Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Response rate as a function of shock-food association and shock-response contingency Philipchalk, Ronald Peter 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 P46.pdf [ 1.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104022.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104022-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104022-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104022-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104022-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104022-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104022-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104022-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104022.ris

Full Text

RESPONSE RATE AS A FUNCTION OF SHOCK-FOOD ASSOCIATION. AND SHOCK-RESPONSE CONTINGENCY by RONALD PETER PHILIPCHALK B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requ i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1969 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced deg ree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 a g ree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and S tudy . ! f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s ' m a y be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h.iis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l no t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depar tment o f P s y c h o l o g y :he U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia Vancouve r 3, Canada Date March . . .1969. i i ABSTRACT The present study examined the following two hypotheses; (a) shock which has been associated with food w i l l reduce responding le s s than shock which has not been associated with food- (h) response-contingent shock w i l l reduce responding more than response-noncontingent shock. Response rates and the number of reinforcements received i n Punishment t r a i n i n g , and response rates i n Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g were examined f o r the following f i v e groups; (a) shock and p e l l e t f o r the same response (Pun-Rft Groun) - (b) shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group): (c) response-noncontingent shock delivered automatically as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e for the next response (Shock-S^ Group): (d) response-noncontingent shock delivered automatically independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group)- (e) no shock (Control Group). The re s u l t s indicated that (a) response-contingent and response-noncontingent shock reduced responding equally i n Punishment t r a i n i n g , and that (b) following Punishment-training, response-contingent shock reduced responding i n Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g whereas response-noncontingent shock had no ef f e c t on rate of responding i n Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . The r e s u l t s also indicated that shock which had been associated with food had the same o v e r a l l e f f e c t on response rates as shock which had not been associated with food. The relevance of these r e s u l t s to the di s c r i m i n a t i v e and conditioned r e i n f o r c i n g functions of shock was discussed. i i i Table of Contents I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . 1 Method 8 Subjects * 8 Apparatus • 9 Procedure > 9 Pesponse Measures. . . . 12 Results 1 2 Reinforcement T r a i n i n g (Sessions 1-10) 12 Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-20) 12 Punishment-Extinction T r a i n i n g (Sessions 21-30). . . . . 23 Di s c u s s i o n 25 B i b l i o g r a p h y 30 Appendix A . . 32 iv L i s t of Tables Table 1. Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Response Rates During Last F i v e Days of Punish-ment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) 16 Table 2. Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Number of Reinforcements Received During, the Last F i v e Days of Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) 22 Table 3. Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Mean Number of Responses Per Reinforcement During the Last F i v e Days c f Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) 24 Table 4. Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Response Rates During the Last Five Days of Punishment-Extinction T r a i n i n g (Sessions 2 6 - 3 0 ) . . . 26 V L i s t o f F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1. T h e m e a n r e s p o n s e r a t e a s a f u n c t i o n o f P u n i s h m e n t t r a i n i n g a n d P u n i s h m e n t - E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r t h e f i v e g r o u p s * s h o c k a n d f o o d f o r t h e s a m e r e s p o n s e ( P u n - R f t G r o u p ) , s h o c k a n d f o o d f o r d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s ( P u n G r o u p ) , r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t s h o c k d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y a s r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t f o o d b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e n e x t r e s p o n s e ( S h o c k - S ^ G r o u p ) , r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t s h o c k d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( I T C - S h o c k G r o u p ) , a n d n o s h o c k ( C o n t r o l G r o u p ) 13 F i g u r e 2. T h e m e a n n u m b e r o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s r e c e i v e d a s a f u n c t i o n o f P u n i s h m e n t t r a i n i n g a n d P u n i s h m e n t -E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r t h e f i v e g r o u p s : s h o c k a n d f o o d f o r t h e same r e s p o n s e ( P u n - R f t G r o u p ) , s h o c k a n d f o o d f o r d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s ( P u n G r o u p ) , r e s p o n s e -n o n c o n t i n g e n t s h o c k d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y a s r e s p o n s e -c o n t i n g e n t f o o d b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e n e x t r e s p o n s e ( S h o c k - S ^ G r o u p ) , r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t s h o c k d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( N C - S h o c k G r o u p ) , a n d n o s h o c k ( C o n t r o l G r o u n ) 17 v i Figure 3. The mean number of responses per reinforcement as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r the f i v e groups: shock and food f o r the same response (Pun-Rft Group) , shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response (Shock-S^ Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group), and no shock ( C o n t r o l Groun) 19 Ac knowledgmen t The w r i t e r would l i k e to express h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. G. A. Raymond, Dr. F. P. V a l l e and Dr. R. Uong without whose h e l p , encouragement and c r i t i c i s m t h i s study could not have been done. 1 A v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n i n the form of e l e c t r i c shock has been wi d e l y used i n experimental s t u d i e s of punishment. Three b a s i c paradigms have evolved from these s t u d i e s ' (a) ave r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n immediately f o l l o w i n g a response.