Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

The effect of punishment and feedback on correcting erroneous behavior

Curtis G. Calabrese ⇑, Brett R.C. Molesworth, Julie Hatfield
School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Understanding the consequences of non-punitive sanctions and feedback for nonintentional
Received 15 February 2023 deviations (i.e., errors) is important to effective safety policy. This study aims to address a lack of research
Received in revised form 2 June 2023 on the effects of punishment and feedback on correcting erroneous behavior in the context of multitask-
Accepted 1 September 2023
ing. Method: A Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB-II) was employed to simulate the demands of aviating,
Available online xxxx
an important area of applied safety. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimen-
tal groups (no intervention, punishment, feedback, punishment + feedback) and asked to perform the
Keywords:
MATB-II. Punishment, feedback, and punishment + feedback decreased error and increased performance,
Error
Multitasking
with punishment alone having the greatest effect. Results: The results highlight the need for behavioral
Punishment consequences or feedback to reduce erroneous behavior. Practical Applications: From an applied perspec-
Feedback tive, these results have implications for policy and training.
Restorative justice Ó 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
Retributive justice creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction To discourage reckless or erroneous behavior, regulatory bodies

Multitasking is common and prevalent in many safety–critical
professions, including aviation, where pilots must simultaneously
operate flight controls, monitor flight instruments, and communi-
cate with air traffic control, among other tasks. Multitasking does,
however, heighten the propensity to commit errors. Hence, it is
imperative to examine the factors contributing to pilot errors dur-
ing multitasking and explore potential strategies to mitigate them,
thereby bolstering aviation safety. This study aims to investigate
the impact of two approaches to discouraging erroneous behavior:
retributive justice (punishment) and restorative justice (feedback).
Erroneous behavior is the leading cause of incidents and acci-
dents in aviation (Visser, Pijl, Stolk, Neeleman, & Rosmalen,
2007). Erroneous behavior can typically be broken down into two
categories, namely violations and errors. Violations are intentional
actions (or inactions) that deviate from established rules, proce-
dures, or norms; while errors are unintentional actions (or inac-
tions) that are said to occur outside of conscious thought and/or
control. Existing research generally focuses on violations and the
use of punishment to reduce them, in accordance with deterrence
theory (Chalfin & McCrary, 2017). However, there is limited litera-
ture on the effects of punishment on actions (or inactions) outside
an individual’s conscious thought (i.e., errors) and overall human
performance.
⇑ Corresponding author at: University of New South Wales, Sydney, School of
Aviation, Old Main Building, Room 205, NSW 2052, Australia.
E-mail address: c.calabrese@unsw.edu.au (C.G. Calabrese).
have implemented various jurisprudential models. Retribution and
restitution are common approaches to achieving social order and
justice in modern correctional theory (Cullen & Jonson, 2016;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Retributive justice relies on deterrence
theory (e.g., punishment) to reduce recidivism and dissuade others
from wrongdoing. Conversely, restorative justice promotes victim
and offender restoration without the use of offender punishment.
Such restorative-based systems predominantly rely on counseling
and informational feedback to promote offender compliance
(Marshall, 1999). Both justice systems aim to maintain social order
by increasing compliance through behavioral modification, but
through different mechanisms (e.g., punishment vs. feedback).
How these differing mechanisms affect human performance in avi-
ation, and specifically within a multitasking context, is the main
focus of the present study.
Restorative justice is translated into practice using a wide range
of methods (e.g., performance feedback, counseling, restitution)
and with varying degrees of success (Cullen & Jonson, 2016). One
such feedback scheme is employed by the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) via its ‘Compliance Program,’ this study’s
impetus. The Compliance Program primarily utilizes verbal coun-
seling, comprised of informational feedback about the deviation
and suggestions for improvement, as the regulatory consequence.
The FAA claims that under this form of justice (compared to
retributive systems), individuals are more likely to report errors,
so allowing for these errors to be addressed at either the individual
or systemic level (Federal Aviation Administration, 2015). How-
ever, recent research has highlighted how such an approach may

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.09.001
0022-4375/Ó 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield, The effect of punishment and feedback on correcting erroneous behavior,
Journal of Safety Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.09.001
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield
adversely affect safety (Calabrese, Molesworth, Hatfield, & Slavich,
2022).
