http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/Learning/papers/Seligman%20Maier%201967.pdf
After making your mind map for the article respond to the following questions:
1) What did you find interesting about the article?
2) What were the main points?
3) Why did the authors write the article?
4) What was the research question?
5) How does the text and your reader handle the related material?
6) What do think the impact of this article was / is?
7) How does it relate to the other articles we have read so far?
1. I found this study to be very interesting. Personally I don’t like the fact that these dogs were being shocked to study avoidance learning. The results showing that after group one was shock about 30 times the dogs gave up trying to escape the shock and just took it. They reached the point that they gave up. After escaping 30 times they were conditioned that they were still going to get shocked. They began by learning the avoidance theory but it became a modified behavior that the dogs thought was going to continue.
2. Escape avoidance learning was the main idea being studied. Researchers wanted to modify the dogs’ behaviors to try to escape a shock when put in a certain situation. Experiment one and two had 2 apparatuses one for training and one for shocking. Experiment 2 had three different groups pre-escape, no inescapable, and no pre-group. The no pre-group showed significant interference and the others did not.
3. The authors wrote this article to prove that they could teach dogs’ avoidance learning. They used two different experiments with different layouts and found significant interference in the no pre-group. I believe this study could have been done differently in a way that dogs wouldn’t have to be shocked. Humans learn avoidance through repeated failed attempts. If you hear a fire alarm you exit the building. We even have practice drills to make sure we know how to exit the building. If you go to a pop machine more than once and it doesn’t work each time you are less likely to go back there. Avoidance is all about the external cues. We avoid certain behaviors because of adverse cues or past experiences.
4. The research question was; after practice escaping an environment will dogs escape a shock in a different environment?
5. The text gives the example of a college class that is strapped in their chairs. Every 20 seconds you receive a shock. Your professor tells you to press the button on your desk. When you press the button it delays the shock 30 seconds. You figure out the pattern and you don’t get shocked as much. Then it discusses what would happen if you didn’t maintain a high rate of response. The button would increase the shocks. This is an example of a poorly maintained avoidance behavior. So in other words if you don’t keep up with pressing your button you will be punished by increased shocks. Over time you could figure this out and set your schedule of behavior with the schedule of punishment. (The shock)
6. When I read this article I couldn’t figure out what the point was in shocking the dogs other than to teach them how to avoid the shock. I then understood that the behavior of escaping the shock became less frequent over the number of shocks. The constructed behavior of getting shocked became extinguished. The dogs gave up and just took the shock because the behavior of escaping still got them put back in the harness and the box.
7. This article relates to how animals have instincts as well as how behaviors become extinguished. The dogs knew when they got put in the harness they needed to escape or be shocked. Then when they did continue escaping the shock they were continually put back in the harness so they gave up on escaping because there wasn’t a reward to escaping if they were just going to be put back in the box.
1) I hated the fact that they shocked dogs that were not able to escape. It was interesting to see the result of the first group of dogs being shocked about 30 times ended up giving up after those 30 shocks. It makes sense in a way; if you are constantly being scared by a friend around the same corner 20 time a day, you would expect them to be there, and eventually become immune to the scared response.
2) The main point of this research article is escaped avoidance learning. The researchers tried to modify the dogs' behaviors when put in a situation of being shocked and not able to escape. In the first experiment, the dogs which learned to escape shock by panel pressing in the harness did not differ from the untreated dogs that were able to escape. Learning that shock termination is independent of responding seems related to the concept of learned "helplessness or hopelessness." In experiment 2, the no pregroup (non experimented dogs from experiment 1) showed significant interference with escape responding in the shuttle box on Day 3 (they stopped responding to the shocks). The prescape and the no inescapable groups did not show such interference.
3) The authors wanted to see if they could prove that they could show avoidance learning in the dogs. I think the dogs should have been in a more non-violent experimentation in which they were not restrained from escape or been shocked.
4) Is the degree of control over shock allowed to the animal in the harness be an important determinant of this interference effect?
5) The text goes into detail of discriminated avoidance and nondiscriminated avoidance. Because the organism only responds when the warning signal occurs, the procedure is called discriminated avoidance. In rats, they quickly learn to lever press for food, but will take a long time to learn to acquire lever pressing in order to avoid electric shock. Nondiscriminated avoidance is when there is no warning when a stimuli is present. Murray Sidman was the first to investigate nondiscriminated avoidance.
