Punishment Conditions Research Articles

Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality

Humans willingly pay a cost to punish defecting partners in experimental games. However, the psychological motives underpinning punishment are unclear. Punishment could stem from the desire to reciprocally harm a cheat (i.e. revenge) which is arguably indicative of a deterrent function. Alternatively, punishment could be motivated by the desire to redress the balance between punisher and cheat. Such a desire for equality might be more indicative of a fitness-leveling function. We used a two player experimental game to disentangle these two possibilities. In this game, one player could choose to steal $0.20 from their partner. Depending on the treatment, players interacting with a stealing partner experienced either advantageous inequality, equal outcomes or disadvantageous inequality. Players could punish stealing partners, but some players had access to effective punishment (1:3 fee to fine) whereas others could only use ineffective punishment (1:1). Players who had access to effective punishment could reduce disadvantageous inequality by tailoring their investment in punishment whereas ineffective punishment did not change the relative payoffs of the individuals in the game but could be used to exact revenge. Players punished regardless of whether stealing created outcome inequality or whether punishment was ineffective at removing payoff differentials, suggesting that punishment was at least partly motivated by the desire to inflict reciprocal harm. However, in the effective punishment condition, players' tendency to punish increased if stealing resulted in disadvantageous inequality and, when possible, punishers tailored their investment in punishment to create equal outcomes. Together these findings suggest that punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Impact of Reward/punishment Conditions on Behavioral Inhibition and Automatic Physiological Responses in the Stages

Though the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory(RST) provides a biological interpretation for the relationship between emotions and behavioral inhibition aroused by reward/punishment, it is still somewhat limited when attempting to explain specific phenomena. This may be attributed to factors such as the type, degree, and duration of reward/punishment stimuli, which have differed across studies. For instance, in many studies reward/punishment is a within-subjects factor, however, in clinical situations a cumulative and constant reward/punishment model is more commonly encountered, such as persistent praise or criticism of a certain individual. Furthermore, the emotion triggered by cumulative reward/punishment could manifest at any stage of the task completing process. Accordingly, this research investigated the impact of cumulative reward/punishment conditions on inhibition and automatic physiological responses during different time stages. Forty-five college students were allocated to a reward group, punishment group, or control group at random. The experiment used the Super Lab system to present stimuli and record the response time and rate of error inhibition shown by the subjects during the stop-signal task. Automatic physiological responses were collected continuously throughout the whole procedure(preparatory stage, working stage, feedback stage and reward/punishment stage) by a 16-channel physiological recording system. The results showed that:(1) in the absence of the stop-signal task, the response time of the reward group and punishment group was significantly longer than that of control group, and during the stop-signal task, the error inhibition rate of the reward group and punishment group was significantly lower than that of control group. However, there were no difference between the reward group and punishment group;(2) Heart rates within the reward group were much higher than those in the punishment group and control group, and finger temperatures were much higher than those in the control group; however, skin conductance responses in the reward group weremuch lower than those in the punishment and control groups;(3) Compared with other stages, the variation of these physical signals was much lower at the feedback stage;(4) The three groups differed in heart rate, finger temperature, and finger pulse rate at all stages, but skin conductance responses did not show significant differences across the groups. The results reveal that behavioral arousal is not synchronized with physiological arousal during reward and punishment conditions. Both the reward and punishment conditions showed inhibition to the behavioral measures, but they showed significant differences in physical arousal.

Naturaleza dogmática de los límites cuantitativos en los delitos económicos: especial referencia al delito de uso de información privilegiada bursátil

En el ámbito de los delitos económicos en general, y en particular del delito de uso de información privilegiada bursátil, es indispensable determinar la naturaleza dogmática de la cuantía del beneficio-perjuicio al que alude el art. 285 CP, ya que su calificación como condición objetiva de punibilidad o como resultado típico tendrá importantes repercusiones en el ámbito del Iter Criminis. En efecto, si admitimos que tales cuantías constituyen resultados típicos estaríamos afirmando la punibilidad de la tentativa cuando la conducta típica no alcanza el límite señalado en la descripción típica, mientras que si dicho límite supone una condición objetiva de punibilidad, entonces habría que negar el castigo de la tentativa en estos casos. Muy interesante es la cuestión relativa al error que recae sobre tales límites cuantitativos, puesto que las consecuencias difieren sustancialmente en uno u otro caso.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5377/derecho.v0i16.1491 Revista de Derecho No.16 2013 pp.9-34

Motivation sharpens exogenous spatial attention.

