The Journal of General Psychology, 2009, 136(3), 271–285

Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications

Effects of Vicarious Punishment:

A Meta-Analysis
JOHN MALOUFF
EINAR THORSTEINSSON
NICOLA SCHUTTE
SALLY ERIN ROOKE
University of New England, Australia

ABSTRACT. Vicarious punishment involves observing a model exhibit a behavior that

leads to punishment for the model. If observers then exhibit the behavior at a lower rate
than do individuals in a control group, vicarious punishment occurred. The authors report
the results of a meta-analysis of studies that tested for vicarious-punishment effects. Across
21 research samples and 876 participants, the viewing of a model experiencing punishment
for a behavior led to a significantly lower level of the behavior by the observers, d = 0.58.
Vicarious punishment occurred consistently with (a) live and filmed models, (b) severe
and nonsevere punishment for the model, (c) positive punishment alone or positive plus
negative punishment, (d) various types of behavior, (e) adults and children, and (f) male
and female participants. The findings have implications for the use of models in reducing
undesirable behavior.
Keywords: meta-analysis, modeling, observational learning, punished model, vicarious
punishment

THE BASIC PREMISE OF OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING is that an indi-

vidual’s potential for behavior changes because of observing others’ behavior
(Bandura, 1986). These observed others are called models, and models can be
live (when an individual observes another who is present) or symbolic (when
an individual observes another on film, as described in text, or as portrayed in
a computer game). For example, children playing a video game that features
interpersonal aggression are more likely to show aggressive behavior themselves
after playing the game than are children playing a nonviolent game (e.g., Schutte,
Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta, 1988). Observing another’s behavior can teach
the observer new behaviors and also influence whether the observer later shows
Address correspondence to John Malouff, University of New England, Psychology, North
Wing (S7), Room G.06, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia; jmalouff@une.edu
.au (e-mail).

271
272 The Journal of General Psychology

this new behavior or a behavior already in the observer’s behavioral repertoire

that is similar to the modeled behavior.
According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), several factors
determine whether an individual will show a behavior similar to the one shown
by a model. These factors include the similarity of the model to the observer,
the status of the model, and the consequences experienced by the model. The
consequences experienced by the model may inhibit or disinhibit observers’
future behavior. If observers perceive that the model experienced a rewarding
consequence and the observers believe themselves to be capable of successfully
showing a similar behavior, the observers are more likely to show the behavior
(Malouff & Rooke, 2008).
Similarly, if observers perceive that a model engaged in a behavior they pre-
viously believed would be followed by punishment but observe no punishment,
the observers have an increased likelihood of showing the behavior themselves.
However, if observers perceive that the model experienced punishment, the
observers may be inhibited in showing the behavior in the future. For inhibition to
occur, the impact of observing the model experiencing punishment for a behavior
must outweigh the impact of observing the model showing the behavior. When
such inhibition occurs, we describe the outcome as vicarious punishment. In this
article, we often describe the negative consequence for the model’s behavior as
punishment for the sake of simplicity. However, in behaviorist terms, the model
is usually not punished (usually no decrease in the key behavior is shown after
the negative event). Evaluating whether the observer is, in effect, punished was
our main goal in the present article.
Vicarious punishment differs from punishment as it is generally defined in
that the model rather than the observer receives the punishment. Vicarious punish-
ment differs from vicarious classical conditioning (see Kelly & Forsyth, 2007;
Walters, Leat, & Mezei, 1963) in that the negative event in vicarious punishment
occurs after the behavior shown by the model, whereas in classical conditioning a
formerly neutral stimulus is paired with a model experiencing a negative event.
Vicarious punishment may play a role in important aspects of life. Fear
appeals targeting a health behavior such as smoking often include elements of
symbolic (described) vicarious punishment such as showing a person suffering
from a smoking-related disease. A memorable example was a television ad with
actor Yul Brynner, who, while dying from lung cancer, said that smoking caused
the disease (American Cancer Society, 1985). Also, one of the assumptions of
punishment for crimes is that by punishing wrongdoers, others will learn to avoid
committing crimes and receiving punishment (Stafford & Warr, 1993).
The essential characteristics of vicarious punishment remain unknown,
although one might extrapolate from observational learning theory (Bandura,
1986) that the observers must notice the behavior, consider the negative con-
sequence to result from the behavior, have a negative emotional reaction to the
observed consequence, want to avoid the consequence themselves, remember
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 273

