what is presentation punishment

Presentation Punishment and Removal Punishment

Examples include spanking, dirty looks, and being yelled at. An example of presentation punishment: Melissa throws a fit when she has to go to bed, and her mom spanks her in order to stop her from crying. The next time Melissa is sent to bed, she might not cry because she doesn’t want to get spanked.

Removal punishment is the removal of a previously existing stimulus in response to a behavior. Removal can mean the loss of privilege or freedom (grounding…).

For instance, Bob keeps making fun of his brother, so his mom takes away his nintendo. The next time Bob thinks he wants to make fun of his brother, he might decide not to in order to avoid the removal punishment.

Others are Reading

• Print Article

People Who Read This Also Read:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove You\'re Human * nine + 7 =

The use of unpleasant or displeasing stimuli to reduce the reoccurrence of a particular behavior by causing an individual to avoid the behavior in the future.

• Stumbleupon
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org

You must be logged in to post a comment.

New membership are not allowed.

• Our Mission
• Section A: Philosophical Underpinnings
• Section B: Concepts and Principles
• Section C: Measurement, Data Display, and Interpretation
• Section D: Experimental Design
• Section E: Ethics
• Section F: Behavior Assessment
• Section G: Behavior Change Procedures
• Section H: Selecting and Implementing Interventions
• Section I: Personnel Supervision and Management
• Section A: Behaviorism and Philosophical Foundations
• Section E: Ethical and Professional Issues
• Section G: Behavior-Change Procedures
• Downloadable Products
• Grad School Review Study Course
• Continuing Education Courses
• Free Practitioner Resources
• Misc. Study Resources
• Section A (Philosophical Underpinnings) Quiz
• Section B (Concepts and Principles) Quiz
• Section C (Measurement, Data Display, and Interpretation) Quiz
• Section D (Experimental Design) Quiz
• Section F (Behavior Assessment) Quiz
• Section G (Behavior Change Procedures) Quiz

B-6: Define and provide examples of positive and negative punishment contingencies ©

Want this as a downloadable pdf click here.

  Target Terms: Positive Punishment, Negative Punishment 

Positive Punishment 

Definition : The presentation of a stimulus (punishment) follows a response, which then results in a decrease in the future frequency of the behavior.  

Example in an everyday context: Your cat jumps up onto the counter which they are not supposed to do. You spray your cat with water from a spray bottle and say, “No!” You never see your cat jump up onto the counter again. The introduction of the spray bottle and saying “no” immediately following the behavior of jumping up on the counter resulted in a decrease in that behavior. 

Example in clinical context : During an art activity, a client becomes aggressive toward a staff member on the unit. The staff member physically restrains the client and takes them to the seclusion room. The presentation of the restraint and seclusion procedure decreased the future frequency of the client engaging in aggression during art time, which indicates that restraint/seclusion functioned as punishment.

Example in supervision context: A supervisor conducts an observation of a teacher in their classroom. The supervisor tells the teacher that their instructional methods were “horrible” and heavily criticized their performance. The teacher no longer uses those instructional methods. The presentation of the verbal reprimand decreased the future frequency of the teacher using those instructional methods. 

Why it matters: Positive punishment should be used as a last resort (i.e., reinforcement-based interventions have been or are likely to be ineffective ) when designing intervention and treatment. It is extremely important to understand that punishment may yield to unwanted side effects, such as avoidance of the person delivering punishment, as well as emotional and aggressive responding beyond what was previously seen. It is also important to be thoroughly familiar with federal and state laws regarding the use of aversives, restraints, and seclusion procedures.

Negative Punishment 

Definition : The removal of a stimulus (punishment) follows a response, which then results in a decrease in the future frequency of the behavior.  

Example in everyday context: You are at a restaurant by yourself and eating at a table. You get up to use the restroom. While you are gone, your server removes your plate of food. You return from the restroom to find that your plate of food is gone. In the future, you will be less likely to leave your food before you are done. 

Example in clinical context : A client really likes country music and is permitted to listen to it during leisure time. The client is working on keeping their hands in a respectful place (away from their crotch) when in common areas of the milieu. Staff members turn off the music (remove stimulus) when the client puts their hands on their crotch, which decreases the frequency of that behavior in the future.

Why it matters: Some considerations regarding positive punishment also apply to negative punishment. One additional consideration when using negative punishment is that the client should also have plenty of opportunities to earn reinforcers, because otherwise it can become relatively easy to “take things away” until there is nothing left to lose.

Click here for a free quiz on Section B content!

Share this:.

• WordPress.org
• Documentation
• Learn WordPress
• Members Newsfeed

What is a Presentation Punishment?

• Behavior Management

This is the act of using unpalatable stimuli to decrease the frequent occurrence of a behavior. This causes such an individual to not want to engage in such behaviors to avoid the consequence in the future. This is adding something to the mix that’ll lead to an unpleasant consequence. Using a presentation punishment might be beneficial in particular circumstances, but it’s just one part of the equation. Guiding the kids toward more appropriate, alternative behaviors is also needed.

All actions have consequences, and presentation punishment can only be a natural consequence of a particular action. For instance, if kids touch a hot oven, they’ll burn their hands. If they consume whipped cream that has spoiled as they hid it below their bed, they’ll have a stomachache. While these experiences are unpleasant, they serve as important teaching moments. Just as one would, kids may be inclined to modify their behavior to keep away from the consequence. When selecting a punishment, parents should consider punishing the behavior, not the kid.

Some examples of common presentation punishments include:

Writing: This method is often utilized in schools. The kids are obligated to write an essay on their behavior or write the same sentence many times.

Grabbing or hand slapping: This might instinctively occur at the moment. The parents might lightly slap a kid’s hand, reaching for a container of boiling water on the oven, or who’s pulling a sibling’s hair. The parents may forcefully pull or grab a kid who’s about to encounter traffic.

Chores: Many parents use chores as a method of punishment. A kid who smears all over the table or scribbles on the wall might be asked to clean it up or carry out other household tasks.

Rules: Few individuals crave more rules. Incorporating additional rules may be the incentive to modify behavior for the kid who frequently misbehaves.

According to a 2016 review of 50 years of research, the more the parents spank kids, the more likely they’re to disobey them. It might increase aggression and antisocial behavior. It might also contribute to mental and cognitive health problems. When it comes to hitting with a ruler, spanking, or other types of physical punishment, they aren’t recommended. Children are pretty good at discovering loopholes. They tend to discover equally undesired behaviors unless parents teach them alternative ones.

Positive punishment is when the parents add a consequence to undesired behavior to make it less attractive. An example of this is adding more household tasks to the list when the kids neglect their responsibilities. The objective is to motivate the kids to manage their daily chores to avoid a growing list.

It’s important to note that positive punishment is different from positive reinforcement. Positive punishment adds an unwanted consequence following an undesirable behavior. Positive reinforcement is providing a reward when the kids behave well. If parents give the kids an allowance for doing particular chores, that’s positive reinforcement. The objective is to improve the probability of continuing good behavior. These strategies can help the kids develop associations between behaviors and their consequences when used together.

Related Articles

Perfectionism in students can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it…

Separation anxiety is a common challenge faced by teachers, particularly in younger…

Mystery and intrigue aren't just for detective novels – they're also fantastic…

Pedagogue is a social media network where educators can learn and grow. It's a safe space where they can share advice, strategies, tools, hacks, resources, etc., and work together to improve their teaching skills and the academic performance of the students in their charge.

If you want to collaborate with educators from around the globe, facilitate remote learning, etc., sign up for a free account today and start making connections.

Pedagogue is Free Now, and Free Forever!

• New? Start Here
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Registration

Don't you have an account? Register Now! it's really simple and you can start enjoying all the benefits!

We just sent you an Email. Please Open it up to activate your account.

I allow this website to collect and store submitted data.

What Is Extortion? Punishment, Types And Meaning

Published: Jul 31, 2024, 9:40am

Table of Contents

What is extortion, types of extortion, extortion vs. blackmail, extortion: state-by-state differences, legal defenses against extortion charges, punishments for extortion, extortion statutes, frequently asked questions (faqs) about extortion.

Extortion is a criminal offense that is usually classified as a property crime. It involves obtaining any items of value, such as money or property, through threats or force.

Extortion is illegal under state statutes across the country. Federal law also prohibits extorting behaviors that impact interstate or foreign commerce.

This guide will explain the offense, common penalties and defenses against the crime.

Extortion is a crime in which a defendant uses force or threats to:

• force a victim to give up something of value
• force a victim to perform an official act the victim has no legal obligation to perform
• force a victim to consent to performing an official act or giving something of value

You may be guilty of this crime simply for intending to force a victim to do any of these things, even if they do not do them.

For example, if you threaten that you will kidnap someone’s child if they don’t give you money, you could still be found guilty of extortion even if they didn’t provide you with a payment.

Legal Definition

The federal government prohibits extortion involving interstate commerce or foreign commerce through a law called the Hobbs Act, while each state has its own statute defining the crime and imposing penalties.

While the law can vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally, the elements of the offense include:

• obtaining, or attempting to obtain, property or other valuable items from someone else or causing, or trying to cause, someone else to perform an official act
• inducing the desired behavior through the wrongful use of force or fear or by pretending you have an official right to force them to act. This can include threats against the individual, their business, their family or their reputation, such as threatening to accuse them of a crime.

The penalty is often determined based on the value of the extorted property. Depending on the value, the offense could be either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Meaning of Extortion

The meaning of extortion is simple. Defendants commit extortion if they engage in threatening behavior or use force to make someone do an official act or give them something valuable. This can include threats against the victim or threats to harm the victim’s friends, family or business.

This offense can take different forms. Here are some different types of illegal extorting behavior.

Blackmail can sometimes be prosecuted under extortion statutes or as a separate offense.

It involves a threat to reveal private or sensitive information, a threat to falsely accuse someone of a crime or a threat to report someone’s involvement in a crime. The blackmailer says they will release this damaging information if the victim doesn’t perform some action or provide something of value.

Cyberextortion

Cyberextortion can involve using ransomware to encrypt a victim’s files and refuse to release them until the victim pays a ransom. Criminals often target big businesses with these schemes.

Protection involves promising to prevent or protect someone from harm in exchange for receiving valuable items. The promise carries the implicit threat that harm will befall the victim if protection isn’t purchased. An example would be if the leader of a street gang promises to protect a business from becoming a gang target if the owner gives them a percentage of profits.

Blackmail is sometimes treated as a form of extortion and is sometimes treated as a separate offense.

The key distinguishing feature is that blackmail involves a threat to reveal sensitive or damaging information or to make false accusations of criminal activity or wrongdoing. This threat is used to convince someone to provide something of value or take a specific action. Extortion uses threats of violence to accomplish the same purpose.

State laws can differ in their definition of extortion and the penalties imposed for the crime. Let’s look at some examples.

Virginia defines the offense as doing any of the following to extort money, property or other items of value:

• threatening injury to the character, person, or property of another
• accusing someone of an offense
• threatening to report someone as being illegally in the United States
• destroying, hiding, confiscating or withholding anyone’s immigration documents or government IDs (or threatening to do so)

Engaging in these wrongful behaviors is a class five felony.

In West Virginia, on the other hand, extortion is defined as engaging in any of the following behaviors to obtain anything of value:

• threatening injury to the character, person or property of another person or their spouse or child
• threatening to accuse someone of a criminal offense

If the extortion works and the victim provides something of value, the defendant who engaged in the threats is guilty of a felony in West Virginia. If the victim does not provide something of value and the defendant fails in the extortion, the defendant would be convicted of a misdemeanor.

Because the law is so varied, it is important to speak with a local criminal defense attorney if you have been accused of extortion.

A defendant accused of this crime could raise many possible defenses, including the following.

Insufficient Evidence

A prosecutor must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, you cannot be convicted.

Mistake of Fact

If you can show the police or prosecutors made an error, you shouldn’t be convicted.

Lack of Intent

This crime is an intent crime. A defendant must have engaged in threatening behavior with the goal of extorting something from the victim. If a defendant shows that their goal wasn’t to threaten to convince the victim to provide valuable items or to take certain actions, then they should not be found guilty of extortion.

Punishments for extortion vary by state and can be impacted by the value of the items extorted. The crime could be a misdemeanor offense or a felony, and penalties could include:

• victim restitution
• community service

The U.S. government prohibits extortion affecting foreign or interstate commerce in the Hobbs Act . The act is often used to prosecute street crimes, criminals, public corruption and corruption involving members of labor unions.

Individual states have their statutes within their penal codes. A local criminal defense attorney can provide insight into what laws apply to prohibit this crime in your jurisdiction.

What are threats of extortion?

Any threat against an individual or against that person’s family, reputation or business could potentially be considered extortion if the goal of the threat is to convince the victim to take some type of action they aren’t obligated to or to provide money or any other items of value.

What is an example of extortion?

An example of extortion would be a criminal gang leader telling a store owner they must pay protection to avoid becoming a target of gang violence. The key elements of extortion include a threat to the victim or the victim’s family, business or reputation to compel the victim to take some action, including providing money or property.

Is extortion ever legal?

It is never legal to use threats of harm against a person, their reputation or their property to try to force them to act in a certain way or to force them to provide items of value to you. The specifics of the crime vary by state, however—in some cases, you could be charged with a misdemeanor and in others, you could face felony charges.

• New York City Personal Injury Lawyers
• Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers
• Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
• Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyers
• Chicago Personal Injury Lawyers
• Dallas Personal Injury Lawyers
• Los Angeles Car Accident Lawyers
• Philadelphia Car Accident Lawyers
• NYC Car Accident Lawyers
• Houston Car Accident Lawyers
• Atlanta Car Accident Lawyers
• Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
• Los Angeles Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
• Phoenix Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
• How to File for Divorce
• Divorce Papers & Forms
• How Much Does A Divorce Cost?
• What Is A Divorce Settlement Agreement?
• What Is An Uncontested Divorce?
• Legal Separation Vs. Divorce
• How Does Alimony Work?
• What Is A Prenup?
• Blood Alcohol Level Chart
• First Offense DUI
• Second Offense DUI
• California DUI Laws
• How Much Does A DUI Cost
• What Happens When You Get A DUI?
• DUI Resulting In Death
• DWI Vs. DUI
• OWI Vs. DUI
• Open Container Law
• Implied Consent Law
• 3M Earplug Lawsuit Update
• Roundup Lawsuit Update
• Paraquat Lawsuit Update
• Mirena IUD Lawsuit Update
• Talcum Powder Lawsuit Update
• Juul Lawsuit Update
• Essure Lawsuit Update
• Paragard Lawsuit Update

What Is An Arraignment Hearing? 2024 Guide

What Is Insurance Fraud? Legal Definition And Basics

What Is Perjury? Definition, Elements And Examples

Best Criminal Defense Lawyers Arlington, TX Of 2024

Best Criminal Defense Lawyers Albuquerque, NM Of 2024

What Is Petty Theft? Punishment, Types And Meaning

Christy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has appeared on Forbes, CNN Underscored Money, Investopedia, Credit Karma, The Balance, USA Today, and Yahoo Finance, among others.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Changing Behavior Through Reinforcement and Punishment: Operant Conditioning

Learning objectives.

• Outline the principles of operant conditioning.
• Explain how learning can be shaped through the use of reinforcement schedules and secondary reinforcers.

In classical conditioning the organism learns to associate new stimuli with natural, biological responses such as salivation or fear. The organism does not learn something new but rather begins to perform in an existing behavior in the presence of a new signal. Operant conditioning , on the other hand, is learning that occurs based on the consequences of behavior and can involve the learning of new actions. Operant conditioning occurs when a dog rolls over on command because it has been praised for doing so in the past, when a schoolroom bully threatens his classmates because doing so allows him to get his way, and when a child gets good grades because her parents threaten to punish her if she doesn’t. In operant conditioning the organism learns from the consequences of its own actions.

How Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior: The Research of Thorndike and Skinner

Psychologist Edward L. Thorndike (1874–1949) was the first scientist to systematically study operant conditioning. In his research Thorndike (1898) observed cats who had been placed in a “puzzle box” from which they tried to escape ( Note 7.21 “Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box” ). At first the cats scratched, bit, and swatted haphazardly, without any idea of how to get out. But eventually, and accidentally, they pressed the lever that opened the door and exited to their prize, a scrap of fish. The next time the cat was constrained within the box it attempted fewer of the ineffective responses before carrying out the successful escape, and after several trials the cat learned to almost immediately make the correct response.

Observing these changes in the cats’ behavior led Thorndike to develop his law of effect , the principle that responses that create a typically pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a similar situation, whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again in the situation (Thorndike, 1911). The essence of the law of effect is that successful responses, because they are pleasurable, are “stamped in” by experience and thus occur more frequently. Unsuccessful responses, which produce unpleasant experiences, are “stamped out” and subsequently occur less frequently.

Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box

(click to see video)

When Thorndike placed his cats in a puzzle box, he found that they learned to engage in the important escape behavior faster after each trial. Thorndike described the learning that follows reinforcement in terms of the law of effect.

The influential behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a more complete set of principles to explain operant conditioning. Skinner created specially designed environments known as operant chambers (usually called Skinner boxes ) to systemically study learning. A Skinner box (operant chamber) is a structure that is big enough to fit a rodent or bird and that contains a bar or key that the organism can press or peck to release food or water. It also contains a device to record the animal’s responses .

The most basic of Skinner’s experiments was quite similar to Thorndike’s research with cats. A rat placed in the chamber reacted as one might expect, scurrying about the box and sniffing and clawing at the floor and walls. Eventually the rat chanced upon a lever, which it pressed to release pellets of food. The next time around, the rat took a little less time to press the lever, and on successive trials, the time it took to press the lever became shorter and shorter. Soon the rat was pressing the lever as fast as it could eat the food that appeared. As predicted by the law of effect, the rat had learned to repeat the action that brought about the food and cease the actions that did not.

Skinner studied, in detail, how animals changed their behavior through reinforcement and punishment, and he developed terms that explained the processes of operant learning ( Table 7.1 “How Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior” ). Skinner used the term reinforcer to refer to any event that strengthens or increases the likelihood of a behavior and the term punisher to refer to any event that weakens or decreases the likelihood of a behavior . And he used the terms positive and negative to refer to whether a reinforcement was presented or removed, respectively. Thus positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something pleasant after the response and negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something unpleasant . For example, giving a child praise for completing his homework represents positive reinforcement, whereas taking aspirin to reduced the pain of a headache represents negative reinforcement. In both cases, the reinforcement makes it more likely that behavior will occur again in the future.

Figure 7.6 Rat in a Skinner Box

B. F. Skinner used a Skinner box to study operant learning. The box contains a bar or key that the organism can press to receive food and water, and a device that records the organism’s responses.

Andreas1 – Skinner box – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Table 7.1 How Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior

Reinforcement, either positive or negative, works by increasing the likelihood of a behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, refers to any event that weakens or reduces the likelihood of a behavior . Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response , whereas negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something pleasant . A child who is grounded after fighting with a sibling (positive punishment) or who loses out on the opportunity to go to recess after getting a poor grade (negative punishment) is less likely to repeat these behaviors.

Although the distinction between reinforcement (which increases behavior) and punishment (which decreases it) is usually clear, in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a reinforcer is positive or negative. On a hot day a cool breeze could be seen as a positive reinforcer (because it brings in cool air) or a negative reinforcer (because it removes hot air). In other cases, reinforcement can be both positive and negative. One may smoke a cigarette both because it brings pleasure (positive reinforcement) and because it eliminates the craving for nicotine (negative reinforcement).

It is also important to note that reinforcement and punishment are not simply opposites. The use of positive reinforcement in changing behavior is almost always more effective than using punishment. This is because positive reinforcement makes the person or animal feel better, helping create a positive relationship with the person providing the reinforcement. Types of positive reinforcement that are effective in everyday life include verbal praise or approval, the awarding of status or prestige, and direct financial payment. Punishment, on the other hand, is more likely to create only temporary changes in behavior because it is based on coercion and typically creates a negative and adversarial relationship with the person providing the reinforcement. When the person who provides the punishment leaves the situation, the unwanted behavior is likely to return.

Creating Complex Behaviors Through Operant Conditioning

Perhaps you remember watching a movie or being at a show in which an animal—maybe a dog, a horse, or a dolphin—did some pretty amazing things. The trainer gave a command and the dolphin swam to the bottom of the pool, picked up a ring on its nose, jumped out of the water through a hoop in the air, dived again to the bottom of the pool, picked up another ring, and then took both of the rings to the trainer at the edge of the pool. The animal was trained to do the trick, and the principles of operant conditioning were used to train it. But these complex behaviors are a far cry from the simple stimulus-response relationships that we have considered thus far. How can reinforcement be used to create complex behaviors such as these?

One way to expand the use of operant learning is to modify the schedule on which the reinforcement is applied. To this point we have only discussed a continuous reinforcement schedule , in which the desired response is reinforced every time it occurs ; whenever the dog rolls over, for instance, it gets a biscuit. Continuous reinforcement results in relatively fast learning but also rapid extinction of the desired behavior once the reinforcer disappears. The problem is that because the organism is used to receiving the reinforcement after every behavior, the responder may give up quickly when it doesn’t appear.

Most real-world reinforcers are not continuous; they occur on a partial (or intermittent) reinforcement schedule — a schedule in which the responses are sometimes reinforced, and sometimes not . In comparison to continuous reinforcement, partial reinforcement schedules lead to slower initial learning, but they also lead to greater resistance to extinction. Because the reinforcement does not appear after every behavior, it takes longer for the learner to determine that the reward is no longer coming, and thus extinction is slower. The four types of partial reinforcement schedules are summarized in Table 7.2 “Reinforcement Schedules” .

Table 7.2 Reinforcement Schedules

Partial reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time that elapses between reinforcement (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) schedule. In a fixed-interval schedule , reinforcement occurs for the first response made after a specific amount of time has passed . For instance, on a one-minute fixed-interval schedule the animal receives a reinforcement every minute, assuming it engages in the behavior at least once during the minute. As you can see in Figure 7.7 “Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules” , animals under fixed-interval schedules tend to slow down their responding immediately after the reinforcement but then increase the behavior again as the time of the next reinforcement gets closer. (Most students study for exams the same way.) In a variable-interval schedule , the reinforcers appear on an interval schedule, but the timing is varied around the average interval, making the actual appearance of the reinforcer unpredictable . An example might be checking your e-mail: You are reinforced by receiving messages that come, on average, say every 30 minutes, but the reinforcement occurs only at random times. Interval reinforcement schedules tend to produce slow and steady rates of responding.

Figure 7.7 Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules

Schedules based on the number of responses (ratio types) induce greater response rate than do schedules based on elapsed time (interval types). Also, unpredictable schedules (variable types) produce stronger responses than do predictable schedules (fixed types).

Adapted from Kassin, S. (2003). Essentials of psychology . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Essentials of Psychology Prentice Hall Companion Website: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_kassin_essentials_1/15/3933/1006917.cw/index.html .

In a fixed-ratio schedule , a behavior is reinforced after a specific number of responses . For instance, a rat’s behavior may be reinforced after it has pressed a key 20 times, or a salesperson may receive a bonus after she has sold 10 products. As you can see in Figure 7.7 “Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules” , once the organism has learned to act in accordance with the fixed-reinforcement schedule, it will pause only briefly when reinforcement occurs before returning to a high level of responsiveness. A variable-ratio schedule provides reinforcers after a specific but average number of responses . Winning money from slot machines or on a lottery ticket are examples of reinforcement that occur on a variable-ratio schedule. For instance, a slot machine may be programmed to provide a win every 20 times the user pulls the handle, on average. As you can see in Figure 7.8 “Slot Machine” , ratio schedules tend to produce high rates of responding because reinforcement increases as the number of responses increase.

Figure 7.8 Slot Machine

Slot machines are examples of a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule.

Jeff Kubina – Slot Machine – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Complex behaviors are also created through shaping , the process of guiding an organism’s behavior to the desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired behavior . Skinner made extensive use of this procedure in his boxes. For instance, he could train a rat to press a bar two times to receive food, by first providing food when the animal moved near the bar. Then when that behavior had been learned he would begin to provide food only when the rat touched the bar. Further shaping limited the reinforcement to only when the rat pressed the bar, to when it pressed the bar and touched it a second time, and finally, to only when it pressed the bar twice. Although it can take a long time, in this way operant conditioning can create chains of behaviors that are reinforced only when they are completed.

Reinforcing animals if they correctly discriminate between similar stimuli allows scientists to test the animals’ ability to learn, and the discriminations that they can make are sometimes quite remarkable. Pigeons have been trained to distinguish between images of Charlie Brown and the other Peanuts characters (Cerella, 1980), and between different styles of music and art (Porter & Neuringer, 1984; Watanabe, Sakamoto & Wakita, 1995).

Behaviors can also be trained through the use of secondary reinforcers . Whereas a primary reinforcer includes stimuli that are naturally preferred or enjoyed by the organism, such as food, water, and relief from pain , a secondary reinforcer (sometimes called conditioned reinforcer ) is a neutral event that has become associated with a primary reinforcer through classical conditioning . An example of a secondary reinforcer would be the whistle given by an animal trainer, which has been associated over time with the primary reinforcer, food. An example of an everyday secondary reinforcer is money. We enjoy having money, not so much for the stimulus itself, but rather for the primary reinforcers (the things that money can buy) with which it is associated.

Key Takeaways

• Edward Thorndike developed the law of effect: the principle that responses that create a typically pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a similar situation, whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again in the situation.
• B. F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a set of principles to explain operant conditioning.
• Positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something that is typically pleasant after the response, whereas negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something that is typically unpleasant.
• Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something typically unpleasant after the response, whereas negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something that is typically pleasant.
• Reinforcement may be either partial or continuous. Partial reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time that elapses between reinforcements (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) schedule.
• Complex behaviors may be created through shaping, the process of guiding an organism’s behavior to the desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired behavior.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Give an example from daily life of each of the following: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment.
• Consider the reinforcement techniques that you might use to train a dog to catch and retrieve a Frisbee that you throw to it.

Watch the following two videos from current television shows. Can you determine which learning procedures are being demonstrated?

• The Office : http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/11/the-office-altoid- experiment-1499823
• The Big Bang Theory : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA96Fba-WHk

Cerella, J. (1980). The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recognition, 12 , 1–6.

Porter, D., & Neuringer, A. (1984). Music discriminations by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10 (2), 138–148;

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/animalintelligen00thor

Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ discrimination of painting by Monet and Picasso. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63 (2), 165–174.

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Positive Punishment and Operant Conditioning

Positive punishment is a concept employed in B.F. Skinner's  theory of operant conditioning . But how exactly does the positive punishment process work? The goal of any type of punishment is to decrease the behavior that it follows. Positive punishment involves presenting an unfavorable outcome or event following an undesirable behavior.

When the subject performs an unwanted action, some type of negative outcome is purposefully applied. For example, if you are training your dog to stop chewing on your favorite slippers, you may scold the animal every time you catch them gnawing on your footwear. Because the dog exhibited an unwanted behavior (chewing on your shoes), you applied an aversive outcome (giving the dog a verbal scolding).

The concept of positive punishment can be difficult to remember, especially because the name is contradictory. How can punishment be positive? The easiest way to remember this concept is to note that it involves an aversive stimulus that is added to the situation. For this reason, positive punishment is sometimes referred to as punishment by the application.

You will likely be able to notice positive punishment in your day-to-day life. For example:

• As a result of driving over the speed limit through a school zone, you get pulled over by a police officer and receive a ticket.
• As a result of your cell phone ringing in the middle of a class lecture, you are scolded by your teacher for not turning your phone off before class.
• As a result of wearing your baseball cap to class, you are reprimanded by your instructor for violating your school's dress code.

The teacher reprimanding you for breaking the dress code, the officer issuing the speeding ticket, and the teacher scolding you for not turning off are examples of aversive stimuli that are meant to decrease the behavior that they follow.

In all of the examples above, positive punishment is purposely administered by another person. However, positive punishment can also occur as a natural consequence of a behavior. Because you experienced a negative outcome as a result of your behavior, you become less likely to engage in those actions again in the future.

Spanking as Positive Punishment

While positive punishment can be effective in some situations, B.F. Skinner noted that its use must be weighed against any potential negative effects. One of the best-known examples of positive punishment is spanking, defined as striking a child across the buttocks with an open hand. According to a nationwide poll, 72% of adults reported that it was “OK to spank a child.”  

Some researchers have suggested mild, occasional spanking is not harmful, especially when used along with other forms of discipline. However, in one large 2013 meta-analysis of previous research, psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff found that spanking was associated with poor parent-child relationships as well as with increases in antisocial behavior, delinquency, and aggressiveness. More recent studies that controlled for a variety of confounding variables also found similar results.

While positive punishment has its uses, many experts suggested that other methods of operant conditioning are often more effective for changing behaviors in the short-term and long-term.   Perhaps most importantly, many of these other methods come without the potentially negative consequences of positive punishment.

Taylor CA, Manganello JA, Lee SJ, Rice JC. Mothers' spanking of 3-year-old children and subsequent risk of children's aggressive behavior . Pediatrics. 2010;125(5):e1057-65.

Gershoff ET. Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now To Stop Hitting Our Children .  Child Dev Perspect . 2013;7(3):133‐137. doi:10.1111/cdep.12038

Sege RD, Siegel BS; COUNCIL ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT; COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH. Effective Discipline to Raise Healthy Children .  Pediatrics . 2018;142(6):e20183112. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-3112

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

You may also check your understanding of the material on the Ablongman web site. Click on the Publisher Help Site button.

Presentation of Theoretical Construct

Lecture Information : Types of Consequences

Negative Reinforcement: One of the most common mistakes concerning the different types of behaviorism's consequences is to confuse "Negative Reinforcement" with "Punishment.   Even though the term has the word "Negative" in the title, it is still a reward for the actor.  You are in fact subtracting an  annoyance from their environment.  In this way it is very much like the old mathematical rule of a "Negative" times a "Negative" is a positive.  This is a mistake that many practicing teachers make as well.

Authority Figure Intentions: The second topic of concern for any discussion of rewards and punishments from a behavioral point of view is the fact that it does not matter one wit what you, as the authority figure, intend to accomplish; it only  matters how it is taken by the receiver of the consequence.  As a teacher you can fully intend to punish a student with a huge tongue-lashing, a vein-in-the-forehead-popping tirade, only to have the students be rather amused by the outburst.  They are very likely to try and get your goat again.  In other words, you just accidentally reinforced that exact behavior that you wanted to quell. 

The opposite is also true. You can point out to the whole class how well Suzy has organized her desk to perform the project calling everybody's attention to her and her beautiful desk.  She then turns bright red in the face and slinks to the back of the with her hand over her mouth.  You have just punished her behavior.  She is now less likely be organized next time.  My point in this is that it is very, very easy to make a mistake with rewards and punishments.  You can only be sure of a success by the impact on the behavior.

Back to Lesson 8 Index

Reinforcement and Punishment

Learning objectives.

• Explain the difference between reinforcement and punishment (including positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment)
• Define shaping
• Differentiate between primary and secondary reinforcers

In discussing operant conditioning, we use several everyday words—positive, negative, reinforcement, and punishment—in a specialized manner. In operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking something away. Reinforcement means you are increasing a behavior, and punishment means you are decreasing a behavior. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, and punishment can also be positive or negative. All reinforcers (positive or negative) increase the likelihood of a behavioral response. All punishers (positive or negative) decrease the likelihood of a behavioral response. Now let’s combine these four terms: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment (Table 1).

Reinforcement

The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement , a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.

For example, you tell your five-year-old son, Jerome, that if he cleans his room, he will get a toy. Jerome quickly cleans his room because he wants a new art set. Let’s pause for a moment. Some people might say, “Why should I reward my child for doing what is expected?” But in fact we are constantly and consistently rewarded in our lives. Our paychecks are rewards, as are high grades and acceptance into our preferred school. Being praised for doing a good job and for passing a driver’s test is also a reward. Positive reinforcement as a learning tool is extremely effective. It has been found that one of the most effective ways to increase achievement in school districts with below-average reading scores was to pay the children to read. Specifically, second-grade students in Dallas were paid $2 each time they read a book and passed a short quiz about the book. The result was a significant increase in reading comprehension (Fryer, 2010). What do you think about this program? If Skinner were alive today, he would probably think this was a great idea. He was a strong proponent of using operant conditioning principles to influence students’ behavior at school. In fact, in addition to the Skinner box, he also invented what he called a teaching machine that was designed to reward small steps in learning (Skinner, 1961)—an early forerunner of computer-assisted learning. His teaching machine tested students’ knowledge as they worked through various school subjects. If students answered questions correctly, they received immediate positive reinforcement and could continue; if they answered incorrectly, they did not receive any reinforcement. The idea was that students would spend additional time studying the material to increase their chance of being reinforced the next time (Skinner, 1961).

In negative reinforcement , an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior. For example, car manufacturers use the principles of negative reinforcement in their seatbelt systems, which go “beep, beep, beep” until you fasten your seatbelt. The annoying sound stops when you exhibit the desired behavior, increasing the likelihood that you will buckle up in the future. Negative reinforcement is also used frequently in horse training. Riders apply pressure—by pulling the reins or squeezing their legs—and then remove the pressure when the horse performs the desired behavior, such as turning or speeding up. The pressure is the negative stimulus that the horse wants to remove.

Link to Learning

Watch this clip from The Big Bang Theory to see Sheldon Cooper explain the commonly confused terms of negative reinforcement and punishment.

Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms. Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment, you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class. In this case, a stimulus (the reprimand) is added in order to decrease the behavior (texting in class). In negative punishment , you remove a pleasant stimulus to decrease a behavior. For example, when a child misbehaves, a parent can take away a favorite toy. In this case, a stimulus (the toy) is removed in order to decrease the behavior.

Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your four year-old son, Brandon, hit his younger brother. You have Brandon write 50 times “I will not hit my brother” (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the hitting, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, because you spank Margot when you are angry with her for her misbehavior, she might start hitting her friends when they won’t share their toys.

While positive punishment can be effective in some cases, Skinner suggested that the use of punishment should be weighed against the possible negative effects. Today’s psychologists and parenting experts favor reinforcement over punishment—they recommend that you catch your child doing something good and reward her for it.

Make sure you understand the distinction between negative reinforcement and punishment in the following video:

You can view the transcript for “Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment” here (opens in new window) .

Still confused? Watch the following short clip for another example and explanation of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment.

You can view the transcript for “Operant Conditioning” here (opens in new window) .

In his operant conditioning experiments, Skinner often used an approach called shaping. Instead of rewarding only the target behavior, in shaping , we reward successive approximations of a target behavior. Why is shaping needed? Remember that in order for reinforcement to work, the organism must first display the behavior. Shaping is needed because it is extremely unlikely that an organism will display anything but the simplest of behaviors spontaneously. In shaping, behaviors are broken down into many small, achievable steps. The specific steps used in the process are the following: Reinforce any response that resembles the desired behavior. Then reinforce the response that more closely resembles the desired behavior. You will no longer reinforce the previously reinforced response. Next, begin to reinforce the response that even more closely resembles the desired behavior. Continue to reinforce closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior. Finally, only reinforce the desired behavior.

Shaping is often used in teaching a complex behavior or chain of behaviors. Skinner used shaping to teach pigeons not only such relatively simple behaviors as pecking a disk in a Skinner box, but also many unusual and entertaining behaviors, such as turning in circles, walking in figure eights, and even playing ping pong; the technique is commonly used by animal trainers today. An important part of shaping is stimulus discrimination. Recall Pavlov’s dogs—he trained them to respond to the tone of a bell, and not to similar tones or sounds. This discrimination is also important in operant conditioning and in shaping behavior.

Here is a brief video of Skinner’s pigeons playing ping pong.

You can view the transcript for “BF Skinner Foundation – Pigeon Ping Pong Clip” here (opens in new window) .

It’s easy to see how shaping is effective in teaching behaviors to animals, but how does shaping work with humans? Let’s consider parents whose goal is to have their child learn to clean his room. They use shaping to help him master steps toward the goal. Instead of performing the entire task, they set up these steps and reinforce each step. First, he cleans up one toy. Second, he cleans up five toys. Third, he chooses whether to pick up ten toys or put his books and clothes away. Fourth, he cleans up everything except two toys. Finally, he cleans his entire room.

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Rewards such as stickers, praise, money, toys, and more can be used to reinforce learning. Let’s go back to Skinner’s rats again. How did the rats learn to press the lever in the Skinner box? They were rewarded with food each time they pressed the lever. For animals, food would be an obvious reinforcer.

What would be a good reinforce for humans? For your daughter Sydney, it was the promise of a toy if she cleaned her room. How about Joaquin, the soccer player? If you gave Joaquin a piece of candy every time he made a goal, you would be using a primary reinforcer. Primary reinforcers are reinforcers that have innate reinforcing qualities. These kinds of reinforcers are not learned. Water, food, sleep, shelter, sex, and touch, among others, are primary reinforcers . Pleasure is also a primary reinforcer. Organisms do not lose their drive for these things. For most people, jumping in a cool lake on a very hot day would be reinforcing and the cool lake would be innately reinforcing—the water would cool the person off (a physical need), as well as provide pleasure.

A secondary reinforcer has no inherent value and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with a primary reinforcer. Praise, linked to affection, is one example of a secondary reinforcer, as when you called out “Great shot!” every time Joaquin made a goal. Another example, money, is only worth something when you can use it to buy other things—either things that satisfy basic needs (food, water, shelter—all primary reinforcers) or other secondary reinforcers. If you were on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and you had stacks of money, the money would not be useful if you could not spend it. What about the stickers on the behavior chart? They also are secondary reinforcers.

Sometimes, instead of stickers on a sticker chart, a token is used. Tokens, which are also secondary reinforcers, can then be traded in for rewards and prizes. Entire behavior management systems, known as token economies, are built around the use of these kinds of token reinforcers. Token economies have been found to be very effective at modifying behavior in a variety of settings such as schools, prisons, and mental hospitals. For example, a study by Cangi and Daly (2013) found that use of a token economy increased appropriate social behaviors and reduced inappropriate behaviors in a group of autistic school children. Autistic children tend to exhibit disruptive behaviors such as pinching and hitting. When the children in the study exhibited appropriate behavior (not hitting or pinching), they received a “quiet hands” token. When they hit or pinched, they lost a token. The children could then exchange specified amounts of tokens for minutes of playtime.

Everyday Connection: Behavior Modification in Children

Parents and teachers often use behavior modification to change a child’s behavior. Behavior modification uses the principles of operant conditioning to accomplish behavior change so that undesirable behaviors are switched for more socially acceptable ones. Some teachers and parents create a sticker chart, in which several behaviors are listed (Figure 1). Sticker charts are a form of token economies, as described in the text. Each time children perform the behavior, they get a sticker, and after a certain number of stickers, they get a prize, or reinforcer. The goal is to increase acceptable behaviors and decrease misbehavior. Remember, it is best to reinforce desired behaviors, rather than to use punishment. In the classroom, the teacher can reinforce a wide range of behaviors, from students raising their hands, to walking quietly in the hall, to turning in their homework. At home, parents might create a behavior chart that rewards children for things such as putting away toys, brushing their teeth, and helping with dinner. In order for behavior modification to be effective, the reinforcement needs to be connected with the behavior; the reinforcement must matter to the child and be done consistently.

Time-out is another popular technique used in behavior modification with children. It operates on the principle of negative punishment. When a child demonstrates an undesirable behavior, she is removed from the desirable activity at hand (Figure 2). For example, say that Sophia and her brother Mario are playing with building blocks. Sophia throws some blocks at her brother, so you give her a warning that she will go to time-out if she does it again. A few minutes later, she throws more blocks at Mario. You remove Sophia from the room for a few minutes. When she comes back, she doesn’t throw blocks.

There are several important points that you should know if you plan to implement time-out as a behavior modification technique. First, make sure the child is being removed from a desirable activity and placed in a less desirable location. If the activity is something undesirable for the child, this technique will backfire because it is more enjoyable for the child to be removed from the activity. Second, the length of the time-out is important. The general rule of thumb is one minute for each year of the child’s age. Sophia is five; therefore, she sits in a time-out for five minutes. Setting a timer helps children know how long they have to sit in time-out. Finally, as a caregiver, keep several guidelines in mind over the course of a time-out: remain calm when directing your child to time-out; ignore your child during time-out (because caregiver attention may reinforce misbehavior); and give the child a hug or a kind word when time-out is over.

Think It Over

• Explain the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment, and provide several examples of each based on your own experiences.
• Think of a behavior that you have that you would like to change. How could you use behavior modification, specifically positive reinforcement, to change your behavior? What is your positive reinforcer?

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification and adaptation, addition of Big Bang Learning example. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Operant conditioning interactive. Authored by : Jessica Traylor for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Operant Conditioning. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/6-3-operant-conditioning . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

All rights reserved content

• BF Skinner Foundation – Pigeon Ping Pong Clip. Provided by : bfskinnerfoundation. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGazyH6fQQ4 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment. Authored by : ByPass Publishing. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkbuKomPXI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Operant Conditioning. Authored by : Dr. Mindy Rutherford. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSHJbIJK9TI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

implementation of a consequence in order to increase a behavior

adding a desirable stimulus to increase a behavior

implementation of a consequence in order to decrease a behavior

adding an undesirable stimulus to stop or decrease a behavior

taking away a pleasant stimulus to decrease or stop a behavior

rewarding successive approximations toward a target behavior

has innate reinforcing qualities (e.g., food, water, shelter, sex)

has no inherent value unto itself and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with something else (e.g., money, gold stars, poker chips)

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 24 July 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Ricardo Pellón 3 &
• Per Holth 4  

37 Accesses

Differential reinforcement of other behavior ; Omission training ; Penalty (not technical) ; Response-dependent aversive stimulation ; Response-initiated delays in reinforcement ; Time-out from reinforcement

According to the American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology, punishment is a noun that refers to (1) a physically or psychologically painful, unwanted, or undesirable event or circumstance imposed as a penalty on an actual or perceived wrongdoer; (2) in operant conditioning, the process in which the relationship, or contingency, between a response and some stimulus or circumstance results in the response becoming less probable. The punishing stimulus is called a punisher.

The characterization of events or circumstances as “physically or psychologically painful” is not useful unless the observational basis for these terms is spelled out. Therefore, the standard and most widespread definition of punishment in the behavior-analytic literature refers...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Apel, A. B., & Diller, J. W. (2017). Prison as punishment: A behavior-analytic evaluation of incarceration. The Behavior Analyst, 40 (1), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0081-6 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 213–270). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Google Scholar  

Estes, W. K. (1944). An experimental study of punishment. Psychological Monographs, 57 (3), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093550 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Fantino, E. J., & Logan, C. A. (1979). The experimental analysis of behavior: A biological perspective . San Diego: Freeman.

Histed, M. H., Pasupathy, A., & Miller, E. K. (2009). Learning substrates in the primate prefrontal cortex and striatum: Sustained activity related to successful actions. Neuron, 63 (2), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.019 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment: Implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35 (4), 431–464. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431 .

Pérez-Padilla, Á., & Pellón, R. (2007). Behavioural and pharmacological specificity of the effects of drugs on punished schedule-induced polydipsia. Behavioural Pharmacology, 18 (7), 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0b013e3282f00bdb .

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity . Bungay, Suffolk: Pelican Books.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: experimental studies . New York: Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning . New York: Teachers College.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain

Ricardo Pellón

Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Pellón .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Jennifer Vonk

Department of Psychology, Oakland University Department of Psychology, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd Shackelford

Section Editor information

University of Chicago, Chicago, USA

Peggy Mason

Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States of America

Yuri Vieira Sugano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Pellón, R., Holth, P. (2021). Punishment. In: Vonk, J., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1403-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1403-1

Received : 11 May 2021

Accepted : 12 May 2021

Published : 24 July 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-47829-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-47829-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Punishment and Its Putative Fallout: A Reappraisal

In his book Coercion and Its Fallout Murray Sidman argued against the use of punishment based on concerns about its shortcomings and side effects. Among his concerns were the temporary nature of response suppression produced by punishment, the dangers of conditioned punishment, increases in escape and avoidance responses, punishment-induced aggression, and the development of countercontrol. This paper revisits Sidman’s arguments about these putative shortcomings and side effects by examining the available data. Although Sidman’s concerns are reasonable and should be considered when using any form of behavioral control, there appears to be a lack of strong empirical support for the notion that these potential problems with punishment are necessarily ubiquitous, long-lasting, or specific to punishment. We describe the need for additional research on punishment in general, and especially on its putative shortcomings and side effects. We also suggest the need for more effective formal theories of punishment that provide a principled account of how, why, and when lasting effects of punishment and its potential side effects might be expected to occur or not. In addition to being necessary for a complete account of behavior, such data and theories might contribute to improved interventions for problems of human concern.

Murray Sidman’s exceptional scientific contributions to the field of behavior analysis are widely recognized (e.g., Ahearn, 2011 ; Arntzen, 2010 ; Holth & Moore, 2010 ; Johnson et al., 2020 ; McIlvane, 2011 ). Among his many contributions, Sidman’s research has had a noteworthy impact on the understanding of aversive control (e.g., Sidman, 1953a , 1953b , 1966 , 1989 , 2000 ). Despite his extensive research in this area, Sidman firmly opposed the use of methods based on aversive control (i.e., coercion), advocating instead for the use of positive reinforcement ( Delprato, 1995 ; Sidman, 1993 , 2011 ). His opposition to the use of coercive methods was especially clear in his book Coercion and its fallout ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 ), where he referred to negative reinforcement and punishment as the two major categories of coercive control. According to Sidman (1989 / 2000 ), negative reinforcement and punishment work in a complementary manner because a stimulus punishing a response also should increase behavior removing or avoiding that stimulus (i.e., negative reinforcement; e.g., Crosbie, 1998 ). This interdependence between punishment and negative reinforcement was noted by Sidman as one disadvantage of the use of coercive control, with the other being the dangerous side effects of such practices.

It appears that Sidman’s opposition to the use of aversive control and, more specifically to the use of punishment, may have impacted how punishment is viewed and used by both basic and applied behavior analysts (e.g., Ahearn, 2011 ; Holth, 2010 ). There has been an apparent decrease in interest in studying punishment, leaving several empirical and theoretical gaps in the literature (see Critchfield & Rasmussen, 2007 ; Horner, 2002 ; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ; Lydon et al., 2015 ; Todorov, 2001 , 2011 ). However, a similar decrease has not necessarily been observed with negative reinforcement (e.g., Baron & Galizio, 2005 , 2006 ; Magoon & Critchfield, 2008 ; Sidman, 2006 ; Thompson & Iwata, 2005 ).

Although Coercion and its fallout ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 ) was focused broadly on the coercive nature of both punishment and negative reinforcement, the present paper focuses on Sidman’s concerns about the use of punishment. Sidman questioned the effectiveness of punishment in controlling behavior based on the transitory nature of the response suppression produced and he alerted his readers to the side effects of its use. Among these side effects were the dangers of conditioned punishment, an increase in escape and avoidance responses during punishment, the occurrence of punishment-induced aggression, and the development of countercontrol strategies.

Sidman’s (1989 / 2000 ) concerns are reasonable and highlight important aspects to be considered when using punishment. Despite his concerns and critiques, Sidman did not deny the relevance of punishment research and the need for a better understanding of punishment effects ( Holth, 2010 ). Accordingly, the goal of the present paper is to revisit Sidman’s arguments about the shortcomings and side effects of punishment and examine empirical data that corroborate or contradict these arguments. We hope that such a review improves our understanding of punishment and help to inform discussions about whether, when, and how punishment might be employed, and perhaps help to renew empirical and theoretical interest in punishment.

What is punishment and how does it work?

In Coercion and its fallout Sidman defines punishment as follows:

We define reinforcers, positive or negative, by their special effect on conduct; they increase the future likelihood of actions they follow. But we define punishment without appealing to any behavioral effect; punishment occurs whenever an action is followed either by a loss of positive or a gain of negative reinforcers. This definition says nothing about the effect of a punisher on the action that produces it. It says neither that punishment is the opposite of reinforcement nor that punishment reduces the future likelihood of punished actions. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 45)

This definition was first proposed by Thorndike (1932) and adopted by Skinner (1953) . According to this definition, reinforcement and punishment are assumed to be inherently different. Punishment refers to a procedure, while reinforcement is functionally defined, referring to both the procedure and a behavioral process (e.g., Holth, 2010 ; Sidman, 1993 , 2011 ).

Other underlying assumptions are included in this procedural definition of punishment. First, this definition assumes there is no symmetry between reinforcement and punishment, thus they affect behavior through different mechanisms (e.g., Carvalho Neto et al., 2017 ; Carvalho Neto & Mayer, 2011 ; Holth, 2005 ). Second, defining punishment as a procedure and not a process implies that punishment does not have a direct effect on behavior. Instead, the response suppression observed during punishment is assumed to result from other indirect processes, such as an increase in the frequency of other unpunished responses (i.e., escape and avoidance), or the occurrence of unconditioned emotional responses (e.g., freezing) that are incompatible with the punished response ( Hineline, 1984 ; Schuster & Rachlin, 1968 ). Thus, punishment is only effective in reducing behavior to the extent that it increases the frequency of competing unpunished responses ( Dinsmoor, 1954 ; 1955 ; Hineline, 1984 ; Solomon, 1964 ).

A different definition of punishment was proposed by Azrin and Holz (1966) , suggesting that punishment is a consequence (e.g., removal of an appetitive stimulus or presentation of an aversive stimulus) that reduces the probability of the behavior that produces it. This definition has been the most commonly used and accepted one (e.g., Hineline & Rosales-Ruiz, 2013 ; Holth, 2010 ; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ; Mallpress et al. 2012 ; see Sidman, 2006 for discussion). Here, punishment is defined functionally, similar to reinforcement, and punishment and reinforcement are considered symmetrical processes having similar effects on behavior, but in opposite directions ( Hake & Azrin, 1965 ). Furthermore, the Azrin and Holz (1966) definition does not attribute the effects of punishment to any observable or hypothesized competing response ( Carvalho Neto et al., 2017 ; Holth, 2005 ).

