Partial Punishment Research Articles

PENGARUH STRES KERJA DAN PUNISHMENT TERHADAP KINERJA KARYAWAN DEPARTEMEN MERCHANDISING INDOMARET CABANG BANJARMASIN

The purpose of this study was to find out how work stress partially influences the performance of employees of the Banjarmasin Branch of Indomaret Merchandising Department, to find out how partial punishment affects the performance of employees of the Indomaret Merchandising Department Banjarmasin Branch, and to find out how work stress and punishment simultaneously influence performance of employees of the Merchandising Department of Indomaret Banjarmasin Branch
 The method used is a quantitative descriptive method. Data collection is in the form of distributing questionnaires. Data processing in this study used the SPSS program and the analysis tests carried out were the Research Instrument Test, the Classical Assumption Test, and the Hypothesis Test.
 The conclusions of this study indicate that work stress and punishment simultaneously have a significant effect on the performance of employees of the Banjarmasin Branch of Indomaret Merchandising Department. Partially, Job Stress has a negative and significant effect on Employee Performance at the Indomaret Merchandising Department, Banjarmasin Branch, meaning that the higher the Job Stress, the Employee Performance will decrease significantly, and vice versa. And partially, punishment has a positive and significant effect on employee performance, meaning that the fairer the punishment system applied to the Indomaret Merchandising Department, Banjarmasin Branch, the employee performance will increase.
 Suggestions from this study are that superiors from the branch level to the central level in the Indomaret Merchandising Department are expected not to overload employees with excessive tasks, this can increase high stress pressure. And to impose punishment on employees so that it can be carried out with a good warning and delivery, for example conveying it personally to the employee concerned, so that the employee does not feel pressured and there is no suggestion of excessive worry in doing work that can result in punishment.

Pengaruh Reward Dan Punishment Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) Cabang Samarinda

Good and poor person's performance can be influenced by many factors, among others is the granting of reward and punishment. Reward and punishment are two forms of methods to motivate, encourage and encourage employees to do good and improve their performance. This research aims to determine the influence between Reward and Punishment PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) Samarinda branch both partially and simultaneously to the employee's performance. The population of this research is all employees of PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) branch of Samarinda. Data collection in this study using questionnaires. Data analysis tools used validity test, reliability test, classical assumption test, multiple linear regression test, coefficient of determination test, F test and T test. From this research concluded that effect of apartial reward of the employee’s performance amounted to 48.5%, of the results T count >T table (3,919>1,993), and a partial punishment influence on the employee’s performance of 60.9%, of the result T count >T table (3,748>1,993), and simultaneously there was an influence between reward and punishment to performance by 50.2%, from the result of F count >F table (38,529>3,123). The results showed that the partial and simultaneous reward and punishment have significant effect on the employee's performance. PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) should provide appropriate reward and punishment to improve employee performance.

Pengaruh Reward Dan Punishment Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) Cabang Samarinda

Good and poor person's performance can be influenced by many factors, among others is the granting of reward and punishment. Reward and punishment are two forms of methods to motivate, encourage and encourage employees to do good and improve their performance. This research aims to determine the influence between Reward and Punishment PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) Samarinda branch both partially and simultaneously to the employee's performance. The population of this research is all employees of PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) branch of Samarinda. Data collection in this study using questionnaires. Data analysis tools used validity test, reliability test, classical assumption test, multiple linear regression test, coefficient of determination test, F test and T test. From this research concluded that effect of apartial reward of the employee’s performance amounted to 48.5%, of the results Tcount>Ttable (3,919>1,993), and a partial punishment influence on the employee’s performance of 60.9%, of the result Tcount>Ttable (3,748>1,993), and simultaneously there was an influence between reward and punishment to performance by 50.2%, from the result of Fcount>Ftable (38,529>3,123). The results showed that the partial and simultaneous reward and punishment have significant effect on the employee's performance. PT Federal International Finance (FIFGROUP) should provide appropriate reward and punishment to improve employee performance.

The January 2015 Parliamentary Election in Greece: Government Change, Partial Punishment and Hesitant Stabilisation

In January 2015 an early parliamentary election was held in Greece, amidst harsh economic conditions and the saliency of the issue of Greece’s relations with the European Union. The election, won by the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), marked a popular will for a total change of the governing paradigm and economic policies and, at the same time, confirmed that in countries that face economic crisis and have signed bail-out agreements entailing harsh austerity measures, government parties are sooner or later punished by the electorate, albeit in different degrees. In terms of systemic trends, the January 2015 election confirmed for the Greek party system an unstable process of acquiring a new shape.

CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE CRIMINAL LAW: RETHINKING CRIMINAL TRIAL BIFURCATION

The article challenges the bifurcation of criminal trials into two distinct phases of conviction and sentencing, as well as the all-or-nothing sentencing regime that such separation facilitates. Pointing to the sub-optimality of the bifurcation of decision-making regarding guilt and punishment, the article proposes an alternative sentencing regime – comparative sentencing – in which the severity of the punishment is correlated with the probability of guilt. It shows that in the epistemic space above the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ threshold, comparative sentencing has a greater deterrent effect than uniform punishment, detached from certainty of guilt. It also demonstrates that when the level of certainty as to the defendant's guilt does not meet the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard, the imposition of partial punishment, reflecting epistemic certainty as to the defendant's culpability, may also lead – in certain circumstances – to better deterrence outcomes than the existing alternative of no punishment (full acquittal).

Resistance to extinction and punishment following training with shock and non-reinforcement: Failure to obtain cross-tolerance

Two experiments investigated the phenomenon of cross-tolerance between the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) and the partial punishment effect (PPE). Three groups of rats were trained in acquisition to run in a straight alley. The continuously reinforced (CRF) group received a reward on every trial. The partially reinforced (PRF) group was rewarded on a quasi-random 50% schedule. The partially punished (PP) group received food reward on every trial but, in addition, received foot shocks of gradually increasing intensity in the goal box on a random 50% of the trials. In the test stage, half of the animals in each training condition were tested in extinction, where no reward was given on any of the trials, and the other half were tested in punishment, with both food and shock presented on each trial. Experiment 1 used a 1-trial/day procedure; Experiment 2 used a multi-trial procedure. In both procedures, clear PREE and PPE were obtained. In the 1-trial/day procedure, no cross-tolerance was evid...

Amphetamine does not affect the partial punishment effect (PPE)

The effects of amphetamine on the partial punishment effect (PPE) at one trial per day, were examined. Two groups of animals were trained to run in a straight alley. The continuously reinforced (CRF) group received food reward on every trial. The partially punished (PP) group received food reward on every trial but in addition, received footshocks of a gradually increasing intensity in the goal box on a random 50% of the trials. In the test stage, all animals received both food and footshock on each trial. dl-Amphetamine 1.5 mg/kg was administered in a 2 X 2 design, i.e. drug-no drug in training and drug-no drug in test. The partially punished animals exhibited increased persitence in running to the goal box during test, and this "partial punishment effect" was unaffected by amphetamine.

Resistance to extinction after schedules of partial delay or partial reinforcement in rats with hippocampal lesions.

Two experimental procedures were employed to establish the reason why hippocampal lesions apparently block the development of tolerance for aversive events in partial reinforcement experiments, but do not do so in partial punishment experiments. Rats were trained to run in a straight alley following hippocampal lesions (HC), cortical control lesions (CC) or sham operations (SO), and resistance to extinction was assessed following differing acquisition conditions. In Experiment 1 a 4-8 min inter-trial interval (ITI) was used. Either every acquisition trial was rewarded immediately (Continuous Reinforcement, CR), or only a randomly selected half of the trials were immediately rewarded, the reward being delayed for thirty seconds on the other trials (Partial Delay, PD). This delay procedure produced increased resistance to extinction in rats in all lesion groups. In Experiment 2 the ITI was reduced to a few seconds, and rats were trained either on a CR schedule, or on a schedule in which only half the trials were rewarded (Partial Reinforcement, PR). This form of partial reinforcement procedure also produced increased resistance to extinction in rats in all lesion groups. It thus appears that hippocampal lesions only prevent the development of resistance to aversive events when the interval between aversive and subsequent appetitive events exceeds some minimum value.

Long-term partial reinforcement extinction effect and long-term partial punishment effect in a one-trial-a-day paradigm

Two experiments were run to demonstrate the presence of a partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) and a partial punishment effect (PPE) 4 weeks after training in a 1-trial/day procedure. In the PREE paradigm, two groups of animals were trained to run a straight alley for food reward; one group was rewarded on every trial (CRF), whereas the other was rewarded on only 50% of the trials (PRF). In the test phase, extinction, no reward was present on any trial. Four weeks after the end of acquisition, and subsequent to 7 days of CRF retraining, PRF animals showed greater resistance to extinction than did their CRF controls. The PPE paradigm resembled the PREE paradigm in all aspects, except that mild electric foot shock, together with the food reward, was used instead of nonreward on 50% of the acquisition trials. In the test phase, all animals were shocked and given a food reward on every trial. Four weeks after the end of acquisition and retraining, the animals with previous experience of shock in acquisition showed greater resistance to punishment than did their controls.

