Psychological Research into Punishment and its Implications for Crime Control
| Date | 01 October 1985 |
| Published date | 01 October 1985 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8505800412 |
| Author | David Lester |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DA
VID LESTER,
Richard
Stockton
State College
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
INTO
PUNISHMENT
AND
ITS
IMPLICATIONS FOR
CRIME
CONTROL
Walters and Grusec (1977) recently combined to co-author the first
psychological text on punishment. The purpose of this article is to
review their conclusions about the effects of punishment and to
examine these current psychological conclusions for their
implications for corrections.
Punishment
Walter and Grusec note that punishment has been considered an
unaesthetic and unattractive technique of control, and this has been
reflected in the swing to permissive child-rearing techniques.
Sigmund Freud contributed to this trend by focusing on the
possibility that punishment led to an overly strong superego, and
thereby neurotic anxiety with its debilitating effects. The experience
of two world wars also encouraged arational non-punitive approach
to child-rearing.
Punishment is defined in two ways. Some psychologists simply
define punishmentas an aversive stimulus. What isaversiveisusually
considered to be obvious. An alternative approach is to define
punishment as a stimulus
that
reduces the future probability of a
behaviour that occurred prior to the stimulus.
Primary punishment refers to stimuli that have punishing
properties in and of themselves, such as electric shock. Secondary
punishment refers to stimuli that take on punishing properties after
being associated with primary punishers. Secondary punishers are
much more common in real life than primary punishers.
Primary punishers include electric shock, loud noises, physical
slaps, air blasts, and bright light. Secondary punishers include verbal
tones and commands, time-outs in which the person is prevented
from responding to gain an anticipated reward, verbal criticism,
withdrawal of approval or love, and withdrawal of material reward.
Problems of definition also arise in discussions of the outcome of
punishment. Some psychologists are concerned with resistance to
temptation (that is, suppression of behaviours) while others are
concerned with development of guilt (or internalization or moral
standards).
October 1985 345
To continue reading
Request your trial