If we are to predict behavior (and possibly to control it), we must deal with probability of response. The business of a science of behavior is to evaluate this probability and explore the conditions which determine it. – B. F. Skinner
Punishment refers to “a consequence that decreases the frequency or likelihood that a behavior will occur” (Santrok, 2003, p. 284). Like its counterpart, punishment can be further broken down by type. Punishment II, or Negative Punishment, refers to a behavior decreasing as a result of a positive stimulus being removed (Carlson, Miller, Heth, Donahoe & Martin, 2009; Santrock, 2003). Thus, with punishment, the behavior tendency is weakened.
Negative Punishment Example
Scenario: Because John was caught cheating on an exam, he was removed from the basketball team. John has stopped cheating on exams.
This scenario exemplifies an incidence employing Negative Punishment (Punishment II) strategies. In this case, John engages in an undesirable behavior – cheating - and in order to decrease the frequency (or more preferably eliminate it altogether) punishment is rendered. Specifically, the punishment involves the removal of a desired condition – participation on the basketball team. These operational definitions are further confirmed by the fact that the negative punishment resulted in a cessation of the undesirable behavior.
Some researchers have argued that punishment does not represent a perfect mirror image of reinforcement. They cite experiments with laboratory animals and studies with children where punishment has only been shown to temporarily decrease the frequency of a previously reinforced response, this not representing lasting change or modified learning. Furthermore, they argue, punishment typically produces other emotional behavior and physiological changes – e.g., anxiety, anger, fear, increased heart rate, etc. - that have no clear equivalents in reinforcement (Dinsmoor, 2004).
The abovementioned nuances and other complicating factors related to the basic behavioral modification paradigm can have a profound effect on the actual behavioral outcome. In order for the behavior change to remain constant, John must continue to perceive the specific punishment as undesirable and any competing reinforcement (e.g., a good grade when not caught cheating on a test) as less desirable or at least not worth the risk of punishment. Human behavior does not occur in a vacuum and both the impetus for and rewards of particular behaviors may change over time and between contexts. Both reinforcers and punishers can vary in their intensity and relevance based upon various other circumstances. Attention to these shifts is necessary if the principles of operant conditioning are to remain effective and relevant to the behavior modification plan.
References
Carlson, N. R., Miller, H. L., Heth, D. S., Donahoe, J. W., & Martin, G. N. (2009). Psychology: The science of behavior, 7e. New York, NY: Pearson Ed.
Dinsmoor, J. A. (2004). The etymology of basic concepts in the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(3): 311-316
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning, 4e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Santrock, J. W. (2003). Psychology, 7e Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.