Although both attention and motivation affect behavior, how these 2 systems interact is currently unknown. To address this question, 2 experiments were conducted in which participants performed a spatially cued forced-choice localization task under varying levels of motivation. Participants were asked to indicate the location of a peripherally cued target while ignoring a distracter. Motivation was manipulated by varying magnitude and valence (reward and punishment) of an incentive linked to task performance. Attention was manipulated via a peripheral cue, which correctly predicted the presence of a target stimulus on 70% of the trials. Taken together, our findings revealed that the signal detection measure, reflecting perceptual sensitivity, increased as a function of incentive value during both valid and invalid trials. In addition, trend analyses revealed a linear increase in detection sensitivity as a function of incentive magnitude for both reward and punishment conditions. Our results suggest that elevated motivation leads to improved efficiency in orienting and reorienting of exogenous spatial attention and that one mechanism by which attention and motivation interact involves the sharpening of attention during motivationally salient conditions.

Conditional punishment

We elicit human conditional punishment types by conducting experiments. We find that their punishment decisions to an individual are on average significantly positively proportional to other members’ punishment decisions to that individual.

Collaborative Robotics Projects for Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders

This study examines the levels of social interaction of students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders during collaborative robotics projects. An alternating treatments design was used to observe the duration of social interaction of two middle school children with autism spectrum disorders across robotics and nonrobotics instruction as well as structured versus nonstructured activities. Results show that both participants with autism spectrum disorders engaged in higher levels of social interaction during robotics instruction when compared with nonrobotics instruction sessions. However, one participant displayed significantly higher levels of social interaction during nonstructured activities, indicating that the instructional setting may serve as a conditioned punisher for the student's social interactions.

Conditional Punishment

Conditional Punishment

The Problem in Connection with the Damage Actual Condition of Sex Crimes and Punishment in Japan

The Problem in Connection with the Damage Actual Condition of Sex Crimes and Punishment in Japan

Timeliness of Impact of Reward/punishment Stimulations on Behavioral Inhibition Ability and Automatic Physiological Responses

Reward and punishment play an important role in clinical education. A series of studies have indicated that the clinical effect of reward and punishment can be affected by the frequency, individual sensitivity and the expectation of reward and punishment. However, little is known about the timeliness of the role of reward and punishment. In the present study, we investigated the length of time for which the emotion triggered by cumulative reward/punishment could act on inhibition ability. This was investigated using a psycho-physiological methodology which used the stop-signal task to explore the timeliness of reward and punishment.The experiment comprised a 3(group: reward group, punishment group, and control group) × 5(periodicity: stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stage 4, and stage 5) mixed factorial design, in which stimulus condition varied between subjects, and periodicity varied within subjects. Forty-five college students were allocated to the reward group, punishment group, or control group at random. The experimental process was divided into five latent stages. The experiment used the Super Lab system to present the stimuli, and to record the response time and rate of error inhibition made by participants in the stop-signal task during each stage. Automatic physiological responses were collected continuously by a 16-channel physiological recording system during each stage. The results showed that(1) differences in behavioral response time and error inhibition rate only occurred in Stages 2 and 3. Specifically, the response time of the reward group in Stage 2 was much higher than that in the control group; the response time of the reward group in Stage 3 was much higher than those observed in the punishment or control group; and the error inhibition rate of the reward group in Stages 2 and 3 was much lower than in the punishment or control group;(2) For automatic physiological responses, the impact of reward/punishment stimulations differed in almost all stages for skin conductance responses and finger temperature, but not heart rate. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that the effects of reward/punishment stimulations on behavioral inhibition ability differed across time. At the critical time periods, only the reward condition improved behavioral inhibition ability; and the punishment condition increased the inhibition response. The effects of reward stimulations across time differed for heart rate, but not skin conductance responses or finger temperature activities.

Anhedonia and Pain Avoidance in the Suicidal Mind: Behavioral Evidence for Motivational Manifestations of Suicidal Ideation in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

Psychological pain may be helpful in conceptualizing suicidal behavior, in that high motivation to avoid pain combined with painful feelings may contribute to an increased risk of suicide. However, no experimental study has tested this hypothesis. The aim of the present study is to provide empirical evidence for the relationship between anhedonia, pain avoidance motivation, and suicidal ideation. The sample comprised 40 depressed outpatients and 20 healthy control subjects. All participants completed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSS), Beck Depression Inventory, Psychache Scale, Three-Dimensional Psychological Pain Scale, the monetary incentive delay (MID), and affective incentive delay (AID) tasks. Based on BSS scores, clinical participants were divided into high suicidal ideation (HSI) and low suicidal ideation (LSI) groups. In the AID task, the HSI group had longer response times (RTs) under the reward condition than those under the punishment condition (p = .002). The LSI and control groups had shorter RTs under the reward condition compared with those under the neural condition (p <.001 and p = .008, respectively). The LSI group also had shorter RTs under the reward condition than under the punishment condition (p = .003). Pain arousal (r = -.33, p <.01) and BSS scores were significantly negatively correlated with differences in RTs between neutral and reward conditions. Pain avoidance (r = .35, p <.01) and BSS scores were positively correlated with differences in RTs between neutral and punishment conditions. The AID task was more sensitive than the MID task for the detection of participants' motivation in approaching hedonic experiences and avoiding pain. A suicidal mindset is manifested as decreased motivation to experience hedonia and increased motivation to avoid pain, which could be strong predictors of suicidal behavior.

