Abstract

In this paper, I will describe punishment as a learning tool. Early research was focused on the system of reward and punishment as the only method for shaping and maintaining desirable behavior. However, that same research displayed a variety of results, so it was not possible to predict every outcome and negative long-term effects of punishment. Eventually, learning theories stopped focusing on punishment as a learning method, and they proved the importance of positive reinforcement, learner participation, and learning behavior through observation. Some of the most popular contemporary theories include the social-cognitive learning theory and the constructivist learning theory. Furthermore, punishment is a form of behavior that can lead to psychological suppression and psychological disorders, and research shows that it is very similar to abuse. However, social paradigms still have to shift completely from the reward and punishment system to contemporary learning models that support positive reinforcement and learning without punishment.

Keywords: punishment, reward, learning, social-cognitive theory, constructivism

Punishment in Early and Contemporary Psychology

Punishment was considered a valid method for enforcing discipline in society, and it used to be a worldwide occurrence. The main concept that supported punishment as a valid method for learning behavior was that violence is approved in some contexts. However, it is impossible to expect positive outcomes from negative expressions and actions. Although many social paradigms and stereotypes regarding traditional parenting methods remain the same, modern research indicates that only constructive learning methods can lead to positive outcomes. In contemporary research, the system of reward and punishment is becoming obsolete because it displays many flaws in forming human development, and learning theories became more proficient in explaining learning. Rather than explaining learning through punishment and rewards, contemporary learning theories focus on complex interactions among a variety of factors. That allows modern theories to explain human learning behavior and cognitive development, identify the factors that influence it, and understand how positive reinforcement and collaboration can lead to better learning environments.

According to traditional values and beliefs, punishment resulted in developing discipline, self-control, and contributed to success later in life. The law of effects was the first theory that shaped theories in learning psychology, and it was based on the concept that people are motivated by avoiding pain (Postman, 1947). People seek pleasure and avoid pain, so it is possible to impose external stimuli that will influence their behavior. If people avoid actions that cause punishment and strive to repeat actions that bring rewards, their neural connections will eventually develop a degree of stability, so they will automatically perform actions that bring positive outcomes (Postman, 1947). However, further research indicated that different responses were achieved when ego-processes were involved and when they were not involved, so satisfaction was not a reliable factor for learning behavior (Postman, 1947). Because the law of effects produced varied results, it was never possible to reach an absolute conclusion on its outcomes. Opinions regarding its effectiveness became divided, and many scientists considered it only as a secondary principle in learning behavior (Postman, 1947).

Furthermore, child abuse was not considered an adequate factor that could impair psychological development, and in some locations, child abuse is still legal. According to Belkin (2008), more than 200 thousand children have experienced physical abuse in American schools during 2007, and 21 states still considered corporal punishment legal in 2008. Another study showed that 63 percent of parents physically discipline children between one and two years of age while 85 percent of adolescents experience physical punishment at some point in their lives (Belkin, 2008). Modern research understands that punishment is not a suitable method for raising children. However, even earlier research in child abuse proved that there is no significant difference between the type of abuse and negative outcomes, and all forms of child abuse or neglect are viewed as punishment by children in all contexts.

According to Roland and Summit (1983), children who experience sexual abuse are inspired to develop prejudice, rejection, confusion, unacceptable behavior, and experience other negative consequences. Because the intensity level of abuse is more relevant to psychological outcomes than the type of abuse, it is possible to generalize the consequences of all types of abuse (MacMillan et al., 2001). Furthermore, children will most likely resort to secrecy and helplessness when exposed to abuse and develop the feeling of guilt because they will think they are punished for some wrong actions they have committed (Roland & Summit, 1983). Although the reward and punishment system works when training animals through conditioning, punishment is now considered an inadequate method to encourage social learning because long-term effects of that learning method have to be considered. Humans possess an intellect, and one possible outcome of punishment as a disciplining method is that they will devise better methods of avoiding detection. More importantly, when children are exposed to rewards and punishment, they will not understand the difference between punishment and abuse. Both actions will eventually cause guilt, lower self-esteem, and impair psychological development.

In contemporary society, learning psychology understands that the reward and punishment system is flawed and often produces more negative consequences than positive outcomes. Although parents and society have positive intentions, some researchers suggest that the necessity for discipline occur because abusers themselves suffer from certain psychological disorders, such as personality disorders, or lack of emotional maturity and ability to manage stress (as cited in Appel & Holden, 1998). If that is the case, it is not possible to discern appropriate methods of punishment or situations that would require punishment, so punishment becomes a behavior carried out because of the abuser’s self-interest. Furthermore, evidence clearly points to the correlation between abuse and psychological disorder development (Macmillan et al., 2001). Although there are no specific trajectory paths of disorder development after exposure to abuse or severe punishment, it is not possible to predict how punishment will affect an individual’s psychological development, but the outcomes are obviously negative.

