PSY 420 Week 3 Reinforcement Schedules and Punishment Example

Homework, Tablets and a Raised Hand at Home: Reinforcement Schedules and the Limits of Punishment

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSY/420: Theories of Behavior

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The family and child are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.

How often and when reinforcement follows behavior matters as much as whether it follows at all. Punishment, too, works differently from how many people expect. This paper applies research on reinforcement schedules and punishment to homework battles in the home of Jamal, the composite fourth grader followed in earlier weeks.

The Home Situation

At home in Mesa, Arizona, Jamal's parents set a rule: if he finishes homework before dinner, he gets an hour on the tablet. If he refuses or leaves it half done, he loses the tablet for the night. For three weeks, homework went well. Then his mother began working late shifts, rewards became inconsistent and homework collapsed. After a night of shouting, his parents took the tablet away for a week, which made the arguments worse. His father, raised with physical discipline, said that maybe a spanking would settle it.

Continuous and Intermittent Schedules

On a continuous schedule, every instance of a behavior is reinforced. Jamal's original plan was continuous: every finished homework session earned tablet time. Continuous reinforcement builds behavior quickly but also makes it fragile; when reinforcement stops, the change is obvious and behavior drops fast.

Ferster and Skinner (1957) documented in detail how intermittent schedules produce distinct patterns of responding in laboratory animals. On fixed-ratio schedules, reinforcement follows a set number of responses, producing high rates with pauses after each reinforcer. Variable-ratio schedules, with reinforcement after an unpredictable number of responses, produce high, steady rates and strong resistance to extinction. Fixed-interval schedules, reinforcing the first response after a set time, produce a scalloped pattern, with responding increasing as the time approaches. Variable-interval schedules produce steady, moderate rates.

Why Homework Collapsed

When Jamal's mother's schedule changed, reinforcement became unpredictable but not in a planned way; it simply stopped on many nights. Because his behavior had been built on continuous reinforcement, the sudden gaps worked like extinction. A plan that had gradually shifted to an intermittent schedule, for example earning a token each night and tablet time after an unpredictable number of tokens, would have been more resistant to such disruptions.

Kinds of Punishment

Punishment decreases behavior. Positive punishment adds something unpleasant, such as a scolding or spanking. Negative punishment removes something valued, such as tablet time. Taking the tablet for one night after refusing homework is negative punishment, since something he values is removed; taking it for a week is a larger version that may lose its connection to the behavior.

What Research Says About Punishment

Lerman and Vorndran (2002) reviewed research on punishment and concluded that it can reduce behavior effectively when it is delivered immediately, consistently and at sufficient intensity from the start, when the person has access to reinforcement for alternative behavior and when its effects are monitored. They also noted gaps in knowledge, such as how to maintain effects over time, and possible side effects, including emotional responses, avoidance of the person delivering punishment and imitation.

Jamal's week-long tablet loss violated several of these conditions. It was delayed from the behavior by days, it was not paired with a clear way to earn the tablet back and it produced avoidance and anger rather than homework.

Losing the tablet for a week taught Jamal that homework night meant losing; it did not teach him how to win.

The Evidence on Spanking

Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor (2016) pooled studies of open-handed swats to a child's bottom or limbs, covering more than 160,000 children. Across seventeen outcomes, from aggression and rule-breaking to emotional difficulties and strained bonds with parents, spanked children fared worse, and on no outcome did spanking predict better behavior. The pattern held in studies using stronger designs. Although most studies were not randomized, the consistency of the findings led the authors to conclude that spanking does more harm than good.

For Jamal's father, this research suggests that spanking is unlikely to improve homework and may increase the defiance he wants to reduce. Respectful discussion matters: many parents use physical discipline because they were raised with it and see it as caring. Presenting the evidence alongside effective alternatives is more likely to help than judgment.

A Revised Home Plan

First, define the target: homework started by 5 p.m. and completed at a table, checked by a parent. Second, reinforce immediately: a token each night homework is completed, with praise. Third, thin the schedule: after two weeks of success, tokens are exchanged for tablet time on a variable schedule, plus a weekend bonus for four or more tokens. Fourth, make punishment small and immediate if used at all: no tablet that night, with the chance to earn it the next day. Fifth, address the antecedents: a consistent homework time and a parent or older cousin available on late-shift nights.

Schedules in Everyday Life

The four schedules appear far beyond the laboratory. A worker paid per crate packed is on a fixed-ratio schedule. Checking a phone for messages is reinforced on a variable-interval schedule, since a new message may arrive at any time, which helps explain why checking is so persistent. Slot machines pay on a variable-ratio schedule. Recognizing these patterns helps parents see why Jamal checks the tablet so often and why a predictable, all-or-nothing reward was easy to break.

Monitoring

The parents will record homework completion nightly on a simple chart. If completion falls below four nights a week for two weeks, the plan will be adjusted. Graphing the nightly record every Sunday evening will show the family, and Jamal, how the pattern changes, and seeing a rising line can itself encourage everyone to keep going.

Conclusion

Jamal's homework collapsed because behavior built on continuous reinforcement fades quickly when rewards stop. Classic schedule research shows how intermittent schedules build durable behavior, research on punishment explains why the week-long tablet loss backfired and a large meta-analysis shows that spanking is linked to worse outcomes. A plan built on immediate reinforcement, gradual thinning and small, immediate consequences offers a better path.

References

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191

Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2002). On the status of knowledge for using punishment: Implications for treating behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(4), 431-464. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-431