the association of that specific behavior and punishment, and expect a similar
consequence if they show the behavior.
Several studies have evaluated the effects of observing a model showing a
behavior and experiencing punishment as a result. Most of these studies were
published over 20 years ago. Researchers may have concluded at some point
that the evidence in support of the effect was clear and no further research was
warranted, although no meta-analysis has demonstrated the effect or quantified
its magnitude. Hence, the existence and potency of the effect remain mostly a
matter of conjecture. One purpose of the present meta-analysis was to quantify
the findings of prior studies to test for evidence of a vicarious-punishment effect
and to provide an estimate of the potency of any such effect.
The existing studies on vicarious punishment have varied in certain ways
that create the possibility of determining to what extent vicarious punishment
occurs under various circumstances, such as with different age and gender observ-
ers, a live or film model, different levels of severity of the punishment for the
model, primary versus secondary punishment for the model, and different types
of outcome behavior assessed including sharing, working hard, cheating, and
acting aggressively, as well as merely choosing one of a pair of items. Through
meta-analysis, it is possible to evaluate whether these differences correspond to
differences in effect size. The second purpose of the present meta-analysis was to
conduct a search for moderators of vicarious-punishment effect size.

Method

Literature Search and Selection Criteria

We searched PsycINFO from its beginning through January 2008 for the
following terms: vicarious punish[any ending], modeled punish[any ending],
punished model, observed punish[any ending]. We also searched for any com-
bination of observational learning or modeling and for aversive consequences,
negative consequences, or negative outcomes. We obtained articles with potential
relevance to the meta-analysis and checked them for citations to other potentially
relevant articles.
Our inclusion criteria were that the study randomly assigned participants to
(a) an experimental condition in which they witnessed a model being punished
for behaving in a certain way or (b) a control condition, such as observing an
unpunished model or not observing any model. Also, the study must not allow
any consequences for the outcome behavior of the observers. When a study set
up with the proper conditions seemed properly designed but lacking specific
statement about random assignment, we included the study on the guess that it
did actually use random assignment. However, we coded it as not indicating that
random assignment was used. We then examined the variable of statement of
random assignment as a moderator.
274 The Journal of General Psychology

We included studies, such as Cheyne (1971), in which the participants served

as their own control by being exposed to model behavior that led to punishment
for the model and similar behavior that did not. We did not find any relevant
single-subject studies.
We excluded one study that had as an experimental condition vicarious
punishment mixed with another psychological principle, positive modeling
(Martin & Haroldson, 1977). We excluded studies that compared a punished
model only to a reinforced model (Cheyne, 1972; Denicola, Stone, & Anker,
1981; Rice, 1976) or to direct punishment of the participant (DiGiuseppe,
1975). We excluded these studies because it is impossible to know what effect
the punished model alone had. We also excluded a study in which the outcome
was copying the punishing behavior rather than the behavior that led to the
punishment (Trevino & Youngblood, 1990). Finally, we excluded three studies
because their report lacked information needed for meta-analysis. Bandura,
Ross, and Ross (1963) lacked standard deviations for group means and had no
p or F values for group differences. Chartier, Ainley, and Voss (1976) lacked
specific results for two of the six dependent variables—the two nonsignificant
ones. Schnake (1986) lacked the n for relevant results and failed to make clear
which groups were compared in the analyses.

