Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2003 Jul;80(1):1–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-1

Punishment in human choice: direct or competitive suppression?

Thomas S Critchfield 1, Elliott M Paletz 1, Kenneth R MacAleese 1, M Christopher Newland 1
PMCID: PMC1284944  PMID: 13677606

Abstract

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.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (210.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baum W. M. Choice, changeover, and travel. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jul;38(1):35–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):71–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlson C. L., Tamm L. Responsiveness of children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder to reward and response cost: differential impact on performance and motivation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Feb;68(1):73–83. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.1.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. DINSMOOR J. A. Punishment. I. The avoidance hypothesis. Psychol Rev. 1954 Jan;61(1):34–46. doi: 10.1037/h0062725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davison M. Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):47–61. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison M., Nevin J. Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):439–482. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Deluty M. Z. Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):75–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Deluty M. Z., Church R. M. Time-allocation matching between punishing situations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):191–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Farley J., Fantino E. The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):37–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Farley J. Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test of two models. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 May;33(3):311–326. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gehring William J., Willoughby Adrian R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science. 2002 Mar 22;295(5563):2279–2282. doi: 10.1126/science.1066893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gershoff Elizabeth Thompson. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2002 Jul;128(4):539–579. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jackson K., Hackenberg T. D. Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jul;66(1):29–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Landon Jason, Davison Michael, Elliffe Douglas. Concurrent schedules: short- and long-term effects of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 May;77(3):257–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lerman Dorothea C., Vorndran Christina M. On the status of knowledge for using punishment implications for treating behavior disorders. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002 Winter;35(4):431–464. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Madden G., Perone M. Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):303–318. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McAdie T. M., Foster T. M., Temple W. Concurrent schedules: Quantifying the aversiveness of noise. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):37–55. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rescorla R. A., Solomon R. L. Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychol Rev. 1967 May;74(3):151–182. doi: 10.1037/h0024475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Stubbs D. A., Pliskoff S. S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):887–895. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Taylor S. E. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1991 Jul;110(1):67–85. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. de Villiers P. A. Toward a quantitative theory of punishment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jan;33(1):15–25. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES