Definition of a Controversial Punishment
The use of aromatic ammonia is one of the controversial punishment procedures that have been used to deal with aversive behaviors. This controversial treatment procedure was administered by a change agent when it was indicated, usually whenever the aversive behavior was noted by the change agent. The procedure involved opening a capsule containing the aromatic ammonia. The capsule was then waved under the nose of the individual with the problem behavior (Miltenberger, 2011).
The rationale for the use of this controversial punishment procedure is that the individual with the problem behavior would learn to associate the pungent choking smell of the ammonia capsule as a behavior deterrent. This would only be effective if the punishment procedure were performed every time the individual manifested the problem behavior. The use of the ammonia capsule would serve as the stimulus that helped reduce the incidences of the aversive behavior. The use of this controversial punishment procedure is usually not the first option as argued by Tanner & Zeiler (1975). However, it is indicated after the analysis of the problem behavior, its incidence rate, and the probability that the individual will hurt themselves or other medical personnel.
Pros and Cons of the Use of Aromatic Ammonia as a Punishment Procedure
There use of aromatic ammonia in the controversial punishment procedure has its advantages and disadvantages.
Pros
One of the advantages of this controversial punishment procedure is that it is effective in averting self-injurious behavior in individuals when it is applied effectively. The experiment performed by Tanner & Zeiler (1975) considered slapping as the self-injurious behavior. The baseline data that was collected before the experiment showed that over eleven periods of observation, the subject being studied slapped themselves 36.2 times per minute. The experimental data showed that the subject slapped themselves 1.3 times per minute (Tanner & Zeiler, 1975). This represented a 96.4% reduction in the incidence of the self-injurious behavior. This decrease was attributed to the use of the aromatic ammonia capsule every time the subject manifested the self-injurious behavior.
Another advantage of using the aromatic ammonia capsule as a punishment for self-injurious behavior is that the implementation is easier compared to alternative procedures such as electric shock. This is because the aromatic ammonia capsules can be given to all the staff. The convenient packaging of the capsule allows it to be carried in the pockets of the staff. The implication here is that more staff is involved, and the intervention is performed in more places compared to the other alternatives. This advantage contributes to the effectiveness of the punishment procedure because the subject is watched by many staff, a fact that increases the probability of covering all the indications of the punishment procedure. Another advantage of this punishment procedure is the reference to operant behavior functions is not required in its implementation (Matson, 2009).
Cons
One of the disadvantages of this procedure is the discomfort it causes the subject. In the experiment performed by Tanner & Zeiler (1975), the researchers noted that one of the subjects reacted violently when the aromatic ammonia capsule was placed under her nose. The researchers reported that the subject turned her head vigorously and struggled with the personnel administering the capsule. Another disadvantage is that the choking pungent smell of ammonia can be very irritating to both the subject and the experimenter. Matson (2009) also finds that the fact that the punishment procedure involves stimuli that cause discomfort to the subject is disadvantageous because the discomfort might result in counter-productive results. More precisely, the stimulus used to elicit behavior change might result in aggression or emotional behavior from the subject. Finally, such punishment procedures could result in avoidance behavior which is another problem behavior (Matson, 2009).
Reflection and Opinion
While Tanner & Zeiler (1975) have demonstrated the use of aromatic ammonia to be effective in reducing the incidence of the self-injurious behavior, I opine that the use of such adverse interventions should be preceded by an exhaustion of other alternatives. Matson (2009) justifies the use of punishment procedures by citing the right of the subject to get effective treatment, especially when the other alternatives have proved ineffective. This argument is supported by BACB Board (2014), who allows the use of punishment procedures as a second alternative to reinforcement. BACB Board (2014) recommends that procedures that are based on reinforcement are used until they are determined to lack the effectiveness needed to change the problem behavior.
Even in the use of the aversive procedures, there is the need to monitor their implementation to avoid the abuse of the procedures (Bailey & Burch, 2011). This means that constant oversight and the monitoring of the effectiveness of the punishment procedures is necessary so that other approaches are used when the punishment procedure is also determined to be ineffective (Cuvo, 1992). This will ensure that the subject is not continually subjected to the pain or discomfort of a punishment procedure that is no longer effective.
References
BACB Board. (2014). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved from http://bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160321-compliance-code- english.pdf
Bailey, J. and Burch, M. (2011). Ethics for behavior analysts: 2nd expanded edition. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Cuvo, A. (1992). Gentle teaching: On the one hand but on the other hand. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25: 873-877.
Matson, J. L. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders. New York: Springer.
Miltenberger, R. (2011). Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures. Boston Cengage Learning.
Tanner, B. and Zeiler, M. (1975). Punishment of self-injurious behavior using Aromatic ammonia as the aversive stimulus. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(1): 53-57.
