Response Cost

Description of the Strategy

Response cost is a special case of a punishment procedure that involves taking away desirable possessions, points, tokens, or privileges in planned, incremental steps following the occurrence of an undesirable behavior or failure to meet a specific goal. That is, behaving inappropriately or in an undesirable manner costs the individual something they already possess or privileges they currently enjoy and expect to have access to in the future. Technically, the cost component of the procedure is referred to as a “loss of reinforcers”—which means that individuals lose something they value or consider desirable and currently possess—and the procedure results in a reduction in or weakening of behavior following the removal of a positive stimulus. Its end goal, as with all punishment procedures, is to reduce the frequency and/or strength of maladaptive or undesirable behavior. Common examples of response cost include introducing monetary fines for inappropriate behavior (speeding in an automobile, filing a delinquent income tax return) and losing points or tokens used to access special privileges in a classroom (e.g., as part of an ongoing classroom incentive system or token economy).

Punishment is a frequently misunderstood technical term. For example, many parents complain that their children don't respond to punishment or that punishment is ineffective. Both statements are inaccurate. Punishment is defined as the reduction in behavior following the introduction of an aversive stimulus or removal of a positive stimulus. Thus, if an undesirable behavior shows no reduction in frequency or [Page 1003]strength following the introduction of an aversive stimulus or removal of a positive stimulus, then the procedure fails to meet the definition as punishment. In these situations, the intended stimulus (either presentation of an aversive or removal of a positive) is not an effective punisher. At first glance, this definitional nuance may appear trivial, but it is an important distinction because many people assume that if some event or stimulus is aversive to them personally, it must be aversive to everyone. Clearly, this is not the case. There is considerable variability with respect to what individuals regard as aversive. For example, consider the extreme case of children who engage in self-injurious behavior by chronically slamming their head against hard surfaces or an adult with a masochistic personality.

Response cost differs procedurally from other common forms of punishment. Punishment may involve (a) the presentation of an aversive stimulus (e.g., a light swat on the buttocks for running out into the street without looking for cars), (b) removing the individual from a situation or setting that is desirable (referred to as time-out from reinforcement), and (c) removing a positive stimulus, as is the case with response cost. All three variations of punishment result in a decrease in or weakening of behavior but use different processes to accomplish this goal. Traditional punishment introduces an aversive stimulus following an undesirable or inappropriate behavior. Time-out removes the individual from an otherwise positive or reinforcing situation or setting. And response cost takes away reinforcers that have already been earned or are in the person's possession. Thus, response cost is similar to other forms of punishment in that it reduces or weakens a behavior, but is unique in the manner by which it accomplishes this goal—by taking away items, activities, and privileges that are considered desirable by an individual following an incidence of inappropriate or undesirable behavior.

...