Punishing Those Responsible for the Prison Abuses at Abu Ghraib: The Influence of the Negative Reciprocity Norm (NRN)

The negative reciprocity norm (NRN) is the personal moral code specifying retaliation as a proper response to wrongdoing ( Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004 ). We examined the role of negative reciprocity in interpreting and reacting to the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. Results showed that people who believed that American soldiers behaved wrongly at Abu Ghraib were more likely to view punishing the soldiers responsible as a highly moral response and were less likely to contribute money to a charitable organization that helps American soldiers. These relationships were only present among those highly endorsing the negative reciprocity norm.     

Responses to organizational harm: Mechanism of blaming managers as proxies for a culpable organization

Recent research has shown that perceivers who are culturally oriented to focus on the causal influence of groups tend to assign blame to an organization and extend the blame to an individual representing it (i.e. proxy blaming). The present research investigates the mechanism of this blame extension. Results show that it occurs when punishing the organization is impossible rather than possible (Study 1) and that this blaming is brought about by the perception that the target individual is in the role to represent the organization, not by the perception that he/she is the typical member of the culpable organization (Study 2). Implications of these findings in the responsibility literature are discussed.     

Mysteries of morality

Evolutionary theories of morality, beginning with Darwin, have focused on explanations for altruism. More generally, these accounts have concentrated on conscience (self-regulatory mechanisms) to the neglect of condemnation (mechanisms for punishing others). As a result, few theoretical tools are available for understanding the rapidly accumulating data surrounding third-party judgment and punishment. Here we consider the strategic interactions among actors, victims, and third-parties to help illuminate condemnation. We argue that basic differences between the adaptive problems faced by actors and third-parties indicate that actor conscience and third-party condemnation are likely performed by different cognitive mechanisms. Further, we argue that current theories of conscience do not easily explain its experimentally demonstrated insensitivity to consequences. However, these results might be explicable if conscience functions, in part, as a defense system for avoiding third-party punishment. If conscience serves defensive functions, then its computational structure should be closely tailored to the details of condemnation mechanisms. This possibility underscores the need for a better understanding of condemnation, which is important not only in itself but also for explaining the nature of conscience. We outline three evolutionary mysteries of condemnation that require further attention: third-party judgment, moralistic punishment, and moral impartiality.     

EFFECTS OF POINT‐LOSS PUNISHERS ON HUMAN SIGNAL‐DETECTION PERFORMANCE

Three experiments using human participants varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers or point‐loss punishers in two‐alternative signal‐detection procedures. Experiment 1 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses (Group A) and point‐loss punishers for errors (Group B) across conditions. Response bias varied systematically as a function of the relative reinforcer or punisher frequencies. Experiment 2 arranged two conditions — one where an unequal ratio of reinforcement (5:1 or 1:5) was presented without punishment (R‐only), and another where the same reinforcer ratio was presented with an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers (R+P). Response bias was significantly greater in the R‐only condition than the R+P condition, supporting a subtractive model of punishment. Experiment 3 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses across four unequal reinforcer ratios (5:1, 2:1, 1:2, 1:5) both without (R‐only) and with (R+P) an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers for errors. Response bias varied systematically with changes in relative reinforcer frequency for both R‐only and R+P conditions, with 5 out of 8 participants showing increases in sensitivity estimates from R‐only to R+P conditions. Overall, the results indicated that punishers have similar but opposite effects to reinforcers in detection procedures and that combined reinforcer and punisher effects might be better modeled by a subtractive punishment model than an additive punishment model, consistent with research using concurrent‐schedule choice procedures.     

自我损耗对利他惩罚的影响:愤怒与公正敏感性的作用

采用2个行为实验探讨了自我损耗对利他惩罚的影响。实验1采用“Stroop”任务操纵被试的自我损耗，并考察愤怒情绪在其中的中介作用；实验2使用公正敏感性量表选出高低两组被试后采用“划e”任务操纵被试的自我损耗。两个实验均用最后通牒博弈考察被试的利他惩罚行为。结果发现：高损耗组被试对不公平分配方案的拒绝比例显著高于低损耗组；愤怒情绪在两者间起部分中介作用；高公正敏感组中出现了明显了自我损耗促进效应，低公正敏感组不存在。证实了自我损耗对利他惩罚促进作用。     

A METHODOLOGY FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EXTINCTION AND PUNISHMENT EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESPONSE BLOCKING

We present one method for distinguishing between extinction and punishment effects. The proportion of responses that produced a consequence (blocking) was varied while hand mouthing was treated in a man diagnosed with profound mental retardation. Response patterns across the schedule changes suggested that the blocking procedure functioned as a punishing event.     

Making life easier with effort: Basic findings and applied research on response effort

Early basic research showed that increases in required response effort (or force) produced effects that resembled those produced by punishment. A recent study by Alling and Poling determined some subtle differences between the two behavior-change strategies, but also confirmed that increasing required effort is an effective response-reduction procedure with enduring effects. In this paper we summarize basic research on response effort and explore the role of effort in diverse applied areas including deceleration of aberrant behavior, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oral habits, health care appointment keeping, littering, indexes of functional disability, and problem solving. We conclude that renewed interest in response effort as an independent variable is justified because of its potent effects and because the political constraints imposed on punishment- and reinforcement-based procedures have yet to be imposed on procedures that entail manipulations of response effort.     

Response suppression by visual stimuli paired with postsession d-amphetamine injections in the pigeon

Responding of pigeons, maintained under a fixed-interval 3-minute schedule of food presentation, was decreased on days that the color of the lights illuminating the food magazine was changed and d-amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg, i.m.) was injected after the session. Responding was not decreased by keylight color changes paired with postsession d-amphetamine or by postsession injections of saline. Administration of pentobarbital (3.0 to 5.6 mg/kg), but not d-amphetamine (.3 to 3.0 mg/kg), before the session increased rates of responding suppressed by drug-paired magazine lights. Responding maintained under a fixed-ratio 30-response schedule was not decreased when differently colored magazine lights were paired with a low (.3 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine; with high (3.0 mg/kg) postsession doses, however, responding was completely suppressed after two pairings. The effects of pairing magazine stimuli with an intermediate (1.0 mg/kg) postsession dose of d-amphetamine depended upon the magnitude of prior postsession doses. After being paired with a low dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg did not suppress responding. After being paired with a high dose, stimuli paired with 1.0 mg/kg completely suppressed responding. The suppression of food-maintained responding by stimuli paired with postsession drug administration depends upon both behavioral and pharmacological variables.     

A response to "On token reinforcement and stuttering therapy: Another view on findings reported by Howie and Woods (1982)"

Ingham's (1983) critique of our research is based on the unwarranted assumption that it claimed to be a replication of Ingham and Andrews' (1973a) study. Our report did not claim to be a replication. Procedural differences between treatments do not preclude the possibility of drawing general conclusions that may apply to related treatments, or suggesting possible confounding variables that might be operating in another study. We have nevertheless dealt with each of Ingham's methodological objections. In general, we believe that we struck an acceptable compromise between the needs of clients and theoretical and research demands. We stand by our original conclusions, and note with satisfaction that Ingham concurs with our emphasis on systematic structure rather than the presence or absence of rewards as the crucial component of this type of stuttering treatment.