Punishment.

Solomon, Richard L.

doi:10.1037/h0042493

Cited by 233 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, recent discussions of punishment (Church, 1963;Logan & Wagner, 1965;Solomon, 1964) indicate that the effect of delayed punishment may depend upon whether or not reward is concurrently administered, and if so, upon the temporal order in which the reward and punishment are presented. In the study by Banks & Vogel-Sprott (1965), punishment was administered for an instrumental response that continued to receive immediate reinforcement, while the other study (Hare, 1965) involved punishment of a well established verbal response which received no tangible reinforcement.…”

Section: Punishment (Shock) Administered During or After Reward (Intementioning

confidence: 99%

Suppression and recovery of a human response as a function of the temporal order of reward and punishment

Hare

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Punishment (Shock) Administered During or After Reward (Intementioning

confidence: 99%

Suppression and recovery of a human response as a function of the temporal order of reward and punishment

Hare

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…But these investigators also found that the results were situation-or response-specific, a common finding in the punishment literature. (See reviews by Azrin and Holz, 1966;Solomon, 1964. ) How to maintain improvements and to achieve generalized suppression is a practical problem of formidable dimensions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Birnbrauer

1968

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response-contingent electric shock was evaluated in a laboratory and criterion situation before using it to eliminate infrequent and unpredictable biting and destructive acts from the repertoire of a retarded adolescent. Although the initial results were dramatic, the effects of shock were highly discriminated and the therapeutic objectives were not accomplished. The study demonstrates the power and some limitations of shock punishment and is presented so that others will be better prepared for problems that may arise before the goals of a program involving shock punishment will be realized.Response-contingent aversive events have been used by several investigators to decelerate problem behavior of children (Bucher and Lovaas, 1967;Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, and Kassorla, 1965;Risley, 1968;Tate and Baroff, 1966;Wolf, Risley, and Mees, 1964; Wolf, Risley, Johnston, Harris, and Allen, 1967). Punishment, together with positive reinforcement of other behavior, was applied to protect the patient from himself or to protect others. The results in each study were dramatic and no undesirable "side effects" were observed. But these investigators also found that the results were situation-or response-specific, a common finding in the punishment literature. (See reviews by Azrin and Holz, 1966;Solomon, 1964.) How to maintain improvements and to achieve generalized suppression is a practical problem of formidable dimensions. (Feldman, 1966;Feldman and MacCulloch, 1965) and "office treatment" of behavior assumes transfer to the patient's natural environment, an assumption which hardly conforms to the available data.The subject used in the present study presented an opportunity to study generalization effects because the nature of the problem behavior required an indirect approach. The target behavior, biting other children, did not occur in the presence of observers and occurred very infrequently (eight times in the 125 days preceding this study). The patient was continuously restrained in isolation and release was contingent upon a treatment program that entailed minimal danger and showed promise of success.The study continued for 16 months and included treatment and recording of results in a laboratory a criterion situation, and the patient's ward. Since the patient did engage in a variety of other undesirable acts, such as destroying furnishings and tearing clothing when observers were present, the approach taken was to threaten shock for such responses, administer shock response-contingently when the threat was insufficient, and repeat the procedure with other responses. In other words, controlled conditions were arranged to establish that shock would suppress behavior and to establish warnings-"Don't!", "No!"-as generalized conditioned aversive stimuli with the 201 NUMBER 3 (FALL 1968) 1968, 1, 201-21 1

show abstract

“…There mayaIso be so me relationship to the studies of Sandler (1964) and Holz & Azrin (1961), both of whom found an increase in rate of responding in extinction correlated with reintroduction of a shock schedule that had formerly been a discriminative stimulus (SD) for positive reinforcement. individually itemized here, although many such reports may be found in the primary reviews (Church, 1963;Solomon, 1964;and Azrin & Holz, 1966).…”

Section: Responses On Mulf L"lf VI Vi mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, R1 was exposed for some time to VR 12 and 25 (reinforcement contingent on 12 or 25 responses, on the average) to maintain a higher rate of response. A number of reviews in the area of punishment (Church, 1963;Solomon, 1964;Azrin & Holz, 1966) have indicated that stimuli that act as suppressors of behavior on some occasions may also maintain behavior on other occasions (Brown, Martin, & Morrow, 1964;Sandler, Davidson, Greene, & Holzschuh, 1966;Sandler, Davidson & Malagodi, 1966;Sandler & Davidson, 1967;Sidman, Herrnstein, & Comad, 1957) and even reinforce behavior during acquisition (Muenzinger, 1934;Muenzinger, Bemstone, & Richards, 1938;Harrington & Linder, 1962;Morse & KeIleher, 1966). Azrin (1958), using aversive noise, demonstrated that this stimulus will suppress behavior when programmed in response-contingent schedules but may also maintain behavior when programmed as an SO (discriminative stimulus) for reinforcement and facilitate behavior when paired with reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned reinforcing vs punishing properties of electric shock

Davidson¹

1970

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punishment.

Cited by 233 publications

References 30 publications

Suppression and recovery of a human response as a function of the temporal order of reward and punishment

Suppression and recovery of a human response as a function of the temporal order of reward and punishment

Generalization of Punishment Effects—a Case Study

Conditioned reinforcing vs punishing properties of electric shock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About