Relative persistence of avoidance and positively reinforced behavior

In one experiment with rats, and a second with pigeons, subjects were trained on a schedule in which identical response dependencies applied to intermittent receipt of positive reinforcement (PR) for one group and avoidance (AV) of shock for a second group. After obtaining comparable stable training performance for groups PR and AV, persistence tests were conducted with a traditional extinction (EXT) procedure vs. response-independent (FREE) delivery of positive reinforcers or shocks. In both experiments, response elimination was rapid in EXT for groups PR and AV, and responding tended to be maintained in groups PR and AV in the FREE persistence test. These results contradict the widely held assumption that avoidance behavior is unusually resistant to extinction, and they call for a re-examination of elimination of avoidance responding.     

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.     

Intra-amygdala muscimol injections impair freezing and place avoidance in aversive contextual conditioning

Rats were trained by shocking them in a closed compartment. When subsequently tested in the same closed compartment with no shock, normal rats showed an increased tendency to freeze. They also showed an increased tendency to actively avoid the compartment when given access to an adjacent neutral compartment for the first time. Amygdala inactivation with bilateral muscimol injections before training attenuated freezing and eliminated avoidance during the test. Rats trained in a normal state and given intra-amygdala muscimol injections before the test did not freeze or avoid the shock-paired compartment. This pattern of effects suggests that amygdala inactivation during training impaired acquisition of a conditioned response (CR) due either to inactivation of a neural substrate essential for its storage or to elimination of a memory modulation effect that facilitates its storage in some other brain region(s). The elimination of both freezing and active avoidance by amygdala inactivation during testing suggests that neither of these behaviors is the CR. The possibility that the CR is a set of internal responses that produces both freezing and avoidance as well as other behavioral effects is discussed.     

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.     

Backchaining of relaxation in the extinction of avoidance

After rats were trained in one-way avoidance, two types of nonshock treatment were given to assess the degree to which fear of the shock area is affected by (a) nonshock responding (regular extinction trials) apart from (b) repeated exposure to the shock area in the absence of shock (response prevention). Different groups of regular extinction rats received 1 or 27 trials; response prevention control rats were equated with regular extinction rats on amount of nonshock exposure to the shock area and other variables. Fear of the shock area was measured on a posttreatment passive avoidance test. Regular extinction trials led to less fear of the shock side than response prevention trials when 27 nonshock trials were given. The results (a) suggest that relaxation back-chains from the safe to the shock area over repeated avoidance extinction trials, and (b) clarify existing problems of maintained fear with the response prevention technique.     

The effect of a conditioned fear inhibitor (CS-) during response prevention upon extinction of an avoidance response

Pairing a Pavlovian safety signal (CS—) with a response prevention period was contrasted with other response prevention procedures to determine relative effectiveness for the elimination of learned avoidance behavior. After acquiring a one-way avoidance response, five groups of ten rats received various blocking or control treatments and were then compared on extinction performance. The four blocking treatments included blocking paired with a safety signal; blocking only; blocking paired with a novel stimulus; and blocking paired with a preexposed noncontingent tone. The fifth group served as a handling control. Compared to the handling control, all four blocking groups reached extinction criterion in fewer trials. Further, the safety signal group extinguished faster than the blocking only group or the blocking with noncontingent tone group. Results were viewed as an indication of the potential efficacy of pairing-conditioned fear-inhibiting cues with response prevention procedures for the elimination of fear-motivated behavior. Implications for behavioral therapy techniques were discussed.     

Second-order avoidance behavior in monkeys

Two monkeys were trained on a three-component multiple schedule using discrete trials. In one component (food), a response terminated a red stimulus and produced food and S(Delta). In the second component (avoidance), a response terminated a green stimulus and avoided shock. In the third component (optional), a response terminated a blue stimulus and produced S(Delta). The consequence of not responding in the blue stimulus, however, was the production of either a food or an avoidance trial. Manipulation of these consequences showed that when food trials were available only a small percent of the time after optional trials, the subjects tended not to respond in the blue, even though this led to an increase in the total number of avoidance trials per day. If only avoidance trials followed as a consequence of not responding in the optional component, the animals terminated the blue stimulus and avoided the avoidance trials. Throughout the experiment both subjects maintained consistently low shock rates (about 10 per day) and these were not affected by the various manipulations. The data suggest that a stimulus associated with avoidance can be a conditioned aversive stimulus and will maintain a more remote avoidance response under certain conditions.     

