The Effect of Punishment Probability on Overconsumption and Stealing in a Simulated Commons1

In laboratory simulations of the commons dilemma, overconsumption depletes the shared resource, whereas allowing the players to steal from each other helps preserve the resource since players take from each other rather than from the central supply. In this study, we factorially crossed three levels of punishment probability for overconsumption (0%, 25%, 75%) with three levels of probability of punishment for stealing (0%, 25%, 75%). Subjects (n= 270) in three-person groups harvested points from a slowly regenerating central pool. Results indicated that punishment of overconsumption decreased overconsumption, increased stealing, and helped preserve the commons, whereas punishment of stealing decreased stealing, increased overconsumption, and facilitated depletion of the commons. Rather than punishment of one selfish behavior suppressing the other selfish behavior, a compensatory effect occurred: Punishment of one behavior increased the occurrence of the selfish alternative.     

Environmental concern and cooperative-competitive behavior in a simulated commons dilemma.

Commons-dilemma simulation games are designed to examine behavior associated with preservation and destruction of slowly regenerating natural resources. In Experiment 1, 120 introductory psychology students in the United States were assigned to high- or low-environmental-concern conditions based on a median split of their scores from a pretest. They then played either a points game, in which they selected numerical points from a slowly regenerating pool, or a tree game, in which they harvested trees from a jointly managed forest. After the game, subjects were asked to sign a petition for an environmental cause, to participate in a litter pick-up, and to participate in a recycling drive. Neither environmental concern nor proenvironmental behaviors were related to commons dilemma performance. In Experiment 2, 57 other introductory psychology students were assessed on environmental concern and Machiavellian personality, size of other players' harvesting choices, and other players' altruistic choices, all correlated with subjects' outcomes in the game. Overall, cooperation and competition were more important than environmental concern in predicting behavior in the commons dilemma simulation game.     

Asymmetrical effects of reward and punishment on attributions of morality

The authors found that 3 experiments revealed that compliance with a pro-social request for an anticipated reward as opposed to a threatened punishment resulted in greater inferences of personal morality. In Experiment 1, participants received information about a teaching assistant (TA) who was either promised a reward or threatened with a punishment when asked for compliance. The participants perceived the TA as more moral for complying given the positive incentive as opposed to the negative incentive. Experiment 2 replicated this finding in a different culture, using different vignettes and incentives. Last, in Experiment 3, the results revealed that a perceived actor's real intentions mediated the effect of incentive valence on dispositional causation. That is, given a reward relative to a punishment, participants were more likely to assume that the agent would have helped even if no incentive had been offered.     

Discrimination learning of delinquent boys as a function of reinforcement contingency and delinquent subtype

Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of contingency management as a means of behavioral resocialization with delinquent boys on an individual basis. The present study was designed to examine and clarify systematically the reinforcement parameters that underlie the male delinquent's response to verbal and token reward and/or punishment. The principal findings of the study were: (1) Neurotic subjects performed at the highest level for punishment, at the lowest level for reward, and at an intermediate level for a combination of reward and punishment, regardless of verbal or token contingency modality. (2) Psychopathic subjects performed best for the joint verbal reward and punishment contingency, but they did not learn over trials for the joint token reward and punishment contingency. Their performance was undifferentiated at asymptote under the separate verbal and token reward or punishment contingencies. (3) Neurotic subjects performed at a significantly higher level than did psychopathic subjects for verbal and token punishment, while psychopathic subjects performed at a significantly higher level than neutric subjects for verbal and token reward.The authors wish to thank the staff and students of the Lookout Mountain School for Boys and the Golden Gate Youth Camp at Golden, Colorado, for their cooperation in this study. Special thanks are due to Mr. Loren Adlfinger, director, and Mr. George Taylor of the Lookout Mountain School for Boys, and to Mr. John P. McIlwee of the Golden Gate Youth Camp. The study was submitted in 1974 by the first author to the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy in clinical psychology.     