The widespread use and acceptance of the Azrin and Holz (1966) definition, however, is not an indication of this definition being superior to the one defended by Sidman (1989 / 2000 , 2006 , 1993 , 2011 ). Although the functional definition has the advantage of acknowledging punishment as a behavioral process similar to reinforcement, attaching the definition of punishment to its effects on behavior is not necessarily indicative of any conceptual improvement ( Holth, 2005 , 2010 ). Functional definitions have been criticized for their circularity because the function of a stimulus is identified by its effects on behavior while simultaneously being used to at least implicitly explain the occurrence of that behavior ( Holth, 2010 ; Sidman, 2006 ; Staddon, 1993 ). Conversely, concerns about the functional definition proposed by Azrin and Holz (1966) are also not an indication that the procedural definition defended by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) is superior. Defining punishment as a mere procedure that impacts behavior indirectly disregards it as a valid method of behavior control and can mistakenly confound the effects of punishment with the effects of negative reinforcement. However, the decision about the appropriate definition of punishment (and reinforcement) requires a deeper discussion about the conceptual framework upon which behavior analysis is built (e.g., Gallistel, 2005 ; Gallistel et al., 2001 ; Killeen, 1988 ; Shahan, 2017 ; Staddon, 1993 ; Timberlake, 1988 ), a discussion we will not take up here.

One potential way to place both the definition of punishment and the potential mechanisms by which it has its effects on firmer footing is via consideration of formal quantitative models of punishment. To be of any utility, such models must make explicit how punishment has its effects. The two different definitions of punishment described above roughly correspond to two separate quantitative models of punishment based on the matching law ( Herrnstein, 1961 , 1970 ). According to the competitive-suppression model ( Deluty, 1976 ), punishers delivered for one option decrease allocation to that option by increasing the relative value of a competing option such that,

where B 1 and B 2 are the response rates, R 1 and R 2 are the reinforcement rates, and P 1 and P 2 are the punishment rates for each of two options. By suggesting that the effects of punishment are mediated indirectly by its effects on other responses, such a model is conceptually akin to Sidman’s definition noted above. In contrast, the direct-suppression model ( de Villiers, 1980 ; Farley, 1980 ) suggests that reinforcement and punishment are symmetrical processes and that punishers for one option decrease allocation to that option by directly decreasing the relative value of the punished option in a manner that it is opposite in direction (i.e., sign) from reinforcement such that

where all terms are as in Equation 1 .

Direct comparisons of these models have provided overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of the direct-suppression model ( de Villiers, 1980 ; Farley, 1980 ; Farley & Fantino, 1978 ). Thus, punishment might best be understood and defined as having a direct suppressive effect on behavior that is the opposite of reinforcement, as suggested by Azrin and Holz (1966) . However, both models sometimes fail to provide accurate quantitative predictions about the effects of punishment on behavior (e.g., Critchfield et al., 2003 ; Rasmussen & Newland, 2008 ). In addition, Klapes et al. (2018) have shown that modern versions of both models based on the generalized matching law ( Baum, 1974 ) perform no better quantitatively with punishment data than simpler versions of the generalized matching law that completely omit any role for punishment. Thus, despite the superiority of the direct-suppression model in many circumstances, something remains amiss with its quantitative foundations. Resolving whatever it is that remains amiss with the direct-suppression model could have important implications for the definition of punishment and for our understanding of how it has its effects.

In short, there is still no clear or easy answer to the question of how punishment should be defined or how it works. There remains considerable room for debate about both the appropriate definition and the best conceptual/theoretical account of punishment. Our view is that an increase in empirical and theoretical effort directed at generating a more complete quantitative account of punishment is required before a robust and truly acceptable definition of punishment will emerge. Nevertheless, an inability to provide an acceptable definition or clear understanding of how punishment works does not prevent assessing the putative shortcomings and side effects of the use of punishment with which Sidman was concerned.

Putative Shortcomings and Side Effects of Punishment

Response suppression is temporary.

A shortcoming of the use of punishment-based interventions discussed by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) is the fact that response suppression produced by punishment is transitory. According to Sidman:

After a period of suppression, the activity gradually recovers; the animal ends up pressing the lever as rapidly as ever, even though it still gets shocked every time. […] The longer the animal stopped, the hungrier it became; the positive reinforcement for pressing the lever eventually became more powerful than the punishment. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 72–73).

Indeed, response recovery after continuous exposure to constant punishment is a robust finding and has been demonstrated with different species such as pigeons (e.g., Azrin, 1960a ), rats (e.g., Storms et al., 1963 ), squirrel monkeys (e.g., McMillan, 1967 ), and humans (e.g., Azrin, 1958 ); with different punishing stimuli such as shocks (e.g., Rachlin, 1966 ), bar slap (e.g., Skinner, 1938 ), and noise (e.g., Azrin, 1958 ); and with different punishment intensities (e.g., Azrin, 1960a ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ; Rachlin, 1966 ). Studies showing response recovery during punishment have reliably demonstrated that response suppression is greater when punishment is first introduced, and response rates typically recover following continuous exposure to a constant punishment intensity (e.g., Azrin, 1959a , 1960a , 1960b ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ; Hake et al., 1967 ; Rachlin, 1966 ). Furthermore, response rates typically recover to baseline levels or higher with the removal of the punishment contingency (e.g., Azrin, 1960a ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ).

Conversely, complete response suppression without response recovery during punishment or after the suspension of the punishment also has been reported (e.g., Appel, 1961 , 1963 ; Storms et al., 1962 ), suggesting that punishment can result in lasting response suppression. For example, response recovery is less likely with high punishment intensities than with low punishment intensities ( Azrin, 1958 , 1959b , 1960a ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ). Furthermore, Storms et al. (1962) demonstrated complete and persistent response suppression even when removal of the punishment contingency was followed by increases in food deprivation.

These contradictory results suggest that the degree of response suppression and the transitory effects of punishment can be impacted by other variables. Punishment intensity appears to be the main factor impacting response suppression and recovery during punishment (e.g., Azrin, 1958 , 1960a ; Azrin & Holz, 1966 ). Whenever the punishment intensity (e.g., shock voltage) is severe enough to suppress behavior completely, no response recovery is observed (e.g., Appel, 1961 , 1963 ; Storms et al., 1962 ; Hake et al., 1967 ). The degree of response suppression and recovery also differs across strains (e.g., Storms et al., 1963 ), species (e.g., Appel, 1961 , 1963 ; Azrin, 1959a , 1960a , Hake et al., 1967 ), and punishing stimuli. For example, shocks usually produce greater suppression than loud noise (e.g., Azrin, 1958 ; Azrin & Holz, 1966 ). Shocks also produce greater and faster response suppression than timeout from positive reinforcement (i.e., negative punishment; e.g., Holz et al., 1963 ; McMillan, 1967 ). Contrary to the abrupt initial suppression commonly observed with punishment by shock, studies using timeout have shown that the frequency of the punished behavior increases upon the introduction of timeout, and gradually decreases with continuous exposure to the timeout condition (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983 ; Bostow & Bailey, 1969 ; Harris, 1985 ; Holz et al., 1963 ; McMillan, 1967 ; Smith, 1981 ). Furthermore, direct comparisons have shown less response recovery and more lasting response suppression with timeout than with shocks ( McMillan, 1967 ).

Although some of the variables impacting response suppression and response recovery during punishment have been identified, it remains unclear why response recovery happens in the first place. According to Sidman (1989 / 2000 ), response recovery occurs due to competition between punishment and reinforcement. Because decreases in response rates commonly are correlated with decreases in obtained reinforcement rates, the animal gets hungrier and the value of the reinforcer overcomes the aversiveness of the punisher. Although this not an unreasonable account of response recovery, it is limited for three reasons. First, the amount of hunger is typically controlled in such experiments with supplemental food after the session. Second, this explanation does not account for the results from Storms et al. (1962) showing no response recovery with increased deprivation; nor does it explain instances of a lack of recovery after the suspension of punishment (e.g., Appel, 1961 , 1963 ; Hake et al., 1967 ) or the difference in the degree of recovery between different punishing stimuli (e.g., McMillan, 1967 ). Lastly, if changes in response suppression during punishment are to be explained by the competition between reinforcement and punishment, rules about how organisms make trade-offs between reinforcers and punishers are necessary. Without a quantitative description of how the values of the reinforcers and punishers change over time, this explanation remains speculative.

A potential alternative explanation for response recovery during punishment is based on habituation. Habituation is defined as a reduction in responsiveness to a stimulus following repeated or prolonged exposure to that stimulus ( Rankin et al., 2009 ; Thompson & Spencer, 1966 ). In the context of punishment, the reduction in responsiveness would refer to a decrease in the suppressive efficacy of a punishing stimulus. Studies of habituation suggest that higher rates of stimulus presentation and prolonged exposure to a constant stimulus can speed and enhance habituation to that stimulus ( McSweeney et al., 1996 ; Thompson, 2009 ). Habituation also develops faster and is more pronounced in the presence of a weaker stimulus, and rarely occurs in the presence of a strong stimulus ( Rankin et al., 2009 ; Thompson, 2009 ). Furthermore, the presentation of a new or stronger stimulus commonly results in recovery of the habituated response (i.e., dishabituation; Rankin, et al., 2009 ; Thompson, 2009 ).

The studies reviewed above share several characteristics that highlight the potential role of habituation in response recovery with punishment. First, punishment was presented at high rates (i.e., fixed ratio [FR] 1; Azrin, 1960a , 1960b ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ; Hake et al., 1967 ; Rachlin, 1966 ; Storms et al., 1963 ), which results in faster habituation. Second, response recovery was observed in the presence of weak punishment (e.g., Azrin, 1959a , 1960a , 1960b , Azrin & Holz, 1961 ), but not in the presence of intense punishment (e.g., Appel, 1963 ; Azrin, 1959b ; Hake et al., 1967 ; Storms et al., 1962 ). Third, dishabituation (i.e., recovery of the habituated response) was observed when increases in punishment intensity following response recovery resulted in resuppression of the punished response (e.g., Azrin, 1960a ; Azrin & Holz, 1961 ; Rachlin, 1966 ). Further evidence of habituation to punishment also is provided by studies showing that preexposure to the punisher or gradual increases in punishment intensity increase resistance to punishment (e.g., Banks, 1966a , 1966b , 1976 ; Baron & Antonitis, 1961 ; Campbell & Cleveland, 1977 ; Cohen, 1968 ), and by studies showing that decreases in punishment efficacy are prevented by using varied rather than constant punishers (e.g., Charlop et al., 1988 ).

The notion that habituation might impact the degree of response suppression and response recovery during punishment could provide important insights about differences in punishment effects across species and stimuli. Because habituation is an adaptive learning mechanism, the speed of habituation, and the stimuli to which organisms habituate depend on the evolutionary history of the species ( Eisenstein et al., 2001 ). Thus, different species and even different individuals within the same species can show different levels of responsiveness to the same stimulus (e.g., Biedenweg et al., 2011 ; Blumstein, 2016 ).

The idea that habituation can impact operant conditioning is not new. McSweeney and colleagues have argued that the reinforcing efficacy of a stimulus is affected by habituation to repeated presentation of that stimulus during the operant session, resulting in changes in response rates across session time (e.g., McSweeney et al., 1996 ; McSweeney & Murphy, 2009 ; McSweeney & Roll, 1998 ; McSweeney & Swindell, 2002 ). It seems reasonable that a similar process may occur during punishment. If the response recovery observed in punishment studies might result from habituation to the punisher, the transitory effects of punishment should not be considered grounds for challenging the effectiveness of punishment in general.

In conclusion, the studies reviewed above suggest that the transitory effects of punishment noted by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) are real. However, those transitory effects are likely not specific to punishment and depend on several aspects of the environment and of the contingency. This is true for all variables controlling behavior; thus, it should not be taken as an intrinsic disadvantage of punishment ( Johnston, 1972 ).

Conditioned punishment

One side effect of punishment discussed by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) was conditioned punishment and its role in the generalization of punishment effects to the environment in which punishment is delivered. According to Sidman,

Whenever we are punished, more and more elements of our environment become negative reinforcers and punishers. We come more and more under coercive control and we rely more and more on countercoercion to keep ourselves afloat. […] That is why conditioned punishment is a “toxic” side effect of punishment. Environments where we are punished become punishing themselves and we react to them as to natural punishers. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 89)

Studies of conditioned punishment have investigated the suppressive effects of stimuli associated with a punisher using two procedures: discriminated punishment and conditioned suppression ( Church et al., 1970 ). In discriminated punishment experiments, only responses in the presence of a specific stimulus are followed by the punisher. Thus, the punisher is contingent on both the response and the antecedent stimulus (i.e., discriminative stimulus; Church et al., 1970 ). In conditioned suppression experiments, a neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned aversive stimulus (i.e., punisher), thus acquiring aversive properties through classical conditioning. The suppressive effect of the conditioned stimulus is demonstrated when response-independent presentation of the conditioned stimulus results in suppression of an operant response that was never previously followed by the unconditioned aversive stimulus.

A discriminative stimulus associated with the delivery of response-dependent punishment can function as a conditioned punisher for other responses. For example, Davidson (1970) trained rats on a multiple schedule of reinforcement and showed that the discriminative stimulus associated with the punished component functioned both as a punisher and as a negative reinforcer when presented dependent on responding during the unpunished component. Using a similar procedure, Weisman (1975) demonstrated that the discriminative stimulus for the punished component functioned as a punisher, but only while it continued to be associated with the delivery of the unconditioned punisher. In a related study, Hake and Azrin (1965) demonstrated that the conditioned stimulus from a conditioned suppression procedure also can function as a conditioned punisher when presented dependent on a response. Pigeons were trained on a conditioned suppression procedure where a tone was paired with shock. When the tone was used as a conditioned punisher delivered contingent on key pecking, suppression of key pecking was then observed. The suppressive efficacy of the tone was a function of the intensity of the shock with which the tone was paired. Furthermore, the tone was only effective as a conditioned punisher while the tone-shock contingency was maintained. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that discriminative or conditioned stimuli associated with punishment can in fact become punishers themselves. However, these stimuli are only effective in suppressing operant responses while the contingency between the stimuli and the original punisher is maintained.

Generalization of the effects of conditioned punishers also has been investigated. For example, Honig and Silvka (1964) reinforced key pecking in the presence of seven different key colors and superimposed response-dependent punishment on the schedule of reinforcement for one of the colors. Punishment effects generalized to all colors initially; however, a U-shaped inhibitory generalization gradient developed with continued training. Furthermore, response rates returned to baseline levels on the removal of the punishment contingency (see Honig, 1966 and Carman, 1972 for similar findings). Brush et al. (1952) also trained pigeons to key peck in the presence of a discriminative stimulus and reported similar generalization gradients for pigeons tested after reinforcement only and for pigeons tested after key pecking was suppressed by punishment in the presence of the same discriminative stimulus. These results suggest that the generalization process for punishment is similar to that of positive reinforcement.

The suppressive effects of conditioned punishers have been compared between conditioned suppression and discriminated punishment procedures. For example, Orme-Johnson and Yarczower (1974) trained separate groups of pigeons on each procedure and reported greater response suppression with conditioned suppression than discriminated punishment. Furthermore, conditioned suppression effects generalized to stimuli associated with the unpunished baseline, while discriminated punishment effects did not (see Hunt & Brady, 1955 and Hoffman & Fleshler, 1965 for similar results; but see Hoffman & Fleshler, 1961 and Church et al., 1970 for different results). Additionally, greater resistance to extinction of punishment ( Hoffman & Fleshler, 1965 ; Hunt & Brady, 1955 ) and greater emotional responses ( Hunt & Brady, 1955 ) also have been demonstrated with conditioned suppression than with discriminated punishment.

These findings suggest that the suppressive effects of a conditioned punisher are directly related to the contingency between the conditioned and unconditioned punishers. Once this contingency is broken, the conditioned punisher loses its punishing efficacy. Furthermore, the contingency between the response and the delivery of the punisher (conditioned or unconditioned) also seems to play an important role in the degree of response suppression and generalization of the suppressive effects. This suggests that the “aversiveness” of the punishing stimulus, as measured by the degree of response suppression and emotional responses produced by the punisher, is impacted by the organism’s control of the punisher.

In conclusion, the studies reviewed above support Sidman’s argument that stimuli correlated with presentation of unconditioned punishers can become punishers themselves. However, those stimuli are only effective as conditioned punishers while correlated with unconditioned punishers, and do not necessarily acquire lasting effects of the unconditioned punishers with which they are associated. Furthermore, the generalizability of conditioned punishment effects is reduced with continued training, contradicting Sidman’s argument that more exposure to punishment results in greater generalization of response suppression. Thus, it appears that these concerns of Sidman are not supported by empirical evidence. Instead, the “toxicity” of the conditioned punishment side effect seems to be greatly impacted by the animal’s control of the punishment delivery and the information conditioned punishers provide about the contingency.

Furthermore, contrary to Sidman’s concerns about conditioned punishment, in applied settings the establishment of conditioned punishers commonly is described as a desirable side effect of punishment (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983 ; Johnston, 1972 ; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ). However, few applied studies have addressed these effects. There is some evidence that verbal cues paired with the delivery of an unconditioned punisher can acquire conditioned punishing functions (e.g., Dorsey et al., 1980 ; Lovaas & Simmons, 1969 ), though it remains unclear under which conditions those conditioned punishers result in response suppression during treatment. For example, verbal warnings are usually presented before the imposition of response-dependent timeout from positive reinforcement (e.g., Harris, 1985 ; MacDonough & Forehand, 1973 ; Wilson & Lyman, 1983 ). However, the effectiveness of verbal warning or other stimuli associated with the onset of the timeout as a conditioned punisher has yet to be investigated ( Brantner & Doherty, 1983 ; Everett et al., 2010 ; Harris, 1985 ).

