-
Learning & Behavior Sep 2023Punishment and extinction are both effective methods of reducing instrumental responding and may involve similar learning mechanisms. To characterize the similarities...
Punishment and extinction are both effective methods of reducing instrumental responding and may involve similar learning mechanisms. To characterize the similarities and differences between them, we examined three well-established recovery or "relapse" effects -renewal, spontaneous recovery, and reacquisition - following either punishment or extinction of an instrumental response. In Experiment 1a, both punished and extinguished responses renewed to similar degrees following a context change at test (ABA renewal). In Experiment 1b, responding spontaneously recovered to similar degrees following punishment or extinction. In Experiment 2, responding was rapidly reacquired when the response was reinforced again following extinction but not following punishment, as predicted by the idea that the reinforcer delivered in reacquisition is part of the context of punishment, but not extinction. The results collectively suggest that both punishment and extinction produce similar context-dependent retroactive interference effects. More broadly, they also suggest that punished and extinguished responses may be equally likely to return following a change of context despite the intuition that punishment might provide a more extreme and effective means of suppressing behavior. To our knowledge, this is the first direct behavioral comparison of response recovery after punishment and extinction within individual experiments.
Topics: Animals; Punishment; Conditioning, Operant; Extinction, Psychological; Memory
PubMed: 36344750
DOI: 10.3758/s13420-022-00552-2 -
Current Opinion in Psychology Feb 2022Theory and experiments suggest people have different strategies (1) to condition their prosocial behavior in ways that maximize individual benefits and (2) to punish... (Review)
Review
Theory and experiments suggest people have different strategies (1) to condition their prosocial behavior in ways that maximize individual benefits and (2) to punish others who have exploited their own and others' prosocial behaviors. To date, most research testing existing theories has relied on experiments. However, documenting prosocial and punishment behaviors outside of the laboratory via experience sampling and diary methods can yield additional, rich insights. Recent work demonstrates these methods can describe social behaviors in daily life and be used to test theory about how behaviors change across situations and relationships. These methods have exposed discrepancies between what people experience in daily life and the problems researchers want to solve to understand the nature of human prosociality.
Topics: Altruism; Ecological Momentary Assessment; Humans; Problem Solving; Punishment; Social Behavior
PubMed: 34508966
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.015 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Apr 2024Conduct disorder (CD) has been associated with deficits in the use of punishment to guide reinforcement learning (RL) and decision making. This may explain the poorly...
OBJECTIVE
Conduct disorder (CD) has been associated with deficits in the use of punishment to guide reinforcement learning (RL) and decision making. This may explain the poorly planned and often impulsive antisocial and aggressive behavior in affected youths. Here, we used a computational modeling approach to examine differences in RL abilities between CD youths and typically developing controls (TDCs). Specifically, we tested 2 competing hypotheses that RL deficits in CD reflect either reward dominance (also known as reward hypersensitivity) or punishment insensitivity (also known as punishment hyposensitivity).
METHOD
The study included 92 CD youths and 130 TDCs (aged 9-18 years, 48% girls) who completed a probabilistic RL task with reward, punishment, and neutral contingencies. Using computational modeling, we investigated the extent to which the 2 groups differed in their learning abilities to obtain reward and/or to avoid punishment.
RESULTS
RL model comparisons showed that a model with separate learning rates per contingency explained behavioral performance best. Importantly, CD youths showed lower learning rates than TDCs specifically for punishment, whereas learning rates for reward and neutral contingencies did not differ. Moreover, callous-unemotional (CU) traits did not correlate with learning rates in CD.
CONCLUSION
CD youths have a highly selective impairment in probabilistic punishment learning, regardless of their CU traits, whereas reward learning appears to be intact. In summary, our data suggest punishment insensitivity rather than reward dominance in CD. Clinically, the use of punishment-based intervention techniques to achieve effective discipline in patients with CD may be a less helpful strategy than reward-based techniques.
Topics: Female; Adolescent; Humans; Male; Conduct Disorder; Punishment; Learning; Reward; Aggression
PubMed: 37414274
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2023.05.032 -
Proceedings. Biological Sciences Nov 2021Economic experiments have suggested that cooperative humans will altruistically match local levels of cooperation (conditional cooperation) and pay to punish...
Economic experiments have suggested that cooperative humans will altruistically match local levels of cooperation (conditional cooperation) and pay to punish non-cooperators (altruistic punishment). Evolutionary models have suggested that if altruists punish non-altruists this could favour the evolution of costly helping behaviours (cooperation) among strangers. An often-key requirement is that helping behaviours and punishing behaviours form one single conjoined trait (strong reciprocity). Previous economics experiments have provided support for the hypothesis that punishment and cooperation form one conjoined, altruistically motivated, trait. However, such a conjoined trait may be evolutionarily unstable, and previous experiments have confounded a fear of being punished with being surrounded by cooperators, two factors that could favour cooperation. Here, we experimentally decouple the fear of punishment from a cooperative environment and allow cooperation and punishment behaviour to freely separate (420 participants). We show, that if a minority of individuals is made immune to punishment, they (i) learn to stop cooperating on average despite being surrounded by high levels of cooperation, contradicting the idea of conditional cooperation and (ii) often continue to punish, 'hypocritically', showing that cooperation and punishment do not form one, altruistically motivated, linked trait.
Topics: Altruism; Biological Evolution; Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Humans; Punishment
PubMed: 34753350
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1611 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2020Social punishment (SOP)-third-party punishment (TPP) and second-party punishment (SPP)-sanctions norm-deviant behavior. The hierarchical punishment model (HPM) posits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Social punishment (SOP)-third-party punishment (TPP) and second-party punishment (SPP)-sanctions norm-deviant behavior. The hierarchical punishment model (HPM) posits that TPP is an extension of SPP and both recruit common processes engaging large-scale domain-general brain networks. Here, we provided meta-analytic evidence to the HPM by combining the activation likelihood estimation approach with connectivity analyses and hierarchical clustering analyses. Although both forms of SOP engaged the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral anterior insula (AI), a functional differentiation also emerged with TPP preferentially engaging social cognitive regions (temporoparietal junction) and SPP affective regions (AI). Further, although both TPP and SPP recruit domain-general networks (salience, default-mode, and central-executive networks), some specificity in network organization was observed. By revealing differences and commonalities of the neural networks consistently activated by different types of SOP, our findings contribute to a better understanding of the neuropsychological mechanisms of social punishment behavior--one of the most peculiar human behaviors.
Topics: Brain; Brain Mapping; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Prefrontal Cortex; Punishment
PubMed: 32302599
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.04.011 -
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of... Jan 2023Estes (1944) reported that adding electric shock punishment to extinction hastened response suppression but that responding increased when shock was removed. This result...
Estes (1944) reported that adding electric shock punishment to extinction hastened response suppression but that responding increased when shock was removed. This result contributed to a view that reinforcement and punishment are asymmetrical processes because punishment has only indirect and temporary suppressive effects. Azrin and Holz (1966) suggested the result might be interpreted instead as shock serving as a discriminative stimulus for the absence of reinforcement. Here, to further examine potential stimulus control by punishment in a similar preparation, two groups of rats initially responded for food plus punishment and a third group for food alone. Reinforcement was then removed for all groups for the remaining three phases. With P and N denoting punishment and no punishment, the four phases for the three groups were: P-P-N-N, P-N-P-N, and N-P-N-N. We found some evidence for stimulus control by shock deliveries for group N-P-N-N (as suggested by Azrin and Holz), but all other changes in responding appeared due to introduction or removal of the aversive properties of shock. Although punishment may indeed have temporary effects under many circumstances, we argue that the view that this implies asymmetrical reinforcement and punishment processes was based on the flawed assumption that reinforcement has direct strengthening effects.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Punishment; Reinforcement, Psychology; Food
PubMed: 36354169
DOI: 10.1002/jeab.805 -
Journal of Personality Disorders Aug 2021The authors compared self-reported and behavioral responses to reward and punishment in individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or avoidant...