The effects of reward and punishment on reaction times and autonomic activity in hyperactive and normal children

The performance of hyperactive and control children was compared on a delayed reaction time task under three reinforcement conditions: reward, punishment, and reward plus punishment. Hyperactives had slower and more variable reaction times, suggesting an attentional deficit. Although each of the three reinforcement conditons was successful in improving reaction times for both subject groups, reward led to a significant increase in impulsive responses in the hyperactive children. Autonomic data revealed that reward also increased arousal to a greater extent than punishment or reward plus punishment. Although resting skin conductance was not different in the two groups of subjects, hyperactives produced fewer specific autonomic responses to signal stimuli.     

为“金规则”辨

学界近年在对“己所不欲,勿施于人”这个中国式的“金规则”的议论中,存在不少误读、误解。择要言之,一是将“金规则”之“金”理解为“道德价值最高”;二是用“知道做不到”质疑、贬低“金规则”;三是以“不同”的存在否证“金规则”：四是认为“金规则”不适合现代社会。然而经过仔细辨析可以发现,这些其实都是不确之语。     

Framing in Resource Dilemmas: Loss Aversion and the Moderating Effects of Sanctions

Two resource dilemmas, the commons dilemma, in which individuals take from a common resource, and the public goods problem, in which individuals give to a common good, were experimentally compared. Although they provide equivalent outcomes, the two dilemmas involve different frames of reference and are not psychologically equivalent. We also examined sanction systems, which involve contributions by individuals in the dilemma to provide rewards and penalties for cooperation. The results of Experiment 1 supported the hypothesis that public goods problems ("give dilemmas") activate greater loss aversion and less cooperation than commons dilemmas ("take dilemmas"), and that this effect is moderated by sanction systems. No difference between dilemmas was obtained when either the reward or penalty sanction was present, indicating that sanctions cause a shift in frame of reference to the aspiration of obtaining the reward or avoiding the penalty. The penalty sanction and especially the reward sanction produced greater cooperation. Also, as expected, loss aversion heightened exploitation: when the others were cooperative, a give dilemma generated less cooperation than a take dilemma. In Experiment 2, we extended the concept of frame and loss aversion to the structure of sanction systems, finding that subjects were more likely to contribute to a "take sanction" than to a "give sanction." We discuss potential sources of reference points and loss aversion in resource dilemmas and the likely impact on cooperation.     

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 difference between punishments and rewards in fostering moral concerns in social decision making

In social decision making, punishing non-cooperation and rewarding cooperation may not only affect cooperation because of instrumental reasons. They may also evoke moral concerns regarding cooperation as they signal that cooperation is socially approved of and non-cooperation socially disapproved of. I argue that punishments do this to a greater extent than rewards as punishments communicate an obligatory rule and rewards communicate a voluntary rule. Indeed, the first experiment shows that, in a social dilemma, the concept of punishment increased cooperation and the concept of a reward did not. The second experiment showed that participants showed more disapproval towards an offender when there was a punishment for non-compliance than when there was a reward for compliance. These findings suggest that punishing non-cooperation more strongly foster moral concerns regarding cooperation than rewarding cooperation. Possible implications for internalizations are discussed.     

ALTRUISM AND THE GOLDEN RULE

This essay addresses recent claims about the compatibility of the sociobiological theory of reciprocal altruism with standard Western formulations of the Golden Rule. Derek Parfit claims that the theory of reciprocal altruism teaches us to be “reciprocal altruists,” who benefit only those people from whom we can reasonably expect benefits in the future. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, teaches us to benefit anyone regardless of their intention or ability to return the favor, or as Parfit puts it, the Golden Rule teaches us to be “suckers.” I argue that this distinction is founded on a misconception of the nature of the theory of reciprocal altruism, which is sociobiological as opposed to moral, and that this distinction accordingly confuses is with ought. Sociobiological theories may explain underlying psychological motivations in individuals (and perhaps even in populations), but these theories do not prescribe any sort of moral behavior. Furthermore, the theory of reciprocal altruism does not imply mental states of which agents are aware. The unconscious motivations assumed by this theory are in fact compatible with certain formulations of the Golden Rule; I will accordingly argue for the view that certain words with moral content related to the Golden Rule—such as “altruism” and “selfishness”—exist only insofar as they are social tools, which can further the self‐interests of an individual in any group.     