Informational feedback informs an individual about the correct-
ness, physical effect, social or emotional impact of their behavior
through words, sounds, visual cues, or other stimuli (Chui,
Molesworth, & Bromfield, 2021). It may be delivered during or
after the relevant behavior (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989; VandenBos,
2007). The primary role of feedback is to provide individuals with
information about how to improve their behavior. Feedback may
also influence motivation by serving as positive reinforcement (re-
ward) for correct behavior; or punishment for incorrect (or imper-
fect) behavior. The effectiveness of informational feedback appears
mixed. In a meta-analysis, Mory’s (1992) found approximately half
of the studies found feedback improved test performance, while
the other half did not show improvement. A meta-analysis con-
ducted by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that feedback interven-
tions produced negative effects on performance; and they
suggested that the effectiveness of feedback decreases as attention
decreases during task performance. A more recent meta-analysis of
435 information feedback studies ranging from a low level of feed-
back (referred to as ‘simple’) to a high level of feedback (referred to
as ‘elaborate’), concluded that the effectiveness of feedback is
related to the amount of information contained within the feed-
back (Wisniewski, Zierer, & Hattie, (2020). The variance in studies
comes as no surprise considering the vast methods of feedback
implementation (e.g., type, time at which provided, quality of feed-
back, delivery methods – who or what). Similarly, and as noted
with the literature examining punishment, this literature does
not bifurcate between intentional (violations) and unintentional
actions (errors). The latter is central to the aim of the present
study, and specifically in a multitasking context.
In contrast to restorative justice, retributive justice aims to
reduce the likelihood of noncompliance through retribution (i.e.,
punitive sanctions). According to deterrence theory, the threat of
punishment deters nonconforming behavior (Grosvenor, Toomey,
& Wagenaar, 1999; Nader, 1986) at both the individual and popu-
lation levels. Punishing offenders directly (specific deterrence)
reduces their likelihood of reoffending (Freeman, Szogi, Truelove,
& Vingilis, 2016; Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009), as well as deter-
ring members of the public who know of the punishment and
criminal act/s (general deterrence; Chalfin & McCrary, 2017).
Deterrence theory aligns with behavioralist Skinner’s (1938)
theories on behavior modification through reinforcement and pun-
ishment. Skinner (1938) postulated that behavior can be shaped by
its consequences, underscoring the significance of environmental
factors in shaping behavior. He introduced the concepts of positive
reinforcement (i.e., supplying positive outcomes; e.g., reward,
praise) and negative reinforcement (i.e., removing negative out-
comes; e.g., stopping nagging) to increase desired behavior, and
positive punishment (i.e., implementing negative outcomes; e.g.,
fines) and negative punishment (i.e., removing positive outcomes;
e.g., withholding payment) to decrease undesired behavior. While
Skinner did not explicitly concentrate on motivation as an internal
state, his theories on reinforcement and punishment can be related
to the effort that drives behavior.
Motivation has been variously defined (Sundberg, 2013); in the
current context, motivation is considered as the effort that drives
behavior (VandenBos, 2007). According to Rasmussen (1982),
behavior/actions can be performed either consciously through
deliberate thought, or unconsciously. Violations are defined as
intentional, and are therefore, under conscious control/thought.
In contrast, errors are defined as unintentional, and are therefore
thought to be outside of conscious thought. It is plausible that
through effort (i.e., motivation), actions typically thought to be
outside of conscious thought (i.e., errors) can be modified
(Calabrese et al., 2022). Take for example the common act of speed-
2
Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
ing. The threat of punishment for exceeding the speed limit, such
as a monetary penalty, has the potential to motivate individuals
to pay more attention to their speedometer, and thus reduce the
likelihood of unintentionally (i.e., error) exceeding the speed limit,
as well as intentionally exceeding the speed limit (i.e., violation).
There is a wealth of literature on the effects of punishment for
intentional offenses (defined as ‘‘violations”) on human behavior,
and meta-analyses (Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Madensen,
2006; Rupp, 2008) broadly suggest that punishment is effective
in reducing violations, consistent with deterrence theory (Chalfin
& McCrary, 2017). In contrast, there is limited literature about pun-
ishment’s effects on unintentional actions, conceived here as
errors, and even fewer about its effects on ‘human performance.’
An error is ‘‘a generic term to encompass all those occasions in
which a planned sequence of mental or physical activities fails to
achieve its intended outcome, and when these failures cannot be
attributed to the intervention of some chance agency” (Reason,
1990, p. 195); whereas, ‘performance’ is the measure of a task out-
come (Fleishman, 1975). Hence, errors can be a component of per-
formance indices.