* (b) a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n s e v e r a l seconds a f t e r a response: (c) a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n introduced i n a random f a s h i o n u n r e l a t e d to the response. While the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s of such experiments have v a r i e d , the general e f f e c t has u s u a l l y been suppression of the "punished" response. Suppressive E f f e c t s of Contingent Versus Noncontingent Shock Estes ( 1 9 4 4 ) asserted that " . . . i t i s not the c o r r e l a t i o n of the punishment w i t h the response per se that i s important, but the c o n t i g u i t y of the punishment w i t h the s t i m u l i which formerly aroused the response'' ( E s t e s , 1 9 4 4 , p. 3 8 ) . Estes based t h i s a s s e r t i o n on the r e s u l t s of two experiments. In one (Es t e s , 1 9 4 4 , Experiment B ) , two groups of r a t s were t r a i n e d to press a l e v e r on a +l-min. v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l schedule of reinforcement. One group was then given a 10-min. s e s s i o n of punishment e x t i n c t i o n i n which each l e v e r press was followed by a b r i e f severe shock. The other group was given a 10-min. session of r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n . The group given punishment e x t i n c t i o n e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater response suppression than the group given no shock. In the other experiment (Estes, 1 9 4 4 , Experiment I ) , r a t s were again t r a i n e d on a l-min. v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l schedule of reinforcement and then given e i t h e r a 10-min. s e s s i o n of r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n of a 10-min. s e s s i o n w i t h response-noncontingent shocks administered at i n t e r v a l s of about 3 0 s e c , but not during or immediately f o l l o w i n g a l e v e r press. Once again the group r e c e i v i n g shock e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more response suppression than the group r e c e i v i n g no shock. In s h o r t , bar p r e s s i n g was suppressed under both 2 response-contingent and response-noncontingent shock. More r e c e n t l y Camp, Raymond, and Church (1967, Experiment I ) t r a i n e d r a t s on a 1-min. v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l schedule of reinforcement and then i n t r o -duced shock e i t h e r immediately a f t e r the response or 30 sec. a f t e r the response. They found that the magnitude of response suppression was greater f o r the group r e c e i v i n g immediate shock than f o r the group r e c e i v i n g shock delayed bv 30 sec. In a r e l a t e d experiment, Camp, Raymond, and Church (1967, Experiment I I I ) t r a i n e d r a t s on a 1-min. v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l schedule of r e i n -forcement. One group then r e c e i v e d shock 30 sec. a f t e r the response w h i l e a second group rec e i v e d response-noncontingent shock. The experimenters found no d i f f e r e n c e i n magnitude of response suppression between the two groups. Thus shock d e l i v e r e d immediately a f t e r the response produced greater suppression than e i t h e r 30-sec. delayed shock (Experiment I) or noncontingent shock (Experiment I I I ) . E a r l i e r work by Punt and Brady (1955) examined r e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n of groups which received e i t h e r response-contingent shock (Punishment group) or response noncontingent shock (CEP., group) i n the presence of a CS. They found (a) a greater g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of suppression e f f e c t s f o r the CEP. group than f o r the Punishment group, and. (b) a greater r e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n f o r the CER group than f o r the Punishment group. These r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to those of the e a r l i e r study hy these experimenters (Hunt and Brady, 1951). The experiments of Hunt arid Brady (1951. 1955) and Camp, Paymond, and Church (1967), u n l i k e those of F'stes (1944), support Church's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t ! " . . . the contingent punishment procedure, r e l a t i v e to the noncontingent procedure, produces (a) greater suppression of the punished response, (b) l e s s suppression of other responses, and (c) l e s s r e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n (Church, 1963, p. 376). 3 I t i s now g e n e r a l l y recognized that noncontingent shock has d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s from contingent shock not only on response r a t e s i n t r a i n i n g but a l s o on r e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n . D i s c r i m i n a t i v e and R e i n f o r c i n g Functions of Shock Muenzinger (1934) has suggested that shock may serve f u n c t i o n s other than that of supprassing a response. Fe found that m i l d punishment of the c o r r e c t (food-rewarded) response i n a s e l e c t i v e l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n l e d to an increase i n the r a t e of l e a r n i n g . Subsequent st u d i e s by Muenzinger (1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1948, 1951, 1952), Wischner (1947, 1948, 1963) and others have l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , punishment of a c o r r e c t response i n a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n - l e a r n i n g task r e s u l t s i n an increase In the number of c o r r e c t responses emitted. This f i n d i n g suggests (a) that shock may serve a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e f u n c t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to i t s widely demonstrated a v e r s i v e f u n c t i o n , and (b) that i n becoming a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s , shock may a c t u a l l y become a conditioned r e l n f o r c e r . I f a response i s r e i n f o r c e d i n the presence of one stimulus but not r e i n f o r c e d i n the presence of a second s t i m u l u s , the tendency to respond i n the presence of the second stimulus i s g r a d u a l l y extinguished and a d i s c r i m i n a -t i o n i s formed ( F e r s t e r & Skinner, 1957). Skinner r e f e r s to the f i r s t s timulus as an ?P (a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus) and to the second stimulus as an s \ An S^ then i s a stimulus i n the presence of which S_ has been r e i n -forced f o r e m i t t i n g a response, and an i s a stimulus i n the presence of which S_ has not been r e i n f o r c e d f o r e m i t t i n g a response. I f a response f o l l o w i n g an a v e r s i v e stimulus i s always r e i n f o r c e d , and i f responses which do not f o l l o w the a v e r s i v e stimulus are never r e i n f o r c e d , the a v e r s i v e stimulus should become an S L ' f o r the response. Furthermore, according to 4 the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus hypothesis of secondary reinforcement proposed by K e l l e r and Schoenfeld (1950, p. 236), a stimulus must become a d i s c r i m i n a -t i v e stimulus f o r some response i n order to become a conditioned r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus and, to the extent that a stimulus has been e s t a b l i s h e d as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s , i t has a l s o acquired conditioned r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s . I f an a v e r s i v e stimulus i s associated w i t h food i n such a way T) as to become a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus ( S ~ ) , the av e r s i v e stimulus should acquire secondary r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s . These secondary r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s could then serve to reverse the suppressive e f f e c t s of a m i l d l y aVersive stimulus or to attenuate the suppressive e f f e c t s of a more sev e r e l y a v e r s i v e stimulus. The r e v e r s i b i l i t y of the a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t i e s of e l e c t r i c shock has been demonstrated w i t h i n the c l a s s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i n g paradigm by Pavlov (1927) and more r e c e n t l y by Lohr (1959). Pavlov r e p o r t s ' Thus i n one p a r t i c u l a r experiment a strong nocuous s t i m u l u s — a n e l e c t r i c current of great s trength—was converted i n t o an alimentary conditioned s t i m u l u s , so that i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the s k i n d i d not evoke the s l i g h t e s t defense r e a c t i o n . Instead, the animal e x h i b i t e d a w e l l -marked alimentary conditioned r e f l e x , t u r n i n g i t s head to where i t u s u a l l y r e c e i v e d food and s l a c k i n g i t s l i p s , at the same time producing a profuse s e c r e t i o n of s a l i v a (Pavlov, 1927,"p. 30). K e l l e r and Schoenfeld's hypothesis has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the a n a l y s i s of punishment. I f shock, through, a s s o c i a t i o n with food can become a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus f o r a response which i s r e i n f o r c e d by food, and hence become a conditioned r e i n f o r c e r , then _S_s which have experienced shock-response-food sequence should, respond more, when shock i s presented than _Ss who have experienced no contingency between food and shock although having r e c e i v e d both. This d i f f e r e n c e should be found not only i n e x t i n c t i o n (the 5 u s u a l t e s t f o r a conditioned r e i n f o r c e r ) , but a l s o i n punishment t r a i n i n g i f the shock-food contingency acts to reduce the a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t i e s , and the r e f o r e suppressive e f f e c t s , of shock. In 1961. Holz and A z r i n found that pigeons responded more r a p i d l y under c o n d i t i o n s of punishment e x t i n c t i o n than under c o n d i t i o n s of r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n i f they had p r e v i o u s l y been given i n t e r s p e r s e d sessions of both punishment t r a i n i n g and r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n . Moreover the same r e s u l t was obtained whether they used a shock i n t e n s i t y which, durine a c q u i s i t i o n , reduced the response r a t e to one-half of i t s previous l e v e l , or a shock i n t e n s i t y which, during a c q u i s i t i o n , had no i n f l u e n c e on the response r a t e . In a f u r t h e r study of the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e - r e i n f o r c i n g f u n c t i o n of shock, Holz and A z r i n (1962) t r a i n e d pigeons on a f i x e d - i n t e r v a l schedule of r e i n -forcement and punished a l l responses during v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s of the i n t e r v a l w i t h shocks of v a r i o u s i n t e n s i t i e s . They found that at m i l d e r i n t e n s i t i e s , the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e property of shock predominated to i n f l u e n c e responding, w h i l e at the more severe i n t e n s i t i e s the a v e r s i v e property was the dominant i n f l u e n c e . I f a m i l d shock had been associated w i t h reinforcement, i t served to increase responding. I f i t had been as s o c i a t e d with nonreinforcement, i t suppressed responding, i'owever, when the shock i n t e n s i t y was increa s e d , the ave r s i v e property of the shocks became more apparent. I f the shocks had been associated w i t h nonreinforcement, the av e r s i v e property acted w i t h the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l to f u r t h e r reduce responding. I f the shocks had been as s o c i a t e d w i t h reinforcement, the a v e r s i v e property acted to reduce the l e v e l of responding (while the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l acted to maintain responding). Holz and A z r i n concluded that x^henever punishment i s d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a s s o ciated w i t h reinforcement, a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e property w i l l probably i n f l u e n c e the 6 e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the punishment. These experiments i n d i c a t e that i n a d d i t i o n to i t s w i dely demonstrated a v e r s i v e property, e l e c t r i c shod- possesses a p o t e n t i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i v e -reinforcement property which must be considered i f a f u l l understanding of the f u n c t i o n of e l e c t r i c shock i s to be achieved. Although the work of IIolz and A z r i n lends some i n i t i a l i n s i g h t i n t o the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e p r o p e r t i e s of e l e c t r i c shock, i t leaves c e r t a i n questions unanswered. For example, due to the la c k of an appropriate c o n t r o l group (no shock i n e i t h e r t r a i n i n g or e x t i n c t i o n ) , the p o s s i b i l i t y cannot be excluded that shock per se had a dynamogenic e f f e c t and increased responding not only i n e x t i n c t i o n but i n t r a i n i n g as w e l l , under the c o n d i t i o n s of the Holz and A z r i n (1961) experiment. Furthermore, because there was greater d i s s i m i l a r i t y between punishment t r a i n i n g and r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n than there was between punishment t r a i n i n g and punishment e x t i n c t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e that the reduced response r a t e i n re g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n was the r e s u l t of a d i f f e r e n t i a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decrement between the two e x t i n c t i o n procedures. Holz and A z r i n (1961) re p o r t that x^hen response-noncontingent shocks were introduced, i n t o the e x t i n c t i o n period ( f o l l o w i n g punishment t r a i n i n g ) , responding increased but not"as much as when response-contingent shocks were introduced. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d by the exnerimenters was that response-D contingent shock had become an R~ f o r the r e i n f o r c e d bar-press, response and i n so doing had become a conditioned r e i n f o r c e r ( A z r i n & Ho l z , i n Honig, 1 9 6 6 , p. 420). The noncontingent shock xvas s i m i l a r enough to the contingent shock to cause an increase i n responding, but not s i m i l a r enough to cause as great an increase as d i d contingent shock. Without i n c l u d i n g a group which 7 r e c e i v e d noncontingent shock i n t r a i n i n g , the p o s s i b i l i t y cannot be exluded that noncontingent shock i n e x t i n c t i o n had a dynamogenic e f f e c t independent of i t s cue p r o p e r t i e s . Moreoverj s i n c e noncontingent shock i n e x t i n c t i o n was (a) more s i m i l a r to punishment t r a i n i n g than was r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n , but (b) l e s s s i m i l a r to punishment t r a i n i n g than was punishment e x t i n c t i o n , the observed d i f f e r e n c e s between the three e x t i n c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s could be due to d i f f e r e n t i a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decrements. In t h e i r 1962 study, Holz and A z r i n d i d v.