Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PUNISHMENT”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1963

Fixed-ratio punishment.

Responses were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. At the same time, punishment was delivered following every nth response (fixed-ratio punishment). The introduction of fixed-ratio punishment produced an initial phase during which the emission of responses was positively accelerated between punishments. Eventually, the degree of positive acceleration was reduced and a uniform but reduced rate of responding emerged. Large changes in the over-all level of responding were produced by the intensity of punishment, the value of the punishment ratio, and the level of food deprivation. The uniformity of response rate between punishments was invariant in spite of these changes in over-all rate and contrary to some plausible a priori theoretical considerations. Fixed-ratio punishment also produced phenomena previously observed under continuous punishment: warm-up effect and a compensatory increase. This type of intermittent punishment produced less rapid and less complete suppression than did continuous punishment.

Punishment↗
PubMed1965

MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS OF ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT.

Punishment and escape were studied simultaneously by allowing a subject to escape from a stimulus situation in which responses were punished, into a stimulus situation in which responses were not punished. The frequency of the punished responses was found to be an inverse function of the intensity of punishment, whereas the frequency of the escape response was a direct function of the intensity of punishment. Both of these functions were obtained under three different schedules of food reinforcement. The strength of the escape behavior was evidenced by (1) the emergence of the escape response even when the frequency of food reinforcement decreased as a consequence of the escape response, (2) the maintenance of the escape response by fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules of escape reinforcement, and (3) the occurrence of escape responses at intensities of punishment that otherwise produced only mild suppression of the punished response when no escape was possible. This last finding indicates that a subject may be driven out of a situation involving punishment even though the punishment is relatively ineffective in suppressing the punished responses when no escape is possible.

Animals↗
PubMed1975

Effects of scopolamine, physostigmine and chlordiazepoxide on punished and extinguished water consumption in rats.

It has been postulated that behavioral inhibition due to punishment or extinction may be mediated by brain acetylcholine, and drugs which have disinhibitory action are thought to interact with this system. This notion was tested by comparing the effects of scopolamine, physostigmine and chlordiazepoxide on punished and extinguished water consumption. Scopolamine hydrobromide (0.3, 0.5 mg/kg, i.p.), a centrally and peripherally acting antimuscarinic agent and physostigmine sulfate, (0.3 mg/kg, i.p.), a centrally and peripherally acting acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, lowered both non-punished and punishment suppressed water intake and lick rate, whereas their quaternary analogs which primarily act in the periphery, had no significant effect at comparable dose levels. Scopolamine and physostigmine suppressed punished water consumption at lower dose levels than nonpunished intake. In contrast, chlordiazepoxide (5.0, 10.0, 20.0 mg/kg, i.p.) enhanced punished as well as non-punished water intake. In a further experiment comparing punishment and extinction suppression, scopolamine and physostigmine did not affect punished or extinguished water intake; chlordiazepoxide (5.0, 10.0, 20.0 mg/kg) reliably increased punished, but not extinguished licking on the water nozzle. These results suggest (1) that scopolamine and chlordiazepoxide do not act via a common mechanism, and (2) that punishment and extinction suppression are not a pharmacological entity.

Acetylcholine↗
PubMed1988

Specific effects of punishment on amino acids turnover in discrete rat brain regions.

Specific effects of punishment on the turnover rates of aspartate (Asp), glutamate (Glu) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in 14 brain regions were investigated in rats exposed to punishment. Two yoked controls were also used in an attempt to separate the nonspecific effects of response rate, reinforcement density and direct effects of punisher (foot shock). Punished and unpunished littermate rats had similar response rates, and the reinforcement density was almost identical for both groups. A third group (yoked-shock rats) received food and shock independent of responding whenever these were given to the punished rats. When compared to the unpunished rats, the punishment increased the turnover rates of the three amino acids in all brain regions examined except GABA turnover in the caudate-putamen and preoptic-diagonal band. The majority of these changes by the punishment were similar to the effects of the yoked-shock (yoked-shock versus unpunished), although the magnitude of increase by the punishment was mostly larger than that by the yoked-shock. Six changes by the punishment (increase in the turnover rates of Asp in the thalamus, Glu in the hypothalamus and GABA in the cingulate cortex, entorhinal-subicular cortex, dentate gyrus and hypothalamus) appeared to be the specific effects of punishment since the yoked-shock did not affect these parameters. These results suggest that the punishment caused a hyperexcitation of the amino acidergic neurons in the limbic systems, particularly those in Papez's circuit.

Amino Acids↗
PubMed1967

The role of punishment in the in-patient treatment of psychiatrically disturbed children.