In terms of performance, Visser, van der Put, and Assink (2022)
conducted a meta-analysis examining punishment’s effect on stu-
dent spelling, reading, vocabulary, and mathematic scores. The
results showed a negative relationship between punishment and
performance. Likewise, the Akhtar and Awan (2018) survey of
300 participants concluded that corporal punishment negatively
affects student performance in public schools. As noted above,
these studies do not bifurcate between intentional (violations)
and unintentional actions (errors) resulting in punishment.
In terms of error, there appears to be few studies that examine
the relationship between punishment and errors. One of the stud-
ies investigated how punishment and reward affected errors and
reaction time on a visual task. Error did not differ based on punish-
ment or reward, however, response time did. Response time was
faster in the punishment condition as opposed to the reward con-
dition (Stürmer, Nigbur, Schacht, & Sommer, 2011).
The aim of the present research is to evaluate the effects of pun-
ishment and feedback on erroneous behavior. Punishment is oper-
ationalized in the form of monetary loss (a negative punishment),
while feedback is operationalized in the form of verbal counseling,
which consisted of identifying task correctness, errors, and meth-
ods to improve. In pursuit of this aim, the study seeks to answer
the following research question: How does punishment and feed-
back affect errors and performance on a multitasking activity?
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
Graduate and undergraduate students from the University of
New South Wales (UNSW) were invited to participate in a project
about human error and performance in multitasking, involving
‘‘completing a computer-based task where you are to manage sev-
eral different activities (i.e., multitasking) simultaneously, like
pilots do during flight. The project will last no longer than 90 min-
utes.” Sixty participants (30 male) volunteered for the research.
The average age was 25.93 (SD = 5.73) years, and participants aged
between 18 and 46 years. The sample size was deemed sufficient to
detect between group effects using Cohen’s criteria. Power calcula-
tions demonstrated that this sample size was sufficient to reveal a
medium to large effect size (effect size = 0.45, alpha = 0.05, actual
power = 0.828, groups = 4, N = 60). The research, including all stim-
uli, was approved in advance by the University of New South Wales
(UNSW), Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield
2.2. Design
The study comprised a single factorial between-groups design
with four levels. The control group (group 1) completed the multi-
tasking activity with no intervention. The three experimental
groups received forms of punishment and/or feedback and
included: information feedback group (i.e., instructions on how
to improve performance based on participant performance/error;
(group 2), punishment group (i.e., payment reduced by $0.53 for
each error; (group 3), and punishment plus informational feedback
group (group 4).
To determine an appropriate monetary level of punishment
(balance between perceived impact and severity) for the main
experiment, a pilot study was conducted, employing identical pro-
cedures to the main experiment and six participants. Financial
penalties ranged from 25c to 1.50c per error. Evaluation of the data
revealed a penalty of approximately AUD$0.50 per error emerged
as a suitable and effective motivator. A punishment of AUD$0.53
per error was elected to minimize additional cognitive load associ-
ated with participants calculating their total punishment easily
(7
0.53 is more difficult to calculate than 7
0.50).
Both the control and intervention groups were subjected to
tasks of identical duration, facilitated by the use of the MATB-II,
which inherently dictates a set time. However, the temporal
dynamics of completion diverged slightly between the groups, pri-
marily due to the method of breaks, feedback, and punishment uti-
lized in each case. The control group finished the experiment
slightly faster (3 minutes) due to the lack of intervention. The
two dependent variables were multi-tasking error, and overall per-
formance (both including metrics from the communication,
resource management, system monitoring, and tracking tasks that
are described in detail in Procedures).
2.3. Materials, software, and equipment
The material comprised a paper demographics questionnaire
(i.e., age, sex, piloting hours, and handedness), a paper penalty
form (used by the research to convey error count and financial
penalty to the two punishment groups), and a feedback script used
by the researcher with the two feedback groups. The feedback
script involved three components: self-debriefing (e.g., asking the
participant about their errors), reinforcing comments (e.g., infor-
mation on what went well), and corrective comments (e.g., how
to improve).
