PUNISHMENT: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF DELAY AND INTENSITY OF SHOCK¹

Abstract

A discrete-trial punishment procedure, with rats, was used to examine how delay-of-shock intervals of 0 to 28 sec and shock intensity interact to decrease the frequency and increase the latency of a positively reinforced response. For delay-of-shock intervals of 0, 7, 14, and 28 sec, there was a range of shock intensities, for some subjects, over which the punishing effect of shock was an increasing, monotonic function of shock intensity. For other subjects this transition was abrupt. Functions relating response frequency and latency measures to shock intensity were displaced toward higher values on the shock intensity axis with an increase in delayof-shock interval. The effects of "gradual" and "abrupt" introduction to "severe" shock, as well as re-exposure to previously used shock intensities, were examined under both the immediate and delay-of-shock conditions. With delay-of-shock intervals of 7, 14, or 28 sec, shock intensities of approximately 0.50 milliamperes or greater were necessary to decrease substantially the number and increase the latency of the lever-pressing response. For the immediate punishment group this intensity was approximately 0.20 ma. These facts were related to Annau and Kamin's (1961) conditioned emotional response experiment in which a shock intensity of 0.49 ma or greater was required to suppress the rate of a positively reinforced response.The intensity of a punishing stimulus, as well as the temporal interval between a response and punishing stimulus, affect the future probability of occurrence of the punished response. Experiments by Appel (1963) with rats, Azrin (1960) with pigeons, and Hake, Azrin, and Oxford (1967) with monkeys have all shown that over a limited range of shock intensities, the rate of a positively reinforced response is inversely related to the intensity of response-contingent shock.The results of several punishment studies in which the temporal interval between a response and punishing stimulus was varied, suggest that the rate of a punished response is directly porportional to the delay-of-shock interval. For tinction of the avoidance response, each response was punished with shock. Kamin observed that the total number of responses made during punishment trials was directly proportional to delay-of-shock intervals of 0 to approximately 30 sec. Karsh (1965), also using rats, reported that the rate of a punished, positively reinforced response was directly proportional to delay-of-shock intervals of 0 to 20 sec.There has been little study of the manner in which delay-of-shock interval and shock intensity interact to reduce the frequency of occurrence of a punished response. Karsh (1965), in the above mentioned study, exposed four groups of rats to delay-of-shock intervals of either 2, 5, 10, or 20 sec and gradually increased the shock intensity from 65 to 105 v. Under these conditions, successive increments in shock intensity resulted in a decrease in response rate which lasted only for several sessions. On the other hand, Camp, Raymond, and Church (1967), us...

BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT OF PAIN DETECTION AND TOLERANCE IN MONKEYS1

“…The number of "anticipatory" escape responses, i.e., those made during the 1-sec delay interval when leg shock could not be terminated, appeared to increase as a function of stimulation intensity in this study (not shown), and other investigators have thoroughly demonstrated this relationship between the rate of anticipatory or elicited responses and level of shock (Appel, 1968;Cohen, 1968;Domjan and Rowell, 1969;Hutchinson, Azrin, and Renfrew, 1968;Riess, 1970).…”

“…Rather, it is important that there be a description of objectively derived whole continua of reactivity. The value of this ap proach has been demonstrated by the finding that certain lesions of the central nervous system clearly alter force curves without affecting escape thresholds (Vierck, Hamilton, and Thornby, 1971 (Appel, 1968;Cohen, 1968;Domjan and Rowell, 1969;Hutchinson, Azrin, and Renfrew, 1968;Riess, 1970).…”

Varying temporal relationship of an intruded aversive stimulus with time-out from responding

“…The greater level of suppression in the groups shocked during and at the end of reinforced responding over those punished in the TO is consistent both with the delay-of-punishment literature (Cohen, 1968) and with conditioned-emotionalresponse studies (Seligman, 1968). Moreover, Kelleher & Morse (I961) have already noted the similarity between delay of punishment and conditioned suppression.…”

Punishment of an alternative behavior generates resurgence of a previously extinguished target behavior

“…In addition, in the first exposure to Phase 3, the rats experienced escalating foot shock intensities. There is also some evidence that exposure to higher foot shock intensities can increase the efficacy of lower intensities as negative reinforcers or punishers (e.g., Azrin & Holz, ; Cohen, ; de Souza, Moraes & Todorov, ; Hake, Azrin & Oxford, ). Thus, either or both of these effects could be responsible for the increased efficacy of the lower foot shock intensities in generating resurgence of the target behavior in the replication conditions of the present experiment.…”