Positive or Negative Impact of Punishment - Research Paper Example

? Punishment Research Paper Institute Punishment Human behavior is complex and is affected by a variety of factors, which could be inherent or environmental. There are multiple stimuli in the environment which can act as precursors to behavior; they can be positive or negative and might lead to strengthening or weakening a behavioral pattern. When a stimulus is presented to reduce the chances of the recurrence of a particular behaviour that stimulus is regarded as a punishment. Punishment and Negative Reinforcement Punishment is oft times confused with Negative reinforcement due to the use of aversive stimulation by both; although inter-related but both are two distinct concepts. Both punishment and negative reinforcement utilize aversive stimulation but the effect administered by both is not only distinctly different but also opposite (Snowman, McCown & Biehler, 2009). Negative reinforcement is referred to the removal of a negative stimulus to strengthen a behavior or increase the frequency of the response (allpsych, 2013). For example if a child is constantly nagged by his mother for throwing her dirty clothes on the floor; when the child picks up the clothes and puts them in the laundry room the nagging stops which is the removal of a negative stimulus. The removal of the negative stimulus is pleasant for the child and will encourage the behavior of the child to place the dirty clothes in the laundry. Negative reinforcement involves reinforcement of a behavior by removing something negative resulting from it, thus strengthening of the behavior; whereas punishment involves infliction of some negative reinforcement or stimulus to reduce a recurring behavior thus weakening it (Snowman, McCown & Biehler, 2009). Definition of Punishment Primarily punishment is an operant conditioning concept. Instrumental conditioning caters punishment as a significant factor in lowering the probability of the recurrence of a particular response (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). As defined by Operant psychologists, punishment refers to the presentation or administration of an aversive stimulus after a behavior occurs; with the aversive stimulus aimed at reducing the tendency and frequency with which the behavior occurs (Snowman, McCown & Biehler, 2009). Weseley & McEntarffer refer to Punishment as any unpleasant consequence that when administered, affects behavior by making it less likely to occur (2010). Punishment is any stimulus or consequence that is aimed at a particular behavior and tries to reduce its recurrence frequency, when administered. The negative stimulus is intended to make the behavior become associated with the undesirable consequence, thus leading to its discouragement and avoidance. For example scolding from parents when the child misbehaves, or when the teacher makes a child write 300 times that ‘I will not ridicule my class mate’, are forms of punishments aimed reducing unwanted or unacceptable behavior. Basically, it is the unpleasantness of the negative reinforcement or aversive stimulus that is avoided and in turn leads to the avoiding of the behavior leading to the unpleasant stimulus. Punishers Sometimes the consequences or events that result from the behavior decrease the chances that the behavior will occur in the future; such events or consequences are referred to as punishers (UIOWA, 1998). Punishers are defined by the effects that they demonstrate on behavior, and can vary from person to person, situation or environment (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). For example, when a child’s mother rebukes him at throwing stuff, the child stops it, thus making the rebuke a punisher. But at times the punisher can actually encourage behavior; as if a child is starved for attention and throwing stuff gains him that; may it be of any kind like a rebuke, than the child might actually be encouraged to throw stuff. Thus the effects that a particular stimulus is having will determine it as a punisher. Punishers might be positive or negative. A positive punisher is an unpleasant or aversive event which follows a particular behavior; and a negative punisher is the aversive or unpleasant event or consequence which is removed following a particular behavior; both lead to generating an operant response (UIOWA, 1998; Coon & Mitterer, 2010). B. F. Skinner and Punishment Burrhus Frederic Skinner was the pioneer of operant conditioning and studied the effects that reinforcement has for operant behavior. Skinner believed that behavior could be manipulated by manipulating the consequences the behavior generates; with punishment having the tendency to reduce the chances that a behavior will recur in future (Naour, 2009). Skinner invented a skinner box in which he administered the principles of operant conditioning on pigeons. The presenting of food acted as reinforcement for the pigeon in response for pressing the lever or pecking the specific disc. Skinner believed that apart from positive and negative reinforcement punishment was also significant when the frequency of a particular behavior needs to be reduced or altogether eliminated (Weseley & McEntarffer, 2010). According to Skinner, although punishment was opposite to reinforcement in arrangement but not effects; and empirically it needed to be investigated to determine its effects (Hilgard, 1948). Skinner also believed that the effects of punishment were emotional (Hilgard, 1948). Edward L. Thorndike and Punishment Thorndike’s work in punishment and reward resulted from his work with animals, and as he turned towards the role that motivation plays in learning; he became convinced that the behavior was determined by its consequences (Hilgard, 1948). In his Law of Effect Thorndike stated that the administration of reward or punishment determined the strengthening or weakening of a learned behavior; under the positive