The Liberal Polity, Criminal Sanction, and Civil Society

The article explores an intersection of moral psychology and political principles regarding criminal sanction. A liberal state cannot require that persons acquire certain states of character or lead certain specific kinds of lives; it cannot require virtue. Moreover, it would be wrong for the state to punish offenders in ways that damage their capacities for agency, and in ways that encourage vice. In the U.S. the terms and conditions of punishment often have deleterious effects on agential capacities, undermining the ability to reintegrate in civil society. Prison experience is often antithetical to maintaining or acquiring the dispositions of prudence, accountability, trust, and trustworthiness needed for participation in civil society, raising significant questions concerning the legitimacy of punishment.

Punishing and cardiovascular effects of intravenous histamine in rats: Pharmacological selectivity

Although drugs may serve as reinforcers or punishers of operant behavior, the punishing function has received much less experimental attention than the reinforcing function. A sensitive method for studying drug-induced punishment is to assess choice for a punished response over an unpunished response. In these experiments, rats chose between pressing one lever and receiving a sucrose pellet or pressing another lever and receiving a sucrose pellet plus an intravenous injection of histamine. When sucrose was delivered equally frequently for either the punished or the unpunished response, rats selected the unpunished lever consistently, but decreases in the punished response did not differ as a function of intravenous histamine dose (0.1-1 mg/kg/inj). Changing the procedure so that sucrose was delivered on the unpunished lever with p = .5 increased the rats' responding on the punished lever with saline injections. In addition, the same range of histamine doses produced a much larger range of responses on the punished lever that was dose dependent. Using these procedures to assess the receptors mediating histamine's effects, the histamine H1 -receptor antagonists, pyrilamine and ketotifen, antagonized the punishing effect of histamine, but the histamine H2 -receptor antagonist ranitidine did not. However, ranitidine pretreatments reduced histamine-induced heart-rate increases to a greater extent than did the histamine H1 -receptor antagonists when administered at the same doses examined under conditions of histamine punishment. Overall, the present findings extend the general hypothesis that activation of histamine H1 -receptors mediates the punishing effects of histamine. They also introduce methods for rapidly assessing pharmacological mechanisms underlying drug-induced punishment.

Effects of reward and punishment on brain activations associated with inhibitory control in cigarette smokers

Susceptibility to use of addictive substances may result, in part, from a greater preference for an immediate small reward relative to a larger delayed reward or relative insensitivity to punishment. This functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study examined the neural basis of inhibiting an immediately rewarding stimulus to obtain a larger delayed reward in smokers. We also investigated whether punishment could modulate inhibitory control. The Monetary Incentive Go/NoGo (MI-Go/NoGo) task was administered that provided three types of reward outcomes contingent upon inhibitory control performance over rewarding stimuli: inhibition failure was either followed by no monetary reward (neutral condition), a small monetary reward with immediate feedback (reward condition) or immediate monetary punishment (punishment condition). In the reward and punishment conditions, successful inhibitory control resulted in larger delayed rewards. Community sample of smokers in the Melbourne (Australia) area. Nineteen smokers were compared with 17 demographically matched non-smoking controls. Accuracy, reaction times and brain activation associated with the MI-Go/NoGo task. Smokers showed hyperactivation in the right insula (P < 0.01), inferior and middle frontal gyrus (P < 0.01), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (P = 0.001) and inferior parietal lobe (P < 0.01) both during inhibition of an immediately rewarding stimulus to obtain a larger delayed reward, and during inhibition of neutral stimuli. Group differences in brain activity were not significant in the punishment condition in the right insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, most probably as a result of increased activation in non-smoking controls. Compared with non-smokers, smokers showed increased neural activation when resisting immediately rewarding stimuli and may be less sensitive to punishment as a strategy to increase control over rewarding stimuli.

