Delay Of Punishment Research Articles

Swiftness and Delay of Punishment

Swiftness and Delay of Punishment

Questions Regarding the Improvement of the Delay of Punishment under the Criminal Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Questions regarding the improvement of the delay of punishment under the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan are considered in this article. Since obtaining validity, for the purpose of its improvement changes and additions were made systematically at present Criminal code of Kazakhstan. These legislative innovations entirely touched upon this type of release from punishment. However, despite the positive changes allowing expansion of a framework of this social and legal institution there are some questions regarding the attention at the legislative level.

Hypothermia-induced anterograde amnesia: Is memory loss attributable to impaired acquisition?

The present investigation examined whether the poor test performance observed in studies of anterograde amnesia reflects a memory deficit or is a by-product of weaker initial learning resulting from impaired sensory, motivational, or associative processes. Two experiments were performed which utilized latent extinction (Experiment 1) and delay of punishment (Experiment 2) manipulations in order to assess the nature of original learning in rats trained under either hypothermic (29 degrees C) or normothermic conditions. Results from both experiments provided evidence that hypothermia treatment administered prior to training had relatively little influence on the animal's ability to acquire a passive avoidance response. Therefore, the rapid forgetting observed in hypothermia-induced anterograde amnesia is most likely due to memory deficits rather than an artifact of poorer acquisition.

Learning Due to the Response-Shock Contingency in Signalled Punishment

Three experiments examined some of the parameters that affect the degree of response-specific learning in signalled punishment. Each of the experiments used a within-subject procedure in which the shocks received in the presence of a stimulus signalling response-independent shocks (CER) were yoked to the number and distribution of shocks received in a stimulus signalling punishment. Experiments 1 and 2 used different values of variable-interval (VI) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of shock priming, respectively, during the punishment stimulus, and Experiment 3 varied the delay of punishment. The results of all three experiments supported the conclusion that the degree of additional suppression produced by the response contingency during the punishment stimulus compared to the CER stimulus was a function of the strength of contingency between the response and the shock.

The Effects of Four-Hour Delay of Punishment under Two Conditions of Verbal Instruction

VERNA, GARY B. The Effects of Four-Hour Delay of Punishment under Two Conditions of Verbal Instruction. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1977, 48, 621-624. The effects of 4-hour delay of punishment (withdrawal of reward) on response inhibition was studied with 24 fourth-grade children. The experimental groups were response-contingent punishment (group 1), 4-hour delayed punishment with minimum verbal instruction regarding the reason for punishment (group 2), and 4-hour delayed punishment with specific verbal instruction regarding the reason for punishment (group 3). Children from group 2 deviated significantly sooner, for a longer time, and more often than children from the other groups. However, no difference between groups 1 and 3 was significant. For each of 3 dependent variables the results were conclusive; a verbal expression of the punishment contingency allows the 10-year-old child to profit from 4-hour delayed punishment as much as immediate punishment, even when the delayed feedback occurs in another setting.

The Effects of Four-Hour Delay of Punishment under Two Conditions of Verbal Instruction

The Effects of Four-Hour Delay of Punishment under Two Conditions of Verbal Instruction

Punished and classical-trial extinction of avoidance in gerbils following partial and continuous reinforcement.

Summary.-Four groups of gerbils received either partial or continuous reinforcement during avoidance acquisition followed by either classical trials (CS-US pairings) or punishment in extinction. Partial reinforcement produced greater resistance to both classical-trials extinction and punishment than continuous reinforcement. Punishment produced more rapid extinction than classical trials following continuous reinforcement, while following partial reinforcement, vunishment facilitated performance relative to classical trials. - The results were related to the effects of delay of punishment, delay of CS termination, and the phenomenon of self-punitive behavior. In a previous study (Galvani, 1971), gerbils trained under eicher partial or continuous reinforcement showed more rapid extinction of shuttle avoidance responding when exposed to classical trials (CS-US pairings) with inevitable shock than when given regdar avoidance extinccion trials on which the US was omitted whether or not S responded. These findings were attributed to punishment suppression resulting from delayed punishment on classical trials. Specifically, a 5-sec. CS-US interval was employed in acquisition and extinccion. Any CR made on a classiczl trial was therefore followed in a few seconds at most by an inescapable shoclt In view of Karnin's ( 1959) evidence for a delay of punishment gradient, one might predict immediate punishment would produce more rapid suppression of avoidance responding than the classical-crial procedure. The presenc investigation tested this prediction. In addition, the present experiment was conducted to determine whecher animals acquiring the avoidance response under partial reinforcement would be more resistant to punishment than Ss receiving continuous reinforcement. Galvani ( 197 1 ) previously found partially reinforced Ss were more resistant to exciaction (PRE) than continuously reinforced Ss under both the classical-trial and regular-avoidance extinction procedures.

