Reduction of shock duration as negative reinforcement in free-operant avoidance

Rats were trained on a free-operant procedure in which shock duration was controlled by responses within a limited range of interresponse times. Shocks of 1.6-mA intensity occurred randomly with average density of 10 shocks per minute. As long as interresponse times were 15 seconds or less, any shocks received were at the briefer of two durations (.3 second). Whenever interresponse times exceeded 15 seconds, any shocks received were at the longer duration (1.0 second). For six of eight animals, avoidance responding developed quickly and reached levels of better than 90%. Four yoked animals stopped responding within the first few sessions. Shock duration reduction without change in shock probability or intensity was sufficient for the acquisition and maintenance of avoidance responding.     

SUPPRESSIVE AND FACILITATIVE EFFECTS OF SHOCK INTENSITY AND INTERRESPONSE TIMES FOLLOWED BY SHOCK

Although response‐dependent shock often suppresses responding, response facilitation can occur. In two experiments, we examined the suppressive and facilitative effects of shock by manipulating shock intensity and the interresponse times that produced shock. Rats' lever presses were reinforced on a variable‐interval 40‐s schedule of food presentation. Shock followed either long or short interresponse times. Shock intensity was raised from 0.05 mA to 0.4 mA or 0.8 mA. Overall, shock contingent on long interresponse times punished long interresponse times and increased response rates. Shock contingent on short interresponse times punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates. In Experiment 1, raising the range of interresponse times that produced shock enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, the effects of shock intensity depended on the interresponse times that produced shock. When long interresponse times produced shock, low intensities increased response rates. High intensities decreased response rates. When short interresponse times produced shock, high shock intensities punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates more than low intensities. The results may explain why punishment procedures occasionally facilitate responding and establish parameters for future studies of punishment.     

Shock intensity and duration interactions on free-operant avoidance behavior

Shock intensities (1 to 4 mA) and shock durations (0.3 to 0.75 sec) were concurrently varied over a range commonly used in free-operant avoidance studies using a lever-press response. Response rates were a positive linear function of the log of the product of intensity times duration. Shock rates were a negative linear function of that log. The increase in response rates was primarily due to a selective increase in the conditional probability of making responses with long interresponse times. The disproportionality of receiving shocks early in the session (warm-up) was also a linear function of the log of the intensity-duration product, with increasing disproportionality as the value of the intensity-duration product was increased. Thus, with all measures of the avoidance performance, shock intensity and shock duration combine in a multiplicative fashion to determine the avoidance performance.     

Interresponse-time punishment: a basis for shock-maintained behavior.

Lever pressing of squirrel monkeys postponed brief electric shock according to a free-operant shock-postponement procedure. Pressing also produced shock with a probability proportional to the duration of the current interresponse time in some conditions, or to the fifth ordinally-preceding interresponse time in others. These conditions provided equal frequencies and temporal distributions of response-produced shocks either contingent on or independent of the current interresponse-time duration, respectively. Shock delivered contingent on the current interresponse-time duration resulted in shorter mean interresponse times and higher overall response rates that shock delivered independent of the current interresponse time. In subsequent conditions, response-produced shocks were sufficient to maintain responding following suspension of the postponement procedure only when those shocks were contingent on the current interresponse time. Presenting shock independent of the current interresponse time, conversely, suppressed response rate and ultimately led to cessation of responding in the absence of a conjoint shock-postponement procedure. These results demonstrate interresponse-time punishment in the absence of any indirect avoidance contingencies based on overall shock-frequency reduction, and strongly support similar interpretation at the more local level of shock-frequency reduction correlated with particular interresponse times. Differential punishment of long interresponse times also provides both an a priori basis for predicting whether a schedule of shock presentation will maintain or suppress responding and a framework for interpreting many of the functional relations between overall response rate and parameters of consequent shock presentation. Finally, these results and others indicate the importance of response-consequence contiguity above and beyong any notion of noncontiguous contingency in the control of behavior.     

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.     

