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.

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 o f 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 t h e Department of Psychology  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1969  In p r e s e n t i n g  for  that  this  an a d v a n c e d  the  Study.  thesis  thesis  degree  Library shall  ! f u r t h e r agree  for  Department  o r by h.iis  make  w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n  of  Date  1 agree  it freely available for  reference  and  thesis  for  permission.  Psychology  March . . .1969.  requirements  Columbia,  that permission  :he U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 3, Canada  the  British  Columbia  for  be g r a n t e d  representatives.  this  f u l f i l m e n t of  the U n i v e r s i t y of  s c h o l a r l y purposes'may  or p u b l i c a t i o n of  Department  at  in p a r t i a l  It  is  extensive  copying  of  this  by t h e Head o f my  understood  f i n a n c i a l gain  shall  that  copying  n o t be a l l o w e d  ii  ABSTRACT The p r e s e n t study examined the f o l l o w i n g two hypotheses;  (a) shock  which has been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food w i l l reduce responding l e s s than shock which has n o t been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food-  (h) r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock w i l l  reduce r e s p o n d i n g more than response-noncontingent and  shock.  Response r a t e s  the number o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s r e c e i v e d i n Punishment t r a i n i n g , and  response r a t e s i n 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 were examined f o r the f o l l o w i n g f i v e groups; Groun)  -  (a) shock and p e l l e t f o r the same response  (b) shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses  noncontingent  that  (Shock-S^  Group):  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 r e i n f o r c e m e n t (NC-Shock Group)indicated  ( c ) response-  shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t food  becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response noncontingent  (Pun Group):  (Pun-Rft  (d) r e s p o n s e -  o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y  (e) no shock ( C o n t r o l Group).  (a) r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t and response-noncontingent  reduced r e s p o n d i n g e q u a l l y i n Punishment t r a i n i n g , and that  The r e s u l t s shock  (b) f o l l o w i n g  P u n i s h m e n t - t r a i n i n g , r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock reduced r e s p o n d i n g i n 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 whereas response-noncontingent  shock had no  e f f e c t on r a t e of r e s p o n d i n g i n 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 . also indicated  The r e s u l t s  t h a t shock which had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food had the same  o v e r a l l e f f e c t on response r a t e s as shock which had not been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food.  The r e l e v a n c e o f these r e s u l t s  to the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e and c o n d i t i o n e d  r e i n f o r c i n g f u n c t i o n s o f shock was d i s c u s s e d .  iii  T a b l e of Contents  Introduction  ...  1  Method  8  Subjects  *  8  Apparatus  •  Procedure Pesponse Measures.  >  9  ...  12  Results  1 2  Reinforcement T r a i n i n g (Sessions Punishment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s  9  1-10)  12  11-20)  Punishment-Extinction T r a i n i n g (Sessions  12 21-30). . . . .  23  Discussion  25  Bibliography  30  Appendix A  . .  32  iv  L i s t of Tables T a b l e 1.  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Response Rates During L a s t F i v e Days o f P u n i s h ment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s 16-20)  T a b l e 2.  16  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Number o f R e i n f o r c e m e n t s R e c e i v e d During, t h e L a s t F i v e Days o f Punishment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s 16-20)  T a b l e 3.  22  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Mean Number o f Responses P e r Reinforcement D u r i n g t h e L a s t F i v e Days c f Punishment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s 16-20)  T a b l e 4.  24  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Response Rates D u r i n g the L a s t F i v e Days o f Punishment-Extinction Training (Sessions 2 6 - 3 0 ) . . .  26  V  List  Figure  1.  The mean  response  training  and  five  (Pun  rate  as  shock and  Group),  Group),  as  available  the  for  independent  2.  of  next  Group),  of  Extinction  of  for  response  no  food  for  different  noncontingent  same  for  the  response  contingent  food  becomes  (Shock-S^  Group),  delivered  automatically  Group),  automatically  reinforcement Group)  received  and  (Pun  as  13 a  Punishment-  groups:  shock  Group),  Group),  for  independent Group),  of  next  responseresponse  shock  the  and no  and  response-  the  response-noncontingent  and  shock  a u t o m a t i c a l l y as  available  (NC-Shock  delivered  (Shock-S^  (Pun-Rft  shock delivered  reinforcement  shock  responses  becomes  five  responses  the  response  different  (Control  training  for  food  reinforcements  training  the  shock  Punishment  same  shock delivered  Punishment  for  Groun)  food  the  a v a i l a b i l i t y of and  food  of  for  response-contingent  the  The mean number function  food  of  training  response-noncontingent  response-noncontingent  Figure  a function  s h o c k and  automatically  (ITC-Shock  Figures  Punishment-Extinction  groups*  (Pun-Rft  of  availability shock  (Control 17  vi  F i g u r e 3.  The mean number of r e s p o n s e s p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t 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 ( P u n - R f t Group) , shock and 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 (Pun 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 shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e c o n t i n g e n t f o o d becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e n e x t response (Shock-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 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 t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e i n f o r c e m e n t (NC-Shock G r o u p ) , and no shock Groun)  (Control 19  Ac knowledgmen t  The w r i t e r would l i k e to e x p r e s s h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. G. A. Raymond, Dr. F. P. V a l l e and Dr. R. Uong w i t h o u t whose h e l p , encouragement and c r i t i c i s m t h i s study c o u l d n o t 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 t h e form o f e l e c t r i c shock has been w i d e l y used i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s o f punishment. e v o l v e d from these s t u d i e s ' a response.* (b)  Three b a s i c paradigms have  (a) a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g  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 r e s p o n s e :  (c) a v e r s i v e s t i m u l a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n a random f a s h i o n u n r e l a t e d t o the response.  W h i l e the s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s of such e x p e r i m e n t s have v a r i e d , t h e  g e n e r a l e f f e c t has u s u a l l y been s u p p r e s s i o n of the " p u n i s h e d " r e s p o n s e . S u p p r e s s i v e E f f e c t s o f C o n t i n g e n t V e r s u s N o n c o n t i n g e n t Shock Estes  (1944)  asserted that " . . .  i t i s not the c o r r e l a t i o n o f the  punishment w i t h t h e response p e r se t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t , b u t the c o n t i g u i t y o f the punishment w i t h the s t i m u l i w h i c h f o r m e r l y aroused t h e response'' ( E s t e s , 1 9 4 4 , p. 3 8 ) . E s t e s based t h i s a s s e r t i o n on t h e r e s u l t s o f two e x p e r i m e n t s .  I n one  ( E s t e s , 1 9 4 4 , Experiment B ) , two groups of r a t s were t r a i n e d t o p r e s s a l e v e r on a + l - m i n . v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . One was  then g i v e n a 1 0 - m i n . s e s s i o n of punishment  l e v e r p r e s s was  e x t i n c t i o n i n which each  f o l l o w e d by a b r i e f s e v e r e shock.  a 1 0 - m i n . 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 .  group  The o t h e r group was g i v e n  The group g i v e n punishment  extinction  e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r response s u p p r e s s i o n than t h e group g i v e n no shock.  I n the o t h e r experiment ( E s t e s , 1 9 4 4 , Experiment I ) , r a t s were a g a i n  t r a i n e d on a l - m i n . v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t and then g i v e n e i t h e r a 1 0 - m i n . 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 1 0 - m i n . s e s s i o n w i t h r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shocks a d m i n i s t e r e d a t i n t e r v a l s of about 3 0 s e c , b u t not d u r i n g o r i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g a l e v e r p r e s s .  Once a g a i n 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 s u p p r e s s i o n t h a n t h e group r e c e i v i n g no shock.  I n s h o r t , b a r p r e s s i n g was  suppressed under b o t h  2  r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t and r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t More r e c e n t l y Camp, Raymond, and Church  shock. (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 s c h e d u l e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t and then i n t r o duced shock e i t h e r i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the response o r 30 s e c . a f t e r t h e response.  They found t h a t t h e magnitude o f response s u p p r e s s i o n was g r e a t e r  f o r t h e group r e c e i v i n g immediate d e l a y e d bv 30 s e c .  shock than f o r t h e group r e c e i v i n g  shock  I n a r e l a t e d e x p e r i m e n t , 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 s c h e d u l e o f r e i n -  forcement.  