From an article about the US justice system, but the relevance to misbehaving schoolchildren (or simply schoolchildren whose behaviour one doesn’t like) is obvious:
Cesare Beccaria—the Italian criminologist from whom Jeremy Bentham borrowed not only the term “utility” but many of his ideas for criminal-justice reform—identified three characteristics that determine the deterrent efficacy of a threatened punishment: its swiftness, its certainty, and its severity. Of the three, severity is least important. If punishment is swift and certain, it need not be severe to be efficacious. If punishment is uncertain and delayed, it will not be efficacious even if it is severe. (It was only two and a half centuries after Beccaria that psychologists and behavioral economists discovered that some degree of excessive present-orientation, and excessive discounting of the risk of large losses, is normal.) The sort of bad gamble represented by most offenses tends to attract precisely those whose departures from rationality are most egregious.
[...]
Not only is severity an inadequate substitute for swiftness and certainty, it actually interferes with them. The more severe a punishment is, the more due process (leading to delay) is required to impose it, and (if severity is measured in sentence length) the less often it can be imposed before the prisons fill up.
eterrent efficacy of a threatened punishment: its swiftness, its certainty, and its severity.
Interestingly, these correspond to delay, expectancy and value in the procrastination equation. It’s interesting to see “negative” values used to form a kind of anti-motivation.
I hadn’t noticed that. That’s a pretty shrewd connection! Come to think of it, the “excessive discounting”/”excessive present-orientation” Kleiman mentions is suspiciously similar to the procrastination equation’s remaining term, impulsiveness.
I wonder whether criminologists discovered this independently of psychologists & neuroscientists? Might be an example of two parts of academia converging on the same answer from different directions.
From an article about the US justice system, but the relevance to misbehaving schoolchildren (or simply schoolchildren whose behaviour one doesn’t like) is obvious:
Interestingly, these correspond to delay, expectancy and value in the procrastination equation. It’s interesting to see “negative” values used to form a kind of anti-motivation.
Awesome, this is worth its own post IMO.
I hadn’t noticed that. That’s a pretty shrewd connection! Come to think of it, the “excessive discounting”/”excessive present-orientation” Kleiman mentions is suspiciously similar to the procrastination equation’s remaining term, impulsiveness.
I wonder whether criminologists discovered this independently of psychologists & neuroscientists? Might be an example of two parts of academia converging on the same answer from different directions.