6) When I first started reading the article (before reading experiment 1) I was trying to figure out the point of this article. I knew that they were teaching them to avoid shock, but why? After reading through both experiments, we learn that the dogs extinguished their original response to the electric shock.
7) This reminds me of the article how animals will always have instincts and how some behaviors can be extinguished. Obviously when in a restraint, you know will need to find a way out. When shocked, they would escape, but they were put back in the same situation again. With no positive reinforcement/outcome, they figured out they might as well give up since there is no reward/positive outcome for escaping. I thought it was odd that one of the dogs that was removed from the study avoided 18/20 electric shocks. He must of been the really smart dog :P
1) I find these articles that were older and did not have to pass any ethical regulations to be very cruel, yet interesting. I also find it interesting that so many researchers enjoy shocking animals, or people, in their research. It is also very interesting to see that these dogs gave up. It seems to be like a learned helplessness. This is very interesting because self preservation is something I think is the most important thing in all beings. For them to quit like this is very remarkable.
2) The main point discussed in this article is escape avoidance. The researchers wanted to modify the dogs’ behavior by controlling the antecedents in the three different groups of dogs. The researchers did two experiments. Experiment one showed the most significant findings in the No Pregroup escape/avoidance. In experiment two there were three significant findings. First, the preescape group, which was able to escape the first time but not the second “did not react passively.” The second finding was the preescape group had many more panel pressings, most likely due to their learning, which in turn will lead to extinction bursts. The last finding is that the dogs that had escapable shock were more energetic with their responses. They show more energetic behavior because not being shocked is a negative reinforcement for their behavior.
3) The authors wrote this to show findings in avoidance learning. It seems that they may have gone overboard by shocking these dogs, but what they did and how they did it makes their findings more evident and convincing. It seems in science, the more outrageous, the more the information is taken notice of. This drew a lot of attention, and made it a landmark article in avoidance learning.
4) The research question sets out to find if a dog’s response ends a shock session, will escape/avoidance will occur.
5) The text discusses two different avoidances: discriminated avoidance and nondiscriminated avoidance. Discriminated avoidance is when there is some kind of cue present to show when the aversive stimulus is about to occur. In the text, the cue is the schedule of punishment. Nondiscriminated avoidance is when there is nothing to cue the subject to avoid the punishment.
6) A big part of this study is to show learned helplessness. No matter how aversive the stimulus, the dogs stop trying to avoid the shock, and just accept the negative stimulus. The dogs extinguish their natural response of avoidance.
7) I think this article helps to show that there is no dividing line between man and brute. Dogs have instincts for self preservation, just as humans, and try to avoid aversive situations. I also believe that this article shows that dogs, like people, can learn helplessness. This also shows that behaviors in dogs can be extinguished, just like in humans.
1) I thought it was interesting that after the initial introduction to the US, NoPregroup dogs did not try to escape shock by jumping over the small partition. These dogs were not physically impaired and unable to jump over, they just accepted the shock.
I also find it interesting to think about how this behavior may be extinguished after the experiment was over. I know, back years ago, experimental side effects were not on the forefront of the new phenomenons in psychology. However, it would be interesting to see how the learned helplessness behavior was made extinct in the NoPreGroup dogs after the experiment. I would assume extinction would take place rather quickly in experiment II if you could just get a dog with interference over the partition. This would let the dog know that the aversive stimuli would be stopped. Maybe it would be easier to lure him over with a treat, or scrap of meat.
2) Seligman and Maier set out to prove that an idea of learned "helplessness" exists in animals, and by contrast, humans. They made a great step in doing so by proving that subjects failing to escape shock in the shuttle box, had acquired a learned helplessness from the harness, and that their actions were independent of shock.
3) This article was written with intentions to prove Escape/Avoidance learning correlated with the theory produced by the authors of learned "helplessness"
4) Will dogs acquire "learned helplessness" once an establishment of response and shock independence has been made.
If this connection is made, then Seligman and Maier have shaken solid grounds between them and Skinners behaviorism. Skinner would propose that the dog should jump the partition due to the consequence of it not jumping, however, these dogs did no such thing.