Coding Studies

For moderator analyses, we coded studies in the meta-analysis by the fol-

lowing criteria:
1. observer gender;
2. observer age group (children or college students);
3. whether live model or film model;
4. model comparison condition (model of outcome behavior without punish-
ment or no model);
5. model punishment severity (e.g., low: model was told he or she made the
wrong choice or did something wrong; high: punishment involved a practi-
cal loss, such as wages, extra credit, or inflicted pain, as in a spanking or
a public reprimand for cheating);
6. model punishment type (e.g., positive: receiving an undesirable stimulus;
negative: the removal of a desirable stimulus);
7. primary (unlearned) punishment such as inflicting pain through spank-
ing versus secondary (conditioned) punishment such as criticizing the
model;
8. outcome behavior involving merely making a choice of items or a more prac-
tically important type of outcome, including sharing, work output, cheating
on an exam, playing with forbidden toys, or aggressive behavior; and
9. whether random assignment was expressly mentioned.
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 275

In the meta-analysis, we also entered the following information:

1. number of participants in the vicarious punishment condition, the control

condition, and overall;
2. type of data used to calculate the effect size (e.g., means and standard
deviations); and
3. the outcome data.

One of us coded each study, and another checked the coding. In the few instances when
coding discrepancies were apparent, we reached consensus through discussion.

Statistical Analyses

We calculated biased mean difference effect sizes (g) from means and stan-
dard deviations, F values, t values, z scores, frequencies, and p values (Hedges &
Olkin, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Wolf, 1986). Following the recommenda-
tions of Hedges and Olkin, we adjusted g for sample size, producing an unbiased
effect size (d). We used inverse variance weighting (w; Lipsey & Wilson) to com-
pute descriptive and inferential statistics. Homogeneity analyses were performed
using the Q statistic (Lipsey & Wilson). We examined effect sizes for univariate
outliers (criterion z = 3.30, p = .001), finding none.

Results
The relevant studies usually presented to half the participants a model
who showed some behavior that led to punishment. The other participants
either saw no model or a model with no punishment. The most common pun-
ishment was a person telling the model that he or she had made the wrong
choice of two items (e.g., Levy, McClinton, Rabinowitz, & Wolkin, 1974).
We rated this type of punishment as not severe. In a few studies, the model
was spanked (e.g., for playing with forbidden toys; Walters & Parke, 1964) or
publicly criticized (e.g., for cheating in grading his or her own test; Heisler,
1974). We rated these types of punishment as severe. We rated spanking and
shaking as primary (unlearned) punishment. All other types of punishment
for the model involved forms of criticism. We coded these as secondary
(learned) punishment. The Bandura (1965) study involved the famous Bobo,
an adult-size plastic doll. In the vicarious punishment condition, the model
physically abused Bobo and then received criticism and a spanking for the
behavior. Children in the control condition saw the same film but without the
punishment for the model. After viewing the film, each child went to a play
room with a Bobo and many other toys. The outcome variable was number
of imitative responses from preestablished categories.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, across 21 research samples and a total of 876
participants, the viewing of a model experiencing punishment for a behavior led
276 The Journal of General Psychology

TABLE 1. Description of Studies With Effect Sizes and Confidence Intervals

Observer Model
Observer age (E Model
Author Year N gender group group) comparison