The role of punishment in the psychiatric in-patient treatment of nonpsychotic latency-age children with behaviourdisorders is discussed. Punishment is defined as the removal of previously existing positive reinforcers or the administration of aversive stimuli. Ways in which appropriate social behaviour may be acquired are briefly considered. These include reinforcement of desirable responses, non-reinforcement of undesirable responses, reinforcement of incompatible responses and imitative learning. The reported effects of punishment on behaviour are reviewed and the psychological functions necessary before punishment can have the intended effects considered. For seriously disturbed children punishment is ineffective as a treatment technique. It reinforces pathological perceptions of self and adults even if it successfully suppresses behaviour. The frame of reference of the seriously disturbed child contraindicates the removal of positive reinforcers and verbal as well as physical aversive stimuli. Controls and punishments must be clearly distinguished. Controls continue only as long as the behaviour towards which they are directed. They do not include the deliberate establishment of an unpleasant state by the adult as a result of particular behaviour. Control techniques such as removal from a group may be necessary but when possible should be avoided in favour of techniques less likely to be misinterpreted. Avoidance of punishment in treatment makes even more important explicit expectations and provision of realistic controls. Natural laws may result in unpleasant experiences as an unavoidable result of certain behaviour. By definition such results can never be imposed by the adult. Treatment considerations may necessitate that the child be protected from the results of his actions. Avoidance of punishment requires a higher staff/child ratio, more mature and better trained staff. Sometimes children have previously been deterred from serious community acting out only by punishment. Should the therapeutic endeavours outlined not prevent such behaviour, treatment in a closed setting without punishment is indicated, not the use of punishment in an open centre.

Child↗
PubMed1991

Side effects of therapeutic punishment on academic performance and eye contact.

The effects of therapeutic punishment delivered following inappropriate behavior on the academic responding and eye-to-face contact of 2 persons with developmental handicaps was examined using a counterbalanced alternating treatment design. Each subject was sequentially taught by two therapists each day. While one of the therapists taught the subject, the second therapist stood in close proximity directly behind the subject. During baseline, neither therapist delivered punishment following inappropriate behavior. During the treatment condition, one of the therapists delivered all punishment regardless of whether she was teaching or standing behind the subject. The therapist who delivered all punishment for 1 subject did not deliver any punishment for the other subject. During the last condition, the therapist delivering all punishment was reversed for 1 of the subjects. The results indicated that the task being taught was mastered by each subject only when the therapist delivering punishment was teaching. Data collected also indicated that each subject made more eye-to-face contact when the therapist delivering all punishment was teaching. Although neither therapist had to deliver punishers often, punishment had to be administered less often when the therapist teaching the subject was also the therapist delivering punishment.

Achievement↗
PubMed2003

Punishment in human choice: direct or competitive suppression?

This investigation compared the predictions of two models describing the integration of reinforcement and punishment effects in operant choice. Deluty's (1976) competitive-suppression model (conceptually related to two-factor punishment theories) and de Villiers' (1980) direct-suppression model (conceptually related to one-factor punishment theories) have been tested previously in nonhumans but not at the individual level in humans. Mouse clicking by college students was maintained in a two-alternative concurrent schedule of variable-interval money reinforcement. Punishment consisted of variable-interval money losses. Experiment 1 verified that money loss was an effective punisher in this context. Experiment 2 consisted of qualitative model comparisons similar to those used in previous studies involving nonhumans. Following a no-punishment baseline, punishment was superimposed upon both response alternatives. Under schedule values for which the direct-suppression model, but not the competitive-suppression model, predicted distinct shifts from baseline performance, or vice versa, 12 of 14 individual-subject functions, generated by 7 subjects, supported the direct-suppression model. When the punishment models were converted to the form of the generalized matching law, least-squares linear regression fits for a direct-suppression model were superior to those of a competitive-suppression model for 6 of 7 subjects. In Experiment 3, a more thorough quantitative test of the modified models, fits for a direct-suppression model were superior in 11 of 13 cases. These results correspond well to those of investigations conducted with nonhumans and provide the first individual-subject evidence that a direct-suppression model, evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively, describes human punishment better than a competitive-suppression model. We discuss implications for developing better punishment models and future investigations of punishment in human choice.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed1996

Using research to change public policy: reflections on 20 years of effort to eliminate corporal punishment in schools.