Applied studies also have provided evidence that response suppression obtained with punishment-based interventions, such as timeout, can generalize to other nontarget undesirable behavior (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983 ; Firestone, 1976 ; Lovaas & Simmons, 1969 ). Again, such effects are generally described as a desirable side effect. However, generalization of the suppressive effects of punishment to other, desirable behavior also has been reported (e.g., Lerman et al., 2003 ; Mayhew & Harris, 1978 ). These mixed results have prevented a clear understanding of the conditions under which desirable and undesirable generalization of punishment effects occur in applied settings, thus highlighting the importance of more research on this potential side effect of punishment (e.g., Lydon et al., 2015 ; Matson & Taras, 1989 ).

Increase in escape and avoidance behavior

Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) considered punishment and negative reinforcement as complementary processes, suggesting that the difference between them relies on the temporal relation between the presentation of the aversive stimulus (i.e., negative reinforcer or punisher) and the occurrence of behavior. Given the intrinsic connection between punishment and negative reinforcement, the second side effect of punishment (and conditioned punishment) discussed by Sidman was an increase in escape and avoidance behavior. According to Sidman,

Punishers, whether things, places, events, or people, suppress actions that produce them but also generate escape as one of their side effects. A victim of punishment who can turn it off, or can somehow get out of the situation, will do so. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 93)

The notion that punishment increases escape and avoidance is directly related to the procedural definition of punishment discussed above ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 ) suggesting that punishment only has an indirect effect on behavior by increasing the frequency of competing responses ( Carvalho Neto et al., 2017 ; Church, 1963 ; Holth, 2005 ). This competing response hypothesis states that behavior suppression observed during punishment is due to 1) unconditioned emotional responses elicited by the punisher that compete with the punished response (e.g., Estes, 1944 , Estes & Skinner, 1941 ), or 2) increases in the frequency of operant responses that are negatively reinforced by the removal of the punisher or conditioned punishers (e.g., Dinsmoor, 1954 , 1955 , 1977 , 2001 ; Millenson & MacMillan, 1975 ; Sidman, 1993 , 2000 ).

The contribution of unconditioned emotional responses to response suppression during punishment has been demonstrated by studies on conditioned suppression and by experiments using response-independent punishers. Given the lack of dependency between the response and the punisher in both procedures, the obtained response suppression is attributed to emotional responses elicited by the punisher that compete with the positively reinforced operant behavior (e.g., Annau & Kamin, 1961 ; Estes & Skinner, 1941 ; Hunt & Brady, 1955 ; Orme-Johnson & Yarczower, 1974 ). This competing emotional response hypothesis has been challenged by studies showing greater response suppression with response-dependent than response-independent punishment (e.g., Azrin, 1956 ; Camp et al., 1967 ; Schuster & Rachlin, 1968 ). If unconditioned emotional responses were responsible for response suppression during punishment, equal suppression should occur in both conditions. The greater suppression obtained with response-dependent punishment thus suggests that punishment has a suppressive effect regardless of the occurrence of emotional responses ( Church, 1963 ; Schuster & Rachlin, 1968 ).

The hypothesis that response suppression during punishment results from increases in competing operant responses (i.e., avoidance and escape) also has been extensively investigated. For example, Millenson and McMillan (1975) arranged reinforcement dependent on 10 s of bar holding with rats and showed that the average hold time was greater than 10 s during baseline but considerably shorter than 10 s when punishment was superimposed on the schedule of reinforcement. Failures to complete the response requirement (i.e., 10-s hold) during punishment were interpreted as avoidance responses that prevented the delivery of punishment.

Furthermore, Azrin, Hake, et al. (1965) and Arbuckle and Lattal (1987) investigated the effects of the availability of a specific avoidance response on behavior suppression during punishment with pigeons. In Azrin, Hake, et al., an FR1 punishment schedule was superimposed on different schedules of reinforcement for pecking the main key. Each peck on a second key (i.e., avoidance response) started an interval during which responses on the main key were not punished. Increases in punishment intensity increased the frequency of avoidance responses, and avoidance responses were maintained even when responding on the avoidance key decreased obtained reinforcement rates. Furthermore, more resistance to punishment occurred when the avoidance response was unavailable than when it was available. However, because the avoidance response allowed the animals to continue responding on the main key in the absence of punishment, increases in avoidance responding did not decrease the frequency of main-key responses, but only decreased the frequency of main-key responses that were punished. Thus, the relation between punishment and negative reinforcement in that study was not entirely clear.

Arbuckle and Lattal (1987) also superimposed punishment on a schedule of key-peck reinforcement. During some of the punishment conditions, the punisher could be avoided if responses were spaced by a minimum inter-response time (IRT). Response rates and shock rates were lower in all conditions in which the IRT avoidance contingency was in effect than in an initial no-avoidance condition. Furthermore, response rates decreased as the length of the IRT required to avoid shocks increased. In a subsequent re-exposure to the no-avoidance condition, response rates decreased even further than during any of the IRT conditions, and shock rates remained relatively low. These results suggest that the effects of a punisher might be augmented indirectly by negative reinforcement, however, they do require interpreting the absence of responding (i.e., pausing) as an increase in active avoidance. Obviously, such an interpretation introduces some potential interpretive issues related to differentiating response rate decreases resulting from direct effects of punishment versus indirect effects of increases in pauses between the punished response.

Taken together, these findings suggest that negative reinforcement might play a role in response suppression during punishment, supporting the complementary relation between punishment and negative reinforcement. However, none of the studies reviewed above provided evidence that increases in escape and avoidance responses are necessary for punishment to effectively suppress behavior, as proposed by the competing response hypothesis (see Dunham, 1971 ; Rachlin & Herrnstein, 1969 ; Schuster & Rachlin, 1968 for discussion), unless one considers the lack of responding as an avoidance response. The competing response hypothesis also has been challenged by empirical data demonstrating suppression during punishment without increases in specific avoidance responses. For example, Leitenberg (1965a , 1967 ) compared the effects of punishment in the presence and absence of an escape response with rats and reported greater suppression when punishment was delivered in the absence of an escape response than when an escape response was available.

In application, the occurrence of escape and avoidance responses can be one of the main reasons for the inefficacy of punishment-based interventions ( Nelson & Rutherford, 1983 ; Wilson & Lyman, 1983 ). For example, timeout from positive reinforcement has been shown ineffective in reducing problem behavior when escaping from timeout is possible or other sources of reinforcement are available during the timeout (e.g., Solnick et al., 1977 ). Thus, establishing contingencies to prevent escape, such as blocking or return to timeout are commonly recommended (e.g., Donaldson & Vollmer; 2011 ; Quetsch et al., 2015 ; Riley et al., 2017 ).

Therefore, although the relation between punishment and negative reinforcement discussed by Sidman seems clear, there is not enough empirical evidence to confirm that punishment increases competing responses, nor that such an increase in competing responses is the mechanism underlying response suppression during punishment. Instead, the findings above suggest that the consequence of a response can impact how organisms allocate their behavior across other available options. Superimposing punishment on one of many available responses may impact how an organism weighs the consequences associated with all options and how it allocates its time across options (e.g., Baum, 1973 , 2010 , 2012 ; Baum & Rachlin, 1969 ). Thus, the relation between punishment and competing responses would be better understood by acknowledging that punishment may have both a suppressive effect on the punished response and a facilitative effect on other options (e.g., Carvalho Neto et al., 2017 ; Spradlin, 2002 ). Therefore, changes in response allocation during punishment would be more appropriately described as resulting from changes in the relative values of the options. Indeed, because they are based on the matching law, both quantitative models of punishment described above necessarily suggest that punishment impacts the relative values of both punished and non-punished options.

Punishment-induced aggression

Another side effect of punishment discussed by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) was an increase in aggressive behavior following the presentation of a punisher. As he stated,

Coercive practices can bring counterattack against individuals and against the groups […] It is easy to see how aggression could become a new way of life for the formerly subservient. The very success of the counteraggression can set into motion a self-perpetuating buildup of an aggressive way of life. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 211–212)

Sidman’s concern was not only with punishment-induced aggression, but also with the persistence and perpetuation of such responses. This was considered an especially dangerous side effect because the aggression may be misplaced toward an organism that is not the one imposing the punishment and trigger aggressive reactions in the attacked organism.

In fact, several studies have demonstrated that presentations of response-independent aversive stimuli do result in aggressive responses in the form of attack toward another animal (e.g., Azrin et al., 1963 ; Myer & Benninger, 1966 ; Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ) or toward inanimate objects (e.g., Azrin, 1970 ; Azrin et al., 1964 ). Attack and fight responses have been demonstrated with response-independent presentation of different aversive stimuli, such as shocks (e.g., Azrin et al., 1967 ; Ulrich et al., 1964 ), preheated floor (e.g., Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ), and tail pinches (e.g., Azrin, Hake & Hutchinson, 1965 ). Furthermore, this effect has been replicated with several species, such as rats (e.g., Myer & Benninger, 1966 ; Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ), mice ( Azrin, 1964 ; Ulrich, 1966 ), squirrel monkeys (e.g., Azrin et al., 1963 ), hamsters (e.g., Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ), and cats (e.g., Ulrich et al., 1964 ).

Studies investigating aggressive responses with the presentation of response-independent aversive stimuli have shown that the probability of such responses depends on both environmental and organismic variables ( Azrin, 1964 ; Ulrich, 1966 ). Among the environmental variables, the frequency of aggression increases with the frequency ( Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ), intensity ( Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ; Ulrich et al., 1964 ), and duration ( Azrin, Ulrich, et al., 1964 ) of the aversive stimulus. However, this function is reversed at more extreme intensity and duration of shocks, and aggressive responses seem to decrease when shocks are severe enough to produce escape and physical reactions ( Azrin, 1964 ; Azrin et al., 1964 ; Azrin, Ulrich, et al., 1964 ; Ulrich, 1966 ; Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ). Aggressive responses also are more common immediately after the presentation of the aversive stimulus (e.g., Azrin et al., 1968 ; Azrin et al.,1964 ; Hutchinson et al., 1971 ); in smaller chambers where the animals were physically close compared to chambers with a larger floor area (e.g., Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ), and among food-deprived animals compared to free-fed animals (e.g., Cahoon et al., 1971 ). Among organismic variables, aggressive responses elicited by response-independent aversive stimuli vary among different strains of the same species. For example, attack responses are observed less frequently with Wistar rats than with other rat strains ( Ulrich, 1966 ; Urich & Azrin, 1962 ). Differences across species have also been reported. For example, no aggressive response is observed with guinea pigs (e.g., Azrin, 1964 ; Ulrich, 1966 ; Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ). Furthermore, pigeons and monkeys typically attack an inanimate object in the absence of another living being, although rats rarely do so ( Ulrich, 1966 ; Ulrich & Azrin, 1962 ). Variables such as castration, age, and social conditions in the home cage also have been shown to impact the frequency of aggressive responses (e.g., Hutchinson et al., 1965 ; Ulrich, 1966 ).

In applied studies using response-dependent punishment, punishment-induced aggression has been reported with physical punishment (e.g., Mayhew & Harris, 1978 ) but not with some other punishers such as timeout from positive reinforcement (e.g., Bostow & Bailey, 1969 ; Risley, 1968 ). The occurrence of other emotional responses, such as crying and temper tantrums, have been reported anecdotally with the use of seclusion timeout (e.g., Azrin & Wesolowski, 1974 ; Sachs, 1973 ). However, reductions of such emotional responses also have been reported to accompany the reduction of the problem behavior during timeout and other punishment-based interventions (e.g., Matson & Taras, 1989 ; van Oorsouw et al., 2008 ).

Although elicitation of aggression by aversive stimuli is a robust and reliable finding ( Azrin, 1964 ; Ulrich, 1966 ), the evidence just reviewed does not suggest that aggression is a necessary collateral effect of punishment. In the experiments reviewed above, the aversive stimulus was delivered response-independently, thus not meeting the definition of punishment as a procedure (i.e., presentation of an aversive stimulus following a specific response) or as a process (i.e., reduction of a response that produces an aversive stimulus).

Countercontrol

The final undesirable punishment side effect discussed by Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) was the development of countercontrol. Sidman stated that,

If punishees are confined or restricted and cannot get away, the coercion will inevitably produce one of its most prominent side effects, countercontrol. If people cannot escape or avoid, they will find another way to deflect punishments and threats of punishment; they will learn how to control their controllers. ( Sidman, 1989 / 2000 , p. 214)

Countercontrol was extensively discussed by Skinner (1953 , 1971 , 1974 ) and is defined as operant behavior in response to social aversive control that results in extinction or punishment of the punishing agent’s behavior. Countercontrol can have different topographies such as overt aggression, passive resistance, or escape from the agent imposing the punishment. Therefore, countercontrol is considered a serious and socially relevant side effect of aversive control ( Ornelas, 2018 ).

Basic research with nonhumans on countercontrol is nonexistent. According to Sidman (1989 / 2000 ), the lack of studies on countercontrol in laboratory research is a result of the highly controlled environments where such research is conducted. The isolation of the experimental setting prevents the animals from countercontrolling the experimenter. Thus, countercontrol has been discussed as an exclusively human side effect of social aversive control (e.g., Delprato, 2002 ; Mace, 1994 ; Miller, 1991 ; Sidman, 2000 ; Skinner, 1953 , 1974 ).

Instances of countercontrol with humans in different social situations have been described in the literature. Carey and Bourbon (2004 , 2006 ) described several examples of countercontrol by students observed in schools in several countries. The authors noted that some students described their behavior, such as cheating on an exam or missing class, as countercontrol against their teachers. Countercontrol has also been discussed during behavior modification as a form of resistance from the client to comply with the treatment (e.g., Mace, 1994 ; Miller, 1991 ; Seay et al., 1984 ). Examples of countercontrol have also been described in experimental studies with humans. For example, Boren and Colman (1970) , using a token economy with psychiatric patients, reported that when patients were fined a few tokens for staying in bed instead of attending a morning meeting, attendance dropped from 70% to 0%. During informal observations, the authors mentioned hearing some of the participants ordering others not to attend the morning meetings as a form of rebellion.

However, in all the situations described above, countercontrol was used as a post hoc explanation for unexpected conduct observed during investigation of other topics. Most work on countercontrol has been conceptual, and the variables that impact the probability, frequency, and topography of countercontrol have not been thoroughly investigated empirically. It is also unknown how countercontrol may affect the behavior of the punishing agent and the probability of punishment in the future ( Mace, 1994 ). To the best of our knowledge, the only experimental study attempting to evoke countercontrol was conducted by Ornelas (2018) using a simulated work environment. During the experiment, aversive verbal statements were used to evoke countercontrol from the participants. However, the results were inconclusive about the relevant variables involved in countercontrol. First, the aversive statements were given at the beginning of the experimental session and no aversive stimulus was dependent on the participant’s behavior. Thus, the procedure did not meet the definition of countercontrol as a strategy to deflect punishment and control the punishing agent. Second, the results did not show any evidence of what the experimenter considered as countercontrol by the participants. In conclusion, nearly nothing is known about this potential side effect of punishment

Conclusion and future directions

Sidman’s opposition to the use of aversive control, and more specifically to the use of punishment, was clear in his writings (e.g., Sidman, 1993 , 2000 , 2011 ). Although his concerns are reasonable and highlight important aspects to be considered when using any form of behavior control, the literature reviewed above suggests a lack of strong empirical support for the notion that these shortcomings and side effects are ubiquitous, long-lasting, or specific to punishment. The transitory nature of response suppression produced by punishment does not appear to be an inherent issue with punishment and depends on many aspects of the environment and the contingency. In addition, although stimuli associated with unconditioned punishers can indeed become punishers themselves, such effects are not indiscriminately generalized to other stimuli present and do not necessarily persist once the contingency is suspended. Similarly, increases in escape and avoidance can be observed during punishment, but the occurrence of such responses is not necessary for punishment to suppress responding. Increases in aggressive behavior in the presence of aversive stimulation have also been shown to be a reliable effect; however, it is not necessarily or exclusively a result of punishment procedures. As with conditioned punishment effects, the occurrence of punishment-induced aggression seems to be impacted by the organism’s control of the punishment delivery. Lastly, although anecdotal examples of countercontrol have been described in the literature, countercontrol has not been empirically investigated and it remains unclear when or how such behavioral strategies might develop.

