Chaining and secondary reinforcement based on escape from shock

Three white rats were trained to press a bar while being shocked. This produced a white noise. After 30 sec they were allowed to terminate both the shock and the noise by nosing a pigeon key. Comparison of the rates of pressing before and after the onset of the noise indicated that the noise itself was the immediate reinforcing agent for pressing. Furthermore, control tests showed that pressing was maintained only if it produced the noise: either omission of the noise or elimination of the dependency of the noise on the occurrence of the response led to a gradual abolition of pressing. When automatic termination of the shock was substituted for the key nosing requirement, however, only the key nosing extinguished. This indicated that the effectiveness of the noise as a reinforcer did not depend on its status as a discriminative stimulus for some other form of operant behavior.     

Transfer of an escape response from tail shock to brain-stimulated attack behavior

Nine cats, each with two hypothalamic electrodes in sites which when stimulated produced either quiet attack or attack accompanied by certain forms of vocalization, were trained to escape from tail shock by jumping onto a stool. They were then tested for transfer of the escape response to brain stimulation. Stimulation of the seven sites that yielded quiet biting attack did not elicit the learned response of jumping onto the stool. Stimulation of eight of the 11 sites that yielded attack accompanied by vocalization did elicit the learned response. It was concluded that attack behavior elicited by brain stimulation should not be considered a special case of the response to aversive stimulation, but that attack and response to aversive stimulation involve independent but overlapping systems.     

The effects of escape conditioning and shock intensity on responding during inescapable shock

Eight albino rats, conditioned to press a lever to escape shock, continued to lever press during short inescapable shocks presented subsequently. The rate of this behavior was found to be higher for higher shock intensities regardless of the order in which shock values were presented. Relative to the immediately preceding escape rate, responding during inescapable shock was higher following conditioning at higher fixed-ratio escape requirements. Four subjects not conditioned to escape shock pressed the lever very infrequently during inescapable shock and showed little change with changes in shock intensity. The escape conditioning effects suggest that responding during inescapable shock is superstitious escape behavior. The effects of shock intensity on this behavior appear to be similar to reported effects of shock intensity on escape behavior.     

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.     

Attack, avoidance, and escape reactions to aversive shock

Aversive stimuli are known to produce the behaviors of both escape and attack. The interaction between these two basic reactions was studied with rats and monkeys using many shock-escape and shock-avoidance procedures. All procedures produced attack if a target was present, the attacks occurring shortly after shock delivery. The number of attacks during escape or avoidance was a direct function of the number and duration of shocks received. Consequently, any aspect of the procedure that produced many shocks also produced many attacks such as initial acquisition, extinction, or an increase of the response requirement for escape. The escape tendency acquired prepotency over the tendency to attack since successful escape eliminated attack behavior. The attack tendency retarded escape behavior only during acquisition when the preoccupation with attack precluded the opportunity to learn the escape response. This mutual interference of escape and attack was eliminated when the attack and avoidance tendencies were combined by using biting attack as the shock-avoidance response. The result was unusually rapid conditioning of the biting-attack response. These interactions indicate that both the attack and escape tendency should be considered whenever aversive stimulation is delivered.     

The undesired selves of repressors

Previous research has shown that prototypes of familiar categories are preferred over novel exemplars of familiar and unfamiliar categories. The present research demonstrates a reversal of this effect by simply inducing an exploratory mindset. Specifically, participants were asked to judge the attractiveness of dot patterns that represented prototypes of familiar categories, exemplars of familiar categories, or exemplars of novel categories. An exploratory mindset was manipulated by asking participants to imagine the stimuli as stars (versus as peas). Results show that participants in the exploration condition preferred exemplars of novel categories (thereby reversing the classical prototypicality effect), whereas participants in the control condition preferred prototypes. The role of mindsets and familiarity in attractiveness ratings is discussed.     

Effects of shock source and method of contact upon runway escape behavior

Rats performed better in a shock-escape apparatus with L-shaped metal strips as a runway when a constant-current (CC) shock source was used as compared to a matched impedance source. CC source superiority disappeared when the shock surface was wet (saline solution). Several additional demonstrations strongly suggest that the superiority of the CC source was not related to aversiveness per se but to responses peculiar to particular shock sources.     

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.     

Grid vs subcutaneously delivered shock in escape schedules with guinea pigs

Guinea pigs were trained by use of titrated negative-reinforcement procedures to escape electric shock on ratio schedules. With one group of Ss, shock was delivered through the grid floor of the chamber. Another group had electrodes implanted subcutaneously, closing a circuit between the back of the neck and near the tail bone. The subcutaneous group was also run with grid-shock escape. Results indicate that grid-delivered shock is more effective and efficient than is shock delivered through implanted electrodes.     

Suicide as escape from self

Suicide is analyzed in terms of motivations to escape from aversive self-awareness. The causal chain begins with events that fall severely short of standards and expectations. These failures are attributed internally, which makes self-awareness painful. Awareness of the self's inadequacies generates negative affect, and the individual therefore desires to escape from self-awareness and the associated affect. The person tries to achieve a state of cognitive deconstruction (constricted temporal focus, concrete thinking, immediate or proximal goals, cognitive rigidity, and rejection of meaning), which helps prevent meaningful self-awareness and emotion. The deconstructed state brings irrationality and disinhibition, making drastic measures seem acceptable. Suicide can be seen as an ultimate step in the effort to escape from self and world.     

Schedule-induced escape from fixed-interval reinforcement

Pigeons trained to peck one of two keys for food were exposed to an ascending and descending series of fixed-interval values. A response on the second key produced an escape period consisting of a visual stimulus change. During escape periods, the fixed-interval timer continued to operate and even if it timed out, a response on the food key would not operate the feeder unless preceded by an escape-key response that terminated the escape condition. As the fixed-interval schedule was increased logarithmically through six values from 30 to 960 sec, the percentage of session time spent in escape as well as the frequency, duration, and rate of escape increased to a maximum and then decreased. One subject did not develop escape behavior to any significant degree. For all pigeons, escapes usually occurred after, rather than before, reinforcement.     

Motivational aspects of escape from punishment

Punishment and escape were studied simultaneously by allowing a subject to escape from a stimulus situation in which responses were punished, into a stimulus situation in which responses were not punished. The frequency of the punished responses was found to be an inverse function of the intensity of punishment, whereas the frequency of the escape response was a direct function of the intensity of punishment. Both of these functions were obtained under three different schedules of food reinforcement. The strength of the escape behavior was evidenced by (1) the emergence of the escape response even when the frequency of food reinforcement decreased as a consequence of the escape response, (2) the maintenance of the escape response by fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules of escape reinforcement, and (3) the occurrence of escape responses at intensities of punishment that otherwise produced only mild suppression of the punished response when no escape was possible. This last finding indicates that a subject may be driven out of a situation involving punishment even though the punishment is relatively ineffective in suppressing the punished responses when no escape is possible.