Hippocampal lesions do not alter the partial punishment effect.

Rats were trained to run in an alley for food reward. In a 'partial punishment' condition the animals also received occasional footshock in the goalbox; controls received only food reward during training. In a test phase all animals were given both food and footshock in the goalbox on every trial. Previously partially punished animals demonstrated greater persistence in running to the goal during this test phase. This 'partial punishment effect' was unchanged by hippocampectomy whether the experiment was conducted with an inter-trial interval of a few minutes or one of 24 h. The presence of the partial punishment effect in hippocampectomised rats is in sharp contrast with the abolition of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (which is very similar to the partial punishment effect, but based upon nonreward rather than punishment) previously reported after hippocampectomy.

Pavlovian counterconditioning is unchanged by chlordiazepoxide or by septal lesions.

Two experiments were performed to test whether the minor tranquillizer chlordiaz-epoxide or septal lesions could interfere with Pavlovian counterconditioning. Rats were first trained to bar-press for food on a random interval schedule on which was superimposed the presentation of a light which predicted delivery of a shock. This training continued until all animals were showing stable suppression of responding to the light. Separate groups were then presented, while the manipulandum was retracted from the box, with either a shock paired with the delivery of food or shock and food delivery in a random relationship with one another. This type of intrusion period alternated with the presentation of the light and shock. Pavlovian counterconditioning developed, as shown by progressively less response suppression in the paired groups compared to the random groups. This Pavlovian counterconditioning was in no way reduced by either chlordiazepoxide (5 mg/kg) or by medial or lateral septal lesions. It is argued that these results rule out Pavlovian counterconditioning as a process which is affected by minor tranquillizers or by septal lesions when they interfere with the behavioural tolerance observed after partial punishment or partial reward schedules.

Positive Contrast following a Shift from Partial Punishment to Continuous Reinforcement

The primary emphasis in the area of incentive contrast has centered around the effects of shifts in reward magnitude. However, with increasing evidence of the broad nature of contrast phenomena, investigators have explored the effect under other experimental contingencies. One procedure of potential theoretical interest deals with shifts in percentage or frequency of reward. Lehr (1974) and Shanab, Birnbaum, and Cavallaro (1974) have recently found positive contrast following shifts from partial reinforcement to continuous reinforcement schedules. The purpose of the present study was to expand the scope of research on percentage shift to include an examination of preshift incentive level by introducing punishment as a partial determinant of incentive. Twenty-four albino rats, 100 days old, were initially given 40 trials of continuous reinforcement (10 .045-gm. pellets on each trial) in a straight, 1.2-m., wooden alley (4 trials/day). All subjects received a constant 20-sec. delay of reward throughout the experiment to hold down running speed and allow for the emergence of positive contrast. The alley was 10 cm wide, 13.75 cm high, and covered by a hinged Plexiglas top. During a subsequent 40-trial preshift-phase 3 conditions (8 subjects/group) experienced different reward schedules. As a control, continuous reinforced subjects received 10 .045-gm. Noyes pellets per trial throughout the experiment (4 trials/day). Subjects partially reinforced received 2 reinforced and 2 nonreinforced trials each day and subjects partially punished received 2 rewarded and 2 punished trials each day (punishment was superimposed on nonreinforcement). During this phase, the alley was modified such that bIack and white vertical stripes were placed over the grey interior and a grid floor was installed in the delay and goal sections of the alley. A Lehigh Valley, Model 1531 shock unit was employed to administer a brief (.5-sec. duration) electric shock at 2.5 mA. Following preshift training, in order to avoid the possible contaminating influence of conditioned fear, the alley was reconverted to grey interior and wooden floor and all subjects shifted to delayed continuous reinforcement (10 pellets on each trial). This postshift phase lasted 32 trials (4 trials/day). A 3 groups X 8 blocks of 4 trials repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed on total speeds during postshift. The finding of greatest interest was a significant interaction of groups X blocks (K,,I,, = 1.82, p < .05). Newman-Keuls post hoc procedure indicated that a significant positive contrast effect emerged on Blodc 4; the condition of partial punishment was superior to those of partial and continuous reinforcement, which did not differ (p < .05). Since parcial punishment would have been expected to have had a lower preshift-incentive level than partial reinforcement, the present experiment supporcs the position that in studies of percentage shift, preshift-incentive level determines the magnitude of contrast in postshift.

