The role of the response-punishment contingency in the suppression of a positively-reinforced operant

Two experiments tested the prediction from current theories of punishment that a response-contingent procedure is superior to a comparable noncontingent procedure for the administration of punishment. Results demonstrated that the two procedures produced comparable contiguity effects and did not contain artifacts present in previous research. Three different measures of suppression corroborated the findings that more response suppression occurred in the contingent procedure. Results were shown to be stable across eight days of shock administration (Experiment 1), and three levels of shock intensity (Experiment 2). In both experiments, response suppression occurred during contingent shocks associated with shock at offset, as well as after conditioned stimulus (CS) offset. The contingent procedure was associated with more suppression during both of these periods and also longer runs of CSs with complete suppression. The relevance of the present findings to current theories of punishment was discussed.     

Autonomic concomitants of discriminative avoidance and punishment training in the monkey

TwoCebus albifrons monkeys were trained to press a back-lighted panel to postpone a brief electric shock to the tail using a Sidman avoidance schedule (SS = 40 sec, RS = 40 sec). After 25 training sessions, a discriminative schedule was introduced, with the Sidman avoidance continuing in the presence of one discriminative stimulus and punishment introduced in the presence of the other. The discriminative stimuli were colors on the panel. Discriminative training also involved 25 sessions, each with a random sequence of 6 avoidance and 6 punishment segments, with 30 sec intervals between the segments. Plantar skin conductance and heart rate were recorded along with the panel-pressing behavior. The two monkeys adjusted to the discriminative schedule quite differently from one another. One animal responded at a high level and avoided very well (during avoidance) but was punished frequently (during punishment). The other animal responded less frequently and received many shocks during avoidance but almost none during punishment. The animal that showed less ability to inhibit responding (and received about four times as many shocks overall) appeared to have discriminated better temporally in spacing its responses during avoidance training. The monkey whose panel-pressing behavior resulted in more shocks also tended to show a higher tonic level of autonomic arousal. However, within-animal differences in shock frequency (between avoidance and punishment) were not similarly related to autonomie arousal. The animal that received fewer shocks overall (but more during avoidance) showed greater arousal during punishment. The animal that received more shocks overall (but fewer during avoidance) showed no arousal differences between avoidance and punishment.     

Learning due to the response-shock contingency in signalled punishment

Three experiments examined some of the parameters that affect the degree of response-specific learning in signalled punishment. Each of the experiments used a within-subject procedure in which the shocks received in the presence of a stimulus signalling response-independent shocks (CER) were yoked to the number and distribution of shocks received in a stimulus signalling punishment. Experiments 1 and 2 used different values of variable-interval (VI) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of shock priming, respectively, during the punishment stimulus, and Experiment 3 varied the delay of punishment. The results of all three experiments supported the conclusion that the degree of additional suppression produced by the response contingency during the punishment stimulus compared to the CER stimulus was a function of the strength of contingency between the response and the shock.     

Conditioned punishment

Responses of pigeons were maintained by a VI schedule of food reinforcement. Conditioned punishment was programmed by having these responses concurrently produce an originally neutral stimulus. The effectiveness of this response-contingent stimulus was maintained by infrequent and prearranged stimulus-shock pairings delivered independently of responses. This conditioned punishment procedure reduced the overall response rate as long as the procedure was in effect. The extent and durability of the reduction was a function of the intensity of the shock that was paired with the stimulus. Analysis of the reduction in the overall response rate revealed: (1) a reduction of responses occurring in the absence of the response-contingent stimulus, which was designated as a “punishing” effect, and (2) a reduction of responses during the response-contingent stimulus, which was designated as a “suppressive” effect.     

Avoidance extinction in goldfish

Independent groups of goldfish trained to avoid shock in a shuttlebox situation were presented with several extinction procedures in which the relationships between the conditioned stimulus and shock were altered and/or response contingencies removed. Random shock presentations, equivalent to the number of shocks received during avoidance acquisition, resulted in response decrements similar to those obtained when the conditioned stimulus was presented alone. Pairing the conditioned stimulus with shock on every trial, however, served to maintain response levels. When response-contingent punishment was superimposed upon these Pavlovian pairings, performance was facilitated slightly although punishment alone resulted in somewhat faster response reduction than that produced by exposure only to the conditioned stimulus. Extinction of avoidance responding produced by exposure to the conditioned stimulus alone was dependent on the total duration of exposure and independent of both number of stimulus onsets and response prevention. These experiments demonstrated that, in general, the procedures used to reduce avoidance responding in rats were equally effective for goldfish, with one exception: the introduction of a Pavlovian contingency following avoidance acquisition, making the previously avoidable shock unavoidable, maintained response probabilities near previously established levels.     