A. Bandura 1965 44 Mixed Children Film Yes

J. A. Cheyne 1971 5 Male Children Live Yes
J. A. Cheyne 1971 5 Female Children Live Yes
C. S. Garrett &
D. J. Cunningham 1974 64 Mixed Children Live Yes
G. Heisler 1974 122 Mixed College students Live No
E. A. Levy, B. S. McClinton,
F. M. Rabinowitz, &
J. R. Wolkin 1974 24 Mixed Children Live Yes
E. A. Levy et al. 1974 12 Mixed Children Live Yes
E. A. Levy et al. 1974 12 Mixed College students Live Yes
E. A. Levy et al. 1974 12 Mixed College students Live Yes
R. M.Liebert &
L. E. Fernandez 1970 16 Female Children Live Yes
R. M. Liebert, M. P. Sobol,
& C. D. Copemann 1972 64 Male Children Live Yes
W. N. Morris, H. M.
Marshall, & R. S. Miller 1973 56 Female Children Film Yes
M. C. Roberts, R. R.
Boone, & S. K. Wurtele 1982 48 Mixed Children Film Yes
M. E. Schnake 1987 40 Mixed College students Live Yes
M. E. Schnake &
M. P. Dumler 1990 88 Mixed College students Live Yes
M. D. Spiegler &
R. M. Liebert 1973 24 Male Children Live Yes
M. D. Spiegler &
R. M. Liebert 1973 24 Male Children Live Yes
R. H. Walters & R. D. Parke 1964 42 Male Children Film No
R. H. Walters, M. Leat, &
L. Mezei 1963 26 Male Children Film No
R. H. Walters, R. D. Parke,
& V. A. 1965 40 Male Children Film No
B. J. Zimmerman
& K. Kinsler 1979 108 Mixed Children Film No

Note. CI = 95% confidence interval. Punishment severity: low = being told a choice was a bad
one; high = practical impact, such as pain, damaged reputation, loss of something. Model pun-
ishment type: negative = the removal of a positive stimulus; Positive = receiving an undesirable
stimulus. Choice = whether modeled behavior was merely a choice of one of two paired items in
a list of pairs. E group = experimental group.
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 277

Punishment Model Primary or CI95%

severity E punishment secondary Random
group type punishment Choice assignment d low high

High Pos Both No Yes 0.67 0.06 1.27

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 1.25 –0.11 2.60
Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 1.76 0.30 3.22

Low Pos Secondary Yes Unclear 0.73 0.23 1.24

High Pos Secondary No Unclear 0.35 –0.01 0.71

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.48 –0.33 1.30

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.70 –0.12 1.53
Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.04 –0.76 0.84
Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.10 –0.70 0.90

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.89 –0.14 1.92

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.55 0.05 1.05

High Pos + Neg Secondary No Yes 0.58 0.04 1.11

Low Pos Secondary Yes Yes 0.57 –0.01 1.15

High Pos + Neg Secondary No Yes 0.27 –0.35 0.89

High Pos + Neg Secondary No Yes 0.65 0.23 1.08

Low Pos Secondary Yes Unclear 0.72 –0.10 1.55

Low Pos Secondary Yes Unclear 0.09 –0.71 0.90

High Pos + Neg Both No Yes –0.31 –0.92 0.30

Low Pos Secondary No Yes 0.54 –0.24 1.33

High Pos + Neg Both No Yes 0.62 –0.01 1.26

High Pos Both No Yes 1.70 1.24 2.16

 278

TABLE 2. Meta-Analysis Summary Statistics Using a Mixed-Effects Model Analysis

The Journal of General Psychology

Source Nd Nparticipants d CI–95% CI+95% z p Homogeneity analysis Fail-safe Na

Analysis per comparison 21 876 0.58 0.37 0.79 5.47 < .001 Q(20) = 42.62, p = .002 101

Note. A significant Q value indicates that homogeneity should be rejected (i.e., effect sizes are heterogeneous). CI = 95% confidence interval.
a
Number of studies with d = 0.00 needed to reduce the mean d to the d criterion value (0.10).
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 279

TABLE 3. Moderator Analysis for Gender, by Dependent Variable (N = 62)

Source Male Female Mixed

d 0.42 0.86 0.61

CI–95% 0.04 0.21 0.34
CI+95% 0.80 1.51 0.89
z 2.14 2.58 4.35
p .032 .010 < .001
n 7 3 11
Qwithin 4.58 1.60 9.82
df 6 2 10
p .487 .592 .624

Note. Qbetween(2) = 1.44, p = .487. CI = 95% confidence interval.

