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.     

Punishment-specific effects of pentobarbital: dependency on the type of punisher.

Pigeons were trained to peck a key under a multiple random-interval 1-minute, random-interval 6-minute schedule of food presentation. Subsequently, over three phases, additions were made during the random-interval 1-minute component as follows: pecks during the component occasionally were punished by timeout presentation (Phase 1), timeouts were presented independently of responding during the component (Phase 2), pecks during the component occasionally were punished by electric-shock presentation (Phase 3). In Phases 1 and 3, response-dependent timeout and shock suppressed responding and established equivalent rates in both components of the multiple schedule. Intermediate doses of pentobarbital increased responding suppressed by electric-shock punishment but had little or no effect on responding suppressed by timeout punishment. Response-independent presentation of timeouts did not result in suppression of responding (thus showing that response-dependent timeout acted as a punisher), and pentobarbital did not reliably increase unpunished responding. Pentobarbital's selective "punishment-attenuating" properties depend on the nature of the punisher.     

Punishment of responding under schedules of stimulus-shock termination: effects of d-amphetamine and pentobarbital.

Responding maintained in squirrel monkeys under 5-min fixes-interval schedules of either food presentation or termination of a visual stimulus associated with electric-shock delivery was suppressed by presenting an electric shock for every thirtieth response (punishment). In monkeys responding under the schedule of food presentation, d-amphetamine sulfate only further decreased punished responding, and pentobarbital sodium markedly increased punished responding, as expected from previous reports. In monkeys responding under the schedule of stimulus-shock termination, however, the effects of the two drugs were opposite: d-amphetamine markedly increased punished responding, whereas pentobarbital only decreased responding. Thus, the effects of these drugs on punished responding were different depending on the type of event maintaining responding. These and previous results indicate that it may be misleading and inaccurate to speak of the effects of drugs on "punished responding" as though punishment were a unitary phenomenon. As with any behavior, the effects of drugs and other interventions on punished responding cannot be accurately characterized independently of the precise conditions under which the behavior occurs.     

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.     

Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding

Undergraduate students' presses on left and right buttons occasionally made available points exchangeable for money. Blue lights over the buttons were correlated with multiple random-ratio random-interval components; usually, the random-ratio schedule was assigned to the left button and the random-interval to the right. During interruptions on the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets (e.g., The way to earn points with the left button is to...). For different groups, guesses were shaped with differential points also worth money (e.g., successive approximations to “press fast” for the left button), or were instructed (e.g., Write “press slowly” for the left button), or were simply collected. Control of rate of pressing by guesses was examined in individual cases by reversing shaped or instructed guesses, by instructing pressing rates, and/or by reversing multiple-schedule contingencies. Shaped guesses produced guess-consistent pressing even when guessed rates opposed those characteristic of the contingencies (e.g., slow random-ratio and fast random-interval rates), whereas guesses and rates of pressing rarely corresponded after unsuccessful shaping of guesses or when guessing had no differential consequences. Instructed guesses and pressing were inconsistently related. In other words, when verbal responses were shaped (contingency-governed), they controlled nonverbal responding. When they were instructed (rule-governed), their control of nonverbal responding was inconsistent: the verbal behavior sometimes controlled, sometimes was controlled by, and sometimes was independent of the nonverbal behavior.     

Overmatching in rats: the barrier choice paradigm

The barrier choice paradigm was used to impose a cost on rats' behavior of traveling between two levers: Pressing on two levers was reinforced with food on concurrent random-interval schedules, but rats had to climb over a barrier to move from one lever to another. The height of the barrier separating the levers was increased from 30.5 to 45.7 cm across two phases that involved various pairs of random-interval schedules. With the 30.5-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes equal to or slightly above 1.0 for response and time allocation. With the 45.7-cm barrier, the generalized matching law showed slopes above 1.2 for responses, indicating that sensitivity to reinforcement increased with increasing barrier height. For time allocation the slopes remained close to 1.0; sensitivity to reinforcement did not seem to increase with increasing barrier height. The role of locomotion effort in choice situations is discussed.     