Shock-duration reduction on the basis of interresponse times: the effect of the interresponse time limit

Rats were trained on a free-operant procedure in which the duration of randomly occurring shocks depended on the interresponse times of lever presses. Shocks of 1.6-mA intensity were delivered at random intervals with an average density of 10 shocks per min. Each shock that was delivered lasted 0.3 s as long as the interresponse times were within a preset limit. Whenever the interresponse time exceeded the limit, the shocks that were delivered lasted 1 s until the occurrence of a response that met the limit. The limit was reduced in 3-s steps from 15 s to either 6 s or 3 s, at which point 3 of the animals were exposed to an ascending series. The avoidance of long-duration shocks was highly efficient at the 15-s and 12-s limits, and it decreased at the 9-s limit. With the exception of one animal, performance was substantially worse at the 6-s limit and it deteriorated for all the animals that were exposed to the 3-s limit. The data suggest that shock-duration reduction is quite effective as negative reinforcement for avoidance but is perhaps less effective than shock-intensity reduction.     

Effects of response-shock interval and shock intensity on free-operant avoidance responding in the pigeon

Two experiments investigated free-operant avoidance responding with pigeons using a treadle-pressing response. In Experiment I, pigeons were initially trained on a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 32 sec and a shock-shock interval of 10 sec, and were subsequently exposed to 10 values of the response-shock parameter ranging from 2.5 to 150 sec. The functions relating response rate to response-shock interval were similar to the ones reported by Sidman in his 1953 studies employing rats, and were independent of the order of presentation of the response-shock values. Shock rates decreased as response-shock duration increased. In Experiment II, a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 20 sec and a shock-shock interval of 5 sec was used, and shock intensities were varied over five values ranging from 2 to 32 mA. Response rates increased markedly as shock intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, but rates changed little with further increases in shock intensity. Shock rates decreased as intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, and showed little change as intensity increased from 8 to 32 mA.     

Shock intensity and signaled avoidance responding

Five rats were submitted to a signaled free-operant avoidance contingency. Throughout the experiment, shock intensity was varied from 0.1 to 8.0 mA, with shock duration constant at 200 milleseconds. Results indicate: (a) an all-or-none effect of shock intensity on response and shock rates, on percentage of shocks avoided, and on frequency of occurrence of responding during the preshock stimulus; and (b) no systematic effect of shock intensity on stimulus control, measured either by the percentage of stimulus presentations accompanied by a response or by the percentage of responses that occurred during those preshock stimuli. Such results indicate that for each subject there is a minimum shock intensity necessary to establish and maintain avoidance responding; intensities higher than this minimum value have little or no effect on responding (with an upper limit for those strong intensities with a general disruptive effect on behavior).     

The influence of the victim on shock induced aggression in rats.

In two studies, free-roaming male rats (aggressors) were shocked in the presence of male target rats restrained in either an upright or a supine posure. In addition, in Experiment II, two levels of aggressor shock intensity (0.8 mA or 2.0 mA) were used while targets received one of three levels of shock (0.5 mA, 1.5 mA, or 2.5 mA). In both studies, upright targets were attacked less than supine targets. Frequency of aggression was directly related to level of aggressor shock intensity in Experiment II. Also, attack by 0.8-mA aggressors against supine targets was inversely related to level of target shock intensity. The low level of attack against upright targets was interpreted in terms of a threat diaplay. Similarily, it was concluded that the target shock-intensity effect in Experiment II was due to specific threat behaviors displayed by those supine rats that received the highest-intensity shocks.     

The effect of shock intensity upon responding under a multiple-avoidance schedule

The effect of two shock intensities (1.00 and 2.00 mA) were studied in the acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of unsignalled avoidance by albino rats. Single and multiple avoidance schedules were employed, with shock intensity being the principal condition that differed between schedule components. The higher shock intensity was generally more effective in producing avoidance. Higher response rates and lower shock rates were observed under high-intensity shock when performance stabilized. When the multiple schedule was introduced, the six rats trained under a single shock intensity all showed poorer performance under the new shock intensity, whether it was higher or lower than the training intensity. Performance under the original shock intensity did not change substantially with the introduction of a different shock intensity in the other multiple schedule component. Performance under the new shock intensity showed gradual improvement with continued exposure to it. All of the rats showed persistent “warm-up”, receiving approximately 40% of the total session shocks in the first one-sixth of the session. The degree of warm-up was unrelated to avoidance shock intensity.     

