In Behavior Analysis, consequences play a central role in the explanation of behavior.
Reinforcement and punishment are the conceptual tools for the basic behavioral relations
between the organism and its environment and to the possible resulting effects as well.
Despite consensual that certain consequences may increase behavior probabilities
(reinforcement) there is an extensive debate on the role of consequences in suppressing
responding and the process involved in it (punishment). Two perspectives prevail on this
debate, one termed symmetric, which considers reinforcement and punishment as
essentially differing only on the direction of the effect of the probability of responding;
and the other, named asymmetric, which, under many aspects considers punishment and
reinforcement as intrinsically distinguished phenomena and establishes specific bases to
consider each. The present dissertation is an investigation of the experimental bases of
the asymmetric position and a proposition of re-dimensioning the debate on the issue of
symmetry between reinforcement and punishment. For it, three studies investigated some
asymmetric assumptions. Study 1 was a replication of Thorndike (1932, Experiment 71),
investigating if the magnitude of the effects of punishment over the responding could be
proportional to the ones of reinforcement. Ten college students participated a multiple
choice task with the verbal stimuli “Right” and “Wrong” as consequences for the choices.
As in the original study, in spite of the choices followed by “Right” having their
probability increased, choices followed by “Wrong” continued to occur with probabilities
close to the chance level. This data imply unequal effects for each consequence. Study 2
was a replication of Skinner (1938) assessing the extension of the suppressive effects of
punishment in comparison to extinction. Six rats were trained for lever pressing on a
Fixed Interval (FI) schedule and them submitted to two extinction sessions. Half of the
subjects received Hot Air Blasts as consequence for lever pressing (FR1 punishment)
during the initial 10 minutes of the first extinction session. Once again, the data
reproduced the observed in the original study: although lever press was almost completely
suppressed during punishment, responding recovered once the punishment schedule was
over and by the end of the second extinction session the total number of responses was
the same for both groups of subjects. Study 3 was a replication of Arbuckle and Lattal
(1987) evaluating the relation between the behavior suppression produced by punishment
and negative reinforcement. Seven white rats served as subjects in an operant chamber
equipped with two levers and a self administration drug apparatus. After a training of
lever pressing on a Variable Interval (VI) schedule, one of the levers produced pellet as
consequence (VI-120s) and intravenous infusions of Histamine (behavioral suppressor)
on different VI schedules (maximum value of 15s). Responses on the other lever
prevented the histamine infusions (avoidance responding). Histamine effectively
suppressed responding however, it was not possible to establish and sustain reliable
avoidance responding, even when the contingencies were changed to promote specificvii
training of unsignaled (Sidman) avoidance. By discussing the three studies altogether
the difficulty of discussing the symmetry between reinforcement and punishment through
a single approach arouse. Each study, despite related to the general issue discussed, was
designed to answer to different dimensions of the question and the validity of such
discussion would be at question. On this scenario an additional essay was written aiming
at a conceptual evaluation of the symmetry issue. It is proposed a splitting of the theme
under suggested categories, which would help finding new and allegedly more fruitful
directions to the debate.
|
