Effects of punishing elements of a simple instrumental-consummatory response chain

Rats were trained to press a lever, with every response reinforced with water. After responding was established, nine rats were administered a brief shock after each lever press, and nine others were shocked after drinking. The two procedures resulted in similar suppression of responding, and examination of the latency data when responding was partially suppressed indicated that under both conditions response suppression was due primarily to an increase in the latency of the instrumental response, rather than to pausing between the instrumental and consummatory responses. Thus, punishment following either the instrumental or consummatory component of the simple response sequence reduced the number of sequences initiated, rather than selectively suppressing the punished behavior.     

Two types of pigeon key pecking: suppression of long- but not short-duration key pecks by duration-dependent shock

The key pecking of eight pigeons was maintained on a variable-interval 1-minute schedule of food reinforcement. Sometimes, all responses between 35 and 50 milliseconds in duration produced a shock; sometimes, all responses between 10 and 25 milliseconds produced a shock; sometimes, shocks were produced by pecks without regard to duration (nondifferential punishment), and sometimes shocks were delivered independently of responding. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses selectively suppressed those responses, while punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and nondifferential punishment suppressed responding overall but did not suppress responses of particular duration. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses suppressed key pecking slightly less than did nondifferential punishment. Punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and response-independent shock produced roughly equal amounts of suppression, substantially less than the other punishment procedures. The data support the view that there are at least two kinds of key peck, identifiable on the basis of duration, one of which (short duration) is insensitive to its consequences.     

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.     

Variable location of punishment in a response sequence

Key pecking of pigeons under a fixed-ratio 100, grain reinforcer schedule was followed by electric shock occurring once in each sequence of 100 responses with the shocked response varying irregularly in successive sequences. Under this shock schedule, a localized suppression of responding in a response sequence was not correlated with the probability of shock at different points in the sequence. High shock levels increased the duration of post-reinforcement pauses and suppressed responding during the first half of the response sequence. This suppression often persisted after the shocked response when shock occurred early in the sequence. The shock schedule did not produce a consistent suppressing effect on responding during the last half of the response sequence.     

The relative law of effect: effects of shock intensity on response strength in multiple schedules

Key pecking of four birds was reinforced with food according to a two-component multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 4-minute schedule. In addition, key pecking was punished by a brief shock according to a variable-interval 30-second schedule during both components of the multiple schedule. The intensity of the shock was varied. For all birds, punishment had a stronger suppressive effect on the responding maintained by the leaner food schedule, and the ratio of responding during the two components of the multiple schedule became closer to the ratio of reinforcement as shock intensity was increased, as the relative law of effect predicts. At the higher shock intensity, there was some evidence that the ratio of responses overmatched the ratio of reinforcements.     

Drugs and punished responding II: d-amphetamine-induced increases in punished responding

The effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding were studied in two experiments. In Experiment I, pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-ratio 30 response fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 60-sec limited holds in both components. Each response was punished with electric shock, the intensity of which was varied systematically. In Experiment II, another group of pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-interval 5-min fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 40-sec limited holds. Each response was punished with shock during one component, and every thirtieth response was punished in the other component. d-Amphetamine increased overall rates of punished responding only rarely under any of the punishment conditions; however, response rates within the fixed-interval when rates were low were increased by d-amphetamine when the shock intensity was low (Experiment I), or when responses produced shock intermittently (Experiment II). The data suggest that the effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding depend on the control rate of responding, the punishment intensity, the punishment frequency, and the schedule of food presentation.     

Indifference between punishment and free shock: evidence for the negative law of effect

Pigeons were trained to respond under two conditions with two identical variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement. While the schedules operated for separate response keys, they were not available concurrently. During one condition, each response was punished with electric shock. During the other condition, shocks were delivered independently of responding. The punishment suppressed responding but the free shocks did not. However, when allowed to choose, the pigeons preferred the condition associated with the lowest rate of shock regardless of whether or not the shock was dependent on responding. In general, shocks exerted their greatest effect on whichever response had the greatest influence on shocks. In this respect, punishment is instrumental in suppressing behavior and the properties of punishment are symmetrical to those of reinforcement. This empirical symmetry dictates a corresponding conceptual symmetry in terms of a positive law of effect accounting for response increments and a negative law accounting for response decrements.     

