The instinct to teach: Altruism or aggression?

In this paper, the term ‘teaching’ means activities which induce a specific change in the behavior of a member of the same species, and are adapted until the pupil reaches a certain standard of performance. Teaching in this sense is confined to man, with one group of exceptions. Other forms of social learning are observed among the mammals and even the buds. The most important is imitation, or learning by observation. Teaching by other species always involves punishment, and always leads to the separation or spacing out of individuals. It occurs 1) at weaning, 2) in maintaining status within a group, and 3) in territorial behavior. In each case an animal is punished for approaching another. Man is distinguished by using punishment not only as a deterrent but also in the teaching of skills. Such conduct is sometimes called aggressive. To give it this name is to put teaching (by punishment) in the same class as socially undesirable acts. Such a usage obscures questions that can profitably be asked. Children learn much by imitation, and are encouraged to do so. But teaching of skills (usually not by punishment) and of customs seems to be universal in human communities, both primitive and advanced. To say that there is an instinct or drive to teach adds, however, nothing to this statement. Some teaching, especially the formal process in schools, is by adults and is confined to particular societies. But, in addition, children teach younger children, sometimes evidently without prompting by elders. This is one aspect of the nurturant behavior which is perhaps a feature of all societies. Some traditions seem to be maintained solely by children. Such conduct is probably at times altruistic in the traditional sense of the term. “Altruism” in biological writings today has, however, a different meaning, and is therefore becoming a source of confusion. In many communities, both primitive and advanced, nurturant behavior and the teaching of young children by older children are reported to be more prominent among girls than among boys. Teaching, considered as a type of behavior, has been neglected as a subject of study. It would repay multidisciplinary investigation, especially as it appears in the conduct of children.     

Travel time and concurrent-schedule choice: retrospective versus prospective control

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which two different travel times between alternatives, 4.5 and 0.5 s, were randomly arranged. In Part 1, the next travel time was signaled while the subjects were responding on each alternative. Generalized matching analyses of performance in the presence of the two travel-time signals showed significantly higher response and time sensitivity when the longer travel time was signaled compared to when the shorter time was signaled. When the data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, there were no differences in sensitivity. Dwell times on the alternatives were consistently longer in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the longer travel time than they were in the presence of the stimulus that signaled the shorter travel time. These results are in accord with a recent quantitative account of the effects of travel time. In Part 2, no signals indicating the next travel time were given. When these data were analyzed as a function of the previous travel time, time-allocation sensitivity after the 4.5-s travel time was significantly greater than that after the 0.5-s travel time, but no such difference was found for response allocation. Dwell times were also longer when the previous travel time had been longer.     

A ROLE FOR NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT OF RESPONSE OMISSION IN PUNISHMENT?

This experiment attempted to disentangle response-rate reductions controlled by the direct suppressive effects of a punisher from those due to negative reinforcement of response omission. Key-peck responding of pigeons was maintained by a conjoint variable-interval 3-min schedule of food presentation variable-interval 30-s schedule of response-dependent electric shock presentation. Omission of responses for 5, 10, or 30 s resulted in the possibility of canceling a scheduled shock. Response rates were a function of required pause duration, with lower rates occurring when longer periods of response omission were required for shock cancellation. These results show that, with several parameters of punishment held constant, response rates were controlled by the negative reinforcement contingency. Such a finding argues for renewed consideration of the role of negative reinforcement in punishment contingencies.     

A classification scheme for discipline: type, mode of administration, context

This paper reviews research related to parental disciplinary practices and presents a classification scheme discipline that separates discipline into the type and the mode of administration used. Previous research has not kept important constructs related to discipline distinct and has ignored some types of discipline, as well as the mode of administration. The classification scheme presented is meant to try to foster conceptual clarity, to advocate for attention to important aspects of disciplinary practices in future research, and to lay the groundwork for development of additional measurement tools — particularly for survey design research.     