In the past 20 years, over half of the states have abolished corporal punishment in schools. Without the use of ethically questionable, experimental studies in which students were randomly assigned to paddlings, advocacy researchers were able to integrate the literature and experimental research on reward, punishment, and motivation, and conduct enough studies to provide sufficient data for policy changes. Further, every popular school discipline training program promotes well-proven positive and preventive techniques and punishments that do not inflict physical pain. Research on alternatives, naturalistic evidence from schools that eliminated corporal punishment, and survey research prove that schools do not need to use corporal punishment. The movement to eliminate parental spanking is at a stage similar to the beginning of the school corporal punishment debate in 1976. Even though some studies may show that moderate parental spanking may do no short-term harm, there is little scientific evidence that it is necessary. There are no data to indicate that schools which eliminated corporal punishment became any worse. The same demographic factors and political polarizations that have kept about half of American school children from the protections against paddling afforded students in almost all other Western democracies also impede the movement to eliminate parental spanking. Since we know that corporal punishment too often leads to excesses, and since we have a multitude of effective positive approaches, what is the worst thing that would happen if all Americans stopped hitting children in any setting? The same children who are hit for misbehavior would continue that misbehavior and other ineffective punishments would be used. Most parents and teachers would discover what behavioral scientists already know. A combination of reward, positive motivational techniques and appropriate, nonphysical punishments would prevent most misbehavior. Other factors being equal, in the next generation, rates of childhood aggression and child abuse would drop dramatically, since corporal punishment would not be considered a viable and automatic reaction to misbehavior. Not a bad result for giving up something that has never been supported by the majority of those who study discipline in homes and schools. This is the message researchers and practitioners should actively convey to parents, policy makers and the media.

Child↗
PubMed1986

Drug-behavior interaction history: modification of the effects of morphine on punished behavior.

Squirrel monkeys were trained to respond under a multiple fixed-interval, fixed-interval schedule in which the first response after 5 min terminated a visual stimulus in the presence of which electric shocks could occur. During one component of the schedule, correlated with one color of stimulus lights, every 30th response also produced electric shock; responding was suppressed during this component to approximately 10 to 12% of that occurring in the alternate component in which responding was not punished. In contrast to previous research, morphine (0.03 to 1.0 mg/kg) increased punished responding. Unpunished responding, however, was either not affected or decreased at doses of morphine that increased punished responding. Increases in rate of punished responding also occurred when the single-schedule punishment condition was studied alone in these animals. Subsequent experimentation, which systematically analyzed the development of the rate-enhancing effects of morphine on punished responding, involved the study of drug effects in additional monkeys trained initially under a single-schedule punishment condition. The effects of morphine on punished responding were studied before, after, and then during exposure to the multiple schedule that included a component in which responding was not punished. Increases in response rate with morphine did not occur until it was administered during exposure to the multiple schedule that included a component in which responding was not punished. As with the other monkeys, once the rate increases in punished responding occurred under the multiple schedule, these effects of morphine persisted, even when the multiple schedule was removed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1963

Punishment of temporally spaced responding.

The responses of pigeons were maintained by a DRL schedule of food reinforcement. With this schedule, responses were reinforced only when a fixed period of time elapsed without an intervening response. Punishment of all responses reduced the frequency of these responses as a direct function of the punishment intensity. As a consequence of the increased temporal spacing of responses, more reinforcements resulted during punishment. Under progressively higher intensities of punishment, the reinforcement frequency increased to a maximum value and then decreased at the highest intensities. The increased frequency of reinforcement which resulted during punishment did not counteract the suppressive effect of punishment, nor did it lead to a low response rate after punishment was removed. Punishment did not reduce the inter-response time distribution uniformly, but rather especially reduced the number of short inter-response times. Even at the low punishment intensities, the number of short inter-response times was considerably reduced. After punishment was discontinued, performance recovered almost completely after a compensatory burst. The number as well as the temporal pattern of responses returned to normal.

Animals↗
PubMed1986

Effects of H1-receptor antagonists on responding punished by histamine injection or electric shock presentation in squirrel monkeys.

Squirrel monkeys were trained to press a key under a two-component schedule of food presentation. In the presence of either green or red stimulus lights, the 30th response produced a food pellet (fixed-ratio schedule). During the red stimulus lights (punishment component), the first response of each fixed ratio produced either an IV injection of histamine (100.0 micrograms/kg/inj) or a brief electric shock (3.0 mA). Responding was selectively suppressed in either punishment component. Presession IM administration of chlorpheniramine (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg), diphenhydramine (1.0 and 3.0 mg/kg), or pyrilamine (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg) increased rates of responding punished by histamine but not those punished by electric shock. Presession administration of promethazine (0.1-3.0 mg/kg) or tripelennamine (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg) also increased rates of responding punished by histamine in all subjects and response rates punished by electric shock in one of three subjects. Chlordiazepoxide (3.0-56.0 mg/kg) increased rates of responding punished by either histamine or electric shock. These results suggest that the punishing effects of histamine injection are mediated by H1 receptors and that H1-receptor antagonists increase rates of responding suppressed by punishment only under limited conditions including those in which histamine is the punishing stimulus.