The computer-based multitasking software Multi-Attribute
Task Battery II (MATB) was utilized in this experiment. This pro-
gram is a widely used research platform for multitasking assess-
ment designed to evaluate human multitasking performance and
workload (Liu, 2017; Santiago-Espada, Myer, Latorella, &
Comstock Jr, 2011). Liu and Nam (2018) summarize 18 previous
studies of performance measures utilizing MATB. This tried and
tested software is ideal for this experiment because of its ability
to capture multitasking performance of non-pilot operators.
The MATB-II requires the simultaneous performance of four
tasks: (1) system monitoring, (2) resource management, (3) com-
munications, and (4) tracking (Santiago-Espada et al., 2011).
Fig. 1 identifies these tasks on the MATB interface with headings
above the respective task. Each task and the measures derived from
them are described in Procedures.
The data captured through MATB-II (Fig. 1) was analyzed using
the SPSS software v28. The equipment comprised: a Dell Inspiron
3505 computer operating with Windows 10, two Dell P2722H
2700 monitors, one Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick, one Dell wired
mouse, and a pair of Logitech Z200 speakers (Fig. 2). The computer,
including one monitor and mouse was set up in the researcher
observer station outside of the research cubical (2
3 m). The sec-
3
Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
ond monitor was placed alongside the joystick and speakers in the
research cubical. The computer simultaneously ran MATB-II and
Microsoft Visual Studio for continuous measurements for the
tracking task required for the main analysis.
2.4. Procedures
Participants were recruited through an internal mailing list for
students. Interested individuals selected a time for the experiment.
On the day of testing, participants first completed the demograph-
ics questionnaire. Next, participants were instructed on the use of
MATB-II and task objectives as described below.
The system monitoring task requires participants to identify
and respond to the non-normal state of two warning lights (repre-
sented by the squares labeled F5 and F6, Fig. 1) and four moving
scales (represented by the columns labeled F1, F2, F3, and F4,
Fig. 1) by clicking on the associated light/scale. Participants were
informed that the lights are currently in the normal color state
(i.e., green and grey, respectively) and if the light changes color,
participants would have seven seconds to respond correctly by
clicking the light with the mouse, otherwise one error would be
recorded.
In the resource management task, participants attempted to
keep two simulated fuel tanks within defined parameters by turn-
ing various pumps on and off. Participants were informed that the
green represent fuel and the blue rectangles labeled A through F
represented fuel tanks. The rectangles labeled 1 through 8 repre-
sent fuel pump with the arrow indicating the direction of fuel flow.
Participants were instructed to keep the level of fuel in tanks A and
B as close to the blue line (i.e., 2,500 units) as possible and within
the light blue band (i.e., 2,000–3,000 units). An error is recorded for
every four seconds the fuel is beyond the blue band.
The communications task prompts participants with aural com-
mands to change radio frequencies. Participants were instructed to
respond to the correct aural command only indicated by the call-
sign ‘‘NASA 504.” For example, ‘‘NASA 504, tune your NAV 1 radio
to 113.525.” In this case, the participant must select the respective
NAV1 radio button, then use arrows to select the proper frequency.
Participants were informed that they had 20 seconds to correctly
respond or one error would be recorded.
Lastly, the tracking task requires participants to hold a con-
stantly moving dot near the center of an x–y axis using a joystick.
Participants were informed to keep the dot as close to center of the
x–y axis as possible and to not go outside the blue circle. They were
also informed that one error would be recorded for every two sec-
ond period the dot is outside the circle.
Multi-tasking error was the total error count of each task across
the five experimental trials. Performance encompassed three met-
rics: errors, accuracy, and efficiency (time). It was computed by
adding the z-score of the following task scores: (1) System Moni-
toring: average system monitoring reaction time and error count;
(2) Resource Management: average difference from 2,500 units
and error count; (3) Communications: average communications
reaction time and error count; and (4) Tracking: average distance
from the center of the x–y axis when inside the circle, the average
number of two-second periods outside the circle (i.e., error count),
and the average number of seconds outside the circle.
Participants learned MATB-II through an initial training block of
seven three-minute trials. Each trial focused on teaching the indi-
vidual tasks and built upon these tasks (i.e., compartmentalization
training as occurs with flight training) in the following order: (1)
tracking, (2) system monitoring, (3) tracking and system monitor-
ing, (4) tracking and communications, (5) tracking, system moni-
toring and communications, (6) resource management, and (7)
tracking and resource management. Learning and performance sta-
bilization was observed through a second training block of 10
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield
Fig. 1. MATB-II User Interface.