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.     

Integrated delays to shock as negative reinforcement

Rats were shocked at the rate of two per minute until they pressed a lever. In Experiment I, shocks were delivered at variable-time intervals averaging 30 sec; in Experiment II, shocks were delivered at fixed-time intervals of 30 sec. A response produced an alternate condition for a fixed-time period. The shock frequency following a response, calculated over the whole alternate condition, was two per minute. The pattern of shocks in the alternate condition was controlled so that the first shock occurred at the same time as it would have occurred had the response not been emitted; the remaining shocks were delayed until near the end of the alternate condition. Bar pressing was acquired in both experiments. This finding is not explained by two-factor theories of avoidance and is inconsistent with the notion that overall shock-frequency reduction is necessary for negative reinforcement. The data imply that responding is determined by the integrated delays to each shock following a response versus the integrated delays to shock in the absence of a response.     

Molecular contingencies in schedules of intermittent punishment

In two experiments, key pecking of pigeons was maintained by a variable-interval 180-s schedule of food presentation. Conjointly, a second schedule delivered response-dependent electric shock. In the first experiment, shocks were presented according to either a variable-interval or a nondifferential interval-percentile schedule. The variable-interval shock schedule differentially delivered shocks following long interresponse times. Although the nondifferential shock schedules delivered shocks less differentially with respect to interresponse times, the two shock schedules equally reduced the relative frequency of long interresponse times. The second experiment differentially shocked long or short interresponse times in different conditions, with resulting decreases in the relative frequency of the targeted interresponse times. These experiments highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate level of analysis for the interaction of behavior and environment. Orderly relations present at one level of analysis (e.g., interresponse times) may not be revealed at other levels of analysis (e.g., overall response rate).     

Choice for signalled over unsignalled shock as a function of shock intensity

Choice between a signalled shock schedule and an unsignalled one was examined at various shock intensities. Three rats were given the opportunity to change from the unsignalled schedule to the signalled one at intensity values between 0.15 mA and 1.0 mA. Steps were usually 0.15 mA and both ascending and descending series were given. For two other rats, shock intensity increased from 0.20 mA to 1.0 mA in 0.20-mA increments; for two additional rats, shock intensity was first 3.0 mA and was then reduced to 1.0 mA. Subjects tended to remain in the unsignalled schedule at the lower shock intensities, but spent most of each session under the signalled schedule at the higher intensities (1.0 mA and 3.0 mA). In addition, the time spent in the signalled schedule tended to vary systematically with shock intensity over at least part of the range of intensity values. It was concluded that the relationship between shock intensity and choice behavior is similar to the relationship between intensity and behavior in procedures involving avoidance, escape, and punishment.     

Actual versus potential shock in making shock situations function as negative reinforcers

The relative importance of potential and actual shocks in making shock situations function as negative reinforcers was studied. Shocks were scheduled to occur at the same rate during two stimuli. During one, squirrel monkeys could avoid the shocks; during the other, they were unavoidable. For the two stimuli the potential rate of shocks was the same, but the actual rate was lower during avoidance because of avoidance responding. Fixed-ratio responding was maintained by the change from unavoidable shock to avoidance, indicating that the change was reinforcing when it resulted in a reduction in actual shock rate with no reduction in potential shock rate. Further increases in the rate of potential shock during avoidance had little effect upon the fixed-ratio responding until the rate was increased to the point that the actual shock rate during avoidance was comparable with that during unavoidable shock. At that point, the fixed-ratio response rate decreased nearly to zero. These findings show that actual shocks are more important than potential shocks in determining whether or not a shock situation will function as a negative reinforcer; this explains why the change from unavoidable shock to avoidable shock is reinforcing.     