Animals↗
PubMed1983

Role of 5-hydroxytryptamine in amphetamine effects on punished and unpunished behaviour.

In order to assess the contribution of serotonergic (5-HT) mechanisms in the suppressant effect of amphetamine on punished responding, dose-effect curves of amphetamine on key-pecking behaviour of pigeons maintained by food presentation and punished by electric-shock were determined before and after pretreatment with methergoline, a potent and specific 5-HT receptor blocker in the central nervous system. A multiple fixed-interval 5 min, fixed-interval 5 min schedule of reinforcement in which every response, except the reinforced one, was punished in one of the two components (mult FI5 FI5-shock) was used. Effective doses of amphetamine decreased unpunished as well as punished FI response rates. However, the decreases in punished behaviour were more evident and dose-dependent. Methergoline markedly increased FI responding in the punished FI component but only slightly increased or decreased unpunished FI response rates. The most effective dose of methergoline for increasing punished responding was 0.56 mg/kg. Pretreatment with this dose of methergoline unmasked the facilitatory effects of amphetamine on unpunished responding, but did not antagonize its suppressant effect on punished responding. Therefore, although 5-HT seems to mediate punishment-induced response suppression and to inhibit the facilitatory effects of amphetamine on unpunished responding, it is not apparently involved in the suppressant effect of amphetamine on punished behaviour.

Amphetamine↗
PubMed2004

Lorazepam reinstates punishment-suppressed remifentanil self-administration in rats.

RATIONALE: We recently described a reinstatement procedure that models relapse to drug abuse in cases where abstinence results from aversive consequences of drug use. The potential value of this punishment-based model of relapse depends on its sensitivity to relapse-inducing events that are ineffective in the widely used extinction-based model. OBJECTIVES: It is known that certain drugs can have anti-punishment effects, but these drugs have not been tested in the punishment-based reinstatement procedure. Therefore, the effects of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, were examined using punishment-based and extinction-based reinstatement procedures. METHODS: Rats self-administered the opioid, remifentanil (4 microg/kg per infusion). Two punishment groups were trained with response-contingent footshock that suppressed baseline rates of responding to zero. In an extinction group, remifentanil delivery was discontinued, and baseline responding stabilized at a low rate (mean=0.06 responses/min). Lorazepam (0.08-10 mg/kg, IP) was given during test sessions with the shock contingency discontinued for both punishment groups. Remifentanil delivery was maintained during testing in one punishment group but not the other. RESULTS: Lorazepam reinstated self-administration responding in both punishment groups but not in the extinction group. Priming injections of heroin reinstated responding in both the punishment and extinction groups, but combining heroin and lorazepam did not enhance reinstatement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first demonstration that a trigger for relapse may have different effects depending on whether aversive conditioning contributed to the achievement of abstinence. It may be important to consider potential anti-punishment effects of both abused drugs and therapeutic agents in the treatment of individuals with a history of drug abuse.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2006

Differential effects of reward and punishment on conscious and unconscious eye movements.

Very little is known about how human movements are influenced by abstract rewards and punishments relevant for human behaviour. The purpose of this study was to expand our knowledge of the behavioural effects of monetary reward and punishment. We introduced a high and low reward and punishment scheme into an antisaccade task where trials were either rewarded for a correct response (+1 or +25p) or punished for an incorrect response (-1 or -25p). The monetary value of the trial was indicated by the go signal, so subjects had to both program the location of the movement and determine the valence in the short interval before the eye movement was executed. We analysed both correct antisaccade responses and prosaccade errors. Importantly, the errors in this task can be either conscious (recognised) or unconscious (unrecognised). Saccades in both high-reward and high-punishment trials were slowed compared to saccades in low-reward and low-punishment trials, respectively. Therefore, unlike moderate rewards only (Blaukopf and DiGirolamo in Exp Brain Res 167:654-659, 2005), combining rewards and punishments and increasing motivation levels leads to a delay in movement execution during high valence trials where all actions are slowed, even errors. However, unconscious errors were differentially affected as they were speeded when punishment was high. We conclude that reward and punishment similarly influence the programming of conscious movements, but the strong saliency for punishment affords unconscious errors immunity from this delay.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

Specific effects of punishment on biogenic monoamine turnover in discrete rat brain regions.