The lack of undesirable side effects associated with the use of punishment has also been noted in the applied literature (e.g., Brantner & Doherty, 1983 ; Harris, 1985 ; Johnston, 1972 ; van Oorsouw et al., 2008 ). Indeed, the use of punishment-based interventions typically has been related to increases in positive behavior (e.g., Bostow & Bailey, 1969 ; Firestone, 1976 ; van Oorsouw et al., 2008 ; Risley, 1968 ). For example, Matson and Taras (1989) reviewed 382 applied studies employing different punishment procedures during interventions with individuals with developmental disabilities and concluded that the results reviewed did not provide evidence supporting the occurrence of undesirable side effects. Instead, the majority (93%) reported positive side effects during punishment interventions, such as increases in social behavior and responsiveness to the environment. Furthermore, the severity of the undesirable side effects, to the extent that they occur, was considered less harmful than the target behavior to be treated by punishment ( Matson & Taras, 1989 ).

Given the considerations above, one wonders if opposition to the use of punishment might reflect a more general cultural tendency to regard its use as inherently bad. Such a view of punishment could be one of the reasons for the apparent decline in punishment research over the years (e.g., Bland et al., 2018 ; Johnston, 1991 ). Thus, the first step to renew the interest in punishment as a scientific topic is to acknowledge that aversiveness is not intrinsic to punishment but instead is contextually dependent ( Leitenberg, 1965b ; Perone, 2003 ). As noted by Perone (2003) , the distinction between positive reinforcement and aversive control can be a matter of perspective, and every situation can be interpreted in terms of positive reinforcement or aversive control. As Sidman (1989 / 2000 ) noted, the use of deprivation to increase the efficacy of positive reinforcers might also be considered coercive. Thus, such concerns should not be taken as a reason to avoid seeking a better understanding of punishment ( Vollmer, 2002 ).

Regardless of how one feels about Sidman’s (1993 , 2000 , 2011 ) and others’ (e.g., Skinner, 1953 , 1974 ) view of punishment, punishment-based procedures are effective in reducing the behavior of several species, in both basic and applied settings (see Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 for a review). Indeed, punishment is a valuable method in the treatment of problem behavior, and is commonly used in such settings (e.g., Hagopian et al., 1998 ; Hanley et al., 2005 ; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002 ; Lydon et al., 2015 ; Matson & Taras, 1989 ; Risley, 1968 ; Thompson et al., 1999 ). However, much remains unknown about punishment and its potential side effects. These empirical and theoretical gaps emphasize the need for more research on punishment (e.g., Horner, 2002 ; Johnston, 1991 ; Todorov, 2001 , 2011 ). The potential benefits of an increased understanding of punishment and its potential side effects could be manifold.

First, an improved understanding of punishment and its putative side effects could help shine an empirical light on preconceptions about the “dangerousness” of punishment. As noted above, there is a lack of strong empirical support for many of the putative shortcomings and side effects of punishment. In cases where those side effects do occur, many questions remain unanswered. For example, it is unclear under what circumstances punishment generalizes to other stimuli present during its presentation and if punishment effects generalize with unconditioned punishers besides shock. Much also remains unknown about the interactions between punishment and reinforcement. Better understanding such interactions could improve our understanding of decision-making processes more generally by providing information about how organisms make trade-offs between different types of consequences. Understanding such trade-offs could provide important information about potential side effects of punishment. As one example, it is unknown if the availability of other sources of positive or negative reinforcement impacts the frequency of punishment-induced aggression. Lastly, the complete lack of research on countercontrol makes clear the need for additional research on this potential side effect of punishment before it is considered in arguments against the use of punishment.

Second, additional research on punishment could contribute to the development of a well-grounded quantitative theory of punishment. As discussed above, both the competitive-suppression and direct-suppression models have failed to adequately account for punishment data. Furthermore, to the extent that punishment side effects do occur, a good quantitative theory of punishment should provide a principled account of how, why, and when they occur. As just one example, response recovery is a robust and reliable phenomenon that needs to be accounted for by a quantitative model of punishment. If habituation indeed plays a role in response recovery during punishment, a theory of punishment will need to incorporate a formal account of habituation in order to predict the conditions under which recovery should be expected to occur.

Furthermore, a science of behavior cannot be complete without understanding how aversive consequences contribute to behavior control (e.g., Johnston, 1991 ; Magoon & Critchfield, 2007; Vollmer, 2002 ). Punishment is a biological, behavior-regulation mechanism critical for learning to stop engaging in maladaptive behavior (e.g., Todorov, 2011 ; Vollmer, 2002 ). Regardless of whether or not one believes that punishment should ever be a part of explicitly arranged contingencies, it will always be a part of natural ones. Thus, it is critical that punishment be effectively integrated into more general formal theories of behavior. But for that to happen, the amount of rigorous data related to punishment and its potential side effects needs to increase substantially. Not only would such data and theories be valuable in their own right, but they could also meaningfully improve applications to problems of human concern.

Finally, our call for increased empirical and theoretical work on punishment should not be misconstrued as a disregard for concerns about the use of punishment on ethical and humanitarian grounds. Nor should this call for additional research be mistaken as an argument for more widespread use of punishment-based practices. Instead, our goal in highlighting empirical and theoretical gaps in the literature is to emphasize the need for a more complete understanding of punishment and its putative pitfalls before adopting or abandoning its use.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kaitlyn Browning and Anthony Nist for their feedback on initial drafts of this paper. The preparation of this paper was supported in part by R21AA025604 (TAS) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

