Punishment revisited--science,values, and the right question: comment on Gershoff (2002)

In this comment on E. T. Gershoff (2002), the author notes the historical phases of punishment research. Punishment as a disciplinary tactic is best viewed as a packaged variable and therefore needs to be investigated in the context of other socialization practices. The role of parental values in this debate about punishment utilization and effectiveness merits more consideration. New directions in punishment research are also noted. These include the need for a family-systems perspective, a family-typology approach, a transactional model of punishment, the use of innovation observation and self-report methods, and more culturally sensitive paradigms.     

Antisocial Behavior,Psychopathic Features and Abnormalities in Reward and Punishment Processing in Youth

A better understanding of what leads youth to initially engage in antisocial behavior (ASB) and more importantly persist with such behaviors into adulthood has significant implications for prevention and intervention efforts. A considerable number of studies using behavioral and neuroimaging techniques have investigated abnormalities in reward and punishment processing as potential causal mechanisms underlying ASB. However, this literature has yet to be critically evaluated, and there are no comprehensive reviews that systematically examine and synthesize these findings. The goal of the present review is twofold. The first aim is to examine the extent to which youth with ASB are characterized by abnormalities in (1) reward processing; (2) punishment processing; or (3) both reward and punishment processing. The second aim is to evaluate whether aberrant reward and/or punishment processing is specific to or most pronounced in a subgroup of antisocial youth with psychopathic features. Studies utilizing behavioral methods are first reviewed, followed by studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging. An integration of theory and research across multiple levels of analysis is presented in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of reward and punishment processing in antisocial youth. Findings are discussed in terms of developmental and contextual considerations, proposed future directions and implications for intervention.     

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes,perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research

Despite decades of research on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and employee attitudes, perceptions, and performance, no comprehensive examination of these relationships has been reported in the literature. This paper reports the results of two studies that address this issue. In the first study, data from 20 new samples were gathered on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and some criterion variables that have not been examined extensively in previous research. In the second study, a meta-analytic review was conducted incorporating both the new and existing research in order to provide estimates of the bivariate relationships between these leader behaviors and a variety of employee criterion variables across 78 studies containing 118 independent samples. Results of regression analyses designed to control for the effects of the other leader behaviors showed that: (a) the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors were more functional when the rewards or punishments were administered contingently than when they were administered non-contingently, and (b) these leader reward and punishment behaviors were strongly related to two variables (employees’ perceptions of justice and role ambiguity) that were expected to be key mediators of the relationships between these leader behaviors and the employee criterion variables. In addition, meta-analytic evidence from longitudinal studies suggested that the same leader behavior can be a cause of some employee criterion variables, and a consequence of others. Implications of these findings for future research in the area are discussed.     

Punishment happens: some comments on Lerman and Vorndran's review

Some readers will view the article by Lerman and Vorndran as controversial. It is a review of existing basic and applied research on punishment and a call for additional research on punishment. The thesis of my commentary is that the paper should not be viewed as controversial. Punishment happens. To ignore a natural phenomenon and its implications for a technology of behavior is akin to ignoring the physical nature of the universe. A science and a technology of behavior are incomplete without research on punishment. Five reasons to pursue punishment research are discussed, along with some caveats.     

Race for Power in Public Good Games with Unequal,Unstable Punishment Power

Decentralized punishment can maintain contributions to a public good at a high level. This positive effect holds even for situations involving inequality in punishment power, meaning that the relative costs for punishment differ between persons. We extend this line of research by examining the additional influence of instability of and thus potential competition for punishment power in public good experiments. As in previous research, inequality is operationalized by assigning the role of a ‘strong player’ to one group member, who can punish others at a reduced cost compared to other players. Instability is operationalized by the fact that the role assignment can change across rounds and is contingent on behavior in previous rounds. Three experiments show that under unequal, unstable (punishment‐) power, individuals behave more competitively and engage in a race for power resulting in detrimental effects for the group. Specifically, we find that (i) unstable power goes along with a disproportionate use of punishment; (ii) not inequality by itself but rather the combination of instability and inequality causes this effect; and (iii) this excessive use of punishment is found not only when the role of the strong player is assigned to individuals who previously behaved rather selfishly but also when prosocial behavior leads to the top, speaking for a generalizability of our findings. Implications for organizational settings are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Authoritarianism,Anger, and Hostile Attribution Bias: A Test of Affect Displacement