Specific effects of punishment on the turnover rates of norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin (5-HT) in brain regions were investigated in rats exposed to punishment. Two yoked controls were also used in an attempt to separate the non-specific effects of response rate, reinforcement density and direct effects of punisher (foot shock). Punished and unpunished littermate rats had similar response rates, and the reinforcement density was almost identical for both groups. A third group (yoked-shock rats) received food and shock independent of responding whenever these were given to the punished rats. When compared to the unpunished rats, changes in the monoamine turnover rates resulting from the punishment were similar to the effects of yoked-shock with respect to the direction of action in most cases (13 out of 17 changes). These changes may be related to non-specific effects of the shock. Four changes by the punishment were determined to be specific effects of the punishment since the yoked-shock had no effect or changed the turnover to the opposite direction. Among these, increase in 5-HT turnover rate in the frontal cortex (greater than 7-fold) was the largest change. These results and reported effects of drugs which act on serotonergic systems on the punished behavior suggest that the increase in 5-HT neuronal activity in the frontal cortex is involved in the behavioral suppression induced by the punishment.

Animals↗
PubMed1980

Dorsal periaqueductal gray punishment, septal lesions and the mode of action of minor tranquilizers.

In order to study the role of the septo-hippocampal system and the dorsal periaqueductal gray (DPAG) substance in punished behavior and in the action of minor tranquilizers, two groups of rats were trained to lever press on a continuous reinforcement schedule of food presentation. In one group, every response was subsequently punished by foot-shock delivery; in the other, by brief electrical stimulation of the DPAG of the mesencephalon. In both groups response rats were reduced to less than 10% of pre-punishment rates, but not completely supressed. Response rates did not significantly differ between the two groups, either before or after the introduction of punishment. Septal lesions significantly increased responding in the animals punished by foot-shock, but did not affect responding suppressed by DPAG stimulation. Injection of chlordiazepoxide (5mg/kg,IP) significantly increased punished responding in both groups of rats, before as well as after the septal lesion. Before the septal lesion was made, responding suppressed by foot-shock was significantly more released by chlordiazepoxide than responding punished by DPAG stimulation. These results suggest that in punishment tests using foot-shock, both a behavioral inhibitory system, including the septo-hippocampal structures and an aversive or punishment system, including the DPAG substance, act together to produce response suppression. Both these systems would be depressed by minor tranquilizers in order to cause their anti-punishment and perhaps their anti-anxiety action as well.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

Spare the rod and spoil the child. Is this a sensible justification for the use of punishment in child rearing?

This paper examines the validity of the well-used proverb Spare the rod and spoil the child. To do this, the original form of the proverb from the Bible is compared with the modern form, and some significant differences are highlighted. The definition of punishment is considered, and the differences between punishment and corporal punishment are examined. Punishment is explored in some detail with attention given to the criteria that need to be satisfied in order for punishment to be effective. Discrepancies in the literature concerning these criteria are pointed out, making punishment a complex issue. The negative effects of punishment are significant with links to social problems such as teenage delinquency and violence. Reference is made to cultures where corporal punishment has been banned and the effects of this action. Given the problems associated with punishment programs, especially those being used in families, alternatives to punishment are discussed. Finally, an alternative form of the proverb to the current adaptation is offered.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Response-cost punishment via token loss with pigeons.

Two experiments were conducted to investigate punishment via response-contingent removal of conditioned token reinforcers (response cost) with pigeons. In Experiment 1, key pecking was maintained on a two-component multiple second-order schedule of token delivery, with light emitting diodes (LEDs) serving as token reinforcers. In both components, responding produced tokens according to a random-interval 20-s schedule and exchange periods according to a variable-ratio schedule. During exchange periods, each token was exchangeable for 2.5-s access to grain. In one component, responses were conjointly punished according to fixed-ratio schedules of token removal. Response rates in this punishment component decreased to low levels while response rates in the alternate (no-punishment) component were unaffected. Responding was eliminated when it produced neither tokens nor exchange periods (Extinction), but was maintained at moderate levels when it produced tokens in the signaled absence of food reinforcement, suggesting that tokens served as effective conditioned reinforcers. In Experiment 2, the effect of the response-cost punishment contingency was separated from changes in the density of food reinforcement. This was accomplished by yoking either the number of food deliveries per component (Yoked Food) or the temporal placement of all stimulus events (tokens, exchanges, food deliveries) (Yoked Complete), from the punishment to the no-punishment component. Response rates decreased in both components, but decreased more rapidly and were generally maintained at lower levels in the punishment component than in the yoked component. In showing that the response-cost contingency had a suppressive effect on responding in addition to that produced by reductions in reinforcement density, the present results suggest that response-cost punishment shares important features with other forms of punishment.

Animals↗