Fig. 2. Participant Workstation.
three-minute training trials. Through a pilot study with five partic-
ipants, it was observed that learning was achieved by the fifth trial.
Five more training trials were included to accommodate potential
outliers in aptitude.
4
Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
The difficulty of the second set of training trials (10 in total) and
the following five experimental trials were equal. Difficulty was
achieved through a set amount of visual and auditory prompts
(i.e., non-normal indication requiring participant response). Each
trail contained the same number of prompts: 22 system monitor-
ing (11 lights and 11 scales), 5 communication prompts, and 10
resource management (i.e., pump failures). Two prompts triggered
within five seconds are defined as a ‘difficult pairing.’ Each trial
contained an equal disbursement of nine difficult pairings. All
other singular prompts were triggered at no sooner than a six sec-
onds interval.
Following the final training trial, the participants were informed
that there would be five more three-minute experimental trials,
and the difficulties of the experimental trials and training trials
would be the same. The Control Group received no further instruc-
tions and no intervention during the experimental trials. The Feed-
back Group was told that the researcher would enter the room
immediately following each test session and provide feedback to
the participant on their performance. Feedback was conducted in
the same manner for each participant utilizing a script (see Appen-
dix A). The Punishment Group was told that the amount of their
payment was predicated on their performance for these last five
sessions. The researcher entered the room immediately following
each session and recorded the participant’s error count, error pen-
alty (i.e., trial total), and monetary penalty on the penalty form.
The Punishment and Feedback Group first received the treatment
then the instructions of both the Feedback Group and the Penalty
group.
Participants completed the experiment in 90 minutes and were
given AUD$40 gift voucher (given in four AUD$10 amounts) at the
conclusion of their experimental session. Although the threat of
monetary loss loomed as a punishment for those in the designated
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

groups, every participant ultimately received the full AUD$40 upon score and performance). As can be seen in Table 1, significant dif-
the successful conclusion of their data collection session. ferences were evident based on ‘error’ scores in all but two group
pairing, namely between Feedback vs. Punishment, and Feedback
vs. Feedback + Punishment. In terms of ‘performance,’ significant
3. Results differences were evident in all but one group pairing, namely
between Feedback vs. Punishment. As can be seen in Fig. 3, with
3.1. Data screening both ‘error’ score and ‘performance,’ punishment yielded the great-
est improvement relative to the control group followed by feed-
Prior to the conduct of the main analysis, a simple factorial back, and feedback + punishment.
analysis examining differences between groups based on age and
baseline performance was performed to determine if the random-
ization of participants in the four groups was effective. With alpha
4. Discussion
set at 0.05 and test assumptions satisfactory no significant group
differences in age or baseline performance was observed (largest
This study examined the effects of punishment and feedback on
F, F (3, 56) = 2.11, p =.109 for Age).
operator performance in a multitasking task. Operator perfor-
Next, to examine whether performance had plateaued following
mance was measured based on errors, as well as at a more granular
training, four separate paired sample t tests (one for each group)
level (i.e., performance score), which incorporated task accuracy,
were conducted comparing mean error on the eighth baseline ses-
reaction time, displacement tracking, and error. The results
sion to mean error on the ninth and tenth baseline session.
revealed that participants in the control group (i.e., absence of
Assumptions of normality were met, and the results of the four
any punishment or feedback) exhibited significantly worse perfor-
separate t tests revealed no statistically significant difference (lar-
mance compared to the other experimental groups, irrespective of
gest t, t(14) = 1.192, p =.253; punishment group).
the performance measure (error vs. performance). Punishment
Pre-data screening using the interquartile range technique
alone yielded the most substantial improvement. Likewise feed-
(Moore, McCabe, & Craig, 2012) revealed the presence of outliers.
back also improved performance (error and performance score),
This outlying data (three participants) was transformed using the
however, its effect was not as pronounced as punishment, and
next most extreme score in the distribution plus/minus one tech-
combining it with punishment appeared to temper its effect. There
nique, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). Pearson
are several possible mechanisms that could account for these
product-moment correlational analysis showed a strong positive
findings.