law of effect, reward lead to the learning of a behavior, were as the negative law of effect proposed that punishment produced unlearning of a behavior (Boe & Church, 1968). But later on in a truncated law of effect he came to deduce that the effects of reward and punishment are not equal and opposite, rather reward is more important in strengthening behavior as compared to punishment (Hilgard, 1948). Although later on Thorndike refuted the law of effect and came to propagate the Skeletal Response Hypothesis (Boe & Church, 1968). Albert Bandura and Punishment Albert Bandura was a pioneer in Social-Cognitive theory and presented the concept of vicarious punishment. He believed that behavior can be modeled and changed by observing models and the consequences their behaviors generate (Carter, Seifert & Seifert, 2012), e.g. if a sibling is punished by the mother for misbehaving with the father, the other children also refrain from misbehaving with the father. Bandura believed that imitation plays a very significant role in the learning of children and they learn a lot by observing their environment. When the behavior of an individual changes due to witnessing (observing) a model being punished for the same behavior that is being exhibited by him, vicarious punishment is said to have occurred (Carter, Seifert & Seifert, 2012). Types of Punishment According to the nature of stimulus and its administration Punishment can be classified into two types. Positive Punishment Positive punishment, numerically written as Sp +, occurs when as a consequence; an aversive or unpleasant stimulus is inflicted or administered; aiming to reduce undesirable behavior (Naour, 2009). For example the scolding or spanking a child receives as a result of misbehaving is positive punishment. Corporal punishment is also a form of positive punishment. Negative Punishment Sp- or negative punishment occurs when a stimulus which is a source of pleasantness and is desired to be retained is removed as a consequence of undesirable behavior (Naour, 2009). For example when fine is implemented as a result of parking the car at a no parking slot, it is known as negative punishment for the punishment will lead to paying of money. Authenticity of Punishment Punishment is only said to have been achieved when a marked reduction in frequency of the undesirable behavior is seen, if the undesirable behavior is not reduced it will not be considered a punishment in operant perspective (Snowman, McCown & Biehler, 2009). Effectiveness of Punishment In order to be effective, punishment must follow certain factors. The three factors making punishment effective are timeliness, consistency and its intensity (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Timing of Punishment For effectiveness the punishment must be well timed. Developing a cause and effect relationship between undesirable behavior and punishment makes it effective. After the undesired behavior has occurred and is followed by the punishment, it makes the purpose of the punishment evident and effective (Coon & Mitterer, 2010); and inturn would lead to the avoidance of the cause that resulted in causing the punishment. Punishment works best when it is applied either during the undesirable behavior or right after it, e.g. if a child is throwing toys then he should be scolded right after or during the misbehavior, otherwise the punishment will not be effective. If the punishment occurred long after the behavior had ceased the punishment will be useless and would not impact the behavior (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Consistency of Punishment Consistency means that every time the undesirable behavior occurs the punishment should be inflected, inflecting punishment in an inconsistent manner makes it ineffective (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). For example if the child is once punished for throwing toys he should be punished every time the behavior occurs, to emphasize the point of punishment. In a study Keating and Brock (2010) found that consistency effect was dominant and increased when the behavior was negative and was effected by the consistency of the behavior. Intensity of Punishment The severe the punishment, highly unlikely it is that the behavior will see a repetition. For example if a child is being stopped from touching the flame does not listen until his hand burns, will likely never repeat even going near the flame. Mild punishment can serve as a behavior suppressant but is not as effective as severe punishment (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Purposes of Punishment Punishment is aimed at changing or reducing any behavior that is not desirable by the infliction of any unpleasant or averse stimulus. Punishment serves the following purposes. Prevention The basic purpose that is mostly attributed to punishment is that it serves to prevent behaviors which are not acceptable. Deterrence is expected to be achieved by implementing punishment, and punishment is devised and implemented in a way to maximize the deterrence effect (Robinson, 2007). Bentham who was the founder of Deterrence theory believed that it was the principal aim of punishment; and that when punishment is inflicted unwanted and unacceptable behavior is deterred, but also that if the punishment exceeded in intensity to the crime or offence it would inflict far more damage than do good (cited in Allen, 2004). Protection of Society Bentham believed that punishment serves to protect the society as it is not inflicted as a result of anger or vengeance against the offender rather it is aimed at the protection and safety of society; and to ensure that crime did not go unpunished for according to him a crime left unpunished opens the door for further criminal activity (cited in Allen, 2004). Punishment Theories based in Retribution argue that punishment need not serve any purpose other than punishing the misdemeanor. Iosopher