Many educators across the country are implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in their schools and classrooms. While PBIS primarily focuses on proactive and preventative approaches to improve behavior, one of the essential elements of PBIS is the consistent use of consequences when students do not meet behavioral expectations. Most teachers view consequences as punitive reactions to misbehavior. However, there are ways to deliver consequences that are supportive in nature and result in positively redirecting students to engaging in desirable behavior, thereby eliminating the necessity of punitive responses. This column discusses the problems associated with commonly used punitive consequences to address challenging behaviors in classrooms and provides an alternative approach that is more in line with PBIS frameworks. This entails the use of a hierarchy of supportive consequences, which is explained in detail.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
2.
AlgozzineB.WangC.VioletteA. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 3–16.
3.
AxelrodS. A. (1990). Myths that (mis)guide our profession. In ReppA. C.SinghN. N. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 59–72). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
4.
AxelrodS.ApscheJ. (1983). The effects of punishment on human behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
5.
BuffingtonD. M.KrantzP. J.McClannahanL. E.PoulsonC. L. (1998). Procedures for teaching appropriate gestural communication skills to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(6), 535–545.
6.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
DiGennaro ReedF. D.LovettB. J. (2008). Views on the efficacy and ethics of punishment: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4(1), 61–67.
8.
FabeloT.ThompsonM. D.PlotkinM.CarmichaelD.MarchbanksM. P.BoothE. A. (2011). Breaking school’s rules. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.
9.
FoxxR. M. (2005). Severe aggressive and self-destructive behavior: The myth of the nonaversive treatment of severe behavior. In JacobsonJ. W.FoxxR. M.MulickJ. A. (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional science (pp. 295–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
HagopianL. P.FisherW. W.SullivanM. T.AcquistoJ.LeBlancL. A. (1998). Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment: A summary of 21 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(2), 211–235.
11.
HesterP. P.HendricksonJ. M.GableR. A. (2009). Forty years later: The value of praise, ignoring, and rules for preschoolers at risk for behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 513–535.
12.
LeGrayM.DufreneB.MercerS.OlmiD.SterlingH. (2013). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in center-based classrooms: Evaluation of pre-teaching the alternative behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(2), 85–102.
13.
LermanD. C.IwataB. A. (1996). Developing a technology for the use of operant extinction in clinical settings: An examination of basic and applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 345–385.
14.
LermanD. C.IwataB. A.WallaceM. D. (1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and aggression during the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(1), 1–8.
15.
LibbyM. E.WeissJ. S.BancroftS.AhearnW. H. (2008). A comparison of most-to-least and least-to-most prompting on the acquisition of solitary play skills. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), 37–43.
16.
MuellerM. M.NkosiA.HineJ. F. (2011). Functional analysis in public schools: A summary of 90 functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 807–818.
17.
NeitzelJ.WoleryM. (2009). Overview of prompting. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
18.
NewcomerL. L.LewisT. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 168–181.
19.
ScheuermannB. K.HallJ. A. (2012). Positive behavioral supports for the classroom (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
20.
Shukla-MehtaS.AlbinR. W. (2003). Twelve practical strategies to prevent behavioral escalation in classroom settings. Preventing School Failure, 47(4), 156–161.
21.
SolnickM. D.ArdoinS. P. (2010). A quantitative review of functional analysis procedures in public school settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(1), 153–175.
22.
SugaiG.HornerR. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130–135.
23.
VollmerT. R.ProgarP. R.LalliJ. S.Van CampC. M.SierpB. J.WrightC. S.. . . EisenschinkK. J. (1998). Fixed-time schedules attenuate extinction-induced phenomena in the treatment of severe aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 529–542.
24.
WoleryM.AultM. J.DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. White Plains, NY: Longman.
25.
WoleryM.GastD. L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4(3), 52–77.