Past research has supported the hypothesis that the relationship between harsh childhood punishment and adult political attitudes is due to the displacement of negative emotions that arise onto punitive public policies, e.g., support for the death penalty (Milburn, Conrad, Sala, & Carberry, 1995). Cognitions associated with childhood punishment may also impact adult political attitudes, yet their effects have not yet been examined, despite research that shows that punitive childhood experiences increase the tendency to attribute hostility to others. Thus, we investigated whether the tendency to make hostile attributions about others' behavior influences a person's authoritarianism, controlling for their parents' political orientation. Respondents completed an online survey concerning their childhood punishment experiences, their parents' political orientation, their trait anger, their level of hostile attribution bias (HAB), and their authoritarianism. Multiple regression analyses and structural equation modeling (SEM) found that higher childhood punishment has a significant direct effect on higher levels of authoritarianism, even after controlling for parents' political orientation, and that trait anger and HAB appear to mediate the effects of childhood punishment experiences on authoritarianism,. These results support the process of affect displacement as an important influence on adult punitiveness and political orientation.     

INCREASING THE SUPPRESSIVE EFFECT OF DELAYED PUNISHERS: A REVIEW OF BASIC AND APPLIED LITERATURE

Although punishment is a common feature in programs designed to suppress inappropriate responding, the delivery of punishment may be delayed for a variety of reasons. When punishment is delayed, the result may be a decrease in response suppression. It is therefore important to identify strategies to increase the effectiveness of delayed punishers. In this paper, basic and applied research on delayed punishment is reviewed. The delay‐of‐punishment gradient is described, and strategies are provided to increase the suppressive effect of delayed punishers. For each strategy identified, a conceptual account is provided describing how the strategy enables a delayed punisher to exert a suppressive effect. Furthermore, this paper suggests additional uninvestigated but potentially effective strategies and identifies problems with current research into delayed punishment. Finally, recommendations regarding future research into delayed punishers are provided. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Say the right thing: Apologies,reputability, and punishment

This research investigates how and when apologies work. Findings from three studies suggest that apologies influence punishment decisions, but not by reducing concerns about recidivism or perceptions of bad intentions. The extent to which future expectancies or perceived intent mediates the effects of apologies on punishment depends on the offender's reputability. However, the perceived appropriateness of the response fully mediates the effect of apologies on punishment, regardless of the offender's reputability. Overall, the findings suggest that saying the right thing helps those who do the wrong thing, but not by influencing others' beliefs about their past intentions or future behaviors.     

The Expressivist Account of Punishment, Retribution, and the Emotions

This paper provides a discussion of the role that emotions may play in the justification of punishment. On the expressivist account of punishment, punishment has the purpose of expressing appropriate emotional reactions to wrongdoing, such as indignation, resentment or guilt. I will argue that this expressivist approach fails as these emotions can be expressed other than through the infliction of punishment. Another argument for hard treatment put forward by expressivists states that punitive sanctions are necessary in order for the law to be valid. But this justification of punishment, too, is unconvincing. There are no good reasons to assume that we have to resort to punitive measures in order to vindicate the law. I will then raise the more general worry whether there is any intelligible link at all between moral emotions such as indignation, resentment or guilt and retributive behaviour. I will finally conclude with some sceptical remarks on the moral worth of retribution.     

Persons, punishment, and free will skepticism

The purpose of this paper is to provide a justification of punishment which can be endorsed by free will skeptics, and which can also be defended against the “using persons as mere means” objection. Free will skeptics must reject retributivism, that is, the view that punishment is just because criminals deserve to suffer based on their actions. Retributivists often claim that theirs is the only justification on which punishment is constrained by desert, and suppose that non-retributive justifications must therefore endorse treating the people punished as mere means to social ends. Retributivists typically presuppose a monolithic conception of desert: they assume that action-based desert is the only kind of desert. But there are also personhood-based desert claims, that is, desert claims which depend not on facts about our actions, but instead on the more abstract fact that we are persons. Since personhood-based desert claims do not depend on facts about our actions, they do not depend on moral responsibility, so free will skeptics can appeal to them just as well as retributivists. What people deserve based on the mere fact of their personhood is to be treated as they would rationally consent to be treated if all they had in view was the mere fact of their personhood. We can work out the implications of this view for punishment by developing a “hypothetical consent” justification in which we select principles of punishment in the Rawlsian original position, so long as we are careful not to smuggle in the retributivist assumption that it is under our control whether we end up as criminals or as law-abiding citizens once we raise the veil of ignorance.     

