Principles of Learning
Wade & Tavris (2003), pp. 241-254.
A. The consequences of behavior (Skinner, 1938)
  1. A neutral consequence neither increases nor decreases the probability that the response will recur.
  2. Reinforcement strengthens the response or makes it more likely to recur.
  3. Punishment weakens the response or makes it less likely to recur.
B. Primary and secondary reinforcers and punishers
  1. Primary reinforcers and punishers (food, water, light, stroking the skin, comfortable air temperature versus pain)
  2. Secondary reinforcers and punishers (money, praise, applause, good grades versus criticism, scoldings, fines, bad grades)
C. Positive and negative reinforcers and punishers
  1. Positive reinforcement--a pleasant consequence makes a response more likely.
  2. Negative reinforcement--removal of something unpleasant makes a response more likely.
  3. Positive punishment--something unpleasant following a behavior makes it less likely.
  4. Negative punishment--removal of something pleasant makes a response less likely.
D. Principles of operant conditioning
  1. Extinction--the weakening and eventual disappearance of a learned response; in operant conditioning, it occurs when a response is no longer followed by a reinforcer.
  2. Spontaneous recovery--After extinction, the response recur at a later time in a weakened form.
  2. Stimulus generalization--in operant conditioning, the tendency for a response that has been reinforced (or punished) in the presence of one stimulus to occur (or be suppressed) in the presence of other, similar stimuli.
  3. Stimulus discrimination--in operant conditioning, the tendency of a response to occur in the presence of one stimulus but not in the presence of other, similar stimuli that differ from it on some dimension.
  4. Continuous reinforcement or punishment--a reinforcement schedule in which a particular response is always reinforced or punished. Responses that are continuously reinforced do not persist during extinction.
  5. Intermittent (partial) reinforcement effect--A reinforcement schedule in which a particular response is sometimes but not always reinforced or punished. Responses that intermittently reinforced persist.
E. The pros and cons of punishment. Nearly all Western countries have banned the physical punishment of schoolchildren by principals and teachers, but 23 American states still permit it for disruptiveness, vandalism, and other misbehavior. The United States is also far more likely than any other developed country to jail its citizens for nonviolent crimes such as drug use and to enact the ultimate punishment--the death penalty--for violent crimes. And of course in daily life, people punish one another constantly, by yelling, scolding, fining, and sulking. Does all this punishment work?
F. When punishment works. Sometimes punishment is unquestionably effective. Some highly disturbed children have been known to chew their own fingers to the bone, stick objects in their eyes, or tear out their hair. If you ignore such behavior, children will seriously injure themselves. If you respond with concern and affection, you may unwittingly reward the behavior. But immediately punishing the self-destructive behavior eliminates it (e.g., Lovaas, 1977). Mild punishers, such as a spray of water in the face, or even a firm "No!", are often just as effective as strong ones, such as electric shock.
  Punishment can also deter some young criminals from repeating their offenses. A study of the criminal records of all Danish men born between 1944 and 1947 (nearly 29,000 men) examined repeat arrests (recidivism) through age 26 (Brennan & Mednick, 1994). After any given arrest, punishment reduced rates of subsequent arrest for both minor and serious crimes, though recidivism still remained fairly high. Contrary to the researchers' expectations, however, the severity of punishment made no difference: Fines and probation were about as effective as jail time. What mattered most was the consistency of the punishment. This is understandable: When lawbreakers sometimes get away with their crimes, their behavior is intermittently reinforced and therefore becomes resistant to extinction.
  Unfortunately, that is exactly the situation in the United States. Young offenders are punished far less consistently than they are in Denmark, often because prosecutors, juries, and judges do not want to condemn them to mandatory prison terms. Because the courts have no other options for punishment, they may merely admonish the offenders and set them free (Brennan & Sarnoff, 1994). Ironically, then, policies that mandate severe punishment can actually lead to ineffective punishment--or to no punishment at all.
  In sum, these results show that punishment can reduce recidivism, but they also show why harsh sentencing laws and simplistic efforts to "crack down" on wrongdoers often fail or even backfire. Indeed, despite its high incarceration rates, the United States has a far higher rate of violent crime than other developed countries do. And with the United States, crime rates are not consistently correlated with rates of incarceration or the imposition of the death penalty (Currie, 1998).
G. When punishment fails. What about punishment that occurs every day in families, schools, and workplaces? Laboratory and field studies find that it, too, often fails, for several reasons:
  1. People often administer punishment inappropriately or mindlessly.
  2. The recipient of punishment often responds with anxiety, fear, or rage.
  3. The effectiveness of punishment is often temporary, depending heavily on the presence of the punishing person or circumstance.
  4. Most misbehavior is hard to punish immediately.
  5. Punishment conveys little information.
  6. An action intended to punish may instead be reinforcing because it brings attention.