Fixed-ratio discrimination: effects of intermittent reinforcement

Four pigeons had discrimination training that required the choice of a left side-key after completing a fixed-ratio 10 on the center key, and a right side-key choice after fixed-ratio 20. Correct choices were reinforced on various fixed-interval, fixed-ratio, random-interval, and random-ratio schedules. When performance was examined across successive 15-second intervals (fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules) accuracy was high in the first 15-second interval, decreased in one or several of the next 15-second intervals, and then increased again as reinforcement was approached. When performance was examined across correct trials on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules, accuracy was lowest immediately after reinforcement, followed by a systematic increase in accuracy as the number of correct choices increased. These patterns were due primarily to errors on fixed-ratio 20 trials. Systematic accuracy patterns did not occur on random-interval or random-ratio schedules. The results indicate that when choice patterns differed on fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules, the differences were due to the method of data analysis.     

Some temporal parameters of non-contingent reinforcement

In each baseline session, pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule in which each of five distinctive stimuli was correlated with a different frequency of reinforcement. In one component, responses were reinforced with a probability of 0.10 (random-ratio schedule); in the other four components, responses were reinforced with different scheduled temporal frequencies averaging 30 to 240 sec between reinforcements (random-interval schedules). For periods lasting 30 sessions, contingent reinforcement was discontinued and reinforcement was presented independent of responding at irregular intervals averaging 30, 60, or 120 sec, while the sequence of stimuli continued. After each such period, the baseline was reinstated for 30 sessions. The data indicated that: (1) The rate of responding in the presence of all stimuli decreased as exposure to the non-contingent reinforcement procedure was prolonged, at all the frequencies of reinforcement employed; (2) The rate under the random-ratio schedule declined faster than the rates under all the random-interval schedules, presumably because the decrease in reinforcement frequency under this stimulus condition was greatest; (3) The decline in rates of responding under the stimuli correlated with the random-interval schedules tended to be greatest for the stimuli paired with the lowest frequencies of reinforcement.     

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.     

Differential effects of pentobarbital and cocaine on punished and nonpunished responding.

Similar rates of punished and nonpunished responding, maintained with equated rates of reinforcement, were established in pairs of rats. One subject of each pair was exposed to a random-ratio schedule of food presentation. The interreinforcement intervals for this subject comprised the intervals of a random-interval schedule of reinforcement for the other (yoked) rat. The random-ratio schedule maintained rates of responding higher than those maintained by the same rate of reinforcement schedule according to the yoked random-interval contingency. A random-ratio schedule of electric foot shock added to the random-ratio schedule of food presentation suppressed rates of responding such that similar rates of responding were observed in rats of both groups. Pentobarbital (3.0 to 17.0 mg/kg) increased punished responding at doses that had little effect on or decreased nonpunished responding, whereas cocaine (5.6 to 30 mg/kg) increased nonpunished responding at doses that decreased or did not alter punished responding. Qualitatively different effects of pharmacological agents on punished and nonpunished responding can be obtained using procedures that generate similar rates and temporal patterns of punished and nonpunished responding. The effects of pentobarbital and cocaine on responding can be determined by factors other than simply the baseline rate of responding.     

Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of conditioned anxiety

Three rats were trained to lever press on concurrent random interval 2-min random interval 2-min schedules of milk reinforcement. With a 5-sec changeover delay, relative response rate matched the relative reinforcement duration associated with each lever. A stimulus, during which unavoidable shocks occurred at random intervals, was superimposed on this concurrent baseline, and shifts in preference were found. However, data from this procedure were ambiguous, apparently confounded by shock-elicited response bursts. Termination of the shocks during the stimulus resulted in a rapid recovery of matching, which was preceded by a brief facilitation of responding on the less-preferred lever. The procedure was then changed to a conventional conditioned anxiety paradigm with a variable duration pre-shock stimulus. A marked shift in relative response rate towards the preferred lever was found in all three rats; that is, responding on the preferred lever was far less suppressed during the pre-shock stimulus than responding on the less-preferred lever.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.     