Adrenocortical influences on free-operant avoidance behavior

Rats were conditioned to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule in which no exteroceptive stimulus signaled impending shock. Injections of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) or dexamethasone raised blood levels of glucocorticoids. These increases were accompanied by changes in avoidance performance: there was a higher frequency of long-duration interresponse times, a greater stability among them, and fewer short interresponse times, total responses, and shocks.     

Selective attention and stimulus-reinforcer interactions in the pigeon

The study supplies further evidence that non-associative effects and temporal-spatial similarities between certain combinations of cue and consequence cannot explain all instances of stimulus-reinforcer interactions. Pigeons were trained to press a treadle in the presence of a discriminative compound stimulus either to avoid shock or to obtain a food reinforcer. The compound stimulus was composed of diffuse tone and light cues which had identical temporal patterns of onset, duration and offset. With the avoidance schedule the auditory cue acquired more control than the visual cue; however, when food was the reinforcer, the visual cue exerted more control. This pattern of stimulus control on the appetitive schedule did not change if random shocks were also added, even though these shocks were equal in density to the food presentations and equal in magnitude to those used for the avoidance schedule. Other changes in the appetitive procedure, such as making the tone spatially contiguous with food and removing the light in the food hopper, also failed to alter the relative control by the different cues. Prior training with a food reinforcer did not produce any change in the relative control by the two cues when the birds were retrained on the shock-avoidance schedule. The results suggest that some frequently stated alternatives to selective associability are not adequate explanations of this instance of a stimulus-reinforcer interaction.     

Density and delay of punishment of free-operant avoidance

In two experiments, the free-operant shock-avoidance behavior of rats was punished by electric shock. Two aspects of the schedule of response-produced shock were varied: the frequency of punishment over time (punishment density) and the temporal interval between the punished response and the punishment (punishment delay). The general finding was that response-produced shock suppressed avoidance responding under most of the density-delay combinations studied, and suppression increased as a function of increases in density and decreases in delay. Rate increases of small magnitude also were observed, usually as an initial reaction to the lesser densities and longer delays. Response suppression, while decreasing the number of punishment shocks received, also increased the number of avoidance shocks, so that the total number of shocks received usually was greater than the minimal number possible. The results were discussed from the standpoint of similarities between the effects of punishing positively and negatively reinforced behavior. The finding that subjects did not minimize the total number of shocks suggested that when avoidance behavior is punished, responding is controlled more by the local consequences of responding than by overall shock frequencies during the course of the session.     

Discrimination of response-contingent and response-independent shock by rats: effects of chlordiazepoxide HCL and sodium amylobarbitone

Rats, trained to press a lever for sucrose reward on a random interval (RI) schedule, were presented while lever-pressing with two stimuli, each associated with a different schedule of shock delivery: in the presence of one stimulus (S_e), shock occurred on an RI schedule irrespective of the rat's behaviour; in the presence of the other (S_p) shocks were programmed by the same schedule but delivered only when the rat pressed the lever. Both stimuli suppressed lever-pressing. In addition, the rats developed significantly different response rates in the two stimuli, thus demonstrating a discrimination between response-contingent and response-independent shock. Group data showed faster responding in S_e than in S_p, supporting the view that response-contingent shock produces greater suppression than response-independent shock. Individual animal analyses, however, demonstrated that this was the case in the majority of animals, but not in all. Response suppression was alleviated by amylobarbitone sodium (15 mg/kg) or chlordiazepoxide HCI (5 mg/kg); the latter drug alleviated suppression significantly more in S_p than S_e and eliminated the difference between the response rates controlled by the two stimuli.     

Conditioned-aversive aspects of electric shock

Two experiments were reported in which it was observed that a weak shock became more aversive as a result of appropriate pairing of that stimulus with a stronger shock. The enhanced aversiveness of the weak shock was reflected in Experiment 1 by an apparent increase in the reinforcement provided by response-contingent termination of that shock. In Experiment 2, the weak shock was observed to be more suppressive of a consummatory-response baseline following appropriate pairings of the weak and strong shocks. The results of these studies were discussed in terms of their implications for certain aversive-conditioning situations in which shocks may serve, in part, as conditioned stimuli.     