Summation of food and shock based responding

In a multiphase experiment, dogs first received discriminative, discretetrial, barrier-jumping training with two tones (S^D, S^Δ) in a shuttle box reinforced by either shock avoidance (Group I) or by food (Group II). Then the dogs were trained on free-operant barrier-jumping reinforced by the qualitatively opposite reinforcer—food in Group I and shock avoidance in Group II. Finally, test presentations of the tone stimuli were superimposed on the free-operant behavior. The tone S^Ds markedly facilitated responding in all animals. This experiment demonstrates a summation of responding maintained by shock avoidance and food reinforcement and casts doubt on explanations of conditioned suppression outcomes that appeal solely to incompatible motivational states within the organism.     

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF EFFORT REDUCTION IN THE REINFORCING EFFICACY OF TIMEOUT FROM AVOIDANCE

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable‐cycle 30‐s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2‐min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock‐frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.     

Reduction of shock frequency as reinforcement for avoidance behavior

An avoidance technique was used in which rats had two levers available, with independent shock schedules associated with each. Behavioral patterns in initial conditioning and in the maintenance of the responses with various response-shock intervals led to the suggestion that reduction of shock density be considered an important variable in avoidance behavior.     

Avoidance,induction, and the illusion of reinforcement

Environmental events that impact reproductive success may be called phylogenetically important events (PIEs). Some promote reproductive success, like mates and food; others threaten reproductive success, like predators and injury. Beneficial PIEs induce activities that enhance them, and detrimental PIEs induce activities that mitigate or avoid them. Free-operant avoidance relies on electric shock as a proxy for injury, a PIE. One theory takes avoidance behavior to be reinforced by its reducing shock rate. A more complete explanation is that avoidance both reduces shock rate and is induced by the PIEs it usually prevents. Shocks received act in concert with shock-rate reduction, in a feedback system. Four parametric data sets were analyzed to show that avoidance is induced by received shock rate according to power functions. Avoidance is not reinforced at all; avoidance is induced by its failures. Induction explains not only avoidance itself, but also phenomena unique to avoidance, like warmup and effects of unavoidable shock. Induction explains behavior more generally than reinforcement, because induction explains not only food-maintained operant and nonoperant behavior, but also shock-maintained behavior, including avoidance. Reinforcement fails to explain behavior when reinforcement is defined as strengthening by consequences. Induction erases the distinction between consequences and antecedents.     

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.     

A comparison of escape and avoidance conditioning in wild and domesticated rats

In the first of two experiments, three cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and three albino rats were exposed to instrumental escape, unsignaled avoidance, and signaled avoidance, in that order. All subjects learned the escape procedure quickly, with the albino rats having generally shorter latencies, higher response rates, and requiring fewer sessions to reach the criterion. When the avoidance contingency was introduced, the cotton rats continued to respond almost entirely in the presence of the shock, whereas the albino rats responded in its absence, thus displaying effective avoidance behavior. Introduction of a pre-aversive stimulus did not improve the performance of the cotton rats. In the second experiment, five cotton rats and four albino rats were exposed to a free-operant (Sidman) avoidance procedure with a shock-shock interval of 3 sec and a response-shock interval of 20 sec. The cotton rats initiated responding at lower shock intensities than the albino rats, but their asymptotic avoidance responding was far less effective.     

The elimination of interfering response patterns in lever-press avoidance situations

Lever holding into shock and short-latency responses to shock onset are two response patterns that interfere with avoidance acquisition in free-operant and discriminated avoidance situations. In an attempt to eliminate these patterns, an additional timer disabled the lever for a period slightly longer than shock duration. A free-operant avoidance schedule with a warning stimulus, but without the additional timer, constituted the control condition. The lever-disabling timer was turned on by different events in two experimental conditions: (a) release of the lever at the onset of shock, (b) shock onset. Interfering responses diminished most rapidly, and efficient avoidance behavior appeared earliest, when the lever-disabling timer was turned on by shock onset.     

Acquisition and retention of control of instrumental behavior by a cue-signaling airblast: How specific are conditioned anticipations?

The conditioned state evoked by a CS that had been paired with an aversive airblast was assessed by superimposing the CS on baselines of instrumental responding. The first experiment used a shock avoidance baseline; CS-airblast pairings were administered on the baseline, with the shock avoidance schedule in effect. The CS that signaled airblast came, over trails, to accelerate shock avoidance responding. As further CS-airblast trials were administered, however, the acceleratory effect of the CS decreased, producing an inverted-U-shaped acquisition curve. A second experiment used off-baseline CS-airblast conditioning, and the CS was tested on both shock avoidance and water reinforcement baselines. After 20 CS-airblast pairings the CS accelerated shock avoidance and suppressed water-reinforced responding. After 10o pairings, however, the acceleratory effect on shock avoidance was much attenuated, although the suppressions of the water-reinforced behavior did not differ between 20- and 100-trial groups. Two further experiments examined retention, over a 45-day interval, of the attenuation of the CS's effects on shock avoidance. Over the retention interval, this attenuation disappeared. It was, however, reinstated by giving the animals “reminder” presentations of the airblast. These results are interpreted as representing systematic changes in the specificity of the conditioned state evoked by a Pavlovian CS.     

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).     

Transfer of conditioned fear and avoidance: Concurrent measurement of arousal and operant responding

A reversal design was employed for the analysis of transfer of fear and avoidance through equivalence classes. Two 5-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1-D1-E1 and A2-B2-C2-D2-E2) were established. Then B1 and C1 were paired with shock (CS+) and served as S^Ds in avoidance training (B2 and C2 were trained as CS-/S^∆s for avoidance). Further avoidance training followed with D1 and E1 (as S^Ds) and D2 and E2 (as S^∆s), with the first presentation of each of these stimuli serving as the first transfer test. Afterwards, aversive conditioning contingencies were reversed: B2 and D2 were paired with shock and trained as S^Ds for avoidance, B1 and D1 were presented without shock (CS-/S^∆s). Transfer was tested again with C1, E1, C2 and E2. This reversal was implemented to allow for the within-subject replication of transfer effects upon changes in the function of only a subset of each class's elements. Avoidance (key presses) and conditioned fear (skin conductance and heart rate) were simultaneously measured. Results show a clear transfer effect for avoidance, with between- and within-subject replications. For physiological measures, transfer effects in the first test could only be imputed on the basis of group-based inferential statistical analysis. Evidence for between-subject replication was weaker, with only a limited proportion of participants meeting the individual criterion for transfer.     

On insirumental response interaction as explaining the influences of Pavlovian CSs upon avoidance behavior

The finding that Pavlovian signals for food or shock influence avoidance responding might be explained either by interaction of conditioned central mediational states or interaction of learned instrumental responses. Using three groups of dogs, the two hypotheses were pited one against the other in a three-stage transfer-of-control experiment. In the initial conditioning phase, tones were established as signals for food, shock, or neither; additionally the tones also cued a common instrumental response. Following avoidance training, the tone was tested for its influence upon avoidance. If the lone had signaled food, avoidance was suppressed; if shock, avoidance was facilitated; if neither, avoidance was unaffected. This was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that interaction of central states mediates the transfer-of-control.     

The effects of stimuli followed by response-independent shock on shock-avoidance behavior

Four rhesus monkeys were trained on a non-discriminated shock-avoidance schedule (baseline). Stimuli followed by response-independent shock were then presented with the avoidance baseline no longer in effect. The main portion of the experiment consisted of superimposing (independently of responding) the stimuli followed by response-independent shock on the avoidance baseline. Different temporal values of stimulus duration and delay of shock (produced by an avoidance response) were presented successively, using each subject as his own control. When the stimulus duration was short or the delay of shock was long, so that avoidance rate during the stimulus could assume any value without resulting in baseline (avoidable) shocks during the stimulus, a lowered or "suppressed" rate of responding developed during the stimulus. When the stimulus duration was long or the delay of shock was brief, so that avoidable shocks resulted from a response decrement during the stimulus, high or "facilitated" rates of responding developed for a large proportion of the time that the stimulus was present.     

Generalisation of fear and avoidance along a semantic continuum

Directly conditioned fear and avoidance readily generalises to dissimilar but conceptually related stimuli. Here, for the first time, we examined the conceptual/semantic generalisation of both fear and avoidance using real words (synonyms). Participants were first exposed to a differential fear conditioning procedure in which one word (e.g., “broth”; CS+) was followed with brief electric shock [unconditioned stimulus (US)] and another was not (e.g., “assist”; CS–). Next, an instrumental conditioning phase taught avoidance in the presence the CS+ but not the CS–. During generalisation testing, synonyms of the CS+ (e.g., “soup”; GCS+) and CS– (e.g., “help”; GCS–) were presented in the absence of shock. Conditioned fear and avoidance, measured via skin conductance responses, behavioural avoidance and US expectancy ratings, generalised to the semantically related, but not to the semantically unrelated, synonyms. Findings have implications for how natural language categories and concepts mediate the expansion of fear and avoidance repertoires in clinical contexts.