Reward and punishment act as distinct factors in guiding behavior
Introduction
Reinforcement and punishment constitute Nature’s arsenal in guiding behavior (Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911, Skinner, 1963, Tversky and Kahneman, 1986, Davison, 1991, Gray et al., 1991, Ehrlich, 1996, Hackenberg, 2009). It is well established that reinforcers and punishers both critically influence behavior, but it has been unclear whether these factors exert symmetric or qualitatively distinct behavioral effects (Skinner, 1953, Farley and Fantino, 1978, Gray et al., 1991, Dinsmoor, 1998, Lerman and Vorndran, 2002, Critchfield et al., 2003, Lie and Alsop, 2007). One-factor theories have proposed a symmetric law of effect (Thorndike, 1927). In this view, reinforcement increases behavior frequency, punishment decreases behavioral frequency, and the magnitudes of these effects are equal, just of opposite signs (Thorndike, 1911, Sidman, 1962, Herrnstein and Hineline, 1966, Schuster and Rachlin, 1968, Rachlin and Herrnstein, 1969, Villiers, 1980). In contrast, two-factor theories view reinforcement and punishment as qualitatively distinct influences on operant behavior (Mowrer, 1947, Dinsmoor, 1954, Epstein, 1985, Yechiam and Hochman, 2013).
This debate remains, for the most part, unresolved (Hineline, 1984, Gray et al., 1991, Dinsmoor, 1998, Dinsmoor, 2001, Critchfield et al., 2003, Lie and Alsop, 2007). This is mainly due to two reasons. First, it is difficult to compare qualitatively different factors (e.g., food versus electric shock) on a common scale (Schuster and Rachlin, 1968, Farley and Fantino, 1978, Villiers, 1980, Fiorillo, 2013). A solution to this problem is to work with reinforcers and punishers that are of the same kind—using tokens that represent gains and losses (Hackenberg, 2009). Second, previous studies targeting this question have employed relatively complex paradigms (Bradshaw et al., 1979, Gray et al., 1991, Critchfield et al., 2003, Rasmussen and Newland, 2008). The complex paradigms make it difficult to readily investigate the effect of a reward or a punishment on a behavioral response.
We addressed this question in a simple choice paradigm in which we varied the magnitude of a reward or a penalty experienced following each choice. This allowed us to measure subjects’ tendency to repeat their previous choice as a function of the magnitude of the experienced reward or penalty. In this simple paradigm, one-factor theories predict that the reward and penalty magnitudes will lead to qualitatively similar, just oppositely signed tendencies to repeat the previous choice. In contrast, two-factor theories predict that the choice repetition tendencies will be qualitatively distinct for the two factors. The data indeed revealed a striking asymmetry in the effects of the reward and penalty magnitudes on the choice behavior. The asymmetry was so profound that it suggests that the two behavioral factors are of distinct natures.
Section snippets
Subjects
Eighty-eight Washington University undergraduate students participated in this study. The subjects performed an Auditory task or a Visual task. The Auditory task was performed by 54 students (37 females, 17 males), aged 18–21 (mean 19.2). The Visual task was performed by a distinct set of 34 students (24 females, 10 males), aged 18–23 (mean 19.4). All subjects were healthy, had normal hearing capacity, and gave an informed consent. Subjects participated for class credit.
Auditory task
Subjects sat in a
Task
Fifty-four human subjects performed a choice task in which they were instructed to make a response based on the polarity of brief trains of click sounds simultaneously presented to both ears. The polarity was drawn randomly on each trial. If subjects heard more click sounds in the right ear, they pressed the right Command key with the right index finger. If they heard more click sounds in the left ear, they pressed the left Command key with the left index finger (Fig. 3A). Critically, a response
Discussion
Whether Thorndike’s law of effect is symmetric or asymmetric in regard to reinforcement and punishment has been an unresolved question (Skinner, 1953, Farley and Fantino, 1978, Gray et al., 1991, Dinsmoor, 1998, Lerman and Vorndran, 2002, Critchfield et al., 2003, Lie and Alsop, 2007). We addressed this question in simple choice tasks that allowed us to study the behavioral effects of the magnitudes of reinforcement and punishment in single trials. We found overwhelmingly asymmetric effects of
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the NIH Grants EY012135 and EY002687. The authors declare no competing conflict of interest.
References (62)
- et al.
Midbrain dopamine neurons encode a quantitative reward prediction error signal
Neuron
(2005) - et al.
The effectiveness of reward and punishment contingencies on response inhibition
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(1973) - et al.
Activity in posterior parietal cortex is correlated with the relative subjective desirability of action
Neuron
(2004) - et al.
Error-related negativity predicts reinforcement learning and conflict biases
Neuron
(2005) - et al.
A low-frequency oscillatory neural signal in humans encodes a developing decision variable
NeuroImage
(2013) Reinforcement learning in the brain
Journal of Mathematical Psychology
(2009)Behavioral dopamine signals
Trends in Neurosciences
(2007)- et al.
Interaction of reinforcement conditions and developmental level in a two-choice discrimination task with children
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(1974) A mathematical basis for satisficing decision making
Mathematical Modelling
(1982)- et al.
Comparison of decision learning models using the generalization criterion method
Cognitive Science
(2008)
Bad is stronger than good
Review of General Psychology
The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Punishment in human choice: Direct or competitive suppression?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Choice in a variable environment: Every reinforcer counts
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Punishment: I. The avoidance hypothesis
Psychological Review
Punishment
Still no evidence for temporally extended shock-frequency reduction as a reinforcer
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Crime, punishment, and the market for offenses
Journal of Economic Perspectives
The positive side effects of reinforcement: A commentary on Balsam and Bondy (1983)
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior1
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Two dimensions of value: dopamine neurons represent reward but not aversiveness
Science
The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses
Science
Rewards and punishments in complex human choices
Social Psychology Quarterly
Token reinforcement: A review and analysis
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction1
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Aversive control: A separate domain?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity
Psychological Review
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society
On the status of knowledge for using punishment: Implications for treating behavior disorders
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Cited by (45)
ComTech: Towards a unified taxonomy of persuasive techniques for persuasive technology design
2024, Computers in Human Behavior ReportsImpaired Punishment Learning in Conduct Disorder
2024, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryFrom bystanders to actioners: A tri-theoretical exploration of residents’ roles in tourist PEBs
2023, Journal of Destination Marketing and ManagementAn analysis of the behavioral decisions of governments, village collectives, and farmers under rural waste sorting
2022, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewCitation Excerpt :The village collectives are the manager of rural garbage classification, considering the governments' reward and punishment policies (Amini et al., 2014), the collective economy and future ecological benefits. Village collectives not only pursue the collective economy (Kubanek et al., 2015) but also raise funds to implement waste sorting. To seek future development, the village collectives will actively manage and respond to government policies, evaluate and guide farmers' investment behaviors, and maintain the rural environment at all times.
Effects of a high-fat diet on impulsive choice in rats
2021, Physiology and BehaviorThe functional neural architecture of dysfunctional reward processing in autism
2021, NeuroImage: ClinicalCitation Excerpt :Remarkably, regions also associated with negative emotions, such as punishment, loss, disgust, fear and sadness, were part of these consensus connectivity networks. Behavioral data from healthy controls points to a close interplay between rewarding and punishing experiences as necessary for the acquisition of goal-directed behaviors (Kubanek et al., 2015). Congruent with that idea, animal data show a partial overlap of neuronal circuits mediating positive and negative valence (Tovote et al., 2015).