Punishment and its putative fallout: A reappraisal

Abstract

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.

Increased responsiveness to punishment of cocaine self-administration after experience with high punishment

“…Increased responsiveness to punishment returned to normal within 2-3 days when the same 0.1-mA punishment was re-experienced every day but could persist during at least one month when it was re-experienced more intermittently every other week. Recovery of initial responsiveness to punishment seen after repeated daily testing probably reflects a habituation-like process [42]. In the present series of experiments, increased responsiveness of cocaine use to footshock punishment was observed in all individual rats, albeit with varying degrees, after experience with more intense footshock punishment.…”

“…The associative process underlying increased responsiveness of cocaine use to footshock punishment remains to be fully explored [15,42]. Nevertheless, our findings allow us to begin to narrow down some of the possible interpretations.…”

“…By reducing the time interval between testing sessions, this procedure was expected to promote recovery of initial responsiveness to footshock punishment. Recovery from response suppression after continuous exposure to the same punishment is a well-established phenomenon that occurs particularly when the intensity of punishment is relatively weak and that is thought to reflect habituation [42].…”

“…However, this within-session predictive relationship fails to explain the same findings obtained in experiments 2 and 4 in which 0.1-mA and 0.7-mA were experienced in two separate daily sessions. According to another possibility that can account for the findings of experiments 1, 2 and 4, 0.1-mA footshock would function as a cue that 0.7-mA footshock can occur in the current context, thereby reinstating Pavlovian fear to the context which, in turn, would cause suppression of operant responding [42]. This possibility is unlikely, however, since no change in responsiveness to punishment was seen after noncontingent exposure to 0.7-mA footshock, despite equal footshock-context pairings.…”

“…It will be important to know in future research what other factors can also contribute to change responsiveness to punishment, preferably in a persistent manner. Of particular interest, it remains to be seen whether future parametric studies could eventually stumble on a set of punishment parameters that suppresses drug use persistently without recovery [42]. This research could be particularly relevant to better understand why some individuals eventually quit drugs, notably after hitting rock bottom or after having experienced a particularly intense negative event [8].…”