Does Gender Influence Risk Attitude and Ambiguity Aversion? When Psycho-Physiological Measurements Contradict Social Beliefs

This paper investigates a condition which is preliminary to attitudes towards entrepreneurship and innovation, because it focuses on human behavior in conditions of uncertainty. It analyzes whether or not there exists a biological difference between females and males when behaving under such conditions. Uncertainty is generally related to risk on the one hand, and to ambiguity on the other. Coherently with these two dimensions, the paper investigates if risk-taking attitudes and ambiguity aversion are related to gender. After organizing a cooperative of researchers from different scientific backgrounds; economists on the one hand and neurologists on the other; we observed a population of 645 individuals variegated by gender, education, and professional experience. We ran a psycho-physiological experiment which simulated real-life decisions in conditions of reward and punishment, that was originally intended to explain decision-making deficits in people with specific frontal lobe damage. This experiment made use of the IOWA Gambling Task (IGT) with the simultaneous collection of the individuals' Skin Conductance Response (SCR). It was integrated with a questionnaire made up of a financial risk tolerance self-assessment tool, an impulsivity test, and a set of socio-demographical questions. It proposed some indicators for risk propensity that we distinguished between biased and unbiased ones, in relation to the ability of the agent interviewed to alter his or her performance at the task, (i.e. if he or she is conscious or unconscious of the risk profile that is emerging). Our findings support that there is no statistical evidence of differences in behaviors when we observe males and females and measure their attitude through unbiased indicators. But, when we move towards indicators obtained from self-evaluations, statistical differences arise. These differences hold also in a multi-variate framework, meaning that they are just related to gender and not to different drivers that may be related to it, (such as education, self-esteem, wealth, and impulsivity). Therefore, our paper asserts that a strong cultural bias induces women to believe themselves to be risk averters and men to believe themselves to be risk lovers, even if they both, facing a risky or ambiguous task, behave the same.

Dual-task performance is differentially modulated by rewards and punishments

Dual-task situations play a pivotal role in daily life and are subject to a research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. From a neuroscience perspective, the response selection bottleneck may be partly constituted by the dopaminergic system. The dopaminergic system plays a pivotal role in reward and punishment effects. In the current study we therefore investigated the effects of rewards and punishments as a potential modulator of dual-tasking processes. We examined dual-task performance in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, where the task order was either predictable, or unpredictable. Three groups were tested; a punishment group (N=14), a reward group (N=18) and a control group (N=16). The results show that in the punishment condition, dual-task performance is increased relative to controls (i.e., faster RTs). In the reward condition performance decreased relative to controls. The effects observed were of moderate to high effect sizes. However, the effects were only evident when task performance was unpredictable. These divergent effects of rewards and punishments on dual-tasking may be explained by the differential involvement of different dopamine receptors in rewards and punishments, and their effects on the amount and flexibility of task goals in working memory.

Punishment-induced behavioral and neurophysiological variability reveals dopamine-dependent selection of kinematic movement parameters.

Action selection describes the high-level process that selects between competing movements. In animals, behavioral variability is critical for the motor exploration required to select the action that optimizes reward and minimizes cost/punishment and is guided by dopamine (DA). The aim of this study was to test in humans whether low-level movement parameters are affected by punishment and reward in ways similar to high-level action selection. Moreover, we addressed the proposed dependence of behavioral and neurophysiological variability on DA and whether this may underpin the exploration of kinematic parameters. Participants performed an out-and-back index finger movement and were instructed that monetary reward and punishment were based on its maximal acceleration (MA). In fact, the feedback was not contingent on the participant's behavior but predetermined. Blocks highly biased toward punishment were associated with increased MA variability relative to blocks either with reward or without feedback. This increase in behavioral variability was positively correlated with neurophysiological variability, as measured by changes in corticospinal excitability with transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex. Following the administration of a DA antagonist, the variability associated with punishment diminished and the correlation between behavioral and neurophysiological variability no longer existed. Similar changes in variability were not observed when participants executed a predetermined MA, nor did DA influence resting neurophysiological variability. Thus, under conditions of punishment, DA-dependent processes influence the selection of low-level movement parameters. We propose that the enhanced behavioral variability reflects the exploration of kinematic parameters for less punishing, or conversely more rewarding, outcomes.