relationship between overall error score and performance score
It is possible that motivation (e.g., threat of punishment)
(since the four performance measures were different, a z-score
induces more control over behavior, which reduces error. Punish-
was employed to provide a unified, single performance measure),
ment’s ability to motivate compliance may be cognitively medi-
r(60) = 0.89, p =.001. To check if this result was influenced by one
ated (Trang & Brendel, 2019; Xue, Liang, & Wu, 2011). It is
or a number of the different experimental groups, four additional
plausible that the motivational effect of punishment was a signifi-
correlational analyses were performed. With alpha adjusted to
cant driver (i.e., stimulating excellence), offsetting any fatigue or
control for familywise error (Bonferroni adjustment 0.05/4), the
complacency with the task. It is also plausible that the combination
results revealed a strong positive relationship between error and
of feedback and punishment was cognitively taxiing, thereby tem-
performance score for the Control (r(30) = 0.864, p <.001) and the
pering improvements in performance. While punitive deterrence
Punishment groups (r(30) = 0.693, p <.041), but not the Feedback
has been shown (i.e., deterrence theory) to positively affect behav-
(r(30) = 0.114, p =.685) and Feedback + Punishment groups (r
ior that is conscious (i.e., violation; Axelrod & Apsche, 1983; Braga,
(30) = 0.164, p =.560). This result highlights that while ‘perfor-
Weisburd, & Turchan, 2018), there are limited studies that show its
mance’ data encapsulates ‘error’ data, they measure two different,
effect on unconscious behavior (i.e., errors). In contrast, there is a
yet complimentary artefacts (i.e., performance is more granular).
breath of literature indicating the effect of cognitive load on uncon-
Therefore, both dependent variables (i.e., error score and punish-
scious as well as conscious behavior (Engström, Markkula, Victor, &
ment) were examined in the main analysis.
Merat, 2017).
Punishment may also have influenced behavior or motivation
3.2. Main analysis through the elicitation of negative emotions, such as disappoint-
ment. Van Dijk (1999) underscores the importance of examining
The next series of analyses examined differences between the emotional ramifications stemming from adverse outcomes.
groups based on the two dependent variables, ‘error’ score and Among these emotions, disappointment is particularly notable, as
‘performance’ on MATB-II. With assumptions of normality satisfac- it is more closely linked to the absence of a desired outcome in
tory, the one-way ANOVA for ‘error’ score revealed a statistically comparison to other related negative emotions, such as sadness,
significant difference among the groups (F(3, 56) = 35.41, anger, frustration, and regret. Although emotional measures were
p <.001). A similar result was evident with ‘performance,’ (F(3, not specifically assessed in this study, the majority of participants
56) = 41.02, p <.001). Table 1 displays the results of two separate voluntary mentioned that their performance was influenced by
Sidak post-hoc tests, one for each of the dependent variables (error factors such as the threat of punishment, the presence as an

Table 1
Sidak post-hoc descriptive statistics for error score and performance.

Error Score Performance (z-score)

Experimental Conditions Mean Difference, 95% CI p r2 Mean Difference, 95% CI p r2
Control vs. Feedback 9.48, [6.35, 12.60] <0.001 0.58 7.882, [5.40, 10.36] 0.077 0.60
Control vs. Punishment 11.34, [8.29, 14.40] <0.001 0.67 12.16, [9.83, 14.48] 0.007 0.80
Control vs. Feedback + Punishment 7.79, [4.60, 10.97] 0.001 0.47 5.79, [2.88, 8.69] <0.001 0.37
Feedback vs. Punishment 1.87, [3.14, 0.59] 0.078 0.25 4.27, [2.86, 5.70] 0.062 0.57
Feedback vs. Feedback + Punishment 1.69, [3.26, 0.13] 0.864 0.15 2.09, [4.34, 0.15] 0.017 0.12

5
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield
Fig. 3. Performance (z score) and error score (sum of error counts) for the four
groups. The error bars denote standard error (95% CI).
authority figure, and their aspiration to impress, sometimes result-
ing in disappointment due to perceived failure.
In the punishment group, during training the researcher
instructed the participants on MATB-II in a supporting role. This
shifted when the experimental manipulation occurred, and the
researcher became the enforcer. This change of role may have trig-
gered the psychological effect of disappointment, embarrassment,
and a motivation to please and perform (Grasmick & Bursik Jr,
1990; Williams & Hawkins, 1986).
The applied implications of the findings are not straightforward.
