Orienting and defense responses to punishment: Effects on learning

Autonomic Arousal And Experimentally Induced Pain: A Critical Review of the Literature

“…Disagreement exists regarding how best to conceptualize these responses because of equivocal results across investigations (68)(69)(70), providing an opportunity for investigations of autonomic response to laboratory-induced pain to contribute to this literature. Briefly, the orienting response enhances attention and sensitivity to moderate novel stimulation and involves cephalic vasodilation, peripheral vasodilation, increased electrodermal activity and decreased heart rate; in contrast, the defensive response facilitates protection from more intense or threatening stimulation and includes both cephalic and digital vasoconstriction, a greater increase in electrodermal activity and increased heart rate (67,68,(70)(71)(72)(73). The studies reviewed largely missed the chance to facilitate understanding of these constructs, which also may help to explain contradictory or unexpected findings.…”

Reinforcement and punishment during programmed instruction

“…Across experimental phases, the average time that three of four subjects spent reviewing correct answers was higher during the punishment component than during other components. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have found increases in attention to the stimuli relevant to accurate responding as punishment values were increased (e.g., Balaban, Rhodes, & Neuringer, 1990;Penney, 1967;Stevenson, Weir, & Zigler, 1959). A possible explanation of the present findings with respect to this response measure is that the appearance of the "subtraction value" (a monetary amount preceded by a negative sign) next to an incorrect answer was the salient stimulus (rather than a color change) that controlled the amount of time spent observing the correct answer.…”

“…Response latencies provide crude measures of this intermediary behavior, but several researchers have specifically examined the topography of these responses as a function of reinforcement and punishment during learning. A commonly reported finding is that punishment contingencies produce increases in intermediary responses that may operationally define "attention," including orienting towards and looking at the task stimuli (Balaban, Rhodes, & Neuringer, 1990;Fowler, Hochhauser, & Wischner, 1981;Fowler, Spelt, & Wischner, 1967;Muenzinger, 1938;Munson & Crosbie, 1998;Ochocki et al, 1974;Penney, 1967;Stevenson et al,1959;Taylor, 1974;Wischner, Fowler, & Kushnick,1963;Wright & Smothergill, 1967). For example, Penney (1967) systematically examined orienting responses during a learning task involving tactile discriminations.…”

Effects of Response Cost in Computerized Programmed Instruction

“…This has been shown consistently with laboratory animals (Fowler, Hochhauser, & Wischner, 1981), intellectually disabled children (Harris & Tramontana, 1973), intellectually normal children (Miller, Moffat, Cotter, & Ochocki, 1973), impulsive children (Hemry, 1973), hyperactive children (Cunningham & Knights, 1978), and adults (Matthews & Shimoff, 1974). The functions of punishment most useful in learning are its ability to decrease error rates, slow an organism's rate of responding (Borresen, 1973;Donahue & Ratliff, 1976;Tindall & Ratliff, 1974), and get the organism to attend carefully to stimulus features in the environment (Balaban, Rhodes, & Neuringer, 1990;Muenzinger, 1934;Ratliff & Root, 1974). Each of these attributes is discussed below.…”