Understanding the Dark Side of Costly Punishment: The Impact of Individual Differences in Everyday Sadism and Existential Threat

In public goods situations, a specific destructive behaviour reliably emerges when individuals face the possibility of costly punishing others: antisocial punishment, that is, costly punishing cooperative individuals. So far, however, little is known about the individual differences and situational factors that are associated with the dark side of costly punishment. This research deals with this shortcoming. We argue that antisocial punishment reflects the basic characteristics of sadism, namely, aggressive behaviour to dominate and to harm other individuals. We further argue that antisocial punishment may reflect a type of behaviour that allows for the maintenance of self‐esteem (through aggressively dominating others). Therefore, we expect that individuals who report a disposition for everyday sadism are particularly likely to engage in antisocial punishment when their self has been threatened (by thinking about one's own death). In a study (N = 99), we found empirical support for this assumption. The present research contributes to a better understanding of antisocial punishment and suggests that sadistic tendencies play a crucial role, especially when the self is (existentially) threatened. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Asymmetrical consequences of behavioral change through reward and punishment

Previous research (Greitemeyer & Weiner, 2003 ) has demonstrated that compliance, because of an anticipated reward is attributed more to the person than compliance because of an anticipated punishment. The present research extended these findings to an educational context. Three studies revealed that parents who ask their children to change inappropriate behaviors are more likely to ascribe their children's improvement to the child, if the child was promised a reward, rather than threatened, to receive a punishment if the child did not improve. Moreover, because a child's improved behavior is more likely to be ascribed to the child given a reward as compared to a punishment, parents expect that rewards (as opposed to punishments) are more likely to sustain improved behavior, when the incentive is no longer offered. Finally, participants report to be more likely to induce behavioral change through reward rather than punishment. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Parent-Adolescent Relationships,Physical Disciplinary History,and Adjustment in Adolescents

Physical discipline occurs within the context of the parent-child relationship, yet it is often not examined within this important context. The current study examined whether negative effects of physical discipline on older adolescent adjustment are mediated by the overall parent-child relationship. The sample consisted of 253, mostly Caucasian, middle-class, adolescent participants (mean age = 18.4, 67% female). Physical punishment history, parent-adolescent relationships, and adjustment were assessed with self-report instruments. For females, relationships with parents partially mediated the association between physical punishment and adjustment. Physical punishment was negatively associated with both adjustment and parent-adolescent relationships. For males, physical punishment was not related to adjustment. Parent-adolescent relationships were positively associated with adjustment for both females and males. Physical punishment by fathers was negatively associated with father-son relationships. The results suggest the importance of exploring links between physical punishment and adjustment within the context of parent-child relationship, as well as examining males, females, mothers, and fathers separately.     

利他惩罚的发生机制及其神经基础

利他惩罚是指个体为惩罚违反社会规范的人而自愿个人支付成本,它在人类合作演化过程中扮演着重要的作用。"认知控制"与"情绪满足"被用来阐述利他惩罚的产生机制。而神经层面的研究也发现,利他惩罚主要涉及以背外侧前额叶皮层为主的基于规则的系统和包括纹状体、内侧前额叶皮层以及脑岛等脑区在内的情绪驱动系统。此外,5-羟色胺、多巴胺等神经递质可能是利他惩罚行为发生的神经生化基础。未来研究除了需进一步深入探讨与整合利他惩罚的发生机制、神经机制、基因机制以外,还应注重利他惩罚在自然情境下的研究。     

Transfer of approach responding between punishment, frustrative nonreward, and the combination of punishment and nonreward

Rats trained to make an approach response with either partial reward, intermittent punishment, or a combination of partial reward and intermittent punishment, were tested for persistence to extinction, punishment with reward, or punishment during extinction. Partial reward, alone or with punishment, produced greates resistance to extinction, while intermittent punishment, alone or with partial reward, produced greatest persistence to punishment with reward. Transfer of persistence from partial reward to punishment with reward and intermittent punishment to extinction was also demonstrated. However, partial reward alone did not increase persistence to punishment during extinction, whereas intermittent punishment and partial reward combined with intermittent punishment did increase such persistence. These results were interpreted in Amsel's (1958, 1962) conditioning-model theory by extending the hypothesized similarity of frustrative nonreward and punishment.     