Acquisition and extinction of signaled avoidance as a function of intermittent reinforcement

Signaled, shuttle-box avoidance responding in female rats of the Fischer₃₄₄ strain was examined as a function of four separate contingencies of intermittent reinforcement. In Experiment 1, when avoidance responses during acquisition were reinforced 25% of the time with prompt CS termination, animals responded equally often during acquisition and significantly more often during extinction than animals who received such reinforcement on a 100% schedule. Similar results were found under a trace procedure in Experiment 2 when avoidance responses were reinforced 25% of the time with informational feedback stimuli. In contrast, during Experiment 3, when animals were shocked on only 25% of the trials on which they failed to respond, the level of avoidance responding during both acquisition and extinction was significantly less than it was when animals were shocked on a 100% schedule. Comparable results were found in Experiment 4 when avoidance responses during acquisition averted shock on only 25% of the trials. Thus, intermittent reinforcement contingencies involving response-contingent feedback stimuli and shock have differential effects on avoidance responding during both acquisition and extinction trials under the signaled avoidance procedure.     

Reversal of preference under progressive-ratio schedules by punishment

A progressive-ratio reinforcement schedule, in which successive reinforcements required an additional 50 responses, was programmed on one key. A response on a second key reset the progressive-ratio schedule to the first step. Before punishment, all pigeons consistently reset the schedule after reinforcement on the first step, thereby minimizing the number of responses required for reinforcement. Punishment was a brief electric shock contingent upon each response on the reset key. The first effect of punishment was to change the frequency of extra responses on the reset key. Under higher intensities of punishment, the pigeons completed the advanced steps of the progressive-ratio schedule before resetting to the first step. Completions of advanced steps were accompanied by decreases in the overall rate of responding and the rate of reinforcement. When the punishment contingency was removed, the major features of pre-punishment performance were recovered.     

Selective punishment early and late in fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement

Pigeons key pecked for grain on a fixed-ratio 100 schedule; electric shocks occurred intermittently at the fifteenth or eighty-fifth response in the ratio. In Experiment I, shock was at the fifteenth response for two birds, and at the eighty-fifth response for two others, in every sixth, twelfth, or eighteenth ratio. Rate of responding decreased as frequency of shock increased, and the pattern of responding included an increased initial pause and low rates or pause-run sequences that extended further into the ratio when shock was at the fifteenth response than when it was at the eighty-fifth response. Shock early in the ratio engendered longer initial pauses than shock late in the ratio. In Experiment II, four birds responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which shock occurred at the fifteenth response of the third ratio in the presence of a white keylight and at the eighty-fifth response of the third ratio in the presence of a green keylight. The overall rates of responding decreased as shock intensity increased. All four birds responded differentially to the white and green keylights, but with a pattern that varied between birds. In general, punishment reduced the probability of responses that preceded it, regardless of the ordinal position of those responses. Both studies confirm that the probability of responding is reduced less by aversive stimuli produced late in a fixed-ratio than by aversive stimuli produced early in a fixed-ratio.     

Punishment of an extinguishing shock-avoidance response by time-out from positive reinforcement

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of punishment by time-out from positive reinforcement on the extinction of discriminated shock-avoidance responding. Subjects were trained initially to bar press for food on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement and, concurrently, to avoid shock at the onset of a warning signal. Experiment I compared avoidance extinction performance under no punishment and when avoidance responding resulted in a 30-sec TO from reinforced appetitive responding. In Exp II, the contingent use of TO punishment was compared with its random, or noncontingent use. The results of both experiments showed that in the absence of punishment, avoidance extinction was characterized by short latencies and nearly 100% avoidance responding. Avoidance responding in extinction was little affected by noncontingent TO punishment. When TO was made contingent upon avoidance responding, however, avoidance latencies immediately increased and the frequency of avoidance responses subsequently decreased to zero.     

Drug-behavior interaction history: modification of the effects of morphine on punished behavior.

Squirrel monkeys were trained to respond under a multiple fixed-interval, fixed-interval schedule in which the first response after 5 min terminated a visual stimulus in the presence of which electric shocks could occur. During one component of the schedule, correlated with one color of stimulus lights, every 30th response also produced electric shock; responding was suppressed during this component to approximately 10 to 12% of that occurring in the alternate component in which responding was not punished. In contrast to previous research, morphine (0.03 to 1.0 mg/kg) increased punished responding. Unpunished responding, however, was either not affected or decreased at doses of morphine that increased punished responding. Increases in rate of punished responding also occurred when the single-schedule punishment condition was studied alone in these animals. Subsequent experimentation, which systematically analyzed the development of the rate-enhancing effects of morphine on punished responding, involved the study of drug effects in additional monkeys trained initially under a single-schedule punishment condition. The effects of morphine on punished responding were studied before, after, and then during exposure to the multiple schedule that included a component in which responding was not punished. Increases in response rate with morphine did not occur until it was administered during exposure to the multiple schedule that included a component in which responding was not punished. As with the other monkeys, once the rate increases in punished responding occurred under the multiple schedule, these effects of morphine persisted, even when the multiple schedule was removed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Preference for locus of punishment in a response sequence

Food-deprived pigeons pecked a key under a schedule in which grain was made available after the seventieth peck. In each sequence of 70 responses, either the first, middle, or final response was followed by electric shock. Before the first response of each sequence, each response on a second key changed the color of the food key and the schedule of shock that was correlated with the food key color. Each pigeon preferred a schedule of shock, in that each of the three shock schedules did not occur equally often. The preferred shock schedule and the strength of the preference varied among the pigeons. The overall rate of responding by a pigeon under a given shock schedule was directly related to the pigeon's relative preference for that schedule, except when shock after the first response in the sequence was the most preferred schedule.     