Effectiveness of conditional punishment for the evolution of public cooperation

Collective actions, from city marathons to labor strikes, are often mass-driven and subject to the snowball effect. Motivated by this, we study evolutionary advantages of conditional punishment in the spatial public goods game. Unlike unconditional punishers who always impose the same fines on defectors, conditional punishers do so proportionally with the number of other punishers in the group. Phase diagrams in dependence on the punishment fine and cost reveal that the two types of punishers cannot coexist. Spontaneous coarsening of the two strategies leads to an indirect territorial competition with the defectors, which is won by unconditional punishers only if the sanctioning is inexpensive. Otherwise conditional punishers are the victors of the indirect competition, indicating that under more realistic conditions they are indeed the more effective strategy. Both continuous and discontinuous phase transitions as well as tricritical points characterize the complex evolutionary dynamics, which is due to multipoint interactions that are introduced by conditional punishment. We propose indirect territorial competition as a generally applicable mechanism relying on pattern formation, by means of which spatial structure can be utilized by seemingly subordinate strategies to avoid evolutionary extinction.

Individual differences in behavioural inhibition explain free riding in public good games when punishment is expected but not implemented

BackgroundThe literature on social dilemmas and punishment focuses on the behaviour of the punisher. However, to fully explain the effect of punishment on cooperation, it is important to understand the psychological mechanisms influencing the behaviour of those who expect to be punished. This paper examines whether the expectation of punishment, rather than the implementation of punishment is sufficient to prevent individuals from free riding. Individual differences in the punishment sensitivity have been linked to both threat responses (flight, fight, fear system, or the FFFS) and to the response to the uncertainty of punishment (BIS-anxiety).The paper, therefore, examines if individual differences in BIS-anxiety and FFFS can explain some of the variability in free riding in the face of implemented and non-implemented punishment.MethodsParticipants took part in a series of one-shot Public Goods Games (PGGs) facing two punishment conditions (implemented and non-implemented) and two standard non-punishment PGGs. The punishment was implemented as a centralized authority punishment (i.e., if one participant contributed less than their group members, they were automatically fined). Individual contribution levels and presence/absence of zero contributions indexed free riding. Individual differences in behavioural inhibition were assessed.ResultsIndividuals contributed more under the threat of punishment (both implemented and non-implemented). However, individuals contributed less when the punishment was not implemented compared to when it was. Those scoring high in BIS-anxiety contributed more when the punishment expectations were not implemented. This effect was not observed for FFFS.ConclusionSupporting previous research, punishment had a powerful effect in increasing contribution levels in the PGGs. However, when expected punishment was not implemented, individual differences in punishment sensitivity, specifically in BIS-anxiety, were related to fewer contributions (increased free riding) as compared to the situation when punishment was not implemented. This has implications for our understanding of why some people cannot resist the temptation to free ride, even when facing possible punishment for their actions. Our findings suggest that the diminished functioning of mechanisms, associated with trait behavioural inhibition, can partly explain such behaviours.

Positive and negative reinforcement activate human auditory cortex.

Prior studies suggest that reward modulates neural activity in sensory cortices, but less is known about punishment. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and an auditory discrimination task, where participants had to judge the duration of frequency modulated tones. In one session correct performance resulted in financial gains at the end of the trial, in a second session incorrect performance resulted in financial loss. Incorrect performance in the rewarded as well as correct performance in the punishment condition resulted in a neutral outcome. The size of gains and losses was either low or high (10 or 50 Euro cent) depending on the direction of frequency modulation. We analyzed neural activity at the end of the trial, during reinforcement, and found increased neural activity in auditory cortex when gaining a financial reward as compared to gaining no reward and when avoiding financial loss as compared to receiving a financial loss. This was independent on the size of gains and losses. A similar pattern of neural activity for both gaining a reward and avoiding a loss was also seen in right middle temporal gyrus, bilateral insula and pre-supplemental motor area, here however neural activity was lower after correct responses compared to incorrect responses. To summarize, this study shows that the activation of sensory cortices, as previously shown for gaining a reward is also seen during avoiding a loss.

Ubiquity and efficiency of restrictions on informal punishment rights

Over-punishment often occurs in anonymous peer-to-peer punishment in public goods game experiments where punishment is free for all. We report a public goods game experiment in which a condition where punishment rights were restricted to one other player per player yielded higher total welfare than a condition with unrestricted punishment. In the restricted punishment condition, there was much less punishment but high levels of cooperation were achieved nonetheless. This indicates that it may be beneficial to groups to restrict punishment rights. In a second study we presented respondents from many different countries with three scenarios constituting everyday social dilemmas of various kinds. Across countries, respondents tended to judge it as inappropriate for most involved parties to punish selfish individuals in the scenarios. Typically, only one party was judged to have the right to punish. Whereas much prior work has considered punishment as a public good that needs to be encouraged, these findings suggest that informal norms about sanctions tend to constrain punishment to certain individuals. Such norms may serve the function to harness the positive effects of punishment while containing the negative effects, and we suggest that they are likely to arise from learning.