*.: examine d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t i n c t i o n but merely compared cumulative response records i n punishment t r a i n i n g f o r subjects r e c e i v i n g shock at d i f f e r e n t segments of a f i x e d -i n t e r v a l schedule. As a r e s u l t i t i s impossible to t e l l whether or not shock, a c t i n g as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus, acquires secondary r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s . This d i f f i c u l t y would have been overcome i f punishment e x t i n c t i o n had been examined. Furthermore, s i n c e a f i x e d - i n t e r v a l schedule was used by Holz and A z r i n , the p o s s i b i l i t y a r i s e s that shock merely enhances the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l exerted by the in t e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t e r v a l i n the same way that shock at a choice point w i l l improve the r a t e of l e a r n i n g i n a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n task. The problem could have been overcome i f a v a r i a b l e i n t e r v a l schedule of r e i n -forcement had been used s i n c e the mere passage of time i s not as r e l e v a n t a stimulus f o r the increased p r o b a b i l i t y of reinforcement during a v a r i a b l e -i n t e r v a l schedule as during a f i x e d - - i n t e r v a l schedule. The present study was undertaken i n an attempt to c l a r i f y some of the issues r a i s e d by the " o l z and A z r i n s t u d i e s and thus air 1 i n the d e l i n e a t i o n of the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e - r e i n f o r c e m e n t p r o p e r t i e s of punishment. An extended and modified form of the 1961 Uolz and A z r i n study was conducted i n order to 8 examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of response-contingent and response-noncontingent shock to food reward. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was hypothesized, on the ba s i s of the evidence c i t e d by Church (1963), that i n both punishment t r a i n i n g and i n punishment-e x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g , response-contingent a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n ( e l e c t r i c shock) would suppress responding more than response-nonconting•;.•;•»t e l e c t r i c shock. I t was a l s o hypothesized that shock would not have a dynamogenic e f f e c t on responding, but that both response-contingent and response-noncontingent shock would suppress responding r e l a t i v e to a no-shock c o n t r o l group. I t was f u r t h e r expected, on the ba s i s of the Holz and A z r i n f i n d i n g s (1961, 1962), that shock associated w i t h reinforcement would suppress responding l e s s than shock associated, w i t h nonreinforcement. F i n a l l y , i t was p r e d i c t e d that shock d e l i v e r e d before the to-be-rewarded response would acquire greater d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l over the response than other l e s s s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h reinforcement, e. g. time elapsed s i n c e the l a s t reinforcement (Catania £ Reynolds, 1968). The d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l acquired by t h i s shock would be evidenced by increased responding immediately f o l l o w i n g the shock and decreased responding during other periods. The p a t t e r n of responding produced i n t h i s way would mean increased ! ' e f f i c i e n c y " of responding as measured by responses per reinforcement r e l a t i v e to a comparison group r e c e i v i " ? the same amount of shock independent of food. Method Subjects F i f t y n a i v e , male r a t s derived from the Long-Evans s t r a i n were used. 9 The r a t s were obtained from the N a t i o n a l Breeding L a b o r a t o r i e s Company when approximately 60 days of age and were approximately 94 days o l d at the beginning of experimentation. Their average weight during experimentation was 216 gm. Apparatus The experiment was conducted i n four i d e n t i c a l l e v e r boxes ( S c i e n t i f i c Prototype Model 100-A) lo c a t e d i n one room, w i t h electromechanical c o n t r o l and r e c o r d i n g equipment located i n a separate room. The l e v e r boxes were 8 i n . wide, 9 1/2 i n . long, and 7 3/4 i n . high. Two s i d e s and the hinged top were c l e a r p l a s t i c w h i l e the other two sides were aluminum. The food cup, a 1 1/2 i n . square brass c o n t a i n e r , 3/4 i n . deep, was mounted i n the middle of one aluminum s i d e , 1 1/2 i n . above the g r i d f l o o r . The l e v e r was s t a i n l e s s s t e e l , 5/8 i n . t h i c k and 2 i n . wide. The f l o o r was constructed of 16 s t a i n l e s s s t e e l b a r s 5/16 i n . i n diameter, mounted on 1/2 i n . centers. Each l e v e r box was enclosed i n a sound deadened chamber which a l s o contained a p e l l e t dispenser (Davis Model PD 101), a f a n , and a 7-w incandescent lamp which was mounted d i r e c t l y above the l e v e r box. The g r i d f l o o r x^as e l e c t r i f i e d by a constant current s t i m u l a t o r (150K ohms i n s e r i e s w i t h the r a t ) . A l l shocks used were of 120-v i n t e n s i t y f o r 0.1-sec. d u r a t i o n . P o s i t i v e r e i n -forcement c o n s i s t e d of 45 mg. Hoyes rat- f o o d p e l l e t s . Procedure The S_s were housed i n i n d i v i d u a l cages w i t h water a v a i l a b l e at a l l times. P r i o r to experimentation each j? was picked up every day and handled f o r approximately 10 sec. Once experimentation had begun, the handling of Ss c o n s i s t e d of the r a t s being placed i n and removed from the l e v e r box on each day of experimentation. For 14 days a f t e r a r r i v a l i n the l a b o r a t o r y Ss 10 were allowed f r e e access to P u r i n a Laboratory Chow. On the 14th day food was removed from the cages and on the 15th day and each day t h e r e a f t e r , J3s were given approximately 12 gm. of dry P u r i n a mash mixed w i t h approximately 25 cc. of water. On a l l days of experimentation Ss were fed 1 hour a f t e r being returned to the home cages. A l l experimentation was conducted on a Monday through F r i d a y b a s i s . P r e t r a i n i n g . On each S_'s f i r s t day i n r.he l e v e r box the l e v e r was not present and one p e l l e t was d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y each min. f o r 30 min. On the f o l l o w i n g day the l e v e r was present and one food p e l l e t was d e l i v e r e d f o r each l e v e r - p r e s s response (continuous reinforcement). Each S_ was removed from the box a f t e r 30 r e i n f o r c e d l e v e r presses. The Ss that d i d not reach the c r i t e r i o n of 30 l e v e r presses a f t e r 1 br. i n the l e v e r box were removed from the box and returned to i t f o r another hr. the next day, without having been fed. By the end of the second hr. on the continuous-reinforcement schedule, a l l Ss had reached the c r i t e r i o n of 30 l e v e r responses. Reinforcement t r a i n i n g (Sessions 1-10). F o l l o w i n g p r e t r a i n i n g , Ss were placed i n the l e v e r box f o r a 30-min. period each day f o r 10 days. During t h i s time response-contingent reinforcement was a v a i l a b l e on a 2-min. v a r i a b l e -i n t e r v a l schedule (VI-2') (see Appendix A ) . Punishment t r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-20). Following Reinforcement t r a i n i n g , S^ s were randomly assigned to one of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e groups: (a) shock and food p e l l e t f o r the same response (Pun-Rft Croup): (b) shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group)• (c) response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response (Shock-S' Group)* (d) response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group): 11 (e) no shock ( C o n t r o l Group). A schematic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the punishment t r a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r a l l groups i s presented i n Figure 1. During Punishment t r a i n i n g a l l groups received response-contingent reinforcement on the same. VI-2' schedule as was used during Reinforcement t r a i n i n g . The Pun-Rft Group received shock and food f o r the same response. The Pun Group rece i v e d response-contingent shock (punishment) on a separate VI-2' schedule i n which shock occurred only on nonreinforced responses not l e s s than 30 sec. e i t h e r before or a f t e r reinforcement. The punishment and reinforcement schedules were interdependent i n that both stopped u n t i l S_ responded when an event on e i t h e r schedule was a v a i l a b l e . The two schedules were a l s o arranged to avoid a simple a l t e r n a t i o n and consequent p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of food and shock. For both the Shock-S^ Group and the NC-Shock Group, shock was d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y regardless of-whether or not Ss responded. The Shock-S^ Group received a u t o m a t i c a l l y - d e l i v e r e d response-noncontingent shock immediately as food became a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response and thus shock was on the same VI-2' schedule as reinforcement, i . e . a s i n g l e shock was a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e l i v e r e d at each p o i n t i n the session when the next response would produce food. As i n a l l other groups, the reinforcement remained a v a i l a b l e u n t i l the animal responded. The normal 0.10-sec. shock however, being response-noncontingent, continued to be d e l i v e r e d on the average of every 2 min. even i f the subject d i d not respond. The c o n t r o l l i n g apparatus did not stop, but a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e l i v e r e d the shock at the end of each i n t e r v a l . At the end of each i n t e r v a l , i f the reinforcement had not been received., i . e . i f the S_ had not responded, response-contingent reinforcement was again made a v a i l a b l e but at no time was there more than one reinforcement a v a i l a b l e f o r a s i n g l e response. The HC-Shock Group rece i v e d noncontingent 12 shock a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e l i v e r e d on a VI-2' schedule arranged to minimize the, p r o b a b i l i t y of c o n t i n u a l p a i r i n g of shock w i t h food and to maximize the v a r i a b i l i t y of the shock-food i n t e r v a l . The C o n t r o l Croup received response-contingent reinforcement on the same VI-2' schedule as a l l other groups but received no shock. Punishment t r a i n i n g c o n s i s t e d of one 30-min. se s s i o n per day f o r 10 days. Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g (Sessions 21-30). Fo l l o w i n g Punishment t r a i n i n g a l l groups received Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . Fach day f o r 3 days Sis were placed i n the l e v e r box f o r 30 min. During t h i s p eriod the f i v e shock c o n d i t i o n s were maintained but food was no longer a v a i l a b l e . Response Measures For a l l Ss, the number of responses emitted, the number of reinforcements, and number of shocks were recorded f o r each experimental s e s s i o n . The number of responses per reinforcement was computed f o r each jS f o r each s e s s i o n by d i v i d i n g the number of responses i n a given s e s s i o n by the number of r e i n -forcements received i n that s e s s i o n . Results Reinforcement T r a i n i n g (Sessions 1 -10) A one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of the moan response r a t e f o r each S^  during Sessions 1-10 i n d i c a t e d that the groups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (F=1.17, 4&45 df, n>.25). A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s f o r Sessions 6-10 i n d i c a t e d that the groups d i d not. d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the l a s t f i v e days of Reinforcement t r a i n i n g (F=,2?., 4&45 df, n>.25). Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-20) Response r a t e s . Figure 1 d e p i c t s f o r each group the mean response r a t e s 13 F i g . 1 The mean response ra t e as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g f o r the f i v e groups" shock and food f o r the same response (Pun-Pvft Group), shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response (Shock-S^ Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group), and no shock (C o n t r o l Group). PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT-EXTINCTION SESSIONS 15 as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment and Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-30). The C o n t r o l Group responded more than a l l other groups, w i t h response r a t e s s t a b i l i z i n g over the l a s t f i v e days f o r a l l groups. A two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , i . e . " F a c t o r i a l Experiment with a Single C o n t r o l Group'* (Winer, 1962, p. 263), of the mean response r a t e f o r each S_ during Sessions 16-20 i n d i c a t e d that the C o n t r o l Croup responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the other groups (7=26.32, 1&45 d f , p<.005). The response-contingent main e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=1.192, 1&45 d f , p>.25). The main e f f e c t of a s s o c i a t i o n of shock w i t h food a l s o f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F=1.421, 1&45 d f , p>.25). In a d d i t i o n the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two main e f f e c t s was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.011 ; 1&45 d f , n>.25). A form of the Dunnett t t e s t (Winer, 1962, p. 264) comparing the C o n t r o l Group with each experimental group i n d i c a t e d that the Co n t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than a l l other groups ( C o n t r o l versus Pun, t=3.29, df=45, p<.005: C o n t r o l versus Pun-Rft, t=4.05, df=45, p<.005- C o n t r o l versus Shock-S , t=4.90, df=45, p<.005; C o n t r o l versus NC-Shock, t=3.98, df=45, p<.005). In a d d i t i o n an F t e s t between the response n r a t e s f o r the Shock-S ' Group and the response r a t e s f o r the NC-Shock Group Indicated that the Shock-S D Group resnonded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the. NC-Shock Group (F=10.77, 1&18 d f , p<.005). Table 1 presents the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s together w i t h t h e i r sources. Reinforcements. Figure 2 d e p i c t s f o r each group the mean number of reinforcements re c e i v e d as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-20). Ins p e c t i o n of Figure 3 revealed that a l l groups which received shock shox^ed a decrease i n the number of reinforcements received during the f i r s t few sessions of Punishment t r a i n i n g . During the l a t e r sessions the two groups which rece i v e d poncontingent shock e x h i b i t e d an increase i n the number of 16 Table 1 Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Response Rates During Last F i v e Days of Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) Source df Between Groups Con t r o l versus A l l Others A (Contingency) B ( A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Food) A X B Wi t h i n C e l l 45 T o t a l 49 Sum of Squares Mean Square 5,005,473.6 2,733.028.5 123,743.4 147,573.9 1,127.8 4,672,004.3 2,733,028.5 123.743.4 147,573.9 1,127.8 103,822.3 26.32 <.005 17 F i g . 2 The mean number of reinforcements received as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r the f i v e groups.* shock and food f o r the same response (Pun-Rft Group), shock .and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response (Shock-S^ Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group), and no shock ( C o n t r o l Group). 15 10 -VPUN-RFT - G C O N T R O L -vSDRFT -ANC-SHOCK 0 1___L 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PUNISHMENT TRAINING SESSIONS 19 F i g . 