to a significantly lower level of the behavior by the observers, d = 0.58. Table 2

shows that 101 research samples would have to show no effect to reduce the effect
size to a meaninglessly low level.
The search for moderators of effect size showed a nonsignificant trend in
favor of female participants being more affected than male participants (see Table
3). Female participants had a larger effect size (d = 0.86) than did mixed groups
of male and female participants (0.61), which in turn had a larger effect size than
did groups of male participants only (0.42). Table 4 shows that young children
had an effect size (d = 0.67) twice as large as college students (0.33), but the dif-
ference was not statistically significant.
The other examined moderators did not even show a noteworthy trend. There
was no significant difference between (a) studies that used only choice of items as
the modeled behavior and other studies, (b) studies that had no model in the con-
trol condition and studies that had an unpunished model, (c) studies that showed
severe punishment and studies that showed nonsevere punishment, (d) positive
punishment (adding an aversive stimulus) alone for the model or positive punish-
ment plus negative punishment (taking something positive away), (e) whether the
punishment for the model was primary or secondary, (f) whether the model was live
or on film, and (g) reports that clearly stated that random assignment was used and
other studies. Two of these potential moderators, model punishment severity and
whether the punishment involved only being told a choice was wrong, overlapped
nearly completely, with only one study differing for them. Not surprisingly, the
nonsignificant results for the two moderators were nearly the same.
Discussion
The results provide evidence that showing a model who receives punishment
for a behavior tends to lead observers to show less of that behavior. The effect
 280

TABLE 4. Moderator Analysis for Effect Sizes, by Treatment Features

Homogeneity analysis Moderator analysis

Factor Qbetween df p d CI–95% CI+95% Qwithin df p

Observer age group 2.19 1 .139

Children 0.67 0.44 0.91 15.60 15 .409
College students 0.33 –0.05 0.72 1.23 4 .873
Model in experimental group 0.39 1 .535
Film 0.66 0.33 1.00 10.98 6 .089
The Journal of General Psychology

Live 0.53 0.26 0.79 6.77 13 .914

Model comparison 0.04 1 .845
No model 0.61 0.21 1.01 10.65 4 .031
Model no punishment 0.56 0.31 0.82 6.34 15 .973
Punishment severity (experimental group) 0.01 1 .928
Low 0.57 0.27 0.86 5.89 12 .921
High 0.59 0.28 0.90 11.26 7 .128
Model punishment type 1.38 1 .241
Positive 0.66 0.41 0.90 13.52 15 .562
Positive + Negative 0.38 –0.01 0.77 3.29 4 .510
Punishment status 0.62 1 .432
Primary/Secondary 0.73 0.30 1.16 11.16 3 .011
Secondary only 0.53 0.30 0.77 6.92 16 .975

(table continues)
TABLE 4. (Cont.)

Homogeneity analysis Moderator analysis

Factor Qbetween df p d CI–95% CI+95% Qwithin df p

Choice 0.00 1 .948

Other than choice behavior 0.59 0.29 0.88 11.28 8 .187
Choice behavior 0.57 0.26 0.88 5.89 11 .881
Random assignment 0.22 1 .635
Unclear 0.48 0.02 0.94 1.15 3 .766
Yes 0.61 0.37 0.84 15.96 16 .456

Note. CI = 95% confidence interval. Punishment severity: low = being told a choice was a bad one; high = practical impact, such as pain, damaged
reputation, loss of something. Model punishment type: negative = the removal of a positive stimulus; positive = receiving an undesirable stimulus.
Choice = whether modeled behavior was merely a choice of one of two paired items in a list of pairs.
Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke
281
282 The Journal of General Psychology