Punishment and the potential for negative reinforcement with histamine injection

The present study examined punishment of responding with histamine injection, and its potential to generate avoidance of punishment. Sprague–Dawley rats were trained under concurrent schedules in which responses on one lever (the punishment lever) produced food under a variable‐interval schedule, and under some conditions intermittent injections of histamine, which suppressed behavior. Responses on a second (avoidance) lever prevented histamine injections scheduled on the punishment lever. After stabilization of punished responding, a variable‐interval 15‐s schedule of cancellation of histamine (avoidance) was added for responding on the second/avoidance lever, without subsequent acquisition of responding on that lever. Progressive decreases in the length of the punishment variable‐interval schedule increased suppression on the punishment lever without increases in response rates on the avoidance lever. Exchanging contingencies on the levers ensured that response rates on the avoidance lever were sufficiently high to decrease the histamine injection frequency; nonetheless response rates on the avoidance lever decreased over subsequent sessions. Under no condition was responding maintained on the avoidance lever despite continued punishing effectiveness of histamine throughout. The present results suggest that avoidance conditioning is not a necessary condition for effective punishment, and confirm the importance of empirical rather than presumed categorization of behavioral effects of stimulus events.     

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.     

Lick-shock contingencies in the rat

Hungry rats were allowed to lick an 8% sucrose solution and then one of four lick-shock contingency conditions was superimposed on the licking baseline. These conditions were: free-operant avoidance, free shock, punishment, and no shock. From highest to lowest response rates, the groups fell in the order-avoidance, no shock, free shock, and punishment. Lick rates adjusted rapidly to introduction and removal of the contingencies. Post-shock responding was lowest in the punishment condition and highest in the free shock condition. No method was found simultaneously to equate shock frequency and separate response rates for the three shock contingency conditions. Only small, or no, reductions in shock rate occurred over sessions under the free-operant avoidance schedule when the shock-shock interval was 10 sec but large reductions occurred when the shock-shock interval was reduced to either 1 or 2 sec.     

An interresponse time analysis of variable-ratio punishment

An interresponse time analysis was used to study the effects of variable-ratio punishment schedules on the temporal pattern of reinforced responding. Twelve pigeons responded on a baseline variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. A variable-ratio ten schedule of electric shock punishment was then introduced. The shock intensity was systematically increased to the highest intensity at which responding could be maintained. At this intensity, the mean variable-ratio value was increased and then decreased. Variable-ratio punishment resulted in an increased relative frequency of very short unreinforced interresponse times (response bursting). Increased response bursting accounted for instances of response rate facilitation. In addition, shock was followed by interresponse times of decreasing mean length over the first several responses after shock.     

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.     

A facilitative effect of punishment on unpunished behavior

The key pecking of two pigeons was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement during the presentation of each of two stimuli. In various phases of the experiment, punishment followed every response emitted in the presence of one of the stimuli. In general, when the rate of punished responding changed during the presentation of one stimulus, the rate of unpunished responding during the other stimulus changed in the opposite direction. This sort of change in rate is an example of behavioral contrast. When punishment was introduced, the rate of punished responding decreased and the rate of unpunished responding increased as functions of shock intensity. When the rate of previously punished responding increased after the termination of the shock, the rate of the always unpunished responding decreased. When the procedure correlated with a red key was changed from variable-interval reinforcement and punishment for each response to extinction and no punishment, the rate of reinforced responding during presentations of a green key decreased and then increased while the rate of the previously punished responding during red first increased and then decreased during extinction.     

Punishment contras during free-operant avoidance

Punishment of bar-pressing responses of rhesus monkeys with electric shock in one component of a multiple free-operant avoidance schedule suppressed responding in that component. These decreases were concomitant with response rate increases in the unpunished component (punishment contrast). Response rates in both components increased when punishment was removed and decreased in successive sessions. These effects of punishment on unpunished responding were similar to those obtained during single and multiple schedules of positive reinforcement and they suggest a further similarity in the development of discriminations during positive and negative reinforcement schedules.