Contemporary science also understands that all outcomes are defined by external and internal factors. The internal factors rely on genetics and neurotransmitter activity, and they define interpretations of and responses to external factors. External factors are social factors, and they act as a form of external stimuli that define cognitive and behavioral development. The interaction between those two types of factors is the fundamental concept in the social-cognitive learning theory. The six main principles of that theory attempt to explain how learning occurs. The principles of reciprocal determinism, symbolizing capability, forethought, vicarious capability, self-regulation, and self-reflection are considered the six main points in the social-cognitive theory, and they are used to form the basic concepts in describing learning (Bektas, Ozturk, & Armstrong, 2010).

According to the social cognitive theory, people mainly learn through observation. Furthermore, all learned behavior is goal-oriented, but it is possible to display self-control and take responsibility for any action. The social-cognitive theory indicates that learning is an internal process based on cognition, so it does not necessarily influence behavior directly because people are capable of self-regulation. However, the reward and punishment learning system can influence human behavior both directly and indirectly (Bektas et al., 2010). In other words, through combining the aforementioned statements that display the fundamental beliefs in the social-cognitive learning theory, learning mainly depends on acquiring positive traits and behavioral patterns while aggressive external influences, such as punishment, implicate both cognitive and behavioral development. Instead of providing self-control and self-regulation in various situations, punishment for the sake of learning provides a superficial and confusing insight into socially acceptable rules and norms.

Most importantly, learning is mainly obtained through observation, so it is not possible to consider punishment a suitable method to encourage learning. Of course, various social agents influence learning. Parents, peers, teachers, the media, and religion are the main social agents in contemporary society, and they all influence learning together. However, each agent sends conflicting messages, so they consequentially create more confusion than they contribute to learning. For example, it is obvious that parents are the initial learning agent, but peers are equally important, especially at the beginning of adolescence. Peer pressure is one of the most significant factors that shape identity development, and people with low levels of self-efficacy or self-concept are more susceptible to external influences (Bektas et al., 2010). Those same qualities are not developed in dysfunctional families that provide contradictory requirements and display opposite behavioral examples (Appel & Holden, 1998). Another example is household violence which could potentially teach witnesses, in those cases children, that violence towards loved ones is an acceptable form of behavior (Appel & Holden, 1998). Rather than providing rules and norms through punishment and rewards, clear instructions supported with examples in behavior encourage more effective learning than any amounts of punishment or rewards.

Despite the progress in psychological and social research, Belkin (2008) points to studies that reveal how social paradigms remain unchallenged by scientific progress. However, several social settings, mainly the educational system, are beginning to focus on implementing modern and more efficient methods of learning than previous methods based on rewards and punishment. Although the utilization of technology in classrooms is considered to support interests in learning, research suggests that relying on technology without an adequate learning model is useless (Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006). However, Rakes et al. (2006) suggest that teachers who apply technology should also involve their students in classes and promote a learning environment where people learn through involvement in class rather than enduring the teacher’s one-sided involvement. Constructivism focuses on supporting learning as a process through student-centered teaching rather than presenting it as an obligation that ends with a reward or punishment.

Despite the fact that the previous example is limited to the educational system, the constructivist theory on learning completes the social-cognitive theory. The main methods for learning are observation in the social-cognitive theory and involvement in the constructivist theory. Unlike the initial beliefs regarding learning, neither of those two theories relies on punishment. Involvement, according to constructivism, is voluntary, so it supports learning and creates an environment in which people are willing to learn. According to the social-cognitive theory, the environment has a significant impact on learning, so changing the environment will lead to more long-term results than moving from checkpoints in which learners are exposed to rewards or punishment. Creating a positive learning environment encourages collaboration and positive reinforcement for learners in all scenarios.