5) There are lengthy parts about discriminated avoidance and nondiscriminated avoidance. Discriminated avoidance is described as there being a warning sign before and aversive event. Such as if there was humming from the shock about to be generated in the dogs. A nondiscriminated avoidance would be when there are no warning stimuli presented. This happened when the dogs pressed the panels to stop the shock.
It also touches on learned helplessness and its human relationship to chronic depression. Seligman and Maier maintain that learned helplessness may be one of the root causes of depression in humans. It harbors feelings of worthlessness, difficulty in routine tasks, and suicidal actions.
6) Seligman and Maier now found a breakthrough relevance to humans through an experiment in dogs. The link between learned helplessness and depression is one that has a strong case.
Also, this threw a wrench into Skinner's behaviorism theory. This article could possibly change the picture of psychology as it was currently known. It shows that maybe was a person thinks internally can affect behavior, not just observable punishments or rewards.
7) The Seligman article relates a lot to other articles not so much in content, but in the fact that it brings up a new ripple in psychology. These ripples can make waves and change the sea of knowledge and also, how we thought we understood it.
1). Well I personally didn't like that they shocked these dogs to learn something that I am not sure is really even that important. Escape avoidance is an interesting subject but I don't personally feel that I need to know about it bad enough to shock these dogs all day long. I mean no offense to those who feel differently but I wasn't pleased with this. I am surprised that the dogs just gave up in the end though because I expected that the survival instinct would have been stronger than the learned helplessness.
2). The authors wanted to explore the idea of Escape avoidance and they also proved that there is such an idea as learned helplessness. There were two groups in Experiment one the first could excape from the shock by panel pressing and the second could not. The Second experiment there were three groups and there was training beforehand in the shuttle box on how to escape shock. Then they were tested in the harnesses to see if there would be extinction of panel pressing behavior after the dogs learning that the shock and the behavior was unrelated.
3). The idea of this article was avoidance learning but I think that they may have taken it too far in shocking the dogs. I feel like it was more for the attention that they would recieve from it that really for the good of the study.
4). Is the degree of control over shock allowed to the animal in the harness be an important determinant of this interference effect?
5). The text goes into detail of discriminated avoidance and nondiscriminated avoidance. It uses and example of lever pressing in rats and that they are reluctant to do it because of shock. It also talks about a college class that are stapped to thier chairs and have a button that delays shock for 30 seconds.
6). This article shows the dogs extinguishing thier natural response and proves that behavior can be internal and just just modified with rewards and punishments.
7). I thought it was interesting to see the relationship between this areticle and the one we read about animal instincts. In my mind I would think that the dogs would continue to try to escape purely because of the survival instincts but in this study they just give up because they learn that they are helpless to the shock.
1. I found this whole article to be quite interesting. Learned helplessness has always been one of my favorite behavioral topics. I liked how they explained the two different studies they did. I found the differences between the different studies, as well as the separate groups, to be very interesting. What they found makes, but it is still nice to see the 'how' and the 'why' of it. I also liked how they tried taking it a couple steps further and incorporated classical conditioning and emotional depletion. Finally I really enjoyed this article because I believe it has solid real-world value. Learned helplessness is something we all experience and we can only benefit from learning more about it.
2. There was a lot of information in this article and it is also clear that there is a lot Seligman and Maier wanted to get across. First of all they wanted to show what learned helplessness really means and some theories on how it develops. They offered different ideas on how this learning occurs. A mix of positive reinforcement and extinction may be one possible cause. Another big theme was interference. What factors are involved in the failure of animals to attempt escaping the shocks. They also wanted to show variations between different situations where avoidance is possible. They compared 3 different groups in order to show what circumstances are necessary for interference to occur. Those who were given the ablility to escape from at least one of the containments had significantly less interference than those that had never been given a chance for escape.
3. I believe they wrote this article to get a better idea of learned helplessness and how it occurs. They wanted to understand why it happens in Case A but not in Case B. They were also trying to disprove the adaptation theory of learned helplessness.
4. Once a dog has learned that shocks are independent of their behavioral responses, will they fail to offer responses in future shock trials? They were also trying to find out if dogs that were sometimes given a chance to escape and sometimes not would continue to offer regular responses.