3 The mean number of responses per reinforcement as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r the f i v e groups'; shock and food f o r the same response (Pun-Rft Group), shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as response-contingent food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response n (Shock-S Group), response-noncontingent shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement (NC-Shock Group), and no shock (C o n t r o l Group). & APUN v vPUN-RFT a sCONTROL v vS D RFT A AN C - S H O C K I I I I ! l _ I I I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PUNISHMENT TRAINING SESSIONS 21 reinforcements received so that they received almost as many reinforcements as the C o n t r o l Group i n the f i n a l few sessions of Punishment t r a i n i n g . A two-way a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e of the. mean number of reinforcements received by each during Sessions 15-20 i n d i c a t e d that the C o n t r o l Group received s i g n i f i c a n t l y more reinforcements than other groups (F=5.535, 1&45 d f , p<.05). The response-contingency main e f f e c t was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t (F=14.362, 1&45 d f , p<.005), i n d i c a t i n g that the groups r e c e i v i n g response-contingent shock received s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s reinforcements than the groups r e c e i v i n g response-noncontingent shock. The main e f f e c t of a s s o c i a t i o n of shock w i t h food was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=1.469, 1&45 d f , p>.25). The i n t e r a c t i o n between the two main e f f e c t s a l s o f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F=.128, 1&45 d f , p>.25). A form of the Dunnett _t t e s t comparing the C o n t r o l Group with each experimental group i n d i c a t e d that the C o n t r o l Group received s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e i n f o r c e -ments than e i t h e r the Pun Group (t=3.76, df=45, p<.005) or the Pun-Rft Group (t=2.65, df=45, p<.025). Table 2 presents the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s together w i t h t h e i r sources. Responses/Peinforcement. Figure 3 d e p i c t s f o r each group the mean number of responses per reinforcement as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g (Sessions 11-20). Inspection of Figure 3 revealed that a l l groups which recei v e d shock e x h i b i t e d a decrease i n the number of responses per r e i n f o r c e -ment over the 10 Punishment-training s e s s i o n s . The Shock-S^ Group e x h i b i t e d the greatest decrease. The C o n t r o l Group e x h i b i t e d an increase i n the number of responses per reinforcement over the same per i o d . A two-way a n a l y s i s of varia n c e of the mean number of responses per reinforcement f o r each S_ during Sessions 15-20 i n d i c a t e d that the Co n t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more per reinforcement than the other groups (F=26.167, 1&45 d f , p<.005). The 22 Table 2 Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Number of Reinforcements Received During the Last F i v e Days of Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p Between Groups 4 433.0 C o n t r o l versus A l l Others 1 112.3 112.8 5.54 <.05 A (Contingency) 1 292.7 292.7 14.36 <.01 B ( A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Food) 1 29.9 29.9 A X R 1 2.6 2.6 Within C e l l 45 917.0 20.4 T o t a l 49 1,355.0 23 response-contingency main e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=1.181, 1&45 d f , p>.25). The main e f f e c t of a s s o c i a t i o n of shock with food a l s o f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F=1.924, l£45 df , p>.10). In a d d i t i o n , the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two main e f f e c t s was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.024, 1&45 d f , p>.25). A form of the Dunnett t_ t e s t comparing the C o n t r o l Group w i t h each experimental group i n d i c a t e d that the C o n t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more per reinforcement than a l l other groups ( C o n t r o l versus Pun, t=3.147, df=45, p<.01- C o n t r o l versus Pun-Rft, t=4.017, df=45, p<.005- C o n t r o l versus Shock-s'3, t=4.896, df=45, P<.005 C o n t r o l versus MC-Shock, t=3.S05, df=45, p<.005). In a d d i t i o n an F t e s t between the responses per reinforcement f o r the Shock-S" Group and the response r a t e s f o r the >TC-Shock Group i n d i c a t e d that the Shock-S^ Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s per reinforcement than d i d the NC-Shock Group (F=17.67, 1&18 d f , p<.001). Table 3 presents the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s together w i t h t h e i r sources. Punishment-Extinction T r a i n i n g (Sessions 21-30) Response r a t e s . I n s p e c t i o n of Figure 1 i n d i c a t e d that response r a t e s f o r a l l groups d e c l i n e d sharply over the f i r s t few days of Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g . (Sessions 21-30). The response r a t e s f o r the Pun and Pun-Rft Groups q u i c k l y dropped, to a lower l e v e l than the other three groups and remained lower throughout the Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . A two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of the mean response r a t e f o r each S_ during Sessions 26-30 i n d i c a t e d that the Con t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than other groups (P=7.59 s 1&A5 d f , p<.005). The response-contingency main e f f e c t was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t (F=14.45, 1&45 c f , p<.005), i n d i c a t i n g that the groups r e c e i v i n g response-noncontingent shock responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than d i d the groups r e c e i v i n g response-contingent shock. The main e f f e c t of a s s o c i a t i o n 24 Table 3 Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Mean Number of Responses Per Reinforcement During the Last Five Days of Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions 16-20) Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p Between Groups 4 13,871.0 C o n t r o l versus A l l Others 1 12,337.2 12,337.2 25.17 <.01 A (Contingency) 1 578.7 578.7 B ( A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Food) 1 943.1 943.1 A X B 1 11.9 11.9 Wi t h i n C e l l 45 22,059.4 490.2 T o t a l 49 35,930.4 25 of shock w i t h food was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=3.03, 1&45 d f , p>.05). The i n t e r -a c t i o n between the two main e f f e c t s a l s o f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F-2.65, 1&45 d f , p>.10). A form of the Dunnett t t e s t comparing the C o n t r o l Group w i t h each experimental group i n d i c a t e d that the C o n t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than e i t h e r the Pun Group (t=3.314, df=45, p<.005) or the Pun-Rft Group (t=3.393, df=45, P<.005). Table 4 presents the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s together w i t h t h e i r sources. D i s c u s s i o n The present study y i e l d e d no evidence f o r a dynamogenic e f f e c t of e l e c t r i c shock. With one e x c e p t i o n s the response r a t e s of the four groups r e c e i v i n g shock were c o n s i s t e n t l y lower than the response r a t e of the no-shock C o n t r o l Group. The one exception was found i n the l a s t f i v e days of Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g where the C o n t r o l Group was observed to respond s i g n i f i c a n t l y mors than the two-response-contingent shock groups but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the two response-noncontingent shock groups. Although there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the responding of the two response-contingent shock, groups and that of the two response-noncontingent shock groups i n Punishment t r a i n i n g , the response-contingent shock groups responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the response-noncontingent shock groups i n Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . These r e s u l t s suggest the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l i -z a t i o n s ' (a) response-contingent and response-noncontingent shock w i l l reduce responding e q u a l l y i n Punishment t r a i n i n g : (b) f o l l o w i n g Punishment t r a i n i n g , response-contingent shock w i l l reduce responding i n Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g whereas response-noncontingent shock w i l l have no e f f e c t on r a t e of responding i n Runishment-Fxtinction t r a i n i n g . 