Effect of variable-interval punishment on the behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement.
Variable-interval money fines mainly suppress low-rate reinforced behavior while leaving well-paid responding alone.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults pressed a button to earn coins on a variable-interval schedule.
Sometimes a coin was taken away. The loss also came at variable times.
The team watched how the extra penalty changed pressing rates.
What they found
Button pressing slowed only when the pay rate was already low.
When coins came often, the same penalty barely mattered.
Punishment trimmed the bottom, not the top, of the response curve.
How this fits with other research
Boren et al. (1970) ran a ward token system that mixed fines and pay. Both studies show money losses can cut behavior, but the ward used richer reinforcement, so the drop was smaller.
Geurts et al. (2008) found people work harder to gain money than to avoid losing it. Their gain frame kept responding high; the 1978 study shows why loss frames mainly hurt low-rate behavior.
Lydersen et al. (1974) wiped out classroom disruption by paying for academics instead of punishing noise. Together the papers say: build the skill first, then any mild penalty has room to work.
Why it matters
If a client earns little reinforcement, even a small penalty can shut the behavior down. Check the pay rate before you add fines or response cost. Boost reinforcement density first, then punish if you must.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track how often the target response earns a token; if it is less than one per minute, raise the pay rate before you dock points.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
One male and three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement under a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtraction of money) according to a variable-interval 170-second schedule. In the absence of punishment, the rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency, as predicted by Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding under lower frequencies of reinforcement; responding under higher reinforcement frequencies was much less affected. This was reflected in an increase in the value of K(H) (the constant expressing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate), whereas there was no significant change in the value of R(max) (the constant expressing the maximum response rate). Previous results had shown that variable-ratio punishment resulted in a change in the values of both constants (Bradshaw, Szabadi, and Bevan, 1977). The results of the present study were consistent with the concept that the suppressive effects of punishment on responding depend on the nature of the punishment schedule.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1978 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1978.29-161