5. The text actually discusses this article in particular. In light of the article they support the finding that animals that aren't first introduced to inescapable shocks will learn avoidance very quickly. According to the text many studies on learned helplessness have been done and with many animlas. Of course, this would include studies on humans. They also dicussed punishment. When one is punished but the punishment is not contingent upon their behavior, they will also learn helplessness. It's the idea that, "No matter what I do I will be punished." This is also a way to shape behavior. If they learn they CAN'T avoid punishment, they will stop trying and will "fall into line". The example the book gave was of the Nazis. They would punish the Jews no matter what they did and soon they learned they could not avoid it and so they began to just follow orders. The book also discussed a relationship between helplessness and depression. This may be due to that fact that those who've learned helplessness associate the problems in their life with external causes. This often times increases chance of depression.
6. I would say it had a large impact. It opened a lot of doors to learned helplessness as well as offering more support for existing ideas. Just the simple fact that their study is heavily mentioned in a behavior text shows that their work was taken very seriously and had great implicatons. Their study showed the true power of learned helplessness.
7. In a way I think it follows with part of the Watson paper. He discussed how we must not discount the similarities of man and beast. This is very true of learned helplessness. The dogs allowed themeselves to be shocked repeatedly and for extended periods of time. It is safe to say that if people were given the same circumstances they too would eventually just take it. I would also say it is related to instincts. The dogs that had always been allowed an escape immediately responded and tried to avoid the shocks. This is to be expected of any living creature. Even the animals that had never been given a chance to escape offered responses in the very beginning. Once they learned that responding did not "save" them, they gave up. The current article also theorized that they may have remained still to lessen the intensity of the shock. They may have also believed they were being punished for past behaviors. Either case shows that a certain level of survival instinct was involved.
1. I found the alternative explanations as to why the dogs stopped responding to the shocks to be the most interesting. The experiment set out to show learned helplessness and that, after a period of time, the dogs would accept that they could not escape and would just endure the shocks without response or reaction. An alternative theory was that inactivity from the dogs reduced the aversiveness of the shock. The lack of reactivity was seen as a reinforcement in the eyes of the dogs because, over time, the shocks would stop. Another theory that this group failed to respond in the second experiment was due to extinction. Responses that led to barrier jumping were thought to be extinguished in the harness during inescapable shock. It is interesting to me that, though the experimenters initially felt that the inescapable shocks would teach learned helplessness, they may have actually taught conditioning using reinforcement and may also have taught extinction.
2. The main points of this article were escape avoidance learning and learned helplessness. The researchers were able to show escape avoidance learning in experiment I when one group was able to learn that by pressing a panel they were able to terminate the shock. The second group, which was unable to avoid the shock no matter what reactions they tried, displayed learned helplessness when they gave up trying to avoid a shock and, instead, accepted the shock without reaction.
3. The authors wrote the article to show avoidance learning. They wanted to show that they could teach an animal to perform a behavior in order to avoid a negative stimulus. Through this they were also able to show learned helplessness and the effects that it can have on an animal in future situations that involve a negative stimulus.
4. Does avoidance learning in one situation reliably result in interference with subsequent avoidance learning in another situation?
5. The text is similar to the article with the fact that many avoidance learning experiments involve using shocks to the animal as a means of teaching avoidance learning and learned helplessness. The book goes into greater detail on the subjects of discriminated avoidance and nondiscriminative avoidance. Discriminative avoidance involves responding when a warning signal preceded an aversive stimulus whereas nondiscriminative avoidance contains no warning signal. The experiment by Seligman and Maier involved nondiscriminative avoidance learning with the fact that the dogs were given no prior warning that they were about to be shocked and the shocks occurred on an intermitted schedule that varied anywhere from 60-120 seconds.
6. I think that this article showed that avoidance learning can be easily taught in an individual and this avoidance learning often carries through into other life events that contain a negative stimulus. Along with this, learned helplessness is another concept that occurs in animals, and humans alike, and also has an effect in future situations that contain a negative stimulus.
7. I believe that this article is similar to others with the fact that animal behavior can often be related to human behavior. Just as animals find a way to avoid a negative stimulus, humans will do the same. If, after many failed attempts we are unable to avoid the negative stimulus we learn to accept the situation and discontinue to fight. It also relates to other articles with the fact that what we learn in one situation often carries over to future situations which is displayed in many of the experimental articles that we read.