One group then r e c e i v e d shock 30 s e c . a f t e r t h e response w h i l e a  second group r e c e i v e d r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock. no d i f f e r e n c e  The e x p e r i m e n t e r s found  i n magnitude o f response s u p p r e s s i o n between t h e two groups.  Thus shock d e l i v e r e d  i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e response produced  s u p p r e s s i o n than e i t h e r 30-sec. d e l a y e d shock  greater  (Experiment I ) o r n o n c o n t i n g e n t  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 w h i c h r e c e i v e d e i t h e r r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock (Punishment  group)  or response n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock (CEP., group) i n t h e presence o f a CS.  They  found  (a) a g r e a t e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  o f s u p p r e s s i o n e f f e c t s f o r t h e CEP. group  than f o r t h e Punishment group, and. (b) a g r e a t e r r e s i s t a n c e the CER group than f o r t h e Punishment group.  to e x t i n c t i o n f o r  These r e s u l t s a r e s i m i l a r t o  those o f t h e e a r l i e r study hy t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t e r s (Hunt and Brady, The experiments o f Hunt arid Brady  1951).  (1951. 1955) and Camp, Paymond, and Church  ( 1 9 6 7 ) , u n l i k e those o f F'stes (1944), s u p p o r t Church's c o n c l u s i o n  that  !  "... t h e c o n t i n g e n t punishment p r o c e d u r e , r e l a t i v e t o the n o n c o n t i n g e n t p r o c e d u r e , produces (a) g r e a t e r s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e punished r e s p o n s e , (b) l e s s s u p p r e s s i o n o f o t h e r r e s p o n s e s , and ( c ) l e s s r e s i s t a n c e t o e x t i n c t i o n (Church, 1963, p. 3 7 6 ) .  3  I t i s now g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d e f f e c t s from c o n t i n g e n t  t h a t n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock has d i f f e r e n t  shock n o t o n l y 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 t o 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 F u n c t i o n s of Shock Muenzinger  (1934) has suggested t h a t shock may s e r v e f u n c t i o n s o t h e r  than t h a t o f s u p p r a s s i n g  a response.  Fe found t h a t m i l d punishment o f t h e  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 t o an i n c r e a s e i n t h e r a t e of l e a r n i n g .  Subsequent s t u d i e s by Muenzinger  (1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1948, 1951, 1952), Wischner (1947, 1948, 1963) and o t h e r s have l e d t o 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 o f 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 t a s k r e s u l t s i n an i n c r e a s e I n t h e number of c o r r e c t responses e m i t t e d .  T h i s f i n d i n g s u g g e s t s (a) t h a t  shock may s e r v e 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 t o i t s w i d e l y  demonstrated  a v e r s i v e f u n c t i o n , and (b) t h a t 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 c o n d i t i o n e d 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 t h e p r e s e n c e of one s t i m u l u s but n o t 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 t o respond i n the presence o f the second s t i m u l u s i s g r a d u a l l y e x t i n g u i s h e d 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 & S k i n n e r , 1957).  Skinner r e f e r s to the f i r s t  s t i m u l u s as an ?P ( a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s ) and t o t h e second s t i m u l u s as an s \  An S^ then i s a s t i m u l u s i n t h e presence of which S_ has been r e i n -  f o r c e d f o r e m i t t i n g a r e s p o n s e , and an  i s a s t i m u l u s i n the presence o f  w h i c h S_ has n o t been r e i n f o r c e d f o r e m i t t i n g a r e s p o n s e .  I f a response  f o l l o w i n g an a v e r s i v e s t i m u l u s i s always r e i n f o r c e d , and i f responses w h i c h do n o t f o l l o w t h e a v e r s i v e s t i m u l u s a r e never r e i n f o r c e d , t h e a v e r s i v e s t i m u l u s s h o u l d become an S ' f o r t h e r e s p o n s e . L  Furthermore, according to  4  the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s h y p o t h e s i s by K e l l e r and S c h o e n f e l d  o f secondary r e i n f o r c e m e n t  proposed  (1950, p. 236), a s t i m u l u s must become a d i s c r i m i n a -  t i v e s t i m u l u s f o r some response i n o r d e r t o become a c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s and, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t a s t i m u l u s 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 a c q u i r e d c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c i n g properties.  I f an a v e r s i v e s t i m u l u s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food i n such a way T)  as t o become a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s ( S ~ ) , t h e a v e r s i v e s t i m u l u s a c q u i r e secondary r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s .  