Some effects of punishment shock intensity upon discriminative responding

Three pigeons received visual discrimination training under both multiple variable-ratio extinction and variable-interval extinction schedules. All birds developed nearly perfect discrimination. When punishment for every tenth response during food reinforcement was presented, responding decreased as shock intensity increased. At the same time, responding during extinction, which was not punished, increased at intermediate punishment intensities, but returned to low levels under severe punishment. A second procedure, in which punishment and no-punishment sessions alternated unsystematically, was employed with two of the birds. The results under this procedure essentially replicated the data obtained as punishment shock intensity increased gradually.     

The effect of punishment shock intensity upon responding under multiple schedules

In the first of two experiments, responses of two pigeons were maintained by multiple variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Concurrent punishment was introduced, which consisted of a brief electric shock after each tenth response. The initial punishment intensities had no lasting effect upon responding. Then, as shock intensity increased, variable-ratio response rates were suppressed more quickly than variable-interval response rates. When shock intensity decreased, variable-interval responding recovered more quickly, but the rates under both schedules eventually returned to their pre-punishment levels. In the second experiment, the following conditions were studied in three additional pigeons: (1) With each shock intensity in effect for a number of sessions, punishment shock intensity was gradually increased and decreased and responding was maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement; (2) Changes in punishment shock intensity as described above with responding maintained by either a variable-ratio or a fixed-ratio schedule, which were presented on alternate days; (3) Session-to-session changes in shock intensity with responding maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules. Responding under the two schedules was suppressed to approximately the same extent by a particular shock intensity. Also, post-reinforcement pauses under the fixed-ratio schedule increased as response suppression increased.     

Selective punishment of interresponse times: The roles of shock intensity and scheduling

Two experiments investigated the roles of shock intensity and scheduling in selective punishment of interresponse times. In each experiment the punishment contingencies were imposed on a background of rats' responding maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food presentation. In Experiment 1 all interresponse times greater than 8 seconds produced shock. In Experiment 2 all interresponse times greater than 8 seconds but less than 12 seconds produced shock. In each experiment shock intensity was initially 0.3 milliamperes (mA) and then was varied through an ascending sequence ranging from 0.1 mA to 0.4 mA, in 0.1-mA increments. Experiment 1 produced response-rate increases at low intensities (0.1 and 0.2 mA) but eliminated responding at the remaining intensities. Experiment 2 produced response-rate increases only with 0.1-mA shock, although responding was maintained at all shock parameters investigated. Analysis of the interresponse times per opportunity showed differential suppression of the targeted responses in all cases except the high-intensity shock phases of Experiment 1. The current data support and extend previous studies of selective interresponse-time-dependent shock schedules but suggest that response-rate increases are not a necessary outcome of this type of procedure. The view that variable-interval schedules of shock presentation selectively target long interresponse times was also supported.     

Discriminated punishment: avoidable and unavoidable shock

Warning stimuli for two punishment conditions were alternated with periods of appetitive responding by rats. In either warning stimulus, the first response produced a brief shock, terminated the stimulus, and started an interval during which the baseline appetitive schedule was in effect. Not responding resulted in stimuli of random duration, which terminated with a shock under one condition and without a shock under the other. Each subject was exposed to several shock intensities, with trials for the two conditions programmed during alternate portions of the session. In general, response frequency in the warning signal for either condition decreased with increasing intensity; however, at a given intensity, responding was more frequent in the stimulus invariably terminating with shock than in the stimulus terminating without shock when no response was made. The frequency difference was greatest at intensities intermediate between those producing minimal and maximal suppression.     

Comparisons of stimulus learning and response learning in a punishment situation

These experiments use a procedure in which a rat is trained to make two topographically distinct responses on a single manipulandum, and then one of the responses is punished. Differential suppression of the punished response is taken as evidence of response learning, whereas the common suppression of both responses is attributed to stimulus learning or to general and nonassociative factors. Thus, this procedure begins the experimental separation of animals learning about the consequences of their behavior and animals learning what happens in a particular environment. A further separation is effected by using two such manipulanda; this procedure begins to distinguish between stimulus learning about the manipulandum and the more gereral factors that cause suppression. Some parameters affecting the relative importance of stimulus learning and response learning are examined.     

