The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

We examined the process by which punishment enables forgiveness, testing the proposition that punishment restores a sense of justice to victims, an experience that is empowering. In Study 1 (N = 69), university students received insulting feedback and were given the opportunity (or not) to sanction the offender. In Study 2 (N = 91), participants imagined having the opportunity (or not) to recommend punishment for a person who had vandalized their house. A two‐step mediation model (punishment justice restoration empowerment forgiveness) was supported in these two studies. In Study 3 (N = 227), punishment options were expanded to test the role of victim voice in the context of third‐party and personal retributive and restorative justice responses to workplace bullying, as well as taking into account revenge as an alternative to justice restoration. When victims had voice, empowerment again played a central indirect role in relations between punishment and forgiveness.     

预期惩罚调节认知控制权衡：来自行为和fNIRS的证据

为了探讨预期惩罚是如何影响认知控制权衡,本研究采用fNIRS技术考察被试在完成有惩罚和无惩罚AX-CPT任务时的行为表现和大脑激活模式。行为结果发现：与无惩罚的基线条件相比,惩罚条件下个体偏向主动性控制。脑成像结果发现：与无惩罚的基线条件相比,惩罚条件下大脑前额叶皮层在线索阶段处于负激活状态。这说明,惩罚条件下在线索阶段个体需要更多的注意资源,因此,脑成像的结果也表明惩罚使被试更偏向主动性控制。     

Concurrent performances: effect of punishment contingent on the switching response

Pigeons' key-pecking responses were maintained under concurrently available variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Responses in the presence of two different key-colors were reinforced on two independent and concurrent variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement, each associated with one of the key colors (red or green). Pecks at a second key (changeover key), always white, would alternate the colors on the main key. In Exp. 1 and 2, electric shock of 50 msec duration followed immediately after changeovers. The proportion of responses in the presence of the color associated with the higher frequency of reinforcements per hour was a direct function of shock intensity contingent on changeovers. When both schedules provided equal number of reinforcements per hour, there was no systematic effect of shock intensity on response distribution. In Exp. 3, a timeout period was contingent on changeovers, and response distribution was a function of timeout length.     

The effectiveness of reward and punishment contingencies on response inhibition

The relative effectiveness of reward and punishment on the development of response inhibition was evaluated developmentally. Forty kindergarten and forty second-graders received response inhibition training with half of each group rewarded for inhibiting and half punished for not inhibiting. Reward involved the presentation of positive reinforcers, whereas punishment involved their removal. Punishment produced more inhibition at both age levels than did reward. Transfer of inhibition training was evaluated in two tasks. Transfer effects were observed only on one of the two tasks. Reinforcement contingencies and age did not differentially influence the magnitude of transfer.     

The effect of punishment and reinforcement procedures on a stutterer's factor II avoidance response

The purpose of this clinical experiment was to investigate the manipulability of a Factor II avoidance response (arm movement). The substantive hypothesis under test was that its suppression would be enhanced by repeated punishment sessions. During the first of nine therapy sessions response-contingent negative stimulation was not delivered. In the next five, after a base-rate period, “wrong” was made consequent upon the target response. In each of these sessions the suppression of arm movement was apparent. However, the magnitude of the suppression decreased from session to session. Evidently, the continued use of punishment did not enhance suppression. Because of this finding procedural changes were introduced in the next three therapy sessions. Verbal praise was added as a consequence of increasingly stringent omission criteria and three consecutive units of praise led to time-out from the reportedly fatiguing task of continuous speech. A marked reduction and then complete extinction resulted. Moreover, learning was evidenced since the frequency of arm movement lessened in the base-rate period of each session.     

The effect of vicarious punishment on prosocial behavior in children

Two experiments are reported dealing with the effects of vicarious punishment on prosocial behavior. In Experiment I, first and second grade females who witnessed a peer model being punished for a refusal to share (“nonsharing, punished”), shared more than an appropriate control group. Sharing was similarly heightened, however, in a group who witnessed punishment to the model which was not contingent upon any specific behavior (“punishment only”). Experiment II tested and confirmed the hypothesis derived from Experiment I that noncontingent vicarious punishment has a generalized inhibitory effect on antisocial behaviors. First, second, and third grade females were shown either the “nonsharing, punished,” “punishment only,” or baseline videotapes used in Experiment I. Subsequent to viewing the tapes, subjects in the “punishment only” condition helped the experimenter significantly more than did subjects in the “nonsharing, punished” and baseline conditions. The ability of existing theoretical treatments of vicarious punishment to account for these results is questioned.     

The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans

During Phase I, three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, response rates conformed to Herrnstein's equation for single variable-interval schedules. Punishment suppressed responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, and the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was elevated. During Phase II, the same five schedules (A) were in operation (without punishment), but in addition, a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) of standard reinforcement frequency was introduced. On alternate days, responding in Component B was punished according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, absolute response rates conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe performance in concurrent schedules; the ratios of the response rates in the two components and the ratios of the times spent in the two components conformed to the Matching Law. When responding in Component B was punished, response rates in Component B were reduced and those in Component A were elevated, these changes being reflected in distortions of the matching relationship.     

Effects of punishment on response latency in extraverts

Previous findings indicate that in comparison to introverts, extraverts are prone to form responses that are resistant to interruption by punishment. Because the tendency to stop and reflect following punishment may be crucial for subsequent learning, the present study was designed to examine differences between introverts' and extraverts' reactions to punishment using response latency on the trial following punishment as the dependent variable. Sixty-six extraverted and 66 introverted male undergraduates performed a pattern-matching task in which they received noncontingent 50% success and 50% failure feedback under three incentive conditions including reward only, punishment only, or both. As predicted, a significant interaction was found in the both condition, reflecting the tendency of extraverts to respond more quickly and introverts more slowly following punishment feedback than following reward feedback. No significant effects were found in the other two conditions; however, a tendency was noted for extraverts to respond more quickly overall when only reward was given. A second experiment using reward-only and punishment-only feedback replicated this finding and yielded a significant interaction of Group X Condition. The results indicate that in contrast to introverts, extraverts are activated by the availability of reward and, paradoxically, that punishment may facilitate rather than interrupt extraverts' reward seeking behavior.     

The effect of punishment on a factor I stuttering behavior

On each of five days the subject of this experiment read aloud different material during an 18-min A₁ (base rate), B (experimental), and A₂ (extinction) period. No stimulation was delivered during the first three days. On the fourth day, the nonsense word “norg” was presented noncontingently during the experimental period. There was no statistically significant difference between the A₁ and B periods on any of these four days. On day five, “wrong” was made contingent on Factor I prolongations during the experimental period. As a result, there was a statistically significant increase in their frequency. When the response consequence was removed in the A₂ priod, there was a reliable reduction in prolongations and the frequency closely approximated that found in the A₁ period. These data suggest that response-contingent negative stimulation is contraindicated as a clinical tactic for use with Factor I prolongations. It not only failed to suppress them, it increased their frequency.