The least acceptable punishments were more acceptable when administered at home than at school, and this was especially true for girls. Otherwise, there were no differences in acceptability attributable to gender of the case. Differences between respondents in gender, age, education level, and family status were not associated with significant differences in punishment acceptability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brantner, J. P. , & Doherty, M. A. (1983). A review of timeout: A conceptual and methodological analysis. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 87-132). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Catherwood, V. (1985). Young people, education and employment. Wellington: New Zealand Planning Council.
3.
Department of Statistics . (1987). New Zealand official yearbook-1986. Wellington: Department of Statistics.
4.
Elliot, S. N. (1986). Children's ratings of the acceptability of classroom interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23-35.
5.
Elliot, S. N. , Witt, J. C., Galvin, G. A., & Moe, G. L. (1986). Children's involvement in intervention selection: Acceptability of interventions for misbehaving peers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 235-241.
6.
Frentz, C. , & Kelley, M. (1986). Parents' acceptance of reductive treatment methods: The influences of problem severity and perception of child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 17, 75-81.
7.
Heffer, R. W. , & Kelley, M. L. (1987). Mothers' acceptance of behavioral interventions for children: The influence of parent race and income. Behavior Therapy, 18, 153-163.
8.
Iwata, B. A. (1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. Behavior Analyst, 11, 149-157.
9.
Iwata, B. A. , & Bailey, 3. S. (1974). Reward versus cost token systems: An analysis of the effects on students and teachers. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 5, 567-576.
10.
Kalfus, G. R. , & Burk, B. K. (1989). The influence of case history and treatment mediator on ratings of acceptability of child treatment. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 11, 45-55.
11.
Kazdin, A. E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273.
12.
Kazdin, A. E. (1980b). Acceptability of time-out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 11, 329-344.
13.
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of child treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493-506.
14.
Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Acceptability of aversive procedures and medication as treatment alternatives for deviant child behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 289-301.
15.
Kazdin, A. E. , French, N. H., & Sherick, R. B. (1981). Acceptability of altemative treatments for children: Evaluations by inpatient children, parents and staff. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 900-907.
16.
Kelly, P. C. , Weir, M. R., & Fearnow, R. G. (1985). A survey of parental opinions on corporal punishment in schools. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 6, 143-145.
17.
Landers, S. (1987, December). Aversive device sparks controversy. AB4 Monitor, p. 15-15.
18.
LaVigna, G. W. , & Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alternatives to punishment: Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strategies. New York: Irvington.
19.
Lloyd, K. E. (1980). Do as I say, not as I do. New Zealand Psychologist, 9, 1-20.
20.
MacKenzie-Keating, S. E. , & McDonald, L. (1990). Overcorrection: Reviewed, revisited and revised. BehaviorAnalyst, 13, 39-48.
21.
Martin, P. (1975). Legal challenges to behavior modification. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
22.
Matson, J. L. , & DiLorenzo, T. M. (1984). Punishment and its alternatives. New York: Springer.
23.
Maurer, A. (1974). Corporal punishment. American Psychologist, 29, 614-626.
24.
McMahon, R. J. , & Forehand, R. L. (1983). Consumer satisfaction in behavioral treatment of children: Types, issues and recommendations. Behavior Therapy, 14, 209-225.
25.
Norton, G. R. , Austen, S., Allen, G. E., & Hilton, J. (1983). Acceptability of time-out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior: A further analysis. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5, 31-41.
26.
Pazulinec, R. , Myerrose, M., & Sajwaj, T. (1983). Punishment via response cost. In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 71-86). New York: Academic Press.
27.
Ritchie, J. , & Ritchie, J. E. (1981). Spare the rod. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
28.
Ritchie, J. , & Ritchie, J. E. (1990). Violence in NewZealand. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
29.
Romanczyk, R. G. , Colletti, G., & Plotkin, R. (1980). Self-injurious behavior: Issues of behavior analysis, generalization and the right to treatment. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 2, 37-53.
30.
Schwartz, 1. S. , & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?Journal ofApplied BehaviorAnalysis, 24, 189-204.
31.
Shapiro, E. S. , & Goldberg, R. (1990). In vivo ratings of treatment acceptability by children: Group size effects in group contingencies to improve spelling performance. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 233-250.
32.
Sidman, M. (1989) Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
33.
Singh, N. N. , & Katz, R. C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for altemative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375-386.
34.
Singh, N. N. , Watson, J. E., & Winton, A. S. (1987). Parents' acceptability ratings of alternative treatments for use with mentally retarded children. Behavior Modification, 11, 17-26.
35.
Van Houten, R. , & Doleys, D. M. (1983). Are social reprimands effective? In S. Axelrod & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 45-70). New York: Academic Press.
36.
Van Houten, R. , Nau, P. A., MacKenzie-Keating, S., Sameoto, D., & Colavecchia, B. (1982). An analysis of some variables influencing the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 15, 65-83.
37.
Vockell, E. L. (1977). Whatever happened to punishment. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
38.
von Brock, M. B. , & Elliot, S. N. (1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131-144.
39.
Walters, G. L. , & Grusec, J. E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco: Freeman.
40.
Witt, J. C. , Martens, B. K., & Elliot, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers' judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, problem behavior severity and the type of intervention. Behavior Therapy, 15, 204-209.
41.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 11, 203-214.
42.
Wooldridge, P. , & Richman, C. L. (1981). Teachers' choice of punishment as a function of a student's gender, age, race and 10 level. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 19-29.