Resistance to punishment as a function of intensity and frequency of prior punishment experience

Rats with a history of intermittent punishment have been found to persist in the face of continuous punishment. It was predicted from an extension of frustration theory to punishment that increasing the intensity or frequency of intermittent punishment would increase persistence to high fear elicited by continuous punishment. Two experiments, employing 310 rats, verified this prediction for both intensity and frequency manipulations but indicated rather narrow boundary conditions for their effects.     

A measure of intensity of parental punishment

To test the possibilities that antecedents and consequents of certain levels of intensity of punishment may have far-reaching effects on behavior, a self-report measure of parental intensity of punishment was developed. Consisting of 33 different situations to which parents react, scores from the instrument were found to be reliable over time. Further construct validity was demonstrated with a variety of predicted relationships between punishment intensity and parent and child characteristics. Five samples of subjects were used with over 400 families, high intensity of punishment scores were found to be related to mothers' lack of warmth and to her intrusiveness when playing with her child; children's maladjusted behavior; aggression and impulsivity in boys; withdrawal and inhibition in girls, and uncooperativeness. Inconsistency of parental punishment also was associated with maladjustment. Results were discussed in terms of Rotter's social learning theory.     

Stimulus learning versus response learning in a discriminated punishment situation

The suppression of bar pressing under two kinds of conditions was compared. Under one condition the response was occasionally punished by shock in the presence of a signal. Suppression to the signal was quickly acquired, indicating rapid learning about the signal-shock relationship (stimulus learning). Under the other condition the response was occasionally punished in the presence of the signal but additional free shocks were given in the absence of the signal. The slow acquisition of suppression found in this case indicated that there was, at best, only gradual learning about the response-shock relationship (response learning).     

The effects of punishment intensity on squirrel monkeys

Responses of squirrel monkeys were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Concurrently, punishment consisting of a brief electric shock followed each response. As has been found for pigeons and rats, punishment did not produce extreme, all-or-none reactions. By gradually increasing the punishment intensity it was possible to produce response rates intermediate to no suppression and complete suppression. Similarly, the moment-to-moment response rate was free of extreme fluctuations. A “warm-up” effect occurred in which the punished responses were especially suppressed during the initial part of a session. The pre-punishment performance was negatively accelerated within a session, and punishment reduced the degree of negative acceleration. When punishment was discontinued, responding recovered immediately except when suppression had been complete or prolonged. When the punishment intensity was decreased gradually, more suppression resulted at a given intensity than when intensity was increased gradually. This suggests a “behavioral inertia” effect wherein behavior at a new punishment intensity is biased toward the behavior at the previous value. A corollary generalization is that the larger the change in intensity, the less the behavior at the new value will be biased toward the behavior at the previous value.     

Outcome-based observational learning in human infants

Previous work shows that infants manifest emulation learning in the use of end-state information. Outcome-based emulation has been interpreted as affordance learning or goal attribution. The present paper explores whether these two learning possibilities might be related. In 3 experiments, 17-month-old infants (N = 180) were presented with action outcomes across a variety of contexts and tasks: They observed either the full demonstration or the model's starting and final postures, plus the initial and end states of the object, or the latter portion of the foregoing display, or the end state of the object alone. The tasks included combinatory, noncombinatory, and body movement acts. Infants reproduced observed outcomes most often by observing the full demonstration. A similar effect was attained by exposure to both posture and configuration changes, but the effect was subject to the combinatory nature of the apparatus. In contrast, performance was less efficient after seeing the object's end state alone, suggesting that infants in the previous conditions did not simply emulate in association with the affordances. These findings support the notion that goal attribution based on sensitivity to bodily cues is reliant on the clarity of the affordances of a task.