Resistance to extinction and punishment following training with shock and non-reinforcement: Failure to obtain cross-tolerance

Two experiments investigated the phenomenon of cross-tolerance between the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) and the partial punishment effect (PPE). Three groups of rats were trained in acquisition to run in a straight alley. The continuously reinforced (CRF) group received a reward on every trial. The partially reinforced (PRF) group was rewarded on a quasi-random 50% schedule. The partially punished (PP) group received food reward on every trial but, in addition, received foot shocks of gradually increasing intensity in the goal box on a random 50% of the trials. In the test stage, half of the animals in each training condition were tested in extinction, where no reward was given on any of the trials, and the other half were tested in punishment, with both food and shock presented on each trial. Experiment 1 used a 1-trial/day procedure; Experiment 2 used a multi-trial procedure. In both procedures, clear PREE and PPE were obtained. In the 1-trial/day procedure, no cross-tolerance was evident: animals trained on a PRF or PP schedule did not show increased resistance to punishment and extinction, respectively. In the multi-trial procedure, only weak cross-tolerance was obtained in animals trained on partial reinforcement and tested in punishment.     

Acceleration and suppression of rats' responding to avoid foot shock and tail shock

Signalled response-independent shocks were superimposed on rats' wheel-turn responding to avoid shock administered to their feet through a grid floor or to their tails through fixed electrodes. In Experiment I, a tone paired with response-independent foot shock increased responding in three of four rats; a tone paired with tail shock increased responding in only one of four rats and suppressed responding in two rats. In Experiment II, a tone presented randomly with respect to response-independent shock had no reliable effect on responding to avoid foot shock or tail shock. In Experiment III, tail shock and foot shock were compared in a within-subject design while the temporal pattern of responding during conditioned stimuli was recorded. Responding during the conditioned stimulus preceding foot shock was characterized by initial suppression of responding at tone onset, followed by increased responding just before response-independent shock. Responding was suppressed throughout the conditioned stimulus preceding tail shock. Foot shock elicited bursts of responding, but tail shock did not.     

Effects of diazepam on schedule-controlled and schedule-induced behavior under signaled and unsignaled shock.

Schedule-controlled lever pressing and schedule-induced licking were studied in rats under a multiple fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement upon which was superimposed a multiple variable-time variable-time schedule of electric-shock delivery. Shocks were signaled in one component of the multiple schedule and unsignaled in the other. The effects of diazepam upon the suppression of behavior during the signal (conditioned suppression) and during signaled and unsignaled shock (differential suppression) were studied under several shock intensities (Experiment 1) and at increased body weight (Experiment 2). In each study, diazepam led to dose-dependent increases in the rate of pressing and licking during signaled and unsignaled shock, but had little effect on conditioned suppression. the rate-enhancing effects of diazepam depended upon the intensity of shock, nature of the response, and whether or not shocks were signaled. The data was discussed in terms of (1) implications for understanding the effects of signaled and unsignaled shock on behavior, (2) the effects of diazepam on behavior suppressed by response-independent shock, and (3) comparison between operant and schedule-induced behavior.     

Conditioned suppression of drl responding: Effect of ucs intensity, schedule parameter, and schedule context

In Experiment I, groups of rats were trained to press a lever for food reinforcement on differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedules which differed in parameter value. A stimulus which terminated with either a 0.5-mA or 2.0-mA electric shock was then superimposed upon each DRL baseline. In general, the magnitude of conditioned suppression was an inverse function of DRL schedule parameter and a direct function of shock intensity. Experiment II demonstrated that the rate of responding maintained by the DRL component of a multiple DRL-extinction schedule decreased during a stimulus preceding a 0.5-mA shock, whereas the rate of responding maintained by the DRL component of a multiple DRL-variable interval schedule showed little change or increased slightly during a stimulus preceding a 0.5-mA shock.     

Stress-induced breakdown of an appetitive discrimination

Rats trained to discriminate between S^D and S^Δ for food reinforcement showed marked impairments in this discrimination when strong, unavoidable shocks occurred at the termination of a third stimulus. The predominant feature of this impairment was a supernormal rate of unreinforced (S^Δ) behavior. Shocks delivered without exteroceptive warning also led to a discriminative breakdown. The effect was a direct function of shock intensity. When behavior was strongly suppressed in the third stimulus by response-correlated shock (“punishment”), instead of unavoidable shock, breakdowns were only temporary; as soon as responding recovered from its overall suppression, discriminative performance returned to normal. The discriminative deterioration may be interpreted as an emotional by-product of frequent aversive stimulation, but accidental contingencies could also have played a role.     

