SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “PUNISHMENT”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1973

Drugs and punished responding. II. d-Amphetamine-induced increases in punished responding.

The effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding were studied in two experiments. In Experiment I, pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-ratio 30 response fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 60-sec limited holds in both components. Each response was punished with electric shock, the intensity of which was varied systematically. In Experiment II, another group of pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-interval 5-min fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 40-sec limited holds. Each response was punished with shock during one component, and every thirtieth response was punished in the other component. d-Amphetamine increased overall rates of punished responding only rarely under any of the punishment conditions; however, response rates within the fixed-interval when rates were low were increased by d-amphetamine when the shock intensity was low (Experiment I), or when responses produced shock intermittently (Experiment II). The data suggest that the effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding depend on the control rate of responding, the punishment intensity, the punishment frequency, and the schedule of food presentation.

Animals↗

PubMed1977

Punishment-specific effects of pentobarbital: dependency on the type of punisher.

Pigeons were trained to peck a key under a multiple random-interval 1-minute, random-interval 6-minute schedule of food presentation. Subsequently, over three phases, additions were made during the random-interval 1-minute component as follows: pecks during the component occasionally were punished by timeout presentation (Phase 1), timeouts were presented independently of responding during the component (Phase 2), pecks during the component occasionally were punished by electric-shock presentation (Phase 3). In Phases 1 and 3, response-dependent timeout and shock suppressed responding and established equivalent rates in both components of the multiple schedule. Intermediate doses of pentobarbital increased responding suppressed by electric-shock punishment but had little or no effect on responding suppressed by timeout punishment. Response-independent presentation of timeouts did not result in suppression of responding (thus showing that response-dependent timeout acted as a punisher), and pentobarbital did not reliably increase unpunished responding. Pentobarbital's selective "punishment-attenuating" properties depend on the nature of the punisher.

Animals↗

PubMed1992

Effects of d-amphetamine and of diazepam on non-punished and punished schedule-induced drinking in rats.

Drinking induced in food-deprived rats by a Fixed-Time 1min schedule of food presentation was measured by the amount of water consumed per session and the number of licks per inter-food interval. Subsequently each lick initiated a 10-sec signalled delay in the delivery of food, which led to a decrease in drinking (punishment). With three rats the effects of d-amphetamine (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0mg/kg) were assessed on non-punished and then on punished drinking. With another three rats, the effects of diazepam (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0mg/kg) were assessed. The smaller doses of d-amphetamine had no consistent effect on overall measures of non-punished schedule-induced drinking, but the largest dose decreased them. With the signalled delay d-amphetamine increased punished schedule-induced drinking. Non-punished drinking was increased by small doses of diazepam and decreased by the largest dose, but no dose of diazepam affected punished drinking.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1991

Effects of spirometric administration of tobacco smoke containing varying amounts of nicotine on human punished and non-punished operant responding.

Lever pulling of male tobacco smokers was maintained by a variable interval 20sec schedule (VI 20) of point presentation. In experiment 1 the rate of lever pulling was suppressed by a punishment contingency which stipulated that lever pulls would produce point subtractions on a variable ratio 30 schedule (VR 30). In experiment 2 the punishment contingency was omitted. Each subject participated in eight sessions each day (Mon. through Fri.). Each block of two 20-min sessions was separated by a period during which tobacco smoke containing varying amounts of nicotine was administered by the spirometry method, which ensured a constant puff volume and deep inhalation. The tobacco smoke conditions were: (1) 0.3mg nicotine yield cigarettes (baseline condition), (2) 1.2mg nicotine yield cigarettes, (3) 2.7mg nicotine yield cigarettes and (4) a condition in which room-temperature air was administered. Subjects remained at baseline conditions until responding stabilized and were then exposed to higher nicotine yield smoke or air for an entire day. Subjects were then returned to baseline conditions before administration of higher nicotine yield smoke or air. In experiment 1 (punishment contingency) lever pulling decreased as a function of increasing nicotine content in tobacco smoke. This effect upon responding was similar to the effects of CNS stimulants on punished responding in non-human subjects. In experiment 2 (no punishment contingency), no consistent effect of tobacco smoke or non-punished responding was observed.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2002

Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment.

One popular justification for punishment is the just deserts rationale: A person deserves punishment proportionate to the moral wrong committed. A competing justification is the deterrence rationale: Punishing an offender reduces the frequency and likelihood of future offenses. The authors examined the motivation underlying laypeople's use of punishment for prototypical wrongs. Study 1 (N = 336) revealed high sensitivity to factors uniquely associated with the just deserts perspective (e.g., offense seriousness, moral trespass) and insensitivity to factors associated with deterrence (e.g., likelihood of detection, offense frequency). Study 2 (N = 329) confirmed the proposed model through structural equation modeling (SEM). Study 3 (N = 351) revealed that despite strongly stated preferences for deterrence theory, individual sentencing decisions seemed driven exclusively by just deserts concerns.

Adult↗

PubMed1961