The Effects of Physical Attractiveness,Race, Socioeconomic Status,and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta-Analysis1

A meta-analysis of experimental research on mock juror judgments was conducted to assess the effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender of both defendants and victims to test the theory that jurors use characteristics that are correlated with criminal behavior as cues to infer guilt and to recommend punishment. In general, it was advantageous for defendants to be physically attractive, female, and of high SES, although these advantages were nil for some crimes. There were no overall effects of race on mock jurors' judgments, but the effect of defendant race on punishment was strongly moderated by type of crime. Effects of victim characteristics on jurors' judgments were generally inconsequential, although defendants were at a disadvantage when the victim was female.     

A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment

The present study is a meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of corporal punishment on affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. The authors included 70 studies published between 1961 and 2000 and involving 47,751 people. Most of the studies were published between 1990 and 2000 (i.e., 53 or 68%) and were conducted in the United States (65 or 83.3%). Each of the dependent variables was coded, and effect sizes (ds) were computed. Average unweighted and weighted ds for each of the outcome variables were .35 and .20 for affective outcomes, .33 and .06 for cognitive outcomes, and .25 and .21 for behavioral outcomes, respectively. The analyses suggested small negative behavioral and emotional effects of corporal punishment and almost no effect of such punishment on cognition. Analyses of several potentially moderating variables, such as gender or socioeconomic status, and the frequency or age of first experience of corporal punishment, the relationship of the person administering the discipline, and the technique of the discipline all had no affect on effect size outcome. There was insufficient data about a number of the moderator variables to conduct meaningful analyses. The results of the present meta-analysis suggest that exposure to corporal punishment does not substantially increase the risk to youth of developing affective, cognitive, or behavioral pathologies.     

The Advantage of Democratic Peer Punishment in Sustaining Cooperation within Groups

In social dilemma situations, individuals benefit from uncooperative behavior while exploiting resources of the collective. One prominent solution to prevent uncooperative behavior and to increase cooperation is to establish a system of costly peer punishment, that is, the possibility for every individual involved in the dilemma to impose costly punishment on interaction partners. However, recent research revealed that, in contrast to a situation without punishment, peer punishment is inefficient and maladaptive in the sense that the total payoff is reduced and punishment of cooperative individuals (i.e., antisocial punishment) is possible. In the present work, we propose that a system of democratic peer punishment, that is, direct and equal participation of each individual in the punishment decision‐making process with punishment only executed when a majority has voted for its execution, can address the shortcomings of a peer punishment system. Using iterated public goods games, we show higher cooperation levels, higher total payoffs, and reduced executed punishment in the democratic compared with a peer punishment system. Moreover, we document that fairness perceptions, satisfaction, and interpersonal trust are increased in the democratic punishment system. Implications for how cooperation and democratic punishment systems may evolve are discussed. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Love,care, control and punishment*

Love, care, control and punishment—each has its particular, though not exclusive, institution. Institutions are projections of our needs or the needs of the past. The family is the institution of love. Education, health and social services are the institutions of care. The police and the army are the institutions of control. The courts and the prisons the institutions of punishment.     

Belief, its inconsistency, and the implications for the teaching faculty

The traditional concept of belief is analyzed and compared with a behavior analytic concept of belief. Beliefs and belief statements are differentiated and relationships between them are examined. The often troublesome inconsistencies in people's beliefs are examined in general and explained, including the phenomena of compartmentalization and repression. Social implications are pursued relative to both punishment for inconsistency in belief and counter-controls thwarting such punishment. The role of teachers in shaping beliefs is analyzed, and appropriate teaching strategies are reviewed.