Changes in unpunished responding during response-contingent punishment

Changes in a Multiple‐response Repertoire During Response‐contingent Punishment and Response Restriction: Sequential Relationships

“…Consider next the changes in the response hierarchies of the two subjects (S-1 and S-3) during the punishment phase of the procedure. The changes in the response repertoire of S-1 essentially replicate those observed in our previous research with a similar response repertoire (Dunham, 1978). Specifically, the eating response was suppressed, and the most probable unpunished alternative, running, increased in probability.…”

“…In our most recent experiments (Dunham, 1978), some additional changes in behavior were observed that could not be subsumed by these two rules. In these experiments, we measured the amount of time gerbils spent in four different activities during daily experimental sessions.…”

“…In such cases, one might also suspect that these sequential relationships will interact in predictable ways with the punishment contingency. For example, in our most recent experiments (Dunham, 1978), the decline in the unpunished digging response when eating was punished would make sense if a sequential dependency between eating and digging existed during baseline sessions prior to punishment (i.e., a response sequentially dependent upon the punished response will also be suppressed).…”

“…Dunham of the unpunished alternative responses will increase in probability during punishment sessions whereas other unpunished alternatives maintain their baseline levels. These have been called the "punishment rule" and the "implicit avoidance rule" respectively, and these rules have consistently predicted the manner in which organisms will adapt a multiple-response repertoire to response-contingent punishment in situations we have studied thus far (Dunham, 1971(Dunham, , 1972(Dunham, , 1977(Dunham, , 1978.…”

Comments on paper by Dunham

“…While Dunharn has punished several behaviors, he can hardly claim to have punished a variety of functional categories of behavior. In his first experiment (Dunharn, 1971), he punished eating, drinking, and paper shredding in gerbils; in his second (Dunharn, 1972), he punished drinking in rats; and in his latest experiments (Dunham, 1978), he punished eating in gerbils. In summary, except in one instance of paper-shredding, all the responses punished could be termed consummatory responses.…”