Suppression of verbal behavior as a function of delay and schedule of severe punishment

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

“…It may be that delayed punishment retards the rate at which a response-punishment contingency is learned by humans (cf. Hare, 1965), but that once the contingency has been learned, the delayed punishment has greater aversive properties (or negative incentive; cf. Logan & Wagner, 1965).…”

“…Recent research with human Ss suggests that delayed punishment may be less effective than immediate punishment in producing suppression of a response that has been established in the laboratory (Banks & VogelSprott, 1965) or during the course of language acquisition (Hare, 1965). 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.…”

“…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. In the present study, the temporal arrangement of reward and punishment was manipulated by punishing a response before, during, or after the presentation of reward.…”

Does Reducing Case Processing Time Reduce Recidivism? A Study of the Early Case Resolution Court

“…In other words, the swifter the sentence, the stronger the association in the mind of the offender between the offense and its consequences. Classic psychological studies involving laboratory experiments with human and animal subjects have upheld this theory, showing that punishment was significantly more effective at changing behavior when delivered immediately, as compared with when it was delayed (Aronfreed & Reber, 1965; Banks & Vogel-Sprott, 1965; Deluty, 1978; Hare, 1965; Miller, Reid, & Porter, 1967; Pisacreta & Paul, 1982; Vogel-Sprott, 1967).…”

Effects of punishment intensity and consistency on the internalization of behavioral suppression in children.

“…In training, intermittent punishment complicates discrimination learning and retards specific attachment of reinforcement value to behavioral suppression (Hare, 1965;Jones, 1953;Rotberg, 1959). Despite its interference with learning, intermittent punishment may be preferable to continuous punishment in establishing internalized behavioral suppression.…”