The article was pretty interesting. To test learned helplessness, I would have come up with a similar procedure and hypothesis. The first experiment was easier to follow than the second experiment. In experiment 1, dogs were given shocks inside of a shuttle box. Dogs in the Escape group could press the panel with their head and the shock would stop. Dogs in the Yoked group could press the panel with their head and the shock would continue. Seligman and Maier hypothesized that the Dogs in the Escape group would continue to press the panel with their head as long as the shock stopped and that dogs in the Yoked group would learn to quit trying as it produced no results. After about 30 trials, the dogs in the Yoked group ceased panel pressing altogether. This supported their hypothesis. These dogs had no incentive to keep trying. Shock termination was independent to pressing the panel. They were instead in a state of ‘helplessness’ or ‘hopelessness’ and learned to passively accept the shock.
In experiment 2, dogs were given shocks in a harness as well as in the shuttle box. Preescape dogs first received escapable shocks in the shuttle box, then inescapable shock in the harness. These dogs did not react passively to subsequent shock in the shuttle box. Preinescapable dogs first received inescapable shocks in the shuttle box or no treatment prior to shock in the harness. These dogs reacted passively to subsequent shock in the shuttle box. The preescape group showed enhanced panel pressing when exposed to shock in the harness. The preinescapable group did not show enhanced panel pressing. So if an animal learns that pressing the panel results in shock termination and then faces a situation in which shock termination is independent of panel pressing, it is more persistent to escape shock than is a naïve animal.
The authors wrote the article to show avoidance learning as well as demonstrate ‘learned helplessness.’ The research question sets out to find if escape/avoidance learning will occur after shocks are given to dogs.
The textbook refers to this article in Chapter 6 Aversive Control of Behavior when discussing learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is when an animal is exposed to inescapable aversive stimulation. Eventually this animal gives up. This is clearly seen in the article. The researchers suggested that the dogs eventually learned to give up and become helpless when presented with the inescapable shocks. The textbook also touched on nondiscriminative avoidance and discriminative avoidance. Nondiscriminative avoidance is a procedure used to train avoidance responding in which no warning stimulus is presented. The example the text gives are lab rats who are receiving electric shocks. What the rats don’t know is that the electric shocks occur on the basis of time and no warning signal is given. Discriminative avoidance is avoidance behavior emitted to a warning stimulus. The example the text gives is a parent yelling to a child, “Nathan keep the noise down or else you will have to go to bed.”
This article is similar to other articles when we look at the big picture – animal instincts. Like humans, animals will try to escape an aversive stimulus such as a shock. When they are unable to escape the shocks, they give up. This article is a very good example of learned helplessness.
1) The aspect of this article that I found to be most interesting was how the researchers went about gathering the information needed in the study. I find it amazing that Psychological research has come as far as it has since the study was conducted. The development of ethical practices was needed greatly in the science of Psychology and helps bring credibility to the science. I was blown away on the cruelty the dogs were put though to obtain knowledge. I was also taken by how the dogs just learned there was nothing they could do to stop the shock so they just gave up. It made me wonder what it would take for humans to just accept and give up as the dogs did.
2)The main issue being studies was avoidance learning as it relates to escape. By placing the dogs in harnesses, researchers hopes to change the dogs behavior. Experiments used different harnesses(training/shocking) in order to get the dogs trained and ready for the experiment. Two phases of the experiment were conducted using 30 dogs (at start). The first one group of dogs could escape shock by pressing levers near the head and the other could not. The second phase had three groups of dogs in different situations.
3)Researchers conducted this experiment in order to gather information on avoidance learning as it is associated to escaping. They believed that they could teach the dogs avoidance learning by shocking the dogs in harnesses. They found that dogs who were shocked and could not escape learned to just get shocked because there was nothing they could do about it.
4) After learning avoidance of a “shock” will dogs try to escape shock or learn helplessness?
5)The text refers to two different kinds of avoidance(Discriminated & nondiscriminated). Discriminated refers to avoidance behavior emitted to a warning stimulus. The example the book gave with the definition was that a dog stops barking when the owner yells stop it. Nondiscriminated refers to a procedure used to train avoidance responding in which no warning stimulus is presented it is also referred to as Sidman avoidance(Murray Sidman was the first to research this aspect of behavior).
6)I believe that the article shows that learned helplessness exists and can be applied to any organism under the right circumstances. The impact also helped establish rules of experimentation of animals and humans. The article also helps explain extinction.
7) The article realties to the others in the aspect of animal instincts also in the comparison to animals and man.
