Patterson (2016). Coercion theory: The study of change.” – Article summary

Anti-social boys are less responsive to social reinforcement. Punishment only has short-term suppressive effects on behaviour. Punishment only seems effective in combination with positive reinforcement.

Coercion refers to a process during which aversive events are used to control the behaviour of another person (i.e. control behaviour using threats). A social action must be experienced by others as aversive and be used contingently to be part of the coercive process. An aversive event may serve any of the three functions:

1. An aversive behaviour by person 1 at time 1 leads to a positive outcome by person 1 at time 2 (i.e. reinforcement).
2. An aversive behaviour by person 1 at time 1 leads to a negative consequence by person 2 at time 2 (i.e. punishment).
3. An aversive behaviour by person 1 at time 1 leads to an aversive behaviour by person 2 at time 2 which results in desistance of aversive behaviour by person 1 at time 3 (i.e. negative reinforcement; escape conditioning).

These sequences are not pathological by themselves. A lot of the aversive events (e.g. attack) are positively reinforced by the victim (e.g. give up bicycle; cry). This leads to an increase in the probability of future effects on the victim. Peers and siblings may be important sources of positive reinforcement, especially for hitting.

Overlearned activities require very little active cognitive processing making it possible to do something else at the same time (e.g. driving and talking). Coercion may be overlearned. The effects of reinforcement and punishment contingencies found in family interaction sequences may be automatic, meaning that they are not mediated by thought or expectancies. Family therapy is very difficult because the coercion process is automatic.

In one intervention, it may be useful to provide clearly stated directives in neutral effect and follow-up with positive reinforcement for cooperation and small negative sanctions (e.g. time out) for non-compliance. This brings the overlearned aspects of coercion in the open.

The contingency theory states that everybody changes their behaviour in an effort to match the changes in contingencies one experiences in their social environment. Contingencies may operate outside of family members’ awareness or intention. This means that they may result in increasing reliance on aversive behaviour as a means of influence and control and lead to extended conflict which escalate in intensity.

When one member of a family engages in coercive behaviour, negative reciprocity is more likely (e.g. when the mother engages in aversive behaviour, the child is more likely to also respond negatively). This leads to a sequence that leads to increased coercion:

1. Frequent aversive behaviour sets up reinforcement contingencies.
2. The contingencies are followed by increases in chains of aversive behaviour (i.e. repeated aversive behaviours by multiple family members).
3. These aversive behaviours are accompanied by outbursts of negative emotion.

The presence of negative affect increases the risk. Longer chains of aversive events are more likely to escalate in intensity.

The negative reinforcement contingency that accompanies an aversive exchange is more powerful and resistant to extinction than positive reinforcement which may shape aversive behaviour. Negative reinforcement produces behaviour change in fewer instances than positive reinforcement. The price for using coercion is often a massive reduction in positive social experiences.

Infants may use negative contingencies to teach caregiving skills to family members (e.g. crying as an aversive behaviour). Differences in the reactions of both the infants and the parents influence risk for persistent involvement in coercive social processes (e.g. time spent crying before the caregiver picks up the infant). Teaching the child to use words and positive behaviours to attain needs gradually replaces coercion in most families. However, coercion can persist from infancy to early childhood.

Child coercive behaviour increases from age 1 to 2 and peaks around the age of 3 (e.g. increasing opposition of toddlers). The degree to which child coercive behaviour persists and grows depends on the effectiveness of parents’ use of contingencies. The preschool period can be a period of growth in coercion, depending on parental skills and child temperament. There are three stages in the sequence of coercive behaviours:

1. Stage 1: The family (infancy and toddlerhood)
   Child noncompliance is at the core of coercion and could be one of the first products to emerge from failures in socialization. During the first three years of life, family members have a significant increase in positive reinforcement for toddler prosocial behaviour. This should lead to higher prosocial behaviour than coercive behaviour. Maternal coercion predicts child noncompliance. Mother-infant coercive interactions are in place from the age of 2. As the child ages, other family members become drawn into coercive exchanges and this provides important sources of aversive exchange, escalation with these exchanges and reinforcement for coercive behaviour. This means that several coercive processes may begin to run simultaneously. Coercion affects the interaction of all family members and its intensity increases. There is a progression to a wider variety of coercive behaviours shaped by reinforcement contingencies during family interactions.
2. Stage 2: The deviant peer group (school age through adolescence)
   In this stage, the reinforcement contingencies are positive (1), are provided by peers (2) and shape more covert forms of aggression (3). Friends’ reinforcement accounts for a lot of variance of adolescent rule-breaking or deviant talk (i.e. deviancy training by peers). The contribution of deviant peers could begin as early as school entry. Peer reactions to bullying (e.g. showing fear) may be considered positive reinforcement.
3. Stage 3: Peer deviancy training
   In this stage, increasingly deviant peers shape increasingly deviant behaviour through both negative and positive reinforcement. It involves significant contributions to the coercion process by both the family and the coercive peer group. Both positive and negative contingencies shape behaviour in this stage.

Stage 1 consists of negative reinforcement of overt forms of coercive behaviour by family members. There is an increase in overt forms of antisocial behaviour in the first years of a child’s development and aggression is supported by negative reinforcement contingencies (i.e. stage 1). After starting school, there is more covert antisocial behaviour (i.e. stage 2).

Children who started aggressive and oppositional behaviour early in development were more at risk for police arrests and for chronic offenders than late starters. As children move through the sequence of coercion, they are at increasing risk for police arrest. The higher stage a child is in, the greater the probability of getting into contact with the law.

A coercive child reinforced at home by family members often has difficulty adjusting to school. Coercive behaviours shaped at the micro level were often followed by macro-level changes in the way people at school reacted to a child’s coerciveness. The macro level describes the reactions people have when confronted by some form of antisocial behaviour (e.g. rejection). The macro dimension is also related to changes in the form of deviant behaviour that evolve from people’s reactions to antisocial behaviour. Changes in micro level reinforcement can lead to changes in macro level variables.

Children who are moving to stage three will find a subgroup of peers who are even more extreme. They will combine elements from stage 1 with those of stage 2. Family members may continue to provide negative reinforcement for various forms of coercive behaviour that escalate to high-amplitude, extended chains. There is a subsequent drop in positive parenting and monitoring as the family becomes increasingly coercive. These children drift into increasingly deviant environments by virtue of reinforcement provided by deviant peers for problem behaviour and deviant talk.

Stage three is the end result of negative reinforcement of coercive exchanges in the family in stage 1 and of peer reinforcement for deviancy in stage 3. In addition to that, the coercive exchanges are expanded to include deviant peers.

The Parent Management Training-Oregon model (PMTO) is suitable for treatment and prevention of antisocial behaviour. It leads to a variety of positive outcomes such as more effective parenting (1), less child externalizing problem behaviour (2), less maternal depression (3), higher SES (4) and lower deviant peer association (5).

The social interaction learning model (SIL) states that ongoing coercive behaviour is governed by its positive and negative reinforcement contingencies and not by cognitive processes. This model seems to be supported.

A reduction in coercion is typically associated with a growth in positive parenting. Coercion contributes to growth in deviancy. A lack of positive parenting does so too.

The work struggle hypothesis refers to the relationship between therapists and clients where the therapist suggests change and the client resists it.