• Ahearn WH (2011). Sidman on Aversive Control . European Journal of Behavior Analysis , 12 ( 1 ), 327–329. 10.1080/15021149.2011.11434380 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Annau Z, & Kamin LJ (1961). The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 54 ( 4 ), 428–432. 10.1037/h0042199 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appel JB (1961). Punishment in the squirrel monkey saimiri sciurea . Science , 133 ( 3445 ), 36–36. 10.1126/science.133.3445.36 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appel JB (1963). Punishment and shock intensity . Science , 141 ( 3580 ), 528–529. 10.1126/science.141.3580.528-a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arbuckle JL, & Lattal KA (1987). A role for negative reinforcement of response omission in punishment? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 48 ( 3 ), 407–416. 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-407 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arntzen E (2010). Comments on Sidman’s “Remarks” . Behavior and Philosophy , 38 , 173–177. 10.2307/41806303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1956). Some effects of two intermittent schedules of immediate and non-immediate punishment . The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied , 42 , 3–21. 10.1080/00223980.1956.9713020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1958). Some Effects of Noise on Human Behavior . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 1 ( 2 ), 183–200. 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-183 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1959a). Punishment and recovery during fixed-ratio performance . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 2 ( 4 ), 301–305. 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-301 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1959b). A technique for delivering shock to pigeons . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 2 , 161–163. 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-161 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1960a). Effects of punishment intensity during variable-interval reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 3 , 123–142. 10.1901/jeab.1960.3-123 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1960b). Sequential effects of punishment . Science , 131 , 605–606. 10.1126/science.131.3400.605 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1964). Aggressive responses of paired animals . Paper read at Symposium on Medical Aspects of Stress Walter Reed Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH (1970). Punishment of elicited aggression . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 14 , 7–10. 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hake DF, Holz WC, & Hutchinson RR (1965). Motivational aspects of escape from punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 8 ( 1 ), 31–44. 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-31 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hake DF, & Hutchinson RR (1965). Elicitation of aggression by a physical blow . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 8 ( 1 ), 55–57. 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-55 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, & Holz WC (1961). Punishment during fixed-interval reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 4 , 343–347. 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, & Holz WC (1966). Punishment In Honig WK (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, & Hutchinson RR (1967). Conditioning of the aggressive behavior of pigeons by a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 10 ( 4 ), 395–402. 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-395 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hutchinson RR, & Hake DF (1963). Pain-induced fighting in the squirrel monkey . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 6 ( 4 ), 620 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-620 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hutchinson RR, & Hake DF (1966). Extinction-induced aggression . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 9 ( 3 ), 191–204. 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-191 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hutchinson RR, & Hake DF (1967). Attack, avoidance, and escape reactions to aversive shock . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 10 ( 2 ), 131–148. 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-131 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Hutchinson RR, & Sallery RD (1964). Pain-aggression toward inanimate objects . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 7 ( 3 ), 223–228. 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-223 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Rubin HB, & Hutchinson RR (1968). Biting attack by rats in response to aversive shock . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 11 ( 5 ), 633–639. 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-633 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, Ulrich RE, Hutchinson RR, & Norman DG (1964). Effect of shock duration on shock-induced fighting . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 7 ( 1 ), 9–11. 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azrin NH, & Wesolowski MD (1974). Theft reversal: An over-correction procedure for eliminating stealing by retarded persons . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 7 , 577–581. 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-577 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks RK (1966a). Persistence to continuous punishment following intermittent punishment training . Journal of Experimental Psychology , 71 ( 3 ), 373–377. 10.1037/h0023016 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks RK (1966b). Persistence to continuous punishment and nonreward following training with intermittent punishment and nonreward . Psychonomic Science , 5 ( 3 ), 105–106. 10.3758/BF03328303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks RK (1976). Resistance to punishment as a function of intensity and frequency of prior punishment experience . Learning and Motivation , 7 , 551–558. 10.1016/0023-9690(76)90005-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron A, & Antonitis JJ (1961). Punishment and preshock as determinants of bar-pressing behavior . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 54 ( 6 ), 716–720. 10.1037/h0040066 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron A, & Galizio M (2005). Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved? The Behavior Analyst , 28 ( 2 ), 85–98. 10.1007/BF03392107 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron A, & Galizio M (2006). The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care . The Behavior Analyst , 29 ( 1 ), 141–151. 10.1007/BF03392127 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM (1973). Time allocation and negative reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 20 ( 3 ), 313–22. 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-313 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 22 ( 1 ), 231–242. 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM (2010). Dynamics of choice: A tutorial . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 94 , 161–174. 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-161 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM (2012). Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction, and contingency . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 97 ( 1 ), 101–124. 10.1901/jeab.2012.97-101 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM, & Rachlin HC (1969). Choice as time allocation . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 12 , 861–874. 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biedenweg TA, Parsons MH, Fleming PA, & Blumstein DT (2011). Sounds scary? Lack of habituation following the presentation of novel sounds . PloS One , 6 ( 1 ), e14549 10.1371/journal.pone.0014549 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bland VJ, Cowie S, Elliffe D, & Podlesnik CA (2018). Does a negative discriminative stimulus function as a punishing consequence? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 110 ( 1 ), 87–104. 10.1002/jeab.444 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumstein DT (2016). Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas . Animal Behaviour , 120 , 255–262. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.05.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boren JJ, & Colman AD (1970). Some experiments on reinforcement principles within a psychiatric ward for delinquent soldiers . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 3 ( 1 ), 29–37. 10.1901/jaba.1970.3-29 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bostow DE, & Bailey J (1969). Modification of severe disruptive and aggressive behavior using brief timeout and reinforcement procedures . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 2 , 31–37. 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-31 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brantner JP, & Doherty MA (1983). A review of timeout: A conceptual and methodological analysis In Axelrod S, Apsche J (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 87–132). New York: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brush FR, Bush RR, Jenkins WO, John WF, & Whiting JW (1952). Stimulus generalization after extinction and punishment: an experimental study of displacement . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 47 ( 3 ), 633–640. 10.1037/h0055188 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahoon DD, Crosby RM, Dunn S, Herrin MS, Hill CC, & McGinnis M (1971). The effect of food deprivation on shock elicited aggression in rats . Psychonomic Science , 22 , 43–44. 10.3758/BF03335929 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camp DS, Raymond GA, & Church RM (1967). Temporal relationship between response and punishment . Journal of Experimental Psychology , 74 ( 1 ), 114–123. 10.1037/h0024518 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell PE, & Cleveland CT (1977). Persistence following intermittent punishment and continuous reinforcement: Between and within subjects . Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society , 9 ( 3 ), 183–185. 10.3758/BF03336968 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey TA, & Bourbon WT (2004). Countercontrol: A new look at some old problems . Intervention in School and Clinic , 40 ( 1 ), 3–9. 10.1177/10534512040400010101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carey TA, & Bourbon WT (2006). Is Countercontrol the Key to Understanding Chronic Behavior Problems? Intervention in School and Clinic , 42 ( 1 ), 5–13. 10.1177/10534512060420010201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carman JB (1972). Generalization of activity following discriminative punishment training . Psychonomic Science , 28 , 19–21. 10.3758/BF03328649 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho Neto MB, & Mayer PCM (2011). Skinner e a assimetria entre reforçamento e punição . Acta Comportamentalia , 19 , 21–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho Neto MB, Mayer PCM, & Ferreira PA (2017). Simetrias e assimetrias entre reforçamento e punição: Uma proposta taxonômica . Acta Comportamentalia , 25 ( 1 ), 73–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charlop MH, Burgio LD, Iwata BA, & Ivancic MT (1988). Stimulus variation as a means of enhancing punishment effects . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 21 ( 1 ), 89–95. 10.1901/jaba.1988.21-89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherek DR, & Pickens R (1970). Schedule-induced aggression as a function of fixed-ratio value . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 14 ( 3 ), 309–311. 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-309 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM (1963). The varied effects of punishment on behavior . Psychological Review , 70 , 369–401. 10.1037/h0046499 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church RM, Wooten CL, & Matthews TJ (1970). Discriminative punishment and the conditioned emotional response . Learning and Motivation , 1 ( 1 ), 1–17. 10.1016/0023-9690(70)90123-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen PS (1968). Punishment: the interactive effects of delay and intensity of shock . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 11 , 789–799. 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-789 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Critchfield TS, & Rasmussen ER (2007). It’s aversive to have an incomplete science of behavior . Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis , 33 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Critchfield TS, Paletz EM, Mac Aleese KR, & Newland MC (2003). Punishment in human choice: Direct or competitive suppression? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 80 , 1–27. 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosbie J (1998). Negative reinforcement and punishment In Lattal KA & Perone M (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior (p. 163–189). New York: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson RS (1970). Conditioned punishment and conditioned negative reinforcement on a multiple schedule . Psychonomic Science , 20 , 163–165. 10.3758/BF03335652 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Villers P (1980). Toward a quantitative theory of punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 33 , 15–25. 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-15 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delprato DJ (1995). Beyond Murray Sidman’s Coercion and its fallout . Psychological Records , 45 , 339–347. 10.1007/BF03395146 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delprato DJ (2002). Countercontrol in behavior analysis . The Behavior Analyst , 25 ( 2 ), 191–200. 10.1007/BF03392057 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deluty MZ (1976). Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 25 , 75–80. 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-75 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deweese J (1977). Schedule-induced biting under fixed-interval schedules of food or electric-shock presentation . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 27 ( 3 ), 419–431. 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-419 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinsmoor JA (1954). Punishment I: The avoidance hypothesis . Psychological Review , 61 , 34–46. 10.1037/h0062725 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinsmoor JA (1955). Punishment II: An interpretation of empirical findings . Psychological Review , 62 , 96–105. 10.1037/h0041258 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinsmoor JA (1977). Escape, avoidance, punishment: Where do we stand? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 28 , 83–95. 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dinsmoor JA (2001). Stimuli inevitably generated by behavior that avoids electric shock are inherently reinforcing . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 75 ( 3 ), 311–333. 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-311 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson JM, & Vollmer TR (2011). An evaluation and comparison of time-out procedures with and without release contingencies . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 44 ( 4 ), 693–705. 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorsey MF, Iwata BA, Ong P, & McSween TE (1980). Treatment of self-injurious behavior using a water mist: initial response suppression and generalization . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 13 ( 2 ), 343–353. 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunham PJ (1971). Punishment: Method and theory . Psychological Review , 78 , 58–70. 10.1037/h0030304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenstein EM, Eisenstein D, & Smith JC (2001). The evolutionary significance of habituation and sensitization across phylogeny: A behavioral homeostasis model . Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science , 36 , 251–265. 10.1007/BF02688794 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Estes WK (1944). An experimental study of punishment . Psychological Monographs , 57 , 1–40. 10.1037/h0093550 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Estes WK & Skinner BF (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety . Journal of Experimental Psychology , 29 ( 5 ), 390–400. 10.1037/h0062283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everett G, Hupp S, & Olmi D (2010). Time-out with Parents: A Descriptive Analysis of 30 Years of Research . Education and Treatment of Children , 33 ( 2 ), 235–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farley J (1980). Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test of two models . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 33 , 311–315. 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-311 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farley J, & Fantino E (1978). The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 29 , 37–60. 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-37 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Firestone P (1976). The effects and side effects of timeout on an aggressive nursery school child . Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 6 , 79–81. 10.1016/0005-7916(76)90050-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flory R (1969). Attack behavior as a function of minimum inter-food interval . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 12 ( 5 ), 825–828. 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-825 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallistel CR (2005). Deconstructing the law of effect . Games and Economic Behavior , 52 , 410–423. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallistel CR, Mark TA, King AP, & Latham PE (2001). The rat approximates an ideal detector of changes in rates of reward: implications for the law of effect . Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal behavior processes , 27 ( 4 ), 354–372. 10.1037//0097-7403.27.4.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentry WD (1968). Fixed-ratio schedule-induced aggression . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 11 ( 6 ), 813–817. 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-813 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagopian LP, Fisher WW, Sullivan MT, Acquisto J, & LeBlanc LA (1998). Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment: a summary of 21 inpatient cases . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 31 ( 2 ), 211–235. 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanley GP, Piazza CC, Fisher WW, & Maglieri KA (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 38 ( 1 ), 51–65. 10.1901/jaba.2005.6-04 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hake DF, & Azrin NH (1965). Conditioned punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 8 ( 5 ), 279–293. 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-279 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hake DF, Azrin NH, & Oxford R (1967). The effects of punishment intensity on squirrel monkeys . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 10 , 95–107. 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-95 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris KR (1985). Definitional, parametric, and procedural considerations in timeout interventions and research . Exceptional Children , 51 ( 4 ), 279–288. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 4 ( 3 ), 267–272. 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein RJ (1970). On the law of effect . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 13 , 243–266. 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hineline PN (1984). Aversive control: A separate domain? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 42 ( 3 ), 495–509. 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-495 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hineline PN, & Rosales-Ruiz J (2013). Behavior in relation to aversive events: Punishment and negative reinforcement In Madden GJ, Dube WV, Hackenberg TD, Hanley GP, & Lattal KA (Eds.), APA Handbooks in Psychology®: APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis, Vol. 1. Methods and Principles (p. 483–512). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman HS, & Fleshler M (1961). Stimulus factors in aversive controls: the generalization of conditioned suppression . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 4 ( 4 ), 371–378. 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-371 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman HS, & Fleshler M (1965). Stimulus aspects of aversive controls: the effects of response contingent shock . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 8 ( 2 ), 89–96. 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-89 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holth P (2005). Two definitions of punishment . The Behavior Analyst Today , 6 , 43–47. 10.1037/h0100049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holth P (2010). A Research Pioneer’s Wisdom: An Interview with Dr. Murray Sidman . European Journal of Behavior Analysis , 11 ( 2 ), 181–198. 10.1080/15021149.2010.11434342 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holth P, & Moore J (2010). Preface to special section: Murray Sidman’s “Remarks” . Behavior and Philosophy , 38 , 113–115. 10.2307/41806292 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holz WC, Azrin NH, & Ayllon T (1963). Elimination of behavior of mental patients by response-produced extinction . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 6 ( 3 ), 407–412. 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-407 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honig WK (1966). The role of discrimination training in the generalization of punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 9 ( 4 ), 377–384. 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-377 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Honig WK, & Slivka RM (1964). Stimulus generalization of the effects of punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 7 ( 1 ), 21–25. 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-21 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horner RH (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment a commentary . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 35 ( 4 ), 465–467. 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-465 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt HF, & Brady JV (1955). Some effects of punishment and intercurrent anxiety on a simple operant . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 48 ( 4 ), 305–310. 10.1037/h0042529 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson RR, Ulrich RE, & Azrin NH (1965). Effects of age and related factors on the pain-aggression reaction . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 59 ( 3 ), 365–369. 10.1037/h0022046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson RR, Azrin NH, & Hunt GM (1968). Attack produced by intermittent reinforcement of a concurrent operant response . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 11 ( 4 ), 489–495. 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-489 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson RR, Renfrew JW, & Young GA (1971). Effects of long-term shock and associated stimuli on aggressive and manual responses . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 15 ( 2 ), 141–166. 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-141 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson C, Iversen I, Kenyon P, Holth P, & de Souza DG (2020). Murray Sidman: A life of giving . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 53 ( 3 ), 1290–1298. 10.1002/jaba.718 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston JM (1972). Punishment of human behavior . American Psychologist , 27 ( 11 ), 1033–1054. 10.1037/h0033887 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston JM (1991). What can behavior analysis learn from the aversives controversy? The Behavior Analyst , 14 ( 2 ), 187–196. 10.1007/BF03392569 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR (1988). The reflex reserve . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 50 ( 2 ), 319–331. 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-319 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klapes B, Riley S, & McDowell JJ (2018). Toward a contemporary quantitative model of punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 109 , 336–348. 10.1002/jeab.317 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leitenberg H (1965a). Response initiation and response termination: analysis of effects punishment and escape contingencies . Psychological Reports , 16 , 569–575. 10.2466/pr0.1965.16.2.569 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leitenberg H (1965b). Is time-out from positive reinforcement an aversive event? A review of the experimental evidence . Psychological Bulletin , 64 , 428–441. 10.1037/h0022657 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leitenberg H (1967). Punishment training with and without an escape contingency . Journal of Experimental Psychology , 74 ( 3 ), 393–399. 10.1037/h0024728 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerman DC, Kelley ME, Vorndran CM, & Van Camp CM (2003). Collateral effects of response blocking during the treatment of stereotypic behavior . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 36 ( 1 ), 119–123. 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-119 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerman DC, & Vorndran CM (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment implications for treating behavior disorders . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 35 , 431–464. 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovaas OI, & Simmons JQ (1969). Manipulation of self-destruction in three retarded children . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 2 ( 3 ), 143–157. 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-143 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lydon S, Healy O, Morán L, & Foody C (2015). A quantitative examination of punishment research . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 36C , 470–484. 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.036 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mace FC (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 61 ( 3 ), 529–550. 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-529 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonough TS, & Forehand R (1973). Response-contingent time out: Important parameters in behavior modification with children . Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 4 , 231–236. 10.1016/0005-7916(73)90079-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magoon MA, & Critchfield TS (2008). Concurrent schedules of positive and negative reinforcement: differential-impact and differential-outcomes hypotheses . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 90 ( 1 ), 1–22. 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mallpress DE, Fawcett TW, McNamara JM, & Houston AI (2012). Comparing pleasure and pain: the fundamental mathematical equivalence of reward gain and shock reduction under variable interval schedules . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 98 ( 3 ), 355–367. 10.1901/jeab.2012.98-355 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matson JL, & Taras ME (1989). A 20 year review of punishment and alternative methods to treat problem behaviors in developmentally delayed persons . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 10 ( 1 ), 85–104. 10.1016/0891-4222(89)90031-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayhew GL, & Harris FC (1978). Some negative side effects of a punishment procedure for stereotyped behavior . Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 9 ( 3 ), 245–251. 10.1016/0005-7916(78)90036-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIlvane WJ (2011). Comments on Sidman’s Remarks Series . European Journal of Behavior Analysis , 12 ( 1 ), 339–341. 10.1080/15021149.2011.11434384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillan DE (1967). A comparison of the punishing effects of response-produced shock and response-produced time out . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 10 , 439–449. 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-439 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSweeney FK, Hinson JM, & Cannon CB (1996). Sensitization–habituation may occur during operant conditioning . Psychological Bulletin , 120 ( 2 ), 256–271. 10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSweeney FK, & Murphy ES (2009). Sensitization and habituation regulate reinforcer effectiveness . Neurobiology of Learning and Memory , 92 ( 2 ), 189–198. 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mcsweeney FK, & Roll JM (1998). Do animals satiate or habituate to repeatedly presented reinforcers? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 5 , 428–442. 10.3758/BF03208818 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSweeney F, & Swindell S (2002). Common processes may contribute to extinction and habituation . Journal of General Psychology , 129 ( 4 ), 364–400. 10.1080/00221300209602103 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Millenson JR & MacMillan ASC (1975). Abortive responding during punishment of bar holding . Learning and Motivation , 6 , 279–288. 10.1016/0023-9690(75)90028-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller LK (1991). Avoiding the countercontrol of applied behavior analysis . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 24 ( 4 ), 645–647. 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-645 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myer JS, & Baenninger R (1966). Some effects of punishment and stress on mouse killing by rats . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 62 ( 2 ), 292–297. 10.1037/h0023690 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson CM, & Rutherford RB (1983). Timeout revisited: guidelines for its use in special education . Exceptional Education Quarterly , 3 ( 4 ), 56–67. 10.1177/074193258300300412 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orme-Johnson DW, & Yarczower M (1974). Conditioned suppression, punishment, and aversion . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 21 ( 1 ), 57–74. 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-57 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ornelas MA (2018). Evaluation of an experimental procedure to evoke countercontrol. [Master’s thesis, California State University, Fresno] . Fresno State Digital Repository. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perone M (2003). Negative effects of positive reinforcement . The Behavior Analyst , 26 ( 1 ), 1–14. 10.1007/BF03392064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quetsch L, Wallace N, Herschell A, & McNeil C (2015). Weighing in on the time-out controversy: An empirical perspective . Clinical Psychologist , 68 , 4–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H (1966). Recovery of responses during mild punishment . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 9 , 251–263. 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-251 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rachlin H, & Herrnstein RJ (1969). Hedonism revisited: On the negative law of effect In: Campbell BA & Church RM (Eds.), Punishment and Aversive Behavior (pp. 83–109). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, Coppola G, Geyer MA, Glanzman DL, Marsland S, McSweeney FK, Wilson DA, Wu CF, & Thompson RF (2009). Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation . Neurobiology of Learning and Memory , 92 ( 2 ), 135–138. 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasmussen EB, & Newland MC (2008). Asymmetry of reinforcement and punishment in human choice . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 89 , 157–167. 10.1901/jeab.2008.89-157 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds GS, Catania AC, & Skinner BF (1963). Conditioned and unconditioned aggression in pigeons . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 6 ( 1 ), 73–74. 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-73 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards RW, & Rilling M (1972). Aversive aspects of a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 17 ( 3 ), 405–411. 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-405 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riley AR, Wagner DV, Tudor ME, Zuckerman KE, & Freeman KA (2017). A survey of parents’ perceptions and use of time-out compared to empirical evidence . Academic Pediatrics , 17 , 168–175. 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Risley TR (1968). The effects and side effects of punishing the autistic behaviors of a deviant child . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 1 ( 1 ), 21–34. 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-21 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sachs DA (1973). The efficacy of time-out procedures in a variety of behavior problems . Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 4 ( 3 ), 237–242. 10.1016/0005-7916(73)90080-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seay MB, Suppa RJ, Schoen SF, & Roberts SR (1984). Countercontrol: An Issue in Intervention . Remedial and Special Education , 5 ( 1 ), 38–45. 10.1177/074193258400500108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuster R, & Rachlin H (1968). Indifference between punishment and free shock: Evidence for the negative law of effect . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 11 , 777–786. 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-777 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahan TA (2017). Moving beyond reinforcement and response strength . The Behavior Analyst , 40 ( 1 ), 107–121. 10.1007/s40614-017-0092-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (1953a). Avoidance conditioning with brief shock and no exteroceptive warning signal . Science , 118 ( 3058 ),157–158. 10.1126/science.118.3058.157 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (1953b). Two temporal parameters of the maintenance of avoidance behavior by the white rat . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 46 ( 4 ), 253–261. 10.1037/h0060730 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (1966). Avoidance behavior In Honig WK (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 448–498). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (1989). Avoidance at Columbia . The Behavior Analyst , 12 ( 2 ), 191–195. 10.1007/BF03392496 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (1993). Reflections on behavior analysis and coercion . Behavior and Social Issues , 3 ( 1–2 ), 75–85. 10.5210/bsi.v3i1.199 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (2000). Coercion and its fallout . Boston: Authors Cooperative; (Original work published 1989) [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (2006). The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: some additional considerations . The Behavior Analyst , 29 ( 1 ), 135–139. 10.1007/BF03392126 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidman M (2011). Can an understanding of basic research facilitate the effectiveness of practitioners? Reflections and personal perspectives . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 44 ( 4 ), 973–991. 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-973 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF (1938). The behavior of organisms . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF (1953). Science and human behavior . New York/London: Free Press/Collier MacMillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity . New York: Knopf. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner BF (1974). About behaviorism . New York: Knopf [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith DE (1981). Is isolation room time-out a punisher? Behavioral Disorders , 6 ( 4 ), 247–256. 10.1177/019874298100600407 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solnick JV, Rincover A, & Peterson CR (1977). Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 10 , 415–424. 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-415 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon RL (1964). Punishment . American Psychologist , 19 , 239–253. 10.1037/h0042493 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spradlin JE (2002). Punishment: A primary process? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 35 , 475–477. 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-475 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staddon JER (1993). The conventional wisdom of behavior analysis . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 60 , 439–447. 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-439 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storms LH, Boroczi G, & Broen WE Jr. (1962). Punishment inhibits an instrumental response in hooded rats . Science , 135 ( 3509 ), 1133–1134. 10.1126/science.135.3509.1133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storms LH, Boroczi G, & Broen WE (1963). Effects of punishment as a function of strain of rat and duration of shock . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 56 , 1022–1026. 10.1037/h0043165 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RF (2009). Habituation: a history . Neurobiology of Learning and Memory , 92 ( 2 ), 127–134. 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RH, & Iwata BA (2005). A review of reinforcement control procedures . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 38 ( 2 ), 257–278. 10.1901/jaba.2005.176-03 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RH, Iwata BA, Conners J, & Roscoe EM (1999). Effects of reinforcement for alternative behavior during punishment of self-injury . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 32 , 317–328. 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-317 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RF, & Spencer WA (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior . Psychological Review , 73 ( 1 ), 16–43. 10.1037/h0022681 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorndike EL (1932). Reward and punishment in animal learning . Comparative Psychology Monographs , 8 , 4 , 65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timberlake W (1988). The behavior of organisms: Purposive behavior as a type of reflex . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 50 ( 2 ), 305–317. 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-305 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Todorov JC (2001). Quem tem medo de punição? Revista Brasileira de Terapia Comportamental e Cognitiva , 3 ( 1 ), 37–40. 10.31505/rbtcc.v3i1.304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Todorov JC (2011). Quem tem medo de controle aversivo? Acta Comportamentalia , 19 ( 4 ), 5–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich RE (1966). Pain as a cause of aggression . American Zoologist , 6 , 643–662. 10.1093/icb/6.4.643 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich RE, & Azrin NH (1962). Reflexive fighting in response to aversive stimulation . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 5 ( 4 ), 511–520. 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-511 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich RE, Wolff PC, & Azrin NH (1964). Shock as an elicitor of intra- and inter-species fighting behavior . Animal Behaviour , 12 ( 1 ), 14–15. 10.1016/0003-3472(64)90095-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich R, Wolfe M, & Dulaney S (1969). Punishment of shock-induced aggression . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 12 ( 6 ), 1009–1015. 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-1009 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Oorsouw WM, Israel ML, von Heyn RE, & Duker PC (2008). Side effects of contingent shock treatment . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 29 ( 6 ), 513–523. 10.1016/j.ridd.2007.08.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vollmer TR (2002). Punishment happens: some comments on Lerman and Vorndran’s review . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 35 ( 4 ), 469–473. 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-469 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisman RG (1975). Stimulus control by response-dependent shock in discriminated punishment . Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society , 5 , 427–428. 10.3758/BF03333289 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson DR, & Lyman RD (1983). Time-out in the treatment of childhood behavior problems: Implementation and research issues . Child & Family Behavior Therapy , 4 ( 1 ), 5–20. 10.1300/J019v04n01_02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolf M, Risley T, Johnston M, Harris F, & Allen E (1967). Application of operant conditioning procedures to the behavior problems of an autistic child: A follow-up and extension . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 5 ( 2 ), 103–111. 10.1016/0005-7967(67)90004-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

12 Examples of Positive Punishment & Negative Reinforcement

Not many people “like” punishment, right?

The disconnect in understanding this concept comes from the usage of the word “positive;” here at PositivePsychology.com, we generally use the term “positive” to refer to things that are inherently good, things that are life-giving, and things that promote thriving and flourishing.

The concept of positive punishment comes from a very different era and a very different perspective on psychology; namely, the 1930s and behaviorism.

So, what actually is positive punishment and how does it relate to parenting, teaching, and even the workplace?

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

This Article Contains:

What is positive punishment in psychology.

• B.F. Skinner and His Operant Conditioning Theory

Positive Punishment vs. Negative Reinforcement

Positive punishment vs. positive reinforcement, 6 examples of positive punishment in practice, 6 examples of negative reinforcement in practice, the positive effects of punishment, using positive punishment with children, applying positive punishment in the classroom, positive punishment in the workplace, common criticisms, a take-home message.

Positive punishment is one of four ( positive parenting ) methods of modifying behavior according to the theory of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1971). The four types are:

• Positive punishment
• Positive reinforcement
• Negative punishment
• Negative reinforcement

These methods are categorized based on two factors:

• Whether you are trying to encourage (reinforce) or discourage (punish) behavior.
• Whether you are adding something to influence behavior (positive) or taking something away to influence behavior (negative).

Although it can be difficult to see “positive” as discouraging behaviors and “negative” as encouraging behaviors, it’s easy to catch on when you realize that, when it comes to operant conditioning, the terms “positive” and “negative” are not used in the manner we generally think of them. In this theory, “positive” doesn’t necessarily mean “good” and “negative” doesn’t necessarily mean “bad.”

B.F. Skinner’s Operant Conditioning Theory

The theory of operant conditioning was developed by famed behaviorist B. F. Skinner (1971). If you’re not familiar with behaviorism, it’s definitely worth a dive into the literature; however, for the purposes of this piece, we’ll give a brief overview.