Choice of longer or stronger signalled shock over shorter or weaker unsignalled shock

Unsignalled, inescapable shocks were presented to four albino rats in one study and to six rats in a second study. By pressing a lever, subjects could change the condition to signalled shock for 3 min after which unsignalled shock was automatically reinstated. All subjects changed frequently to the signalled shock schedule. After a minimum of three 6-hr sessions or after changeover responding stabilized at the previous values, higher values of signalled shock intensity or duration were introduced. In the first study, the duration of signalled shock was increased in increments of 0.5 sec. In the second study, the intensity of signalled shock was increased in increments of either 0.2 or 0.4 mA. Duration subjects chose signalled shock four (2.0 sec) to nine times (4.5 sec) longer than unsignalled shock (0.5 sec). Intensity subjects chose signalled shock two (2.0 mA) to three times (3.0 mA) more intense than unsignalled shock (1.0 mA).     

DRL escape: effects of minimum duration and intensity of electric shock

Three dogs were exposed to a DRL-escape procedure that required them to endure a minimum duration of electric shock without responding in order for a response to terminate that shock. When this minimum duration increased from 0 to either 2.25 or 7.00 sec, response latencies increased proportionately. With the minimum duration held constant at 2.25 sec, a gradual increase in shock intensity to 5.0 ma had no systematic effect upon latencies. Even under the highest shock intensity, 5.0 ma, latency and interresponse-time distributions were unimodal with very few latencies and interresponse times less than the minimum duration. Three additional dogs were exposed to an escape procedure in which every response was immediately reinforced. For these subjects, the same increase in shock intensity to 5.0 ma was accompanied by a decrease in latencies. The precise temporal spacing of responses obtained with the DRL-escape procedure may in part be due to the fact that every response latency and interresponse time that did not meet the minimum duration was not only extinguished but was also punished.     

Some sequential aspects of IRTs emitted during Sidman-avoidance behavior in the white rat,

This study investigated some of the serial patterns among interresponse times during Sidman avoidance. It was found that the momentary probability of a response was determined by the length of exposure to the avoidance procedure during a session, by the time since the last shock, and by the duration of the preceding IRT.     

Selective punishment of interresponse times

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a variable-interval 60-second schedule of food presentation. When response-dependent electric shock was made contingent on comparatively long interresponse times, response rate increased, and further increases were obtained when the minimum interresponse-time requirement was decreased. When an equal proportion of responses produced shock without regard to interresponse time, rates decreased. Thus, shock contingent on long interresponse times selectively decreased the relative frequency of those interresponse times, and increased the relative frequency of shorter interresponse times, whereas shock delivered independent of interresponse times decreased the relative frequency of shorter interresponse times while increasing the frequency of longer ones. The results provide preliminary evidence that interresponse times may be differentiated by punishment, further supporting the notion that interresponse times may be considered functional units of behavior.     

Continuous punishment of free-operant avoidance in the rat

Three groups of albino rats were trained under a free-operant avoidance (Sidman) procedure with equal shock-shock and response-shock intervals. After stable performance was achieved, the animals were concurrently exposed to a brief electric shock after each response. The procedures were as follows: Punishment Schedule I: punishment shock was introduced at an intensity approximately one quarter that of avoidance shock; increments of nearly this same size were made as stable performance was achieved at succeeding punishment shock intensities. Punishment Schedule II: punishment shock was introduced at approximately one-half the intensity of avoidance shock; after stable performance, punishment shock was increased to the same intensity as avoidance shock. Punishment Schedule III: punishment shock was introduced and maintained at the same intensity as avoidance shock. Punishment was continued for all groups until one of two suppression criteria was attained. All animals made fewer responses and received more avoidance shocks as a function of increasing punishment shock. Half of the animals under Punishment Schedule I required punishment shock higher than avoidance shock to meet their assigned suppression criterion. A comparison of all procedures showed that suppression was greater when punishment shock was initially at high intensity.