The partial punishment effect following minimal acquisition training: Sodium amobarbital and the stimulus properties of early punished trials

In a runway investigation, six groups of rats received limited runway training such that partial punishment, partial reinforcement, or continuous reinforcement was accompanied by sodium amobarbital or saline. Following an interpolated phase of continuous reinforcement without injections, all groups were given punished extinction. The entire experiment was conducted under widely spaced conditions (ITI = 24 hr). It was found that partial punishment increased resistance to punished extinction relative to partially and continuously reinforced controls when acquisition was given under saline. When partial punishment training was accompanied by amobarbital this effect was eliminated. The drug was observed to have no effect on the punished extinction performance of the partial reinforcement and continuous groups, respectively. Moreover, the partial reinforcement effect (PRE) did not generalize to punished extinction. These data provide information concerning the difference between the stimuli associated with the early trials of punishment and nonreward and indicate that the former but not the latter contain emotional elements.

Punishment persistence and sequence: Some effects of P-length and N-length in the rat

In a runway investigation, two groups of rats received partial punishment training with P-lengths of 1, 2, and 3 (Group P123) and P-lengths of 1 (Group P1), respectively. Two additional groups received partial reinforcement with N-lengths of 1, 2, and 3 (Group N123) and N-length of 1 (Group N1). An additional group was given unpunished continuous reinforcement in the runway, but received control shocks in a separate apparatus. Following training all subjects received punished extinction (shock plus nonreward). The results indicated that P-length increased resistance to punished extinction, however N-length did not have the corresponding effect. In addition, partial reinforcement did not increase resistance to punished extinction relative to continuous reinforcement. These results were interpreted within a sequential-theoretical framework.

AFTER‐EFFECTS OF PUNISHMENT ON HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

Six groups of humans were employed to examine the effect of two different training schedules—continuous or partial (50 per cent) reward—on a response which subsequently received one of three treatments (continuous or partial punishment, or no punishment control). Treatments continued until the response met a criterion of inhibition, and post‐treatment after‐effects were assessed by trials which administered no reward or punishment. Punishment condition (P &lt; 0·001) and training (P &lt; 0·001) effects were evident during the treatment period. The response trained via partial reward was more resistant to suppression, and treatments administering more frequent punishments achieved faster suppression. Evidence from the after‐effects period indicated a single main effect of training (P &lt; 0·0001). In spite of the fact that subjects were identical in performance at the conclusion of treatment, those previously trained under partial reward displayed a much stronger response. This finding appears to pose problems for the traditional learning theory view that habits are strengthened by reward and weakened by punishment. An alternative interpretation, employing the notion of feedback or information about behaviour conveyed to the subject by reward, non‐reward and punishment, is discussed.

Resistance to extinction following partial punishment of reinforced and/or nonreinforced responses during learning.

Resistance to extinction following partial punishment of reinforced and/or nonreinforced responses during learning.

Resistance to extinction and continuous punishment in humans as a function of partial reward and partial punishment training

Human Ss were trained under 100% reward, 50% reward-50% nonreward, or 50% punishment-50% reward. Following acquisition, half the Ss experienced extinction while the remaining Ss experienced continuous punishment unaccompanied by reward. Both partial punishment and partial reward training led to greater resistance to extinction than continuous reward. Partial punishment training increased persistence under continuous punishment.

Punishment continuity and self-punitive behavior

Partial punishment schedules (20% or 50% trials punished) are as effective as 100% punishment in generating and maintaining self-punitive behavior following avoidance training. If punishment is not continued, running extinguishes fairly quickly.

Effectiveness of fixed ratio punishment and durability of its effects

Hooded rats pressing a bar for food reward on a fixed interval schedule were shocked after every 1, 2, 4, or 8 responses with.6 ma shocks of.25,.50, or 1.0 sec. duration. All Ss eventually ceased responding. In retest sessions two weeks later, several Ss who had received the least frequent punishment were among those who did not resume bar pressing. Only for the shorter shock durations was partial punishment less effective than punishment for every response.