size (d = 0.58) was a medium one. The spread of effect sizes from one research
sample to another ranged from –0.31 to 1.76, with all effect sizes except one in
the positive direction. These findings provide support across 21 analyses and
876 participants for vicarious-punishment effects. However, the effects were
measured in every case soon after the participants viewed the model. It remains
unclear how long the effect lasts.
The meta-analysis excluded three studies because they lacked essential
data. Of the three studies, two reported support for vicarious-punishment effects
(Chartier et al., 1976; Schnake, 1986), and one failed to find significant effects
(Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). Overall, the results of these three studies seem
to parallel the results of the meta-analysis.
The present findings suggest that punishment of a model can be powerful
enough to reduce the likelihood of the observers exhibiting the behavior. The
effect sizes were similar for studies with control models who were unpunished
and studies with no control model at all.
The finding of a significant meta-analytic effect suggests that targeted appli-
cations of vicarious punishment would be worth trying in applied situations. The
most effective use of models experiencing punishment might be in conjunction
with models showing the opposite behavior and experiencing reinforcement.
Showing the positive behavior might avoid the problem of observers learning
what not to do but not knowing what to do. Further research might clarify whether
vicarious reinforcement of a desired behavior adds to the effect of vicarious pun-
ishment of undesirable behavior.
The finding of meta-analytic support for vicarious punishment suggests that
public-health fear appeals (e.g., against smoking) may, in part, attribute their sub-
stantial potency (see De Hoog, Stroebe, & de Wit, 2007) to vicarious punishment.
These appeals generally include vivid descriptions of negative consequences
resulting from the unhealthful behavior involved, along with prompts to engage
in healthful behavior, such as quitting smoking.
The finding of support for vicarious punishment is consistent with the idea
that openly punishing wrongdoers helps prevent crimes, as postulated in theories
of punishment for crime (see Stafford & Warr, 1993). However, specific applica-
tions of vicarious punishment are best tested individually because specific types of
behavior, such as committing crimes, can be influenced by many forces, some of
which might make trivial any impact of vicarious punishment. Also, in some popu-
lations, possibly essential aspects of vicarious punishment, such as attending to the
models and viewing their consequence as negative, may occur at a very low level.
The finding of significant heterogeneity in the meta-analysis suggests that
there are moderators of effect size. However, none of the variables that could
have been examined in this meta-analysis proved to be significant. The relatively
small number of analyses and the sometimes unbalanced split of different levels
of a variable led to low power to detect moderators. Two moderators, gender and
age, produced striking, if nonsignificant, patterns. With regard to gender, female
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 283

participants had twice the effect size as male participants, with mixed samples
in the middle. With regard to age, children had twice the effect size of college
students. These two demographic variables are worthy of further attention in
research on vicarious punishment.
Vicarious punishment occurred with live and filmed models, severe and
nonsevere consequences for the model, positive punishment for the model or
combined positive and negative punishment, primary and secondary punish-
ment or just secondary punishment for the model, adult participants and child
participants, and male and female participants. Vicarious punishment occurred
with various types of behavior, such as sharing, working hard, cheating, acting
aggressively, and choosing items. Hence, one may conclude that the effect of
vicarious punishment is robust across these variables.
In sum, the meta-analytic findings suggest that vicarious punishment does
occur, and that it is possible, at least in some circumstances, to use the principle
to decrease undesirable behavior.

AUTHOR NOTES
John Malouff is an associate professor in the School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sci-
ences at the University of New England in Australia. His current research interests include evaluating
the efficacy of methods of coping with stressors, types of psychotherapy, self-help materials for psycho-
logical problems, and methods used to increase adherence to recommendations of health professionals.
Einar Thorsteinsson is a lecturer in the School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences at the
University of New England in Australia. His current research interests involve health psychology and,
in particular, adolescent coping, social support, fatigue, depression, cardiovascular reactivity, stress,
and addiction. Nicola Schutte is an associate professor in the School of Behavioural, Cognitive and
Social Sciences at the University of New England in Australia. Her current research interests involve
positive psychology constructs, such as emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and beneficial effects
resulting from expressive writing. Sally Erin Rooke is a doctoral student in the School of Behavioural,
Cognitive and Social Sciences at the University of New England in Australia.

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in this meta-analysis.