The authors compared self-reported and behavioral responses to reward and punishment in individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or avoidant personality disorder (APD) relative to a healthy comparison (HC) group. As predicted, self-reported sensitivity to reward was significantly higher in the BPD group than in the APD and HC groups. Also as predicted, self-reported sensitivity to punishment was significantly elevated in both disordered groups but significantly higher in APD than in BPD. These hypothesized patterns were also evident in responses to behavioral tasks: Participants with BPD made more errors of commission and fewer errors of omission than HC participants on a passive avoidance learning task, and participants with APD showed greater reactivity to losses than other participants on a probabilistic reversal learning task. Results help characterize differences between these two disorders.
Topics: Borderline Personality Disorder; Humans; Personality Disorders; Punishment; Reward
PubMed: 32163026
DOI: 10.1521/pedi_2020_34_475 -
Psychological Science May 2022Across four experiments with U.S.-based online participants ( = 1,495 adults), I found that paying people to engage in moralistic punishment reduces their willingness to...
Across four experiments with U.S.-based online participants ( = 1,495 adults), I found that paying people to engage in moralistic punishment reduces their willingness to do so. In an economic game with real stakes, providing a monetary bonus for engaging in third-party punishment of unfair offers nearly cut participants' willingness to do so in half. In judgments of hypothetical transgressions, participants viewed punishers who accepted payment as having worse character and rated the punishers' punitive actions as less morally acceptable. Willingness to engage in punishment was restored if participants were offered large enough payments or were told that punishment accompanied by payment still signals moral virtue. Data were consistent with a signal-corruption mechanism whereby payment interferes with the prosocial signal that moralistic punishment provides about a punisher's motives. These findings have implications for the cultural evolution of punishment and suggest that understanding perpetrators' sociomoral incentives is essential to implementing conflict-reduction policies.
Topics: Adult; Character; Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Morals; Motivation; Punishment
PubMed: 35486472
DOI: 10.1177/09567976211054786 -
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics :... 2023Low-income women and, disproportionately low-income women of color seeking reproductive and pregnancy care are increasingly subject to what this article terms carceral...
Low-income women and, disproportionately low-income women of color seeking reproductive and pregnancy care are increasingly subject to what this article terms carceral care - care compromised by its' proximity to punishment systems. This article identifies the legal and health care practice mechanisms leading to carceral care and proposes solutions designed to stop criminalization at the bedside.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Punishment; Reproductive Health; Vulnerable Populations
PubMed: 38088628
DOI: 10.1017/jme.2023.91 -
International Journal of... Jul 2022Third-party punishment plays a crucial role in fairness norm enforcement. The present study investigated how punishment cost would affect third-parties' behavioral and...
Third-party punishment plays a crucial role in fairness norm enforcement. The present study investigated how punishment cost would affect third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness using a modified Third-Party Dictator Game and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants acted as third-parties and decided how many monetary units (MUs) to invest to punish norm violations in two punishment cost contexts. Participants' every MU investment reduced dictators' payoff by 6 MUs in the low punishment cost context and 3 MUs in the high one. Participants' invested MUs reflected the cost they would like to pay to punish dictators while dictators' reduced MUs represented the amount of punishment they received. Behavioral results showed participants' fairness ratings were not affected by punishment cost. However, punishment amount decreased in the high punishment cost context where participants invested more MUs and spent more time for decision-making. Neurally, left anterior insula (AI) and bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) showed stronger responses to unfair relative to fair allocations in both contexts. Moreover, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) was more active during unfair allocations in the high punishment cost context than in the low one and the difference of dACC activity between these two conditions was positively correlated with the difference of reaction times. Overall, the present study demonstrated that punishment cost would not affect people's fairness perception but increase the conflicts between norm enforcement and self-interest. The decision for punishment was the outcome of integrating fairness and economic considerations.
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Punishment; Reaction Time
PubMed: 35405147
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.04.003