Behaviorism was the guiding perspective on psychology for several decades, from around the 1930s to the 1960s. It was championed by John Watson, but Skinner is the psychologist most often associated with behaviorism thanks to his many theories and experiments (GoodTherapy, 2015). The general idea behind behaviorism is that people (and animals) are heavily influenced and directed by outside factors. In the “nature vs. nurture” debate, behaviorists fall firmly on the “nurture” side.

The more hardline behaviorists believed that humans are born as “blank slates” with virtually no pre-existing programming or inherent characteristics. According to them, just about everything that you could use to describe yourself—whether that is traits, skills, titles, or preferences—comes from your environment. In this view, we are all born with roughly equal potential, barring genetic disorders and other physical limitations or advantages.

It was in this vein that Skinner developed his theory of operant conditioning. This theory holds that classical conditioning—the phenomenon by which Pavlov discovered that we associate things that happen sequentially as causally related—is too simplistic to explain how behavior is usually influenced, particularly the more complex behaviors (McLeod, 2018).

Operant conditioning is built on the foundation of rewards and punishment: when our behavior is rewarded, we are encouraged to repeat or continue that behavior, and when our behavior is punished, we are discouraged from repeating or continuing that behavior.

As we noted above, operant conditioning outlines four ways of influencing behavior based on the consequence and the desired result:

• Positive punishment : something is “added” to the mix that makes the behavior less likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., an unpleasant consequence is introduced to the subject to discourage their behavior).
• Positive reinforcement : something is added to the mix that makes the behavior more likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., a pleasant consequence is introduced to the subject to encourage their behavior).
• Negative punishment : something is “taken away” from the mix that makes the behavior less likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., something pleasant is removed from the subject to discourage their behavior).
• Negative reinforcement: something is taken away from the mix that makes the behavior more likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., something unpleasant is removed from the subject to encourage their behavior).

Some examples of these methods of influencing behavior will be outlined below.

Download 3 Free Positive Relationships Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients to build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

Download 3 Positive Relationships Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Positive punishment is an attempt to influence behavior by adding something unpleasant, while negative reinforcement is an attempt to influence behavior by taking away something unpleasant. Both methods are employed to influence behavior, but positive punishment looks to remove or decrease a “bad” behavior while negative reinforcement seeks to encourage or increase a “good” behavior.

For example, spanking a child when he throws a tantrum is an example of positive punishment. Something is added to the mix (spanking) to discourage a bad behavior (throwing a tantrum).

On the other hand, removing restrictions from a child when she follows the rules is an example of negative reinforcement. Something unpleasant (a set of restrictions) is removed to encourage the child’s good behavior (following the rules).

In both cases, something is added to the mix, whether it is something pleasant (positive reinforcement) or something unpleasant (positive punishment).

As listed above, positive punishment involves adding something unpleasant to discourage a behavior. Positive reinforcement involves adding something pleasant to encourage a behavior.

For example, treating a child to an ice cream cone when he stays quiet and obedient during a shopping trip is positive reinforcement. The child’s behavior (being quiet and obedient while out shopping) is reinforced by adding something pleasant (an ice cream cone). Hopefully, the child will understand that he is getting an ice cream cone because he behaved himself on the shopping trip, and he will be more likely to behave himself on the next shopping trip.

For more on this, please see  positive reinforcement for kids .

There are many more ways to use positive punishment to influence behavior, including:

• Yelling at a child for bad behavior.
• Forcing them to do an unpleasant task when they misbehave.
• Adding chores and responsibilities when he fails to follow the rules.
• Assigning students who forget to turn in their assignment extra work.
• Adding extra sensitivity training to employees who offend or harass someone at work.
• Implementing more rules and restrictions when a teen misses curfew.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

There are also many examples of negative reinforcement in practice (with varying degrees of effectiveness), including:

• Removing strict parental controls on the internet or tv when a child proves herself responsible enough to handle more mature content.
• Allowing a child to go out without a chaperone when she stops pushing the boundaries of her parents’ rules.
• Removing responsibility for a household chore in order to reward a child for completing her other chores to her parents’ satisfaction.
• Removing the curfew when a teenager has proven she is responsible and practices common sense.
• Removing obstacles to autonomy (e.g., rigid timelines or prescribed ways of carrying out tasks) when an employee successfully completes an important project.
• Abolishing the practice of clocking in and out when employees have proven they can be trusted to accurately report their time worked.

Examples of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment – The Movement System

Although “punishment” sounds inherently negative, it’s not necessarily a negative thing. In operant conditioning, punishment is simply the discouragement of a behavior; it can be as benign as sitting a child down and explaining to them why they should no longer engage in a bad behavior.

The positive outcomes of using punishment include:

• The child is informed that their behavior is not acceptable, and now knows what not to do in the future.
• The child is given a punishment or negative consequence, which teaches her that behavior has consequences and will hopefully help her associate the two.
• The child is given a good reason to behave more appropriately in the future, and eventually should be given an opportunity to do so.

Of course, there are some downsides to punishment as well:

• Punished behavior is not necessarily forgotten, just suppressed, meaning that it may return when the punishment is no longer implemented.
• It may cause increased aggression and teach the child that aggression is a good way to solve problems (only with certain types of punishment).
• It can create fears that generalize to other situations (e.g., a child who is punished for being disruptive may withdraw and begin to fear social situations).
• It does not always guide the child toward the desired behavior; it tells the child what not to do, but may not tell the child what he or she should do instead (McLeod, 2018).

Ideally, a child would be raised with both reinforcement and punishment in a healthy mix—receiving rewards for good behavior and being corrected for bad behavior. Often, both are vital pieces of parenting and each can accomplish what the other fails to accomplish.

For example, reinforcement is a great tool for encouraging good behavior, but it gives the child no feedback on bad behavior (although sometimes the bad behavior is simply the opposite of the good, like adhering to the curfew vs. breaking the curfew). Likewise, punishment is good for discouraging bad behavior, but it has the unfortunate flaw of telling the child nothing about which behavior is actually desired.

Of course, these flaws in each method largely disappear when parents employ both methods and are communicative about what they expect to see and what they expect not to see from their child.

Positive punishment can be an extremely effective tool in the parents’ toolbox, and as we learned above, it doesn’t have to be physical. Positive punishment describes any situation in which parents add something that is undesirable to the child in order to encourage them to refrain from a specific behavior they do not consider appropriate or acceptable.

There are many ways to do this. James Lehman, social worker and expert on working with troubled youth, offers these seven guidelines for using positive punishment:

• Use consequences that have meaning. They should be unpleasant and attached to the behavior they exhibited and the lesson you want them to learn (e.g., being rude to someone may result in having to write a letter of apology for being rude and an explanation of what they will do next time they get angry instead of lashing out).
• Make consequences black and white. Show your child that behavior A leads to consequence B, no matter why they engaged in behavior A or how they feel about the fairness of consequence B.
• Have conversations about problem-solving. Depending on the degree of unpleasantness, this may be punishment in itself, but it can be used as a supplement to a punishment as well (e.g., a teenager is punished for missing curfew, but the parents also have a discussion with the teen about their options next time they are tempted to stay out late or in a situation where they may end up breaking curfew).
• Don’t get sucked into an argument over the consequences. Be firm in your decision and don’t be swayed by a young child’s tantrums or a teenager’s (supposed) apathy about the punishment.
• Engage your child’s self-interest. You can do this by encouraging them to answer the question “What are you going to do so you don’t get in trouble next time?” Children will never want positive punishment (unless it’s an inherently ineffective punishment), so getting them to think about how to avoid that punishment will help encourage better behavior.
• Hold your child accountable for their own behavior. Even if they don’t seem like they care about the punishment, it is their behavior that is important, not how much they seem to care.
• Don’t show disgust or disdain or be sarcastic with your child. The point is to teach your child, not demean or discourage them (Lehman, 2012).

However, there are limits on how and when to use positive punishment; according to James Lehman, grounding your child will only teach them how to “do time,” but it doesn’t actually show them how to improve their behavior (Lehman, 2012). Kids that are frequently grounded will eventually get used to it and learn to cope with it, but they won’t necessarily learn what you’re trying to teach them.

Instead of providing them with instruction on appropriate behavior and a chance to do better, grounding a child restricts their behavior and keeps them from even having a choice about whether to behave in the desired manner or not. They may feel so restricted that it leaves them with no opportunity to evaluate their choices and make better decisions, giving them no room to grow.

Research also shows that positive punishment does not always weaken a person’s behavior when punished, it may simply suppress it. If a child fears being punished, they may continue to engage in the bad behavior while they are away from the parent(s) who punishes them. Children will behave when you are looking because they don’t like the punishment, but they may still enjoy secretly engaging in the behavior itself (Smith, 2012).

There may be less leeway since teachers generally do not have the same authority over children that their parents do, but there is also an added element that can help or harm efforts to use positive punishment: the presence of their peers.

Peer pressure is a highly impactful factor that can be harnessed to normalize and encourage good behavior, but punishing children in front of their peers can also cause shame, embarrassment, and seething resentment when applied incorrectly.

One of the most important rules to follow when it comes to positive punishment in the classroom is to refrain from using shame or embarrassment as a tool for learning; if a child is embarrassed in front of her peers, she is not likely to think of it as a positive learning experience and may become openly hostile instead of being encouraged to evaluate her own behavior and make better choices.

Along with this important rule, follow these six guidelines to ensure positive punishment is used effectively and appropriately in the classroom:

• Pair positive punishment with positive reinforcement to provide encouragement for desirable behaviors with which students can replace their bad behavior.
• Use the mildest punishment techniques that are likely to be effective; start off with less intense punishments and work your way up as needed if the mild techniques are ineffective.
• Do not deprive the student of key opportunities to build their social and academic skills; for example, avoid reducing recess time or handing out suspensions if the child is already awkward with peers or finds it difficult to make friends.
• Allow students to provide input on any behavior plans being developed; this way, the students will feel they have a voice and will be more likely to accept any punishments they earn.
• Make sure your plan for encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad behavior is congruent with: a. Your country, state, or territory regulations, and b. Your students’ parents!
• Monitor the effects of your behavior plan to ensure it is working and troubleshoot anything that is not working (Intervention Central, n.d.).

Positive punishment can be a very useful tool in the classroom when applied conscientiously and with careful consideration.

Punishment doesn’t necessarily stop when we become adults.

The idea that punishment can be effective in stopping undesirable employee behaviors, such as tardiness and absenteeism, is a popular one. It’s something you’ve likely seen in your own workplace, either directed towards yourself or someone else.

For example, these are all instances of positive punishment at work:

• Being verbally scolded by your boss, or perhaps by your Human Resources department.
• Being assigned extra training when you break the rules or behave in an unprofessional manner.
• Being assigned the tasks no one wants to do for failing to produce quality work on time.
• Receiving an official warning for calling off work too often.

In some cases, these forms of punishment can be extremely effective. Sometimes all it takes to discourage bad behavior and encourage good behavior is a “talking to” from your manager. Other times, it’s not so effective.

Research has shown that positive punishment doesn’t always bring about good behavior at work; sometimes, it only temporarily stops one bad behavior from happening and may also lead to fear, psychological tension, anxiety, and other undesirable outcomes. These emotional and behavioral responses are likely to negatively impact work productivity and work behavior (Milbourn Jr., 1996).

Similar to the consequences of overzealous or unnecessarily harsh parenting techniques, employees who feel as if they have no choice or control over their work may begin to act out, repress their true intentions, or even engage in more nefarious behavior like embezzling, sabotage, or otherwise undermining their employer.

Positive punishment at work may be effective in some cases, but like positive punishment for children, it should be used sparingly, appropriately, and in conjunction with reinforcement techniques.

17 Exercises for Positive, Fulfilling Relationships

Empower others with the skills to cultivate fulfilling, rewarding relationships and enhance their social wellbeing with these 17 Positive Relationships Exercises [PDF].

Created by experts. 100% Science-based.

As we covered earlier, there are some definite downsides to positive punishment; it can confuse children about what they should be doing instead of the bad behavior, cause them to develop fears or other maladaptive habits or feelings, cause anger or rebelliousness, and may only lead to suppression of the behavior instead of true “extinction” of the behavior.

These are some common criticisms of the effectiveness of positive punishment, but there are also some quite strong aversions to positive punishment for another reason: whether it is ethical or not.

Many modern parents are averse to any type of positive punishment that involves unpleasant physical consequences, and for good reason—a large body of research shows that physical punishment may not only be ineffective in many cases, it may also result in unintended consequences or even backfire on the parents (Cherry, 2018).

A recent meta-analysis of several decades’ worth of research on spanking and other physical punishments largely considered not to be abusive showed that these punishments made a child significantly more likely to display undesirable and unintended consequences, such as anti-social behavior and mental health problems (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). In fact, the effects of spanking and other “non-abusive” forms of physical punishment were observed to be almost as detrimental as physical abuse.

As Alan Kazdin, a psychology professor at Yale University and expert on parenting notes:

“You cannot punish out these behaviors that you do not want… there is no need for corporal punishment based on the research. We are not giving up an effective technique. We are saying that this is a horrible thing that does not work” (Smith, 2012).

The bottom line is that, like many other techniques and methods, positive punishment can be very effective or very ineffective depending on how it is applied.

Positive punishment that is appropriately targeted and matches the level of the infraction can be a great tool to discourage or extinguish behavior; inappropriately targeted and mismatched positive punishment can result in everything from failing to teach the lesson you want to teach to mental health problems and the continuation of parenting styles that simply do not work.

If you use common sense and follow the easy-to-understand guidelines in this article, you should have no major trouble using mild, effective positive punishment to encourage good behavior.

What do you think about positive punishment? Do you find it effective for your children, students, and/or employees? What are your go-to punishments or reinforcements? Let us know in the comments!

Want to keep reading? Check out:  Positive Parenting Books, Training and Resources

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free .

• GoodTherapy. (2015). “Behaviorism”. Retrieved from https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/behaviorism
• Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 453-469.
• Intervention Central. (n.d.). What every teacher should know about punishment techniques and student behavior plans. Retrieved from https://www.interventioncentral.org/behavioral-interventions/challenging-students/what-every-teacher-should-know-about…punishment-techni
• Lehman, J. (2012). Kids who ignore consequences: 10 ways to make them stick. Empowering Parents. Retrieved from https://www.empoweringparents.com/article/kids-who-ignore-consequences-10-ways-to-make-them-stick/
• McLeod, S. (2018). Skinner – Operant conditioning. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
• Milbourn, Jr., G.. (1996). Punishment in the workplace creates undesirable side effects. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/1996/11/18/focus3.html
• Skinner, B. F. (1971). Operant conditioning. The Encyclopedia of Education , 7 , 29-33.
• Smith, B. L. (2012). The case against spanking. American Psychological Association 43 (4), Monitor on Psychology,  60. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Positive punishment is so important. It helps your kids learn the hard way so they become good kids with good thought! DO BETTER AND BE GOOD PARENTS!!!!!

It was very important and helpful. Thank you

It was very helpful, informative and gave me a lot of clarity on the topics I was seeking. Thank you for your efforts and time. It was worth it.

This research is clearly posted. thank you very much

This article is well researched. Thanks a lot

Referring to Jeff’s comment about grounding, by definition, being a removal, I’d like to point out that a child confined to his room, a classic “grounding” can easily be a the definition of a positive punishment because confinement is added. Unlike math, this real world example, it adding confinement with nothing to entertain can also easily be both an added restriction or confinement as well as a removal of normal freedoms, diversions and privileges. A number cannot be both 3 and -3 but a consequence can be something added and something (the opposite opportunity) removed. It is the nature of language that descriptions can have ambiguity with regard to this strictly operant-conditioning definition of the words “positive” and “negative.” I content this is why these ideas are so commonly misunderstood, difficult to correctly apply and falling from use.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Anxious Attachment Style: What It Is (+ Its Hidden Strengths)

In the realm of human relationships, attachment styles shape our perceptions of intimacy and emotional fulfillment. Anxious attachment style, a type of insecure attachment characterized [...]

Secure Attachment Style: Why It Matters & How to Nurture It

Imagine a relationship where trust flows effortlessly, communication is a breeze, and both partners feel equally cherished, respected, and free. Welcome to the world of [...]

Managing Chronic Loneliness When Aging: 23 Strategies

Chronic loneliness can affect us all at any point in our lifetimes, but it can be a significant challenge for many older adults as they [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (55)
• Coaching & Application (59)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (27)
• Meditation (21)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (46)
• Optimism & Mindset (35)
• Positive CBT (31)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (49)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (20)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (40)
• Self Awareness (22)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (33)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (38)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (65)

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Positive Relationships Exercises Pack

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Crime & Deviance

Distinguish among positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, presentation punishment, and removal punishment

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

• Word Count 366
• Page Count 1
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Sociology

Related Essays

Punishment is difficult to apply in the workplace. Explain why, what might...

Approaches to Crime and Punishment and Government Attitude's Impact on Puni...

Corporal Punishment.

Crime and Punishment.