Effects of frustration and magnitude of reward on selective attention, size estimation, and verbal evaluation

A high expectancy of success in playing a “fishing game” was established for all subjects (fourth-grade children) Subjects then played the fishing game for money A nonsense syllable was associated with the money. Half of the subjects were frustrated in their attempts to obtain the money, while the remaining subjects were rewarded in their attempts The dependent measures indicated that, relative to rewarded and control subjects, frustrated subjects (a) looked at pictures of money more often, (b) overestimated the size of money, and (c) attributed more positive statements to the syllable associated with reward Subjects frustrated on a larger reward showed these effects to a greater extent than subjects frustrated on a smaller reward These data support the hypothesis that the incentive value of a reward, and of salient neutral stimuli associated with the reward, is increased by frustration, and that this effect is strengthened by the use of larger rewards.     

Underlying processes in the poor response inhibition of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

This study evaluated the effects of reward, punishment, and reward + punishment on the impulsive responses of ADHD children. The impulsive responses of ADHD and normal control boys (30 per group) were compared during performance of a go/no-go task, administered under reward-only, punishment-only, and reward + punishment conditions. When differences in aggression, anxiety, and IQ between these groups were controlled for, results indicated that the impulsivity levels of the ADHD group were higher than the control group in all three reinforcement conditions. Also, the ADHD group was more impulsive in the reward + punishment condition, compared to the reward-only and punishment-only conditions, and there was no difference between the reward-only and punishment-only conditions. The control groups showed no difference across the three reinforcement conditions. These findings raise the possibility that the poor response inhibition of ADHD children may be related to both a generalized inhibitory deficit and a response modulation deficit.     

Asymmetric attributions for compliance: Reward vs punishment

It was proposed that people attribute an individual's behavior more to internal factors when that individual's actions are influenced by reward than when those actions are influenced by punishment. Previous research has failed to control for the power of reward versus punishment which, in effect, creates a confounding of behavioral base rates (consensus) with the reward-punishment manipulation. The current research created reward and punishment contingencies that were equal in their base rates for producing a compliant response. In Experiment 1, subjects (n = 63) who produced the base-rate data also made attributions regarding a compliant target person. The results supported the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry hypothesis in that the target person was held more responsible for his actions in the reward than in the punishment conditions. A second experiment (n = 72) provided some attributors with information regarding base rates for compliance and measured perceived base rates for compliance. Knowledge of the base rates for compliance eliminated the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry phenomenon. Subjects not provided with such knowledge erroneously assumed different base rates for reward and punishment and maintained the perception of reward-punishment attributional asymmetry. Using subjects' estimates of base rate for compliance as a covariate eliminated the attributional asymmetry effect. It is suggested that erroneous base-rate assumptions mediate the attributional asymmetry phenomenon.     

The ingroup bias as a function of differences in resources within groups

Subjects were led to believe that two sub-groups were created according to similarity. Then they were assigned resources, received bogus offers, and asked to negotiate a mutually acceptable reward division. It was found that low resource members negotiated payoffs approximately equally. In contrast, high resource members negotiated larger payoffs to themselves when paired with outgroup members.     

Punishment Without Cause: Regression and the Effects of Leader Attribution Errors1

Kahneman and Tversky (1973) observed that failure to understand simple regression to the mean could cause leaders to falsely learn that punishment was more effective than reward in shaping subordinate performance. This fundamental hypothesis and other attribution theory hypotheses were tested in a field experiment in which subordinate performance was entirely random. The basic hypothesis was partially supported, but leader belief about subordinate ability was found to moderate leader reinforcement behavior. Leaders who believed that their subordinates had high ability subjected them to increasing amounts of punishment over time, while reward amounts remained relatively unchanged. The opposite pattern was evident but not statistically significant for leaden who believed that their subordinates were of low ability. Rewards were decreased over time, while punishments were left unchanged.     

