认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用

第三方惩罚是一种特殊的利他行为, 在维护社会规范和人类合作中发挥着重要作用。现有研究对遵守社会规范行为及其认知机制进行了大量探讨, 而第三方惩罚这一维护社会规范行为的认知加工过程, 尤其是认知控制在其中发挥的具体作用, 是目前研究的热点之一。通过(1)借助不同技术方法来探究认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用; (2)从发展的视角, 在认知控制发展的关键阶段来考察其作用随年龄的发展变化, 用以解释第三方惩罚这一利他行为的发展轨迹, 完善对第三方惩罚的认知基础的理解, 并构建第三方惩罚决策的心理模型。     

赌博障碍的认知功能缺陷及神经基础

赌博障碍是指持续且反复的赌博行为,给个人、家庭和社会都带来了严重后果,近年来受到越来越多研究者的关注。本研究总结了赌博障碍的认知功能缺陷及其神经基础,主要集中在如下四个方面：①认知扭曲、②奖赏和惩罚敏感性、③注意偏向和④决策。未来研究应多从认知神经科学角度深入探究赌博障碍的发生机制和发展过程,关注大脑结构变化及功能网络改变,并将其整合到一个统一的神经生物机制框架中,找到更加有效的干预和治疗手段。     

Effects of delayed time‐out on problem behavior of preschool children

Time‐out is a common negative punishment procedure in home and school settings. Although prior studies have shown time‐out is effective, more research is needed on its effects when implementation is imperfect. We evaluated delays to time‐out with 4 preschool children who engaged in some combination of aggression, property destruction, and rule breaking. Target behavior decreased for all subjects exposed to delayed time‐out, with 3 of 4 subjects displaying low levels of target behavior even when time‐out was delayed by 90‐120 s. These data suggest delayed time‐out might be effective in situations in which a caregiver or teacher cannot implement time‐out immediately.     

奖惩中枢与学习

奖惩现象及实验揭示了:兴奋了奖赏中枢的思想、行为(神经通路)能被奖赏中枢强烈易化,而兴奋了惩罚中枢的思想、行为能被惩罚中枢强烈抑制。在此基础上,通过讨论奖惩中枢在学习中的作用得出:思想、行为的动力由奖惩中枢影响产生;奖惩中枢在思想、行为(神经兴奋)习惯的选择、形成过程中起着主要作用。     

A Defence of Jury Nullification

In both Great Britain and the United States there has been a growing debate about the modern acceptability of jury nullification. Properly understood, juries do not have any constitutional right to ignore the law, but they do have the power to do so nevertheless. Juries that nullify may be motivated by a variety of concerns: too harsh sentences, improper government action, racism, etc. In this article, I shall attempt to defend jury nullification on a number of grounds. First, I discuss the use of general verdicts and reject their replacement in criminal trials by special verdicts. Second, I examine verdicts based upon mistakes and racial prejudice, turning my attention to perverse verdicts and the question of whether or not juries are guilty of legislating when nullifying the law. Finally, I look at the problem of the awarding of excessive damages by juries. My goal will be to provide a sound theoretical defence of the practice of jury nullification.R. Pound, Law in Books and Law in Action, American Law Review 44 (1910),18.The term jury nullification is synonymous with jury equity. The use of jury nullification has been suspected of playing a role in the infamous trials of O. J. Simpson and Rodney King in the last decade. See People v Simpson, No. BA097211 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1995); People v Powell, No. BA035498 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1991).     

Punishment insensitivity and parenting: temperament and learning as interacting risks for antisocial behavior

We review ideas about individual differences in sensitivity or responsiveness to common disciplinary behaviors parents use to correct aggressive and antisocial behavior in children. At extremes, children may be seen as punishment-insensitive, an heuristic with some value relevant to models of the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior disorders. Literature from diverse fields, such as psychopathy, child temperament, socialization and the development of moral conscience, conditioning theory, and personality theory, have all utilized the idea that humans differ in their sensitivity to aversive stimuli and the cues that signal their occurrence, as well as their ability to inhibit reward-driven behavior, in the presence of punishment cues. Contemporary thinking places these dispositions squarely as basic biological aspects of temperament that moderate the effects of the environment (e.g., parenting) on outcomes (e.g., mental health). We review a largely forgotten literature that shows clearly that sensitivity to punishment is also reliably influenced by the environment itself. An attempt is then made to model the interactional processes by which parenting and punishment sensitivities in children magnify or diminish each other's progress toward healthy or antisocial development. Implications for parenting of children with low responsiveness to punishment strategies are discussed.     

Motivational influences on performance maintained by food reinforcement

In Study 1, we examined the independent effects of reinforcer consumption during sessions and meal consumption prior to sessions on performance maintained by food reinforcement. Nine individuals with developmental disabilities participated. On alternate days, a preferred edible item was delivered during (a) seven sessions conducted before lunch (repeated-reinforcement condition) versus (b) one session each conducted before and after lunch (pre- and postmeal conditions). Results for 7 of 9 participants showed decreased response rates across sessions in the repeated-reinforcement condition; results for 3 of 9 participants showed decreased rates during postmeal relative to premeal conditions. Two participants who did not show a decrement in responding during either comparison participated in Study 2, in which reinforcer consumption during sessions, combined with meal consumption prior to sessions, also had no effect on their performance. In Study 3, we determined whether (a) choice of reinforcers, (b) increased break time between sessions, (c) varied reinforcers, or (d) intermittent reinforcement schedules mitigated the satiation effects observed for the 7 participants in Study 1. Presession choice of reinforcers resulted in maintained performance for 2 of 6 participants exposed to this condition. Varied reinforcement resulted in maintained performance for only 1 of 5 participants exposed to this condition. Neither the increased break between sessions nor the intermittent reinforcement schedule was effective in maintaining performance for the participants who were exposed to these conditions.     

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.     

The effects of competing reinforcement schedules on the acquisition of functional communication

The initial efficacy of functional communication training (FCT) was evaluated when problem behavior continued to produce intermittent reinforcement. Results for 2 of 3 participants showed that FCT was most effective when problem behavior was also exposed to extinction, response blocking, or both.     

Integration of Intermittent Visual Samples Over Time and Between the Eyes

The authors investigated the integration of alternate disparate monocular inputs for binocular perception in 1-handed catching experiments (N = 14, 32, 22, and 15 participants, respectively in Experiments 1-4). They varied the no-vision interval between alternate monocular samples to measure catching performance, and they compared the alternating monocular conditions with binocular and monocular conditions with equal no-vision intervals. They found no evidence of a binocular advantage for one-handed catching in the alternating monocular conditions. Performance in monocular and alternating monocular conditions did not differ across no-vision intervals ranging from 0-80 ms and was particularly worse than performance in binocular viewing conditions when the no-vision interval was 40 ms or more. The authors argue that the dissimilarity between disparate monocular inputs created by the approaching object limited the integration of those inputs and subsequent binocular perception.