Positive and Negative Punishment

Positive and Negative Punishment
Because of their use related to value judgments, the terms “positive” and “negative” are frequently misconstrued. In the social sciences, the use of “positive” and “negative” often refer to the presence or absence of a variable, respectively. Thus, positive punishment refers to the introduction of a stimulus and negative punishment refers to the removal of a stimulus. Both positive and negative forms of punishment purportedly achieve the same goal of behavioral change: specifically the extinguishing of an undesirable behavior.
Positive punishment refers to the introduction of some adverse or uncomfortable stimulus. The subject chooses either to endure the stimulus and continue the behavior or to avoid the stimulus by ceasing the behavior. With negative punishment, something perceived of as pleasurable is removed or taken away. The subject chooses either to adapt to the absence of the pleasant variable or extinguishes a behavior in order to retrieve the desired stimulus. In both cases, the individual experiences some kind of pain or discomfort due to the presence or absence of a variable.
Both positive and negative punishment have the potential to be effective, when the element that is being introduced or taken away evokes a significant enough response in the subject. Circumstances and individual differences are more important than whether to use one type of punishment or another. Furthermore, it is possible to use both positive and negative punishments concurrently to motivate a desired change in behavior.
Positive Punishment: Examples
Verbal Reprimand
Verbal reprimand is of the most common types of positive punishment. For verbal reprimand to work, the subject must respect the individual or group issuing the reprimand. Only if the child or adult subject cares what the other party thinks or how they will react will the person feel discomfort and perceive the reprimand as a punishment. Verbal reprimand functions as a positive punishment in several ways. First, a verbal reprimand can be repetitive, as with nagging. To cease the nagging, the subject may stop the undesirable behavior. Second, a verbal reprimand can disrupt the relationship. To return to a happy, harmonious relationship, the subject may stop the undesurable behavior. Third, a verbal reprimand might convey feelings of pain or being hurt, triggering compassion, empathy, and guilt. Out of genuine love or altruism, the subject might cease the undesirable behavior. Fourth, a verbal reprimand could be issued in public, resulting in embarrassment or social stigma. To avoid embarrassment, the subject stops the behavior.
For example, a student in a classroom is texting during class but a school policy prohibits the teacher from confiscating private property. In this situation, the teacher can use verbal reprimand in a public setting to embarrass the student. Alternatively, a verbal reprimand can occur in a parent-teacher conference, which further shames the student. Repeatedly talking to the student about texting during class could also be a verbal reprimand perceived of as nagging, while honestly telling the student that texting during class makes the teacher feel insulted might trigger compassion leading to intrinsic motivation to change. Verbal reprimand can be effective in reducing unwanted behaviors. In fact, research shows that verbal reprimand can be used in speech therapy to reduce some unconscious speech patterns or behaviors like stuttering (Reed & Godden, 1977).
Compulsory Participation
Compulsory participation in an activity is a common form of positive punishment. Some examples include community service as a mandatory part of a criminal sentence. Community service has been shown to be equally as, if not more, effective than other forms of punishment for criminal behavior such as incarceration (Kahan, 1998). Detention is another form of positive punishment, as is doing an unsavory chore around the house like cleaning the toilet. Compulsory participation in the activity serves as a deterrent against future instances of the undesirable behavior, as the subject realizes that the consequence of their action is to participate in a highly undesirable activity for a specified length of time. To be effective, the subject must perceive the compulsory activity as being uncomfortable. A person who does not mind doing the dishes or doing fifty sit-ups might not respond as well to the positive punishment as someone who does. Therefore, the positive punishment should be tailored to the individual subject. For example, compulsory participation in a volunteer program cleaning up a stretch of highway may be the positive punishment used in the juvenile justice system. The community service activity may last as long as two weeks, during which time the adolescent recognizes the consequences of their delinquent behavior. Because the subject can become inured to the discomfort, some types of compulsory participation may not be as effective as combining the positive punishment with other forms of behavioral modification.
Negative Punishment: Examples
Silent Treatment or Being Ostracized
One example of a negative punishment would be the silent treatment: the removal of a positive interchange among friends or between the child and his or her parent. Similarly, being collectively ostracized from a group of peers could prove to be an effective form of negative punishment. Group-issued silent treatment triggers the subject’s need for social belonging; the silent treatment generally impacts the subject’s sense of control, self-esteem, and even existential sense of purpose (Williams, Shore & Grahe, 1998). As long as the subject had the opportunity to reconcile the situation and atone, the negative punishment could work. Likewise, the subject needs to value the relationship(s) at stake (Wright & Roloff, 2009). The silent treatment is punitive, but it is not necessarily effective and can damage interpersonal relationships, self-concept, and social functioning (Williams, Shore & Grahe, 1998; Wright & Roloff, 2009).
Taking Away Technology Privileges
If a parent notices that the child has not yet cleaned his or her room, one possible response could be to take away technology privileges for a week. Taking away something pleasurable like technology would be perceived of as a negative punishment. The child is told that until he or she cleans the room, there will be no technology use at all including the use of mobile phones. Children who rarely use technology might not respond well to this type of negative punishment, but those who do value their games or their social media may quickly clean their room in order to get back their technology privileges. Removing technology privileges is a type of negative punishment that some telecommunications companies use with their customers. For example, a telecommunications company might have a policy of reducing bandwidth speed sharply if the person goes over a certain number of downloads per month. The resulting slow speeds is enough to motivate the customer to avoid downloading massive amounts of digital content.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of both positive and negative punishment depends on the subject’s personal preferences and situational variables. Both positive and negative punishment aim to extinguish an undesirable habit or behavior, rather than to inculcate a desired behavior. To inculcate a desired behavior, positive or negative reinforcement would be used. Punishment does not necessarily have to be punitive to be negative. Both positive and negative punishment by definition involve feelings of pain or discomfort used to motivate the person to change.





References
Kahan, D.M. (1998). Punishment incommensurability. Criminal Law Review 691(1997-1998).
Reed, C.G. & Godden, A.L. (1977). An experimental treatment using verbal punishment with two preschool stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders 2(3): 225-233.
Williams, K.D., Shore, W.J. & Grahe, J.E. (1998). The silent treatment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 1(2): 117-141.
Wright, C.N. & Roloff, M.E. (2009). Relational committment and the silent treatment. Communication Research Reports 26(1): 12-21.