The measurement of principled morality by the Kohlberg Moral Dilemma Questionnaire

The four stages preceding the postconventional level in the Kohlberg (1958, 1971, 1976) system of moral development are described as involving moral judgments that conform to external conditions of punishment, reward, social expectation, and conformity to the law. No special level of self-control seems necessary to behave in keeping with these conditions of external reinforcement. In contrast, the two stages of postconventional (principled) mortality involve defiance of majority opinion and defiance of the law--actions that would seem to require greater self-control. This study was concerned with whether postconventional moral reasoning, as measured by the Kohlberg Moral Dilemma Questionnaire (MDQ), can be associated with higher self-control. If so, prediction of principled moral behavior from the MDQ would be based not only on postconventional moral reasoning but bolstered by the necessary level of self-control as well. College students who came the closest to postconventional moral reasoning showed better self-control than college students who were more conventional or preconventional in their moral judgments. These results support the validity of the MDQ for predicting principled moral behavior.     

The Measurement of Principled Morality by the Kohlberg Moral Dilemma Questionnaire

The four stages preceding the postconventional level in the Kohlberg (1958, 1971, 1976) system of moral development are described as involving moral judgments that conform to external conditions of punishment, reward, social expectation, and conformity to the law. No special level of self-control seems necessary to behave in keeping with these conditions of external reinforcement. In contrast, the two stages of postconventional (principled) morality involve defiance of majority opinion and defiance of the law-actions that would seem to require greater self-control. This study was concerned with whether postconventional moral reasoning, as measured by the Kohlberg Moral Dilemma Questionnaire (MDQ), can be associated with higher self-control. If so, prediction of principled moral behavior from the MDQ would be based not only on postconventional moral reasoning but bolstered by the necessary level of self-control as well. College students who came the closest to postconventional moral reasoning showed better self-control than college students who were more conventional or preconventional in their moral judgments. These results support the validity of the MDQ for predicting principled moral behavior.     

Incentive and feedback effects on target detection: A chronometric analysis of Gray's model of temperament

Chronometric (i.e. reaction time) techniques were used to investigate the response, arousal, and attentional components of Gray's (1971, 1982) model of temperament. Subjects were tested in a game context, where each trial consisted of an incentive warning signal (positive or negative), a visual detection target (left or right visual field), and a feedback signal (positive or negative). Several findings were consistent with Gray's proposal that extraverts tend to respond impulsively given signals of reward whereas introverts respond with inhibition given signals of punishment. Extraverts made more overall errors than introverts in the first experiment, and more errors following positive incentive signals in the second study. In addition, introverts responded more slowly than extraverts following negative feedback in the first study. Evidence was also found in support of Gray's proposal that introverts allocate more attention to negative cues than extraverts. Following negative feedback, introverts showed a reflexive attentional bias in favor of negative locations in the second experiment. However, no support was found for the temperamental differences in phasic arousal suggested by Gray's model. The magnitude and build up of general alerting effects following positive and negative incentives were similar for introverts and extraverts.     

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR DURING PUNISHMENT OF SELF-INJURY

A number of variables influence the effectiveness of punishment and may determine the extent to which less intrusive forms of punishment may be used as alternatives to more intrusive interventions. For example, it has been suggested that response suppression during punishment may be facilitated if reinforcement is concurrently available for an alternative response. However, results of basic research demonstrating this finding have not been replicated with interventions more commonly prescribed as treatments for problem behavior. We evaluated the effects of relatively benign punishment procedures (reprimands or brief manual restraint) on the self-injurious behavior of 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with mental retardation, when access to reinforcement for alternative behavior (manipulation of leisure materials) was and was not available. In all cases, punishment produced greater response suppression when reinforcement for an alternative response was available.     

奖惩对行为抑制及程序阶段中自主生理反应的影响

采用停止信号任务探讨奖惩条件对行为抑制和程序阶段中自主生理反应的影响。结果显示：(1)奖惩组的反应时显著高于控制组, 抑制失败率则显著低于控制组; (2)奖励组与其它两组相比表现出心率显著增加和皮肤电活动显著降低; (3)各生理指标在准备、工作和奖惩阶段中的奖惩差异性显著(4)奖惩条件下皮肤电活动呈现出一致性程序阶段变化。结果表明：奖惩条件均对行为具有抑制作用, 但在自主生理反应上则有显著差异; 各生理指标在准备、工作和奖惩阶段的情绪效价显著; 皮肤电活动的程序阶段变化显著, 但其奖惩效价较为稳定, 很少接受程序阶段变化的影响。