THE NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS OF REWARD

The negative side effects of aversive control have been extensively discussed in clinical literature and textbooks. The symmetry between aversive and appetitive control in basic experimental research implies that parallel negative side effects of reward exist. These negative side effects are described and their implications for clinical practice and research are discussed.     

Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test of two models

The joint effects of punishment and reinforcement on the pigeon's key-peck response were examined in three choice experiments conducted to compare predictions of Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model with those made by Deluty's (1976) and Deluty and Church's (1978) model of punishment. In Experiment 1, the addition of equal punishment schedules to both alternatives of a concurrent reinforcement schedule enhanced the preference exhibited for the more frequent reinforcement alternative. Experiment 2 demonstrated decreases in the absolute response rate for each member of a concurrent reinforcement schedule when increasing frequencies of punishment were added to each alternative. Experiment 3 found that preference for the denser of two reinforcement schedules diminished when the absolute frequencies of reinforcement were increased by a constant factor and conditions of punishment for both alternatives were held constant. Diminished preferences were obtained regardless of whether the frequency of punishment associated with the denser reinforcement schedule was greater or less than that associated with the lean reinforcement alternative. The results from all three experiments uniquely supported Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model of punishment and reinforcement.     

Toward a quantitative theory of punishment

In two experiments, pigeons' key pecking for food on concurrent variable-interval schedules was punished with electric shock according to concurrent variable-interval punishment schedules. With unequal frequencies of food but equal rates of punishment associated with the two keys and at several intensities of shock, the response and time allocation of all six pigeons overmatched the obtained relative frequency of food. The overmatching was predicted by a subtractive model of the interaction between punishment and positive reinforcement but not by two alternative models. Increases in the k and r_e parameters of the generalized matching law could not account for the observed shifts in preference.     

The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons chose between outcomes that differed in the rate of response-independent delivery of food and electric shocks. The application of functional measurement techniques confirmed the matching relation—between choice and rate of reinforcement value—for two of three pigeons. Scale values of the outcomes were extracted for the two birds that conformed to matching, and the value of a single occurrence of shock per minute—in terms of negative food units—was estimated. A second experiment with concurrent chains provided a test of these parameter estimates. The close correspondence between predicted and obtained choice behavior found in Experiment II indicated that the estimates of outcome value were indeed reliable. Both experiments together support the contention that the effects on choice behavior of positive and aversive stimuli appear to be equal, though opposite in sign.     

Punishment of autoshaped key-peck responses of pigeons

The effects of different voltages of response-dependent and response-independent electric shock on the frequency of key-peck responses engendered by an autoshaping procedure were studied. In Experiments I and II, each response produced a brief electric shock, and response frequency generally decreased more with higher-voltage shock. Preshock frequencies of responding were generally recovered across successive sessions of relatively low-voltage shock delivery but not at higher shock voltages. The effects of response-dependent and response-independent shock were compared in Experiment III by using a yoked-control procedure in which each pigeon received each type of shock delivery at different times. Response-dependent shock generally produced greater decreases in response frequency. In the final experiment, one response-independent shock per autoshaping trial was scheduled. The number of autoshaped responses per trial was related to shock voltages. These results suggest that response-dependent and response-independent electric shock effectively decrease frequency of autoshaped responses.     

SOME DETERMINANTS OF THE REINFORCING AND PUNISHING EFFECTS OF TIMEOUT1

Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing properties of timeout were investigated in two experiments. Experiment I began as an attempt to reduce the frequency of tantrums in a 6-yr-old autistic girl by using timeout. Unexpectedly, the result was a substantial increase in the frequency of tantrums. Using a reversal design, subsequent manipulations showed that the opportunity to engage in self-stimulatory behavior during the timeout period was largely responsible for the increase in tantrums. Experiment II was initiated following the failure of timeout to reduce the spitting and self-injurious behavior of a 16-yr-old retarded boy. Using a multiple-baseline design, the nature of the timein environment was shown to be an important determinant of the effects of timeout. When the timein environment was “enriched”, timeout was effective as a punisher. A conception of timeout in terms of the relative reinforcing properties of timein and timeout and their clinical implications are discussed.