Shock preexposure and the reduced effectiveness of shock

On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders

“…Although adaptation to the punishing stimulus may account for these findings (Capaldi et al, 1985), a similar relation has been obtained with intermittent reinforcement. That is, rats and college students with a history of intermittent reinforcement also showed less response suppression under either continuous or intermittent punishment with shock than participants with a history of continuous reinforcement (e.g., Brown & Wagner, 1964;Estes, 1944;Halevy et al, 1987;Vogel-Sprott, 1967).…”

“…Basic findings indicate that previous exposure to certain factors can alter responding during punishment, a phenomenon that is especially relevant to the application of punishment because clinical populations typically have diverse learning histories. Results of numerous basic studies have shown that prior experience with the punishing stimulus either contingently or noncontingently can decrease a behavior's sensitivity to punishment (e.g., Capaldi, Sheffer, Viveiros, Davidson, & Campbell, 1985;Halevy, Feldon, & Weiner, 1987). For example, research findings with rats indicate that exposure to intermittent punishment with shock decreases the efficacy of continuous punishment with shock, even when several days or weeks lapse between intermittent and continuous punishment (Banks, 1967;Halevy et al;Shemer & Feldon, 1984).…”

“…Second, intermittent schedules of punishment should not be implemented prior to continuous schedules. Third, if adaptation to the punishing stimulus accounts for the decreased sensitivity of behavior (Capaldi et al, 1985), brief hiatus from punishment may be useful, as described in more detail below (Rachlin, 1966). Alternating among several effective punishment procedures in lieu of using a single procedure is another potentially useful strategy for minimizing exposure to any single punisher (e.g., Charlop, Burgio, Iwata, & Ivancic, 1988).…”

Stress-induced memory enhancement for inhibitory fear conditioning in rats

“…Despite the finding that the control groups did not reliably differ from each other in Experiment 1, the possibility remains that the swim treatment was acting as an additional punisher in conjunction with the footshock to produce higher retention scores in the IMM group. Experiment 2 sought to address this possibility by taking advantage of the finding that shock preexposures significantly decrease the effectiveness of shock in a punishment or conditioned-suppression paradigm (Capaldi, Sheffer, Viveiros, Davidson, & Campbell, 1985;Randich, 1981). If the stress treatment is acting as an additional UCS, its effectiveness should also be attenuated with pre exposures (i.e., UCS preexposure effect).…”