Immanuel Kant argued that when a criminal is judicially punished, the punishment should not be aimed at deriving any good or out come from the punishment; rather it should only be administered on the criminal as a result of the crime and offence that has been committed (cited in Allen, 2004). He believes that when an individual commits a crime against the society he should be punished for such behavior. Berg (2011) also believes that at times the culprit or offender is simply at the unconscious level in need of the punishment being inflicted and there is no other reason for his behavior. Reformation Reform or rehabilitation is another purpose served by punishment. By the infliction of punishment, it is aimed that rehabilitation will result and there will be awareness that particular behavior for which the punishment arose is wrong and condemnable and will not recur (Allen, 2004). Punishment when observed by others; is believed to bring along with it the recognition that a particular behavior is unacceptable and should not be repeated. Masclet, Noussair & Villeval (2012) found that efficiency levels towards social good of individuals actually increase when faced with the threat of being punished. Downsides of Punishment As no two people are same, in the same way no two people react in the same way to any given stimulus like punishment. It is not necessary that punishment should always serve above stated purposes, at times it can lead to a few downsides as well. Reinforcing Unacceptable Behavior Sometimes punishment can also lead to reinforcing an unacceptable behavior. For example a child who craves attention of his parents, misbehaves with them, as a result he gets rebuked or even yelled at, but the child counts it as attention from his parents and might continue such misbehavior in the future to gain attention (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Hatred and Resentment Children can easily learn to associate positive and negative stimuli to people, it can become the case that children start hating and resenting people and situations associated with punishment (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). That is why it is not advisable for teachers to use aversive punishment as it can lead to the children easily hating, fearing or resenting them. Anger and Aggressiveness Anger and aggressiveness can also result from punishment. As anger is a known response to frustration and embarrassment; a punishment tends to generate either one or both, thus leads to aggressive behavior by children towards the punishment as well as the punisher (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Ohene, Ireland, McNeely & Borowsky established in study that children who were found to be engaged in violent, bullying and victimizing behavior were subjected to corporal punishment at home; used by parents to discipline them (2006). Escape and Avoidance Learning Punishment also tends to trigger escape and avoidance learning in children and elders as well. Escape learning involves making a response towards the unpleasant stimulus and finally it can lead to avoidance learning in which one learns to avoid the unpleasant stimulus altogether (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). Implementation in Practical Life/Society Punishment is implemented in many aspect and fields of social life to control unwanted and unhealthy behavior patterns and encourage healthy behaviors as normative in society. Punishment sees daily implementation in multiple fields: Teaching Criminal law and Justice International Law and Justice Government sectors and Departments References Allpsych. (2013). Learning Theory and Behavioral Psychology. Reinforcement. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on 11 Feb. 2013 from http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html Allen, R. (2004). Divine Punishment as a Problem in Theodicy. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on 11 Feb. 2013 from http://www.kton.demon.co.uk/punishment.htm Berg, C. (2011). The Psychology of Punishment. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 20/3, 295-313. Boe, E.E. & Church, R.M. (1968). Punishment: Issues & Experiments. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft. Carter, K., Seifert, C. M. & Seifert, C. (2012). Learn Psychology. Burlington : Jones & Bartlett Learning. Coon, D. & Mitterer, J.O. (2010). Psychology: A Journey (4th edition). Beverly: Wadsworth Publishing. Hilgard, E. R. (1948). Theories of learning (2nd edition). New York: Keating, J. P. & Brock, T. C. (2012). The effects of prior reward and punishment on subsequent reward and punishment: Guilt versus consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34/3, 327-333. Masclet, D., Noussair, C.N. & Villeval M-C. (2012). Threat and Punishment In Public Good Experiments. Economic Inquiry, 10, 1465-7295. Naour, P. (2009). E. O. Wilson and B.F. Skinner. New York : Springer. Ohene, S., Ireland, M., McNeely, C. & Borowsky, I. W. (2006). Parent’s Use of Physical Punishment Increases Violent Behavior among Youth. Pediatrics, 117, 441-447. Robinson, P.H. (2007). How Psychology is Changing the Punishment Theory Debate. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 07-01. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on 11 Feb. 2013 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=956130 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.956130Reward and Punishment debate. filebox.vt.edu/users/dstrater/RewardsPunishmentDebate.pdf Snowman, J., McCown, R. R. & Biehler, R. (2011). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Beverly: Wadsworth Publishing. Weseley, A. J. & McEntarffer, R. (2011). Barron’s AP Psychology (4th edition). Barron's Educational Series. UIOWA. 1998. Punishment. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved on 11 Feb. 2013 from http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/wasserman/glossary/punishment.html Read More