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.     

Avoidance based on shock intensity reduction with no change in shock probability

Rats were trained on a free-operant avoidance procedure in which shock intensity was controlled by interresponse time. Shocks were random at a density of about 10 shocks per minute. Shock probability was response independent. As long as interresponse times remained less than the limit in effect, any shocks received were at the lower of two intensities (0.75 mA). Whenever interresponse times exceeded the limit, any shocks received were at the higher intensity (1.6 mA). The initial limit of 15 seconds was decreased in 3-second steps to either 6 or 3 seconds. All animals lever pressed to avoid higher intensity shock. As the interresponse time limit was reduced, the response rate during the lower intensity shock and the proportion of brief interresponse times increased. Substantial warmup effects were evident, particularly at the shorter interresponse-time limits. Shock intensity reduction without change in shock probability was effective in the acquisition and maintenance of avoidance responding, as well as in differentiation of interresponse times. This research suggests limitations on the generality of a safety signal interpretation of avoidance conditioning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Effects of timeout on spaced responding in pigeons

Three pigeons were trained under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of 20 sec, and then exposed to a schedule under which responses terminating interresponse times less than 20 sec produced timeout and responses terminating interresponse times greater than 20 sec produced reinforcement. Response-produced timeouts selectively decreased the probability of short interresponse times and thereby produced a higher frequency of reinforcement. The suppressive effect of timeout was independent of timeout duration, with timeouts of 5, 10, or 20 sec. Similar effects were found when the minimum interresponse time that could be terminated by response-produced reinforcement was increased to 30 sec. The suppressive effects of timeout on responding maintained by these schedules were similar to previous reports in which responding was punished with electric 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.     

HUMAN RESPONDING ON RANDOM‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES OF RESPONSE‐COST PUNISHMENT: THE ROLE OF REDUCED REINFORCEMENT DENSITY

An experiment with adult humans investigated the effects of response‐contingent money loss (response‐cost punishment) on monetary‐reinforced responding. A yoked‐control procedure was used to separate the effects on responding of the response‐cost contingency from the effects of reduced reinforcement density. Eight adults pressed buttons for money on a three‐component multiple reinforcement schedule. During baseline, responding in all components produced money gains according to a random‐interval 20‐s schedule. During punishment conditions, responding during the punishment component conjointly produced money losses according to a random‐interval schedule. The value of the response‐cost schedule was manipulated across conditions to systematically evaluate the effects on responding of response‐cost frequency. Participants were assigned to one of two yoked‐control conditions. For participants in the Yoked Punishment group, during punishment conditions money losses were delivered in the yoked component response independently at the same intervals that money losses were produced in the punishment component. For participants in the Yoked Reinforcement group, responding in the yoked component produced the same net earnings as produced in the punishment component. In 6 of 8 participants, contingent response cost selectively decreased response rates in the punishment component and the magnitude of the decrease was directly related to the punishment schedule value. Under punishment conditions, for participants in the Yoked Punishment group response rates in the yoked component also decreased, but the decrease was less than that observed in the punishment component, whereas for participants in the Yoked Reinforcement group response rates in the yoked component remained similar to rates in the no‐punishment component. These results provide further evidence that contingent response cost functions similarly to noxious punishers in that it appears to suppress responding apart from its effects on reinforcement density.     

Conditioned suppression, punishment, and aversion

Three experiments were conducted to assess the aversive properties of a visual stimulus in the presence of which one group of birds received response-contingent shock (discriminated punishment) while a yoked group of birds received non-contingent shocks (conditioned suppression). In Experiment 1, presentation of the visual stimulus contingent on key pecking reduced the response rate (conditioned punishment effect) for birds under the conditioned suppression procedure but did not reduce the response rate of birds under the discriminative punishment procedure. Non-contingent shocks also produced greater suppression of responding maintained by positive reinforcement in the presence of a visual stimulus than did response-contingent shocks. In Experiment 2, a greater shock intensity (2 mA) was used. All the differences between the two groups found in Experiment 1 were also found in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 demonstrated that response-contingent shock did not result in a conditioned punishment effect even when positive reinforcers were unavailable during the discriminative punishment schedule. The exteroceptive stimulus that was paired with shock in the conditioned suppression procedure acquired the ability to punish behavior. The exteroceptive stimulus in the discriminative punishment schedule did not acquire this ability.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of morphine, clonidine, and intensity change on electric-shock discrimination.

The effects of morphine, clonidine, and changes in stimulus intensity were examined in squirrel monkeys responding on one of two levers following brief presentations of one of two electric-shock intensities (0.1 and 0.5 mA). Responses were designated as correct or incorrect depending on which shock intensity had been presented and which lever was pressed. Morphine (0.42 to 1.80 mg/kg) and clonidine (0.075 to 0.18 mg/kg) decreased percentage correct responding. Morphine and clonidine also increased response latency and the number of shock presentations that were not followed by responses. Changes in shock intensity also decreased percentage correct responding but had no effect on response latency or on the number of shock presentations not followed by responses.     

Shock preexposure and the reduced effectiveness of shock

In three experiments experience with shock was shown to reduce the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer or motivator. In Experiment 1 rats were given signaled shock in a box separate from the runway where they were subsequently punished. These rats were less suppressed by shock punishment than rats that had no previous shock experience. In Experiment 2 preshocked rats were less suppressed by punishment and were slower to learn an escape-avoidance response than nonpreshocked rats, whether the preshock was signaled or unsignaled. In Experiment 3 as number of CS-shock pairings increased, fear of the CS decreased as did fear of the context. These results suggest that some central adaptation process produced by experience with shock reduces the effectiveness of shock as a reinforcer whenever shock is used repeatedly. This is independent of other effects, such as context blocking, that can affect responding after shock preexposure.