American Cancer Society (Producer). (1985). Public service announcement [Television
broadcast]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from http://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=JNjunlWUJJI
*
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition
of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 601–607.
Chartier, G. M., Ainley, C., & Voss, J. (1976). Case histories and shorter communications.
Behavior Research & Therapy, 14, 303–304.
Cheyne J. A. (1971). Effects of imitation of different reinforcement combinations to a
model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 12, 258–269.
Cheyne, J. A. (1972). Direct and vicarious reinforcement: A note on punishment and nega-
tive instances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 63–68.
284 The Journal of General Psychology

De Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and
severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications:
A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11, 258–285.
Denicola, J. A., Stone, A., & Anker, J. (1981). Acquisition of living skills by chronic
patients as a functional type of reinforcement. Psychological Reports, 49, 239–245.
DiGiuseppe, R. (1975). Vicarious punishment: An investigation of timing. Psychological
Reports, 36, 819–824.
*
Garrett, C. S., & Cunningham, D. J. (1974). Effects of vicarious consequences and model
and experimenter sex on imitative behavior in first-grade children. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 66, 940–947.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Sydney, Australia:
Academic Press.
*
Heisler, G. (1974). Ways to deter law violators: Effects of levels of threat and vicarious
punishment on cheating. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 577–582.
Kelly, M. M., & Forsyth, J. P. (2007). Observational fear conditioning in the acquisition and
extinction of attentional bias for threat: An experimental evaluation. Emotion, 7, 324–335.
*
Levy, E. A., McClinton, B. S., Rabinowitz, F. M., & Wolkin, J. R. (1974). Effects and
vicarious consequences on imitation and recall: Some developmental findings. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 17, 115–132.
*
Liebert, R. M., & Fernandez, L. E. (1970). Effects of vicarious consequences on imitative
performance. Child Development, 41, 847–852.
*
Liebert, R. M., Sobol, M. P., & Copemann, C. D. (1972). Effects of vicarious consequenc-
es and race of model upon imitative performance by black children. Developmental
Psychology, 6, 453–456.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, A. J. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Malouff, J., & Rooke, S. (2008). Vicarious reinforcement. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclope-
dia of educational psychology (pp. 1000–1002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martin, R., & Haroldson, S. (1977). Effect of vicarious punishment on stuttering fre-
quency. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 21–26.
*
Morris, W. N., Marshall, H. M., & Miller, R. S. (1973). The effect of vicarious punish-
ment on prosocial behavior in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15,
222–236.
Rice, M. E. (1976). The development of responsiveness to vicarious reinforcement. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 12, 540–545.
Roberts, M. C., Boone, R. R., & Wurtele, S. K. (1982). Response uncertainty and imita-
tion: Effects of pre-experience and vicarious consequences. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 21, 223–230.
Schnake M. E. (1986). Vicarious punishment in a work setting. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 71, 323–345.
*
Schnake, M. E. (1987). Vicarious punishment in a work setting: A failure to replicate.
Psychological Reports, 61, 379–386.
*
Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (1990). Use of vicarious punishment to offset effects
of negative social cues. Psychological Reports, 66, 1299–1308.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Post-Gorden, J. C., & Rodasta, A. L. (1988). Effects of
playing videogames on children’s aggressive and other behaviors. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 18, 454–460.
*
Spiegler, M. D., & Liebert, R. M. (1973). Imitation as a function of response commonality,
serial order, and vicarious punishment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15,
116–124.
Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific
deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135.
 Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, & Rooke 285

Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A casual analysis
of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–385.
*
Walters, R. H., Leat, M., & Mezei, L. (1963). Inhibition and disinhibition of responses
through empathetic learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 235–243.
*
Walters, R. H., & Parke, R. D. (1964). Influence of response consequences to a social
model on resistance to deviation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1,
269–280.
*
Walters, R. H., Parke, R. D., & Cane, V. A. (1965). Timing of punishment and the obser-
vation of consequences to others as determinants of response inhibition. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 10–30.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. London:
Sage.
*
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kinsler, K. (1972). Effects of exposure to a punished model and
verbal prohibitions on children’s toy play. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
388–395.

Manuscript submitted April 23, 2008

Revision accepted for publication June 17, 2008
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.