Erratum to: Escape from punishment by ommission of responding

Latta, K.; Cooper, Alexia

doi:10.3758/bf03336341

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, the present study found effective punishment by histamine injection without evidence of avoidance of the punishing stimulus. As in previous studies (Azrin et al, 1965;Lattal & Cooper, 1969) an added stimulus change may have facilitated acquisition of the avoidance response under the current conditions. The present study, however, addresses whether the decrease in frequency of the punishing stimulus alone is sufficient for the maintenance of avoidance responding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…In a latter discussion of that finding, Azrin and Holz (1966) stated that "a major effect of punishing a response is to generate a strong tendency on the part of the subject to escape from the punishing situation entirely" (p. 408). Lattal and Cooper (1969) also trained pigeons to peck a key under an FR 25 schedule of food presentation and punished this responding on an FR1 schedule of electricshock presentation. The punishment contingency could be avoided if any two responses were interspaced by a specified interval (15, 30, or 45 s), a contingency which resourcefully exploits its compatibility with operant response suppression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Punishment and the potential for negative reinforcement with histamine injection

Mayer

Neto

Katz

2018

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%