In modern research, new models of learning theories emphasize the importance of collaboration with learners, collaborations among learners, and positive reinforcement for learners. Unfortunately, Maag (2001) states that people will find only what they are looking for, and that statement is correct because it is supported by evidence that the role of punishment in learning is both unnecessary and promotes negative outcomes. Most learning agents in society remain focused on the social paradigm of punishment for the sake of personal growth, and ignore scientific data that has been available for several decades (Maag, 2001). According to scientific data, teaching through punishment is impossible, and the role of the teacher is to give the learners skills and knowledge rather than focusing on suppressing their behavior (Maag, 2001). That is only possible through positive reinforcement because research shows that punishment is only a short-term solution with negative long-term consequences while positive reinforcement encourages the growth of all learners and teaches them to provide positive reinforcement to others (Maag, 2001). Any modern learning theory can contribute to creating a positive environment that will reflect on learners and that is because neither of them is focused on punishment or suppressing behavior.

Punishment can be correlated to leadership. The main requirements of productive leadership are the leader’s personality traits, leader’s actual behavior, and the leader’s requirements from the followers. If the leader sends conflicting messages, such as requiring a form of behavior from followers while avoiding to follow it, the followers will display inadequate performance and lack of obedience. From the learning perspective, people receive conflicting messages from learning agents, so they are more likely to develop inadequate behavior or suppress their problems and develop psychological disorders. As long as requirements in society from learners and actual behavior learning agents display send confusing and contradictory messages, it is impossible to expect significant improvements in the applications of learning theories in society. The paradigm shift from punishment to positive reinforcement as a preferable learning tool has not yet occurred, despite the amount of evidence that supports positive reinforcement over punishment.

Overall, the reward and punishment system for learning can solve short-term issues, but research indicates that it is not a suitable method for building a stable and functional society. Research by Dombrovski et al. (2010) found that people who attempt suicide are significantly influenced by past experiences and display an abnormal level of sensitivity to both rewards and punishment. Their study also presented deficits in learning from rewards and punishment. Although Dombrovski et al. (2010) proposed a hypothesis that older suicide attempters are ignoring past experiences while focusing too much on making present-oriented decisions, their conclusion from the study contradicts several psychological theories of human development. If the scenario is observed through Erikson’s theory on psychosocial development, unresolved issues from adolescence play an important role during mid-life. Punishment does not support the development of self-efficacy and self-concept, the qualities modern theories consider important in learning behavior, so it is not possible to expect that people will form their identities properly during adolescence, and their adolescent crisis will remain unresolved. Those issues will resurface during midlife, so it is not possible to exclude the impact of punishment in learning as an irrelevant factor in implicating psychological resilience and stability.

It is also possible to notice that previous concepts of punishment failed in defining objective punishment, and some social interactions failed to implement both rewards and punishment in the learning process. The perception of punishment can also vary because it is obvious that many people display violence because they have psychological issues, but they mask it as punishment because it becomes socially acceptable in that form. Furthermore, the reward and punishment model restricts personal development because it does not develop fundamental values and gives only superficial understanding of acceptable behavior to learners. Current theories suggest that both the learner and the social agent the learner receives information from are in a mutual relationship, and that individuals adapt behavioral patterns from groups they join, so they will maintain the group’s consistency (Guzmán, Rodríguez-Sickert, & Rowthorn, 2007). However, scientific research clearly indicates that performing punishment and teaching it as a learning tool are not desirable actions that will build a stable, durable, and functional society.

References

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578-599.
Bektas, M., Ozturk, C., & Armstrong, M. (2010). An approach to children’s smoking behaviors using social cognitive learning theory. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 11(4), 1143-1149. Retrieved from http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/ Volume11_No4/d%201143-49%20Bektas.pdf
Belkin, L. (2008, October 10). When is spanking child abuse? New York Times. Retrieved from http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/when-is-spanking-child-abuse/
Dombrovski, A. Y., Clark, L., Siegle, G. J., Butters, M. A., Ichikawa, N., Sahakian, B., & Szanto, K. (2010). Reward/Punishment reversal learning in older suicide attempters. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(6), 699-707. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030407
Guzmán, R. A., Rodríguez-Sickert, C., & Rowthorn, R. (2007). When in Rome, do as the Romans do: The coevolution of altruistic punishment, conformist learning, and cooperation. Evolution of Human Behavior, 28(2), 112-117.
Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflection on the disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children, 67(2). Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Exceptional-Children/69697627.html
MacMillan, H. L., Fleming, J. E., Streiner, D. L., Lin, E., Boyle, M. H., Jamieson, E., Beardslee, W. R. (2001). Childhood abuse and lifetime psychopathology in a community sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11), 1878-1883.
Postman, L. (1947). The history and present status of the law effect. Psychological Bulletin, 44(6), 489-563. doi:10.1037/h0057716
Rakes,G.C., Fields,V.S. & Cox, K.E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409-424.
Roland, C., & Summit, M. D. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2), 177-193. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(83)90070-4