Results suggest that if the sole objective is to obtain performance
improvements, then adopting an intervention involving punish-
ment would yield the best result. However, if performance
improvements are sought in combination with the reporting of erro-
neous actions (e.g., self-disclosure to support systemic improve-
ments), punitive repercussions may undermine reporting,
thereby countering overall benefits at a system level. Punishment
is a form of reprisal, which has been shown to adversely affect
reporting of safety information (McMurtrie & Molesworth, 2018).
5. Limitations and future research
This experiment is the first of its kind to evaluate the effects of
punishment and feedback on solely nonintentional behavior (i.e.,
errors). While it provides valuable insights, there are several limi-
tations to consider. The task employed in this study represented a
multitasking activity. While this task has been used widely and no
doubt involves multitasking, it is not an operational task. Addition-
ally, the effects of punishment likely vary based on context and
application. How punishment and feedback affect real-world oper-
ational tasks remains unknown. Similarly, the operators of the task
were students in an experiment. How performance would have
varied if they were professionals performing in a particular profes-
sion remains unknown, and hence is another area for research.
How both punishment and feedback affect individual cognitive
functions, such as attention, memory, and decision-making, was
not investigated in the present study.
Punishments’ perceived magnitude, swiftness, clarity, and cer-
tainty have been shown to affect intentional behavior (e.g., compli-
ance) to varying degrees (Choi, 2005). If the level of punishment is
set too high, individuals may avoid, refuse, or eliminate the behav-
ior or activity. Conversely, if the punishment is low, it may be such
that the punishment doesn’t exist at all. Consistent with this, in our
pilot study, it was observed that the level of punishment (i.e.,
financial penalty) affected performance. Further research is
required to support decision-making about the characteristics of
punishment that would best support desired behavior. From an
applied perspective, the findings should be interpreted with cau-
tion, especially in safety–critical industries where the introduction
6
Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
of punishment might interact with other factors such as reporting
behavior.
6. Conclusions
Punishment and feedback affect individuals’ motivation and
attitude (Tricomi & DePasque, 2016), both of which are central in
the commission of violations (Ajzen, 2005; Neal & Griffin, 2006).
Motivation drives behavior; thus, the manipulation of motivation
influences intentional behavior. However, Calabrese et al. (2022)
observed that nonintentional deviations increased following a
decrease in punishment, suggesting that such factors might also
extend to errors.
This experiment evaluated the effect of punishment and feed-
back on both error (i.e., nonintentional behavior) and performance
through a multitasking activity. Results show that punishment and
feedback increase human performance and decrease error. Con-
versely, an absence of these stimuli was shown to have the oppo-
site effect. The results are the first of their kind to illustrate the
effect of punishment and feedback on unintentional behavior. They
also highlight the benefit of delineating between error and the
more granular performance metrics when examining human
behavior.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
Verbal Counseling Protocol Example
Research Team:
At the end of each session, conduct the following counseling:
Counseling and Punishment and Counseling Groups only:
(1) Ask the participant if they know they erred.
(2) Tell the participant their total number of errors and errors
per task.
(3) Ask the participant if they know why they erred.
(4) Give instruction on how to improve (e.g., techniques).
Instructions are limited to:
a. Remind the participant that each three-minute session
is the same level of difficulty as the previous baseline
sessions.
b. Do not focus on any one task, continue to scan.
c. Communications Task: Verbalize/repeat auditory
commands.
d. Tracking Task: Use your peripheral vision for the track-
ing task.
e. System Monitoring Task: Keep your mouse in this area
for faster response.
f. Resource Management: Do not forget about the transfer
pumps.
(5) Ask the participant if they are ready to continue.
References
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. London, England: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Akhtar, S. I., & Awan, A. G. (2018). The impact of corporal punishment on students’
performance in public schools. Global Journal of Management, Social Sciences and
Humanities, 4(3), 606–621.
Axelrod, S., & Apsche, J. (1983). The effects of punishment on human behavior. New
York: Academic Press.
C.G. Calabrese, Brett R.C. Molesworth and J. Hatfield
Calabrese, C. G., Molesworth, B. R. C., Hatfield, J., & Slavich, E. (2022). Effects of the
Federal Aviation Administration’s Compliance Program on aircraft incidents and
accidents. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 163, 304–319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.07.016.
Chalfin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature.
Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 5–48. https://doi.org/
10.1257/jel.20141147.
Choi, K. (2005). The effects of actual punishment levels on perceptions of punishment: A
multi-level approach. The Florida State University.