Seligman and Maier report on two experiments studying how dogs learn from situations of inescapable shock. They looked at how an inescapable shock situation affects the dogs’ later behavior in a situation where they are capable of taking actions to avoid the shock. In a second experiment, they looked at whether prior experience with escapable shock made it more likely that a dog would take actions even in a later situation where escape from the shock was not possible.
In the first experiment some dogs were first placed in a harness where electrical shocks were terminated when the dog pressed a panel. Other dogs were placed in the harness, but the shocks were not stopped despite the dogs’ actions. Then the dogs were placed in a shuttle box where they could stop the shock by jumping over a barrier. After some experience, dogs in the first group of dogs jumped over the barrier and thus stopped the shock. However, dogs in the second group (the ones who could not escape the shock in the harness) did not act to jump over the barrier. They simply did not act to avoid the shock.
The authors concluded that the inability to escape the shock in the harness produced interference with the dog’s actions to escape shock in the shuttle box. They concluded that these dogs had “learned that shock termination was independent of its responding in the harness and that this learning inhibited subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box.” They believe this finding supports the concept of learned helplessness.
In their second experiment, they look at what happens when dogs that first learn to escape from shock in the shuttle box and then are placed in a harness where escape is not possible. In this case, three groups of dogs were trained. One group of dogs was first trained in a shuttle box where they could escape by jumping the barrier. They were then placed in a harness where escape from the shock was not possible. Later, they were placed in the shuttle box again. A second group had no experience in the shuttle box before being placed in the harness with the inescapable shock. They were then placed in the shuttle box. A third group was trained in the shuttle box with escapable shocks, then placed in the harness with no shocks, and later placed in the shuttle box. Seligman and Maier looked at how the dogs responded to the shocks.
They found that the dogs in the first group were more active when they were in the harness with the inescapable shocks than either of the other groups. They concluded that because these dogs had learned that their actions would stop the shocks they were more persistent than the other dogs when faced with a situation where the shock termination is independent of its actions.
They conclude that there is a third operation in learning theory that produces learning. They believe that the dogs learned that there was independence between their actions and the ending of the shocks. This independence between the events also results in learning.
This study is referred to in the text as a description of the learned helplessness phenomenon. Learned helplessness combines many of the concepts we have studied. First the organism learns to associate its responses with their harmful consequences, then when these actions do not stop the consequences, extinction of the responses occurs. The animal, or person, stops trying to escape because it has learned that escape is not possible. I found it interesting that these studies with dogs could lead to explanations of human behavior. As the book points out, problems with learned helplessness and its consequences such as depression are very common.
Terms: escape, extinction, learned helplessness
1. What I found interesting about this article is that they were allowed to shock these poor dogs that had no way to get out so many times. I wonder if they would still be allowed to do this research today, with all the animal activists groups, and higher ethical guidelines.
Seligman and Maier conducted two experiments. In the first experiment there were two groups, the escapable group and the yoked group. The escapable group were first put into a box in which they got shocked. They were able to escape the shocks by pressing a lever. They were then put into another box in which they were able to escape the shocks by jumping over a small barrier. The yoked group was first put into a box in which pressing a lever did not stop the shocks. They were then put in a box where they could escape the shocks by jumping over a small barrier, but often they just sat there and didn't attempt to escape. Researchers said that this was because they had already learned that their behaviors had no effect on how long the shock lasted, so there was no point in trying. Essentially, they were displaying learned helplessness.
In the second experiment there were three groups. The first group, pre escape, experienced an escapable situation, an inescapable situation, and then an escapable situation. The second group, no pre group, was put through an inescapable situation and then an escapable one. This group would undergo the same experiences the second group from the first experiment. The last group is the no inescapable group; they experienced escape, no shock, and escape. From this study they discovered that the pre escape group tried harder before giving up when faced with an inescapable situation. The no pre group displayed learned helplessness.
The text talks about a study done with college students in which they were either subjected to a loud inescapable noise or they weren’t. Students that listened to the noise did worse on a test. The text also describes how learned helplessness may be related to depression. A person that is abused may start to feel that they can’t do anything right, and develop learned helplessness, and depression. I think that this is really interesting because it illustrates a problem with punishment. When parents just punish their child it teaches them what they can’t do, but it doesn’t teach them what they should do instead.