Effects of US-Presentation and CS-termination contingencies on avoidance extinction following partial and continuous reinforcement

The present study assessed the role of both the US-presentation (punishment) and CS-termination contingencies on the maintenance of the shuttlebox avoidance responding in gerbils following acquisition under either partial reinforcement (PR) or continuous reinforcement (AV). Following PR, a stronger relationship obtained between delay of CS termination CR frequency than was found between delay of punishment and extinction performance. Following AV training, however, delay of CS termination and delay of punishment were equally effective determinants of avoidance extinction. These results were interpreted in terms of both the enhanced efficacy of the CS-termination contingency, possibly due to its increased informational value, and the attenuation of punishment suppression in PR-trained Ss.

Delay of punishment and choice behavior in the rat.

Delay of punishment and choice behavior in the rat.

A parallel study of the amnesic effects of cycloheximide and ECS under different strengths of conditioning.

Delay of punishment 0, 30, 60, 120 and 240 sec after the step-through response in a one trial passive avoidance task was used to obtain in mice conditioned responses of different strengths. Both cycloheximide and ECS given immediately after training had a greater amnesic effect upon the weaker conditioned responses obtained with the longer delays of punishment. A proactive effect of ECS, but not of cycloheximide, was demonstrated with the weaker conditioned responses.

Delay of punishment in passive avoidance conditioning.

eral principles are to be obtained. The purpose of the present investigation was to provide another test of the effects of the delay of punishment on learning using a one-trial passive avoidance technique with mice. Ss were 114 female CF1 albino mice, approximately 9 wk, old, and were trained in a two-chambered box where they could receive a single punishing shock after stepping spontaneously from a small lighted compartment into a larger darkened one (7). Ss were randomly assigned to nine groups, receiving the shock at 0-sec., 30-sec., 1-min., 2-min., 4min., and 8-min. delay intervals after the stepping response. Twenty-four hours after this learning trial the animals were again placed in the lighted compartment for retest and the latencies of stepping into the darkened chamber were measured. Animals tarrying longer than 300 sec. were removed.

Delayed punishment of positively reinforced bar presses.

Combining positive and negative reinforcement (both being electrical stimulation of the brain) for lever pressing by 4 rats produced a gradient of suppression as the 2 qualities of reinforcement were separated temporally. Maximal suppression occurred with an interstimulus interval of about 1 sec. This maximum was interpreted as marking the intersection of a waning interaction of the neurological aspects of reward and punishment and a delay-of-punishment gradient. After the 1 sec. of neural interaction, the greater the delay of punishment the less the suppression of responding.

DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT AND DELAY OF PUNISHMENT IN PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION..

Persuasive communications, which 140 Ss read aloud, included a statement of the opinion to be learned, followed by neutral material, and then by the argument (information supporting the opinion without repeating i t ) . Delay of argument (time interval between opinion statement and argument) was varied either by interrupting reading of neutral material ( 5 and 2 0 sec.) or without interruption by using neurral material of appropriate length (mean delay = 4 and 20 sec.). Theory (1 ) and research employing the non-interruption method ( 2 ) 5nclicate that the argument functions as a reinforcer of the opinion response, and that delay of argument is analogous to delay of reinforcement, e.g., speed of'agreement (l/latency) is a negatively accelerated decreasing function of delay of argument. In the present study, results with the non-interruption method also show this decremental delay of reinforcement effect on speed (Ms = .057, Mr. = ,029, t = 3.05, df = 30: p < .01, 2-tailed). Speed increased with delay under the interruption method ( i l l s = ,034, Mr. = ,053, r = 2.12, df = 30; p < .05, 2-tailed). Results under the interruption method, while not predictable in derail, can also be interpreted in terms of learning principles. Most Ss have a learning history in which interruption (by parents, teachers, etc.) indicates behavior regarded as incorrect, inadequate, or otherwise disapproved. Social disapproval is a punishment; interruption thus becomes a conditioned punisher. The short delay group is by interruption 5 sec. after stating the opinion, while the long delay group is punished 2 0 sec. after stating the opinion. Thus, delay of reinforcement may be confoundecl with delay of punishment under the interruption method, with the punishment effects predominating in the results.

EFFECTS OF CONCURRENT DELAYS OF MATERIAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ON PROBLEM-SOLVING IN CHILDREN.

Seventy-two grade 2 children were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions in a study of the effects of concurrent delay of reward and delay of punishment on children's problem solving. Three levels of delay of reward and three levels of delay of punishment,