should  These secondary r e i n f o r c i n g  p r o p e r t i e s c o u l d then s e r v e t o r e v e r s e the s u p p r e s s i v e e f f e c t s o f a m i l d l y a V e r s i v e s t i m u l u s o r t o a t t e n u a t e t h e s u p p r e s s i v e e f f e c t s of a more s e v e r e l y aversive stimulus.  The r e v e r s i b i l i t y o f 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 s t r o n g nocuous s t i m u l u s — a n e l e c t r i c c u r r e n t of g r e a t s t r e n g t h — w a s c o n v e r t e d i n t o an a l i m e n t a r y c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l u s , so t h a t i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e s k i n d i d not evoke t h e s l i g h t e s t defense r e a c t i o n . I n s t e a d , the animal e x h i b i t e d a w e l l marked a l i m e n t a r y c o n d i t i o n e d r e f l e x , t u r n i n g i t s head t o 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 , a t the same time p r o d u c i n g a p r o f u s e s e c r e t i o n of s a l i v a ( P a v l o v , 1927,"p. 3 0 ) . K e l l e r and S c h o e n f e l d ' s a n a l y s i s of punishment.  h y p o t h e s i s has i m p o r t a n t  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the  I f shock, through, a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h food can become a  d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s f o r a response which i s r e i n f o r c e d by f o o d , and hence become a c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c e r , then _S_s which have e x p e r i e n c e d response-food  sequence should, respond  _Ss who have e x p e r i e n c e d received both.  no c o n t i n g e n c y  more, when shock i s p r e s e n t e d  shockthan  between f o o d and shock a l t h o u g h  having  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e s h o u l d be found n o t o n l y i n e x t i n c t i o n ( t h e  5  u s u a l t e s t f o r a c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c e r ) , b u t a l s o i n punishment t r a i n i n g i f the shock-food c o n t i n g e n c y  a c t s t o reduce t h e a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t i e s , and  t h e r e f o r e s u p p r e s s i v e e f f e c t s , of shock. I n 1961. H o l z and A z r i n found t h a t p i g e o n s 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 o f 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 g i v e n i n t e r s p e r s e d s e s s i o n s o f b o t h 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 t h e same r e s u l t was  o b t a i n e d whether they used a shock i n t e n s i t y w h i c h , d u r i n e  acquisition,  reduced t h e response r a t e t o o n e - h a l f o f i t s p r e v i o u s l e v e l , o r a shock i n t e n s i t y w h i c h , d u r i n g a c q u i s i t i o n , had no i n f l u e n c e on t h e response r a t e . In a f u r t h e r study o f 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, H o l z and A z r i n (1962) t r a i n e d p i g e o n s on a f i x e d - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e o f r e i n forcement and punished a l l responses d u r i n g v a r i o u s p o r t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r v a l w i t h shocks o f v a r i o u s i n t e n s i t i e s .  They found t h a t a t m i l d e r  the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e p r o p e r t y o f shock predominated t o i n f l u e n c e  intensities, responding,  w h i l e a t t h e more s e v e r e i n t e n s i t i e s t h e a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t y was t h e dominant influence.  I f a m i l d shock had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e i n f o r c e m e n t ,  to i n c r e a s e r e s p o n d i n g . suppressed r e s p o n d i n g ,  I f i t had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n o n r e i n f o r c e m e n t , i t i'owever, when t h e shock i n t e n s i t y was i n c r e a s e d , t h e  a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t y o f t h e shocks became more a p p a r e n t . associated w i t h nonreinforcement,  associated with reinforcement,  I f t h e shocks had been  the a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t y a c t e d w i t h t h e  d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l t o f u r t h e r reduce r e s p o n d i n g .  of r e s p o n d i n g  I f the shocks had been  t h e a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t y a c t e d t o reduce t h e l e v e l  (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  H o l z and A z r i n concluded with reinforcement,  i t served  responding).  t h a t x^henever punishment i s d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d  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 o f t h e punishment. These e x p e r i m e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o i t s w i d e l y demonstrated a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t y , e l e c t r i c shod- p o s s e s s e s a p o t e n t i a l 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 y w h i c h must be c o n s i d e r e d i f a f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the  f u n c t i o n o f e l e c t r i c shock i s t o be a c h i e v e d .  