ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Value control of punishment.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Punishment raises a basic question for human cognition: Do agents suppress actions because they represent the negative consequences those actions produce? Everyday deterrence, from parental reprimands to legal sanctions, assumes that people regulate behavior by learning what their actions cause and by evaluating those consequences negatively. However, in spite of this widely held assumption, experimental evidence that punished instrumental behavior is controlled by the current value of the punisher is currently lacking. To test this idea, we applied an outcome revaluation procedure to instrumental punishment in rats. Rats first learned to press two levers for food. One lever was then additionally punished by response-contingent footshock, whereas the other remained unpunished. The aversiveness of the shock was subsequently reduced by pairing it with food in the absence of the levers. To test whether the punisher's value was part of the animals' representation of the consequences of their actions, responding was tested in extinction, with no shock delivered. We found that revaluation of the shock selectively abolished the suppression of the punished response. Thus, punishment was not a fixed process controlled by the prior occurrence of shock but rather depended on the shock's current value. Our results show that instrumental punishment can be controlled by a value-sensitive representation of the aversive consequence produced by the action and is, in this sense, structured in the same manner as canonical goal-directed reward seeking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42477195What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.