Chui, T. K., Molesworth, B. R., & Bromfield, M. A. (2021). Feedback and student
learning: Matching learning and teaching style to improve student pilot
performance. The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 31(2), 71–86.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2016). Correctional theory: Context and consequences
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Engström, J., Markkula, G., Victor, T., & Merat, N. (2017). Effects of cognitive load on
driving performance: The cognitive control hypothesis. Human Factors, 59(5),
734–764.
Federal Aviation Administration (2015). Federal Aviation Administration Compliance
Philosophy (Order 8000.373). Washington, D.C.
Fleishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance. American
Psychologist, 30(12), 1127.
Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Truelove, V., & Vingilis, E. (2016). The law isn’t everything: The
impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on motorists’ drink driving behaviors.
Journal of Safety Research, 59, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.001.
Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J. Jr, (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational
choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24(3),
837–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053861.
Grosvenor, D., Toomey, T. L., & Wagenaar, A. C. (1999). Deterrence and the
adolescent drinking driver. Journal of Safety Research, 30(3), 187–191. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00013-4.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.
Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of
response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.
Liu, S. (2017). Quantitative modeling of user performance in multitasking environments
Ph.D.. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
Liu, S., & Nam, C. S. (2018). Quantitative modeling of user performance in
multitasking environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 130–140.
Marshall, T. F. (1999). Restorative justice: An overview. Home Office London.
Moore, D. S., McCabe, G. P., & Craig, B. A. (2012). Introduction to the practice of
statistics (6th ed.).
Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications
for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3),
5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296839.
Nader, L. (1986). The law as a behavioral instrument (Vol. 33) Lincoln, NE: U of
Nebraska Press.
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending.
Crime and Justice, 38(1), 115–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/599202.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety
climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and
group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946–953. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The
empirical status of deterrence theory. A Meta-Analysis.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Journal of Safety Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Rupp, T. (2008). Meta analysis of crime and deterrence: A comprehensive review of the
literature. BoD–Books on Demand.
Santiago-Espada, Y., Myer, R. R., Latorella, K. A., & Comstock Jr, J. R. (2011). The multi-
attribute task battery ii (matb-ii) software for human performance and workload
research: A user’s guide.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Oxford,
England: Appleton-Century.
Stürmer, B., Nigbur, R., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2011). Reward and punishment
effects on error processing and conflict control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 335.
Sundberg, M. L. (2013). Thirty points about motivation from skinner’s book verbal
behavior. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/
bf03393120.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6) Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Trang, S., & Brendel, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of deterrence theory in information
security policy compliance research. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(6),
1265–1284.
Tricomi, E., & DePasque, S. (2016). The role of feedback in learning and motivation.
Recent developments in neuroscience research on human motivation. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Van Dijk, W. W. (1999). Not having what you want versus having what you do not
want: The impact of type of negative outcome on the experience of
disappointment and related emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 13(2), 129–148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379302.
VandenBos, G. R. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological
Association.
Visser, E., Pijl, Y. J., Stolk, R. P., Neeleman, J., & Rosmalen, J. G. (2007). Accident
proneness, does it exist? A review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 39(3), 556–564.
Visser, L. N., van der Put, C. E., & Assink, M. (2022). The association between school
corporal punishment and child developmental outcomes: A meta-analytic
review. Children, 9(3), 383.
Williams, K. R., & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A
critical review. Law and Society Review, 20(4), 545–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3053466.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A
meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,
3087.
Xue, Y., Liang, H., & Wu, L. (2011). Punishment, justice, and compliance in
mandatory IT settings. Information Systems Research, 22(2), 400–414.
Curtis Calabrese is a PhD candidate at UNSW Sydney and a commercial airline
pilot. His area of expertise is in Systems Engineering (BS) and Aviation (MS Hons
and Airline Transport Pilot Licence). His research interests include understanding
policy, behavior, and human factors in aviation.
Brett Molesworth is a Professor at UNSW Sydney. His area of expertise is Human
Factors and Aviation Safety with qualifications in Psychology (PhD and is a regis-
tered Psychologist in Australia) and in Aviation (BAv Hons and Commercial Pilot
Licence). His research interests focus on understanding human performance in
complex socio-technical environments.
Julie Hatfield is an Associate Professor at UNSW. She holds a PhD in Psychology
from the University of Sydney. Her primary research areas include: psychological
contributors to risky behaviour; distraction; driver education; vulnerable road
users and active transport; human response to aircraft noise.