26 Table 4 Source Table f o r A n a l y s i s of Variance of Mean Response Rates During the Last F i v e Days of Punishment-Extinction T r a i n i n g (Sessions 26-30) Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p Between Groups 4 9,094.7 C o n t r o l versus A l l Others 1 2,488.3 2,488.3 7.59 <.01 A (Contingency) 1 4,744.2 4,744.2 14.47 <.01 B ( A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Food) 1 993.6 993.6 A X B 1 868.6 868.6 W i t h i n C e l l 45 14,430.7 328.0 T o t a l 49 23,525.5 27 The r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e that shock d e l i v e r e d before the to-be-rewarded response acquired greater d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l over the response than other l e s s s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i such as time elapsed s i n c e l a s t reinforcement. This c o n c l u s i o n i s based on the comparisons made between the Shock-S^ Group and the NC-Shock Group i n Punishment t r a i n i n g . I t was observed that w h i l e both groups r e c e i v e d the same number of shocks and approximately the same T> number of reinforcements, the Shock-S Group not only responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s but a l s o responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s per reinforcement and thus more ! e f f i c i e n t l y " than d i d the NC-Shock Group. The increased e f f i c i e n c y of the P. Shock-S 0rour> over the NC-Shock Group can only be a t t r i b u t e d to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between shock and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of food s i n c e the two groups were otherwise t r e a t e d i d e n t i c a l l y . In Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g , on the other hand, no s i g n i f i c a n t D d i f f e r e n c e s i n response r a t e s were observed between the Shock-S Group and the NC-Shock Group. This f i n d i n g suggests that e s t a b l i s h i n g shock as a d i s -c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus f o r a p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d response i s not a s u f f i c i e n t conditon f o r reducing, the suppressive e f f e c t s of shock i n Punishment-Extinction. Furthermore, the f a i l u r e of the association-of-shock-with-food v a r i a b l e to produce s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s i n e i t h e r Punishment or Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g i n d i c e ' e s that mere temporal a s s o c i a t i o n of shock w i t h food i s not a s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r reducing the suppressive e f f e c t s of shock i n e i t h e r Punishment t r a i n i n g or Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . Thase r e s u l t s r a i s e c e r t a i n questions about the P o l z and A z r i n (1961, 1962) s t u d i e s . I t had been expected on the b a s i s of the Holz and A z r i n work that shock a s s o c i a t e d with food would suppress responding l e s s than shock not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food. This expectation was not confirmed. The discrepancy 28 between the present data and those of Holz and A z r i n r e f l e c t a species d i f f e r e n c e : Holz and A z r i n used pigeons as s u b j e c t s . I t seems more probable, however, that the Holz and A z r i n (1961) f i n d i n g s were a r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n t i a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decrements between the two e x t i n c t i o n procedures and the a c q u i s i t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . Because a l l subjects i n the Holz and A z r i n (1961) study rece i v e d punishment t r a i n i n g (and none received r e g u l a r t r a i n i n g ) , the greater response r a t e i n punishment e x t i n c t i o n as compared w i t h r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n may simply r e f l e c t the greater s i m i l a r i t y of the punishment-e x t i n c t i o n s i t u a t i o n to the punishment-training s i t u a t i o n . The intermediate r a t e s of responding observed when noncontingent shock was introduced i n t o r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n may a l s o be accounted f o r by a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decrement between e x t i n c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and a c q u i s i t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . In l i g h t of the present data t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems more p l a u s i b l e than the " c o n d i t i o n e d -r e i r i f o r c e r ' 5 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggested by Holz and A z r i n (1961). In t h e i r 1962 study Holz and A z r i n d i d not t e s t f o r the secondary r e i n f o r c i n g power of shock. They simply s t a t e t h a t , under appropriate c o n d i t i o n s , shock can serve a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e f u n c t i o n . The r e s u l t s of the present study do not c o n t r a d i c t t h i s statement s i n c e shock served as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus i n the Shock-S Group. However, the p o s s i b i l i t y remains that i n the TIolz and A z r i n study shock merely enhanced the d i s c r i m i n a -t i v e c o n t r o l of s t i m u l i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f i x e d - i n t e r v a l schedule, and i t d i d not i t s e l f acquire any d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l . In summary then, the r e s u l t s of the present study support statements by Holz and A z r i n (1961, 1962) that shock may serve a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e f u n c t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to i t s widely demonstrated a v e r s i v e f u n c t i o n . The present data do not, however, support the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus hypothesis of secondary 29 reinforcement as proposed by K e l l e r and Schoenfeld (1950, p. 236), or the p statement by F o l z and A z r i n (1966) that i n becoming an S f o r a r e i n f o r c e d bar-press, shock becomes a conditioned r e i n f o r c e r . In p a r t i c u l a r the present data ( i . e . Shock-S^ Group versus NC-Shock Croup i n Punishment-E x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g ) c o n t r a d i c t the K e l l e r - S c h o e n f e l d hypothesis which s t a t e s that to the extent that a stimulus has been e s t a b l i s h e d as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s , i t has a l s o acquired conditioned r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s — a t l e a s t inasmuch as these conditioned r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s would be expected to reduce the suppressive e f f e c t s of e l e c t r i c shock when i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s . 