and A z r i n l e n d s some i n i t i a l  A l t h o u g h t h e work o f IIolz  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 o f  e l e c t r i c shock, i t l e a v e s c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s unanswered. For  example, due t o the l a c k of an a p p r o p r i a t e 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 o r e x t i n c t i o n ) , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y cannot be e x c l u d e d t h a t shock p e r se had a dynamogenic  e f f e c t and i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n d i n g n o t o n l y i n  e x t i n c t i o n b u t i n t r a i n i n g as w e l l , under t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f the H o l z and A z r i n (1961) e x p e r i m e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , because t h e r e was g r e a t e r d i s s i m i l a r i t y between 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 t h e r e was between punishment  punishment training  and punishment e x t i n c t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e reduced r e s p o n s e r a t e i n r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n was t h e r e s u l t o f 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 t h e two e x t i n c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . H o l z and A z r i n (1961) r e p o r t t h a t x^hen r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shocks were introduced, i n t o t h e e x t i n c t i o n p e r i o d ( f o l l o w i n g punishment  training),  r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e d b u t n o t " a s much as when r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t 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 t h e e x n e r i m e n t e r s was t h a t r e s p o n s e D  c o n t i n g e n t shock had become an R~ f o r the  r e i n f o r c e d b a r - p r e s s , response and  i n so d o i n g had become a c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c e r ( A z r i n & H o l z , i n H o n i g , 1 9 6 6 , p. 4 2 0 ) . The n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock xvas s i m i l a r enough t o t h e c o n t i n g e n t shock to  cause an i n c r e a s e i n r e s p o n d i n g , b u t n o t s i m i l a r enough t o cause as g r e a t  an i n c r e a s e as d i d c o n t i n g e n t shock.  Without i n c l u d i n g a group which  7  r e c e i v e d n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock i n t r a i n i n g , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y cannot be e x l u d e d t h a t n o n c o n t i n g e n t 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 . M o r e o v e r j s i n c e n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock i n e x t i n c t i o n was (a) more s i m i l a r t o punishment 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 , b u t (b) l e s s s i m i l a r t o  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 t h e t h r e e e x t i n c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d be due t o d i f f e r e n t i a l generalization  decrements.  I n t h e i r 1962 s t u d y , H o l z 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 b u t m e r e l y compared c u m u l a t i v e response r e c o r d s i n punishment t r a i n i n g f o r s u b j e c t s r e c e i v i n g shock a t d i f f e r e n t segments o f 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 i m p o s s i b l e t o t e l l whether o r n o t shock,  a c t i n g as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s , a c q u i r e s secondary r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s . T h i s 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.  F u r t h e r m o r e , s i n c e a f i x e d - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e was used by H o l z and  A z r i n , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y a r i s e s t h a t shock m e r e l y enhances t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l e x e r t e d by the i n 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 t h a t shock a t a c h o i c e p o i n t w i l l improve t h e r a t e o f 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 t a s k . The problem c o u l d have been overcome i f a v a r i a b l e i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e of r e i n forcement had been used s i n c e t h e mere passage o f time i s n o t as r e l e v a n t a s t i m u l u s f o r t h e i n c r e a s e d p r o b a b i l i t y of r e i n f o r c e m e n t d u r i n g a v a r i a b l e i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e as d u r i n g a f i x e d - - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e . The p r e s e n t s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n i n an attempt t o c l a r i f y some of the i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e " o l z and A z r i n s t u d i e s and thus a i r i n t h e d e l i n e a t i o n of 1  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. modified  An extended and  form o f t h e 1961 U o l z and A z r i n s t u d y was conducted i n o r d e r t o  8  examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t and r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock t o food reward. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d , on t h e b a