Conditioned suppression of an avoidance response by a stimulus paired with food

Three food-deprived Long-Evans rats were exposed to a non-discriminated shock avoidance procedure. Superimposed upon this operant avoidance baseline were periodic presentations of a conditioned stimulus that was paired with food, the unconditioned stimulus. These pairings resulted in increases in the rate of shock over that recorded when the conditioned stimulus was not present. A traditional suppression ratio failed to reveal any differential effect of the conditioned stimulus on the overall rate of avoidance responding, although all subjects showed a consistent pattern of pausing and postshock response bursts during presentations of the conditioned stimulus. When food was withheld during a final extinction phase, the conditioned stimulus ceased to occasion increases in shock rates and disruptive postshock response bursts were eliminated. An analysis of conditioned suppression procedures is proposed that stresses not only operant-Pavlovian or appetitive-aversive incompatibility, but also the manner in which the baseline schedule of reinforcement affects operant behavior changes that are elicited by the superimposed Pavlovian procedure.     

The effects upon food-reinforced pecking and treadle-pressing of auditory and visual signals for response-independent food

Seven pigeons whose key-pecking was maintained by food reinforcement on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates 12-sec limited-hold 4-sec schedule and 12 other pigeons whose treadle-pressing was maintained by the same schedule received appetitive Pavlovian conditioning trials superimposed upon the instrumental baseline. Half the birds in each group received a tone as the CS, and the other half received a stimulus change on the key. Each CS was 20 sec long, and was immediately followed by 10-sec access to grain. The visual CS markedly facilitated the rate of pecking on the key for the birds whose baseline response was pecking. The visual CS produced auto-shaping of the key-peck and tended to produce suppression of treadle-pressing for the birds whose baseline response was treadle-pressing. The auditory CS produced inconsistent effects across birds regardless of the baseline response. In all cases the conditioned effects extinguished when response-independent food was omitted.     

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.     

Relative durations of conditioned stimulus and intertrial interval in conditioned suppression.

The effects of the relative durations of the conditional stimulus and the intertrial interval on bar pressing during a conditioned-suppression procedure were examined as a function of two additional variables--type of operant baseline schedule and rate of shock presentation. In Experiment 1, response suppression was compared across components of a multiple fixed-ratio, random-ratio, fixed-interval, random-interval schedule, at relative conditioned-stimulus/intertrial-interval durations of 1/1, 1/4, and 1/9. In Experiment 2, relative conditioned-stimulus/intertrial-interval duration (1/5, 3/3, or 5/1) was manipulated across groups, while shock frequency (2, 6, or 10 shocks/hr) was manipulated within groups. In both experiments, suppression during the signal was virtually complete at all relative durations. Responding was also suppressed during the intertrial interval, but that suppression varied as a function of experimental manipulations. In Experiment 1, intertrial-interval response rates were higher when relative signal duration was 1/9 than when it was 1/1, although both relative signal duration and shock frequency, which covaried, could have contributed to the difference. In Experiment 2, the patterning of response rates between successive shocks was affected by relative duration, absolute rates during the intertrial interval varied as a function of shock frequency, and differences between suppression during the signal and suppression during the intertrial interval were affected by both relative duration and shock frequency. The data support an analysis based upon relationships between shock-correlated and intertrial-interval stimuli and, as assessed by the relative-delay-to-reinforcement metric, are comparable to results that have been reported from experiments using similar manipulations under the autoshaping paradigm.     

Second-order schedules: a comparison of chained, brief-stimulus, and tandem procedures

Pigeons were exposed to seven types of two-component schedules, each component a 2-min fixed-interval schedule. Food presentation occurred at the completion of the second component under all conditions. The seven types of schedules were: (1) a chained schedule in which completion of the first component produced the discriminative stimulus associated with the second component; (2) a chained schedule to which was added the brief presentation of a food-paired stimulus at the completion of the first component; (3) a chained schedule to which was added the brief presentation of a stimulus not paired with food at the completion of the first component; (4) a multiple schedule in which food presentation occurred at the completion of both components; (5) a tandem schedule in which completion of the first component initiated the second component, with no changes in exteroceptive stimuli; (6) a food-paired brief-stimulus schedule in which the brief presentation of a food-paired stimulus was made at the completion of the first component and no other changes in stimuli occurred; and (7) a brief-stimulus schedule in which the brief presentation of a stimulus not paired with food was made at the completion of the first component and no other changes in stimuli occurred. Positively accelerated patterns of responding developed in the first component under three conditions: (1) the chained schedule with the added food-paired brief stimulus; (2) the multiple schedule; and (3) the food-paired brief-stimulus schedule. Response rates were low in the first component, with few instances of positively accelerated patterns, under two conditions: (1) the chained schedule; and (2) the chained schedule with the added nonpaired brief stimulus. The results suggest that a briefly presented food-paired stimulus may function as a more effective conditioned reinforcer than does the presentation of a discriminative stimulus.