30 B i b l i o g r a p h y A z r i n , N. H., & Hol z , W. C. Punishment. In I". K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and A p p l i c a t i o n . New York: Appleton-Century-C r o f t s , 1966. PP. 330-447. Camp, D. S., Raymond, G. A., & Church, R. V. Temporal r e l a t i o n s h i p between response and punishment. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 114-123. Catania, A. C., & Reynolds, G. S. A q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the responding maintained by i n t e r v a l schedules of reinforcement. J o u r n a l of the E x p e r i - mental A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 1963, 2(Part 2 ) , 327-333. Church, R. V. The v a r i e d e f f e c t s of punishment on behavior. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review, 1963, 70, 369-402. Estes, TJ. K. An experimental study of punishment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1944, 57 (3, Llhole No. 263). F e r s t e r , C. P.. , h Skinner, B. F. Schedules of Reinforcement. New York" Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1957. Holz , W. C., & A z r i n , N. H. Die c r i m i n a t i v e p r o p e r t i e s of punishment. J o u r n a l  of Experimental A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 1961, 4, 225-232. Holz, \1. C., & A z r i n , M. H. I n t e r a c t i o n s between the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e and ave r s i v e p r o p e r t i e s of punishment. J o u r n a l of Experimental A n a l y s i s of Behavior,"1962, 5, 229-234. Hunt, II. F. , & Brady, J . V. 5 "me q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between anxiety' and 'punishment" c o n d i t i o n i n g . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1951., 6, 276-277 ( A b s t r a c t ) . Hunt, H. F., & Brady, J . V. Some e f f e c t s of punishment and i n t e r c u r r e n t ' ;anxiety" on a simple operant. J o u r n a l of Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l  Psychology, 1955, 48, 305-310. K e l l e r . F. R., & Schoenfeld, W. ?T. P r i n c i p l e s of Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1950. Lohr, T. F. The e f f e c t of shock on the r a t ' s choice of a path to food. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 312-318. Muenzinger, K. F. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . I. E l e c t r i c shock f o r c o r r e c t response i n the v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t . J o u r n a l of Comparative  Psychology, 1934, 17, 267-277. 31 Muenzinger, K. F. D i s c u s s i o n concerning the e f f e c t of shock f o r r i g h t responses i n v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1948, 38, 201-203. Muenzinger, K. F. , Bernstone, A. P.., & Richards, L. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . V I I I . Equivalent amounts of e l e c t r i c shock f o r r i g h t and wrong responses in a v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t . J o u r n a l of Comparative Psychology, 1938, 26, 177-186. Muenzinger, K. F., Brown, W. 0., Crow, W. J . , & Powloski, R. F. M o t i v a t i o n in l e a r n i n g . XI. An a n a l y s i s of e l e c t r i c shock f o r c o r r e c t responses i n t o i t s avoidance and a c c e l e r a t i n g components. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 19-52, 43, 115-119. Muenzinger, K. F., & F l e t c h e r , F. M. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . V I I . The e f f e c t of an enforced delay at the point of choice i n the v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t . J o u r n a l of Comparative Psychology, 1937, 23, 383-392. Muenzinger, K. F., & Kewcomb, H. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . V. The r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of jumping a gap and c r o s s i n g an e l e c t r i c g r i d i n a v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t . J o u r n a l of Comparative Psychology, 1936, 21, 95-104. Muenzinger, K. F., & Powloski,, R. E. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . X. Comparison of e l e c t r i c shock f o r c o r r e c t turns i n a c o r r e c t i v e and n o n - c o r r e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 42, 118-124. Muenzinger, K. F., & Hood, A. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . IV. The f u n c t i o n of punishment as determined by i t s temporal r e l a t i o n to the act of choice i n the v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n h a b i t . J o u r n a l of Comparative Psychology, 1935, 20, 95-106. Pavlov, I . P. Conditioned Reflexes. (Translated by G. V. Andred) London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1927. T'Jiner, ?•. J . S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental Design. New York-McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wischner, G. J . A r e p l y to Dr. Muenzinger on the e f f e c t of punishment on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g i n a non-correction s i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Experimental  Psychology, 1948. 38, 203-204. Wischner, G. J . The e f f e c t of punishment on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g i n a non-c o r r e c t i o n s i t u a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 271-284. Wischner, G. J . , Fowler, H., & Kushnick, S. A. The e f f e c t of strength of punishment f o r correct*" and i n c o r r e c t responses on performance. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 131-138. 32 Appendix A Throughout experimentation a l l events were programmed on 2-min. v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l schedules ( V I - 2 V ) . These schedules were composed of 1 , 1 % , 2, 2^, and 3 min. i n t e r v a l s , w i t h an average i n t e r v a l length of 2 min. The f i v e i n t e r v a l s comprised a 10-min. continuous c y c l e . The i n t e r v a l s were employed i n one of the f o l l o w i n g orders: (a) 2k, 3, 1 % , 2 and 1 min., or (b) 1, 2, Ik, 3, and 2k min. Order (b) i s simply the reverse of order ( a ) . For response contingent events (shock or food) the c o n t r o l apparatus stopped at the end of each i n t e r v a l u n t i l the response occurred producing the given event. The occurrenceoof the event s t a r t e d the c o n t r o l apparatus and began the next i n t e r v a l . Response noncontingent events were d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y by the c o n t r o l apparatus which d i d not stop but continued on to the next i n t e r v a l . The p o i n t i n the 10-min. c y c l e of i n t e r v a l s at which the 30-min. experimental s e s s i o n began was randomized throughout the experiment. As a r e s u l t , the maximum number of times each event could occur i n a s e s s i o n v a r i e d between 14 and 16. Reinforcement was programmed on a VI-2' schedule w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n order (a) f o r both Reinforcement t r a i n i n g and Punishment t r a i n i n g . In Punishment t r a i n i n g the Pun Group rece i v e d response-contingent shock on a VI-2' schedule w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n order ( b ) . The punishment schedule was a l s o staggered r e l a t i v e to the reinforcement schedule by 30 sec. so that the shock was beginning, i t s f i r s t i n t e r v a l f o r shock when the reinforcement c y c l e had already completed 30 sec. of the f i r s t i n t e r v a l . In Punishment t r a i n i n g the NC-Shock Group a l s o received shock on a VI-2' schedule w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n order (b). The shock however was response-noncontingent and was 33 delivered automatically. These variations in programming the basic VI-2' schedule were provided to meet the conditions described in the Procedure section. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104022/manifest

Comment

Related Items