The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans

During Phase I, three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, response rates conformed to Herrnstein's equation for single variable-interval schedules. Punishment suppressed responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, and the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was elevated. During Phase II, the same five schedules (A) were in operation (without punishment), but in addition, a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) of standard reinforcement frequency was introduced. On alternate days, responding in Component B was punished according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, absolute response rates conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe performance in concurrent schedules; the ratios of the response rates in the two components and the ratios of the times spent in the two components conformed to the Matching Law. When responding in Component B was punished, response rates in Component B were reduced and those in Component A were elevated, these changes being reflected in distortions of the matching relationship.     

Summation of punishment suppression

In two experiments, eight rats were trained to lever press with food on a variable-interval schedule. Bar pressing produced shock on a variable-interval schedule in the presence of two independently presented stimuli, a light and a tone. Two rats in each experiment received alternative presentations of the light and the tone and were consequently always in the presence of a stimulus that signalled variable-interval punishment. The other two rats in each experiment were treated similarly except that they received periods in which neither light nor tone was present. During these periods, bar pressing was not punished. The two stimuli that signalled punishment were then presented simultaneously to evaluate the effect of stimulus compounding on response suppression. The subjects trained without punishment-free periods did not show summation to the compound stimulus; the subjects trained with punishment-free periods showed summation of suppression. The major difference between the two experiments was the longer mean interval of variable-interval punishment used in the second experiment. This manipulation made the summation effect more resistant to extinction and thus increased its magnitude.     

Choice of timeout during response-independent food schedules

Rats' lever pressing terminated visual or auditory stimuli associated with fixed-time or variable-time schedules of food delivery and produced a timeout period during which food delivery could not occur. Lever pressing during a timeout period reinstated the food-associated stimuli and again permitted food delivery according to the fixed-time or variable-time schedules. The mean interfood interval ranged from 1 minute to 16 minutes (variable-time schedules) or 32 minutes (fixed-time schedules); the timer controlling schedule intervals did not stop during timeout periods. The percentage of session time spent in timeout increased when the mean interfood intervals were lengthened and decreased when the mean interfood intervals were shortened. Timeouts were initiated most frequently about half way between successive food deliveries (fixed-time schedules) or after 15 seconds or more had lapsed since the last food delivery (variable-time schedules). Elimination of food delivery increased the percentage of session time spent in timeout, and elimination of the timeout contingency decreased lever press rates. When timeout was produced only when the lever was held in the depressed position, little time was spent in timeout. The main determinants of timeout initiation and termination appeared to be the rate of food delivery, freedom of movement during timeout, and the stimulus change associated with initiation and termination of timeout.     

Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance

Three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the relationship between response rate and reinforcement frequency conformed to Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, while the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was increased.     

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.     

Effects of reinforcer probability, delay, and response requirements on the choices of rats and pigeons: possible species differences

In Experiment 1 with rats, a left lever press led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer. A right lever press led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point, or a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Indifference points increased as the probability of reinforcement for the left lever decreased. In some conditions with a 20% chance of food, a light above the left lever was lit during the 5-s delay on all trials, but in other conditions, the light was only lit on those trials that ended with food. Unlike previous results with pigeons, the presence or absence of the delay light on no-food trials had no effect on the rats' indifference points. In other conditions, the rats showed less preference for the 20% alternative when the time between trials was longer. In Experiment 2 with rats, fixed-interval schedules were used instead of simple delays, and the presence or absence of the fixed-interval requirement on no-food trials had no effect on the indifference points. In Experiment 3 with rats and Experiment 4 with pigeons, the animals chose between a fixed-ratio 8 schedule that led to food on 33% of the trials and an adjusting-ratio schedule with food on 100% of the trials. Surprisingly, the rats showed less preference for the 33% alternative in conditions in which the ratio requirement was omitted on no-food trials. For the pigeons, the presence or absence of the ratio requirement on no-food trials had little effect. The results suggest that there may be differences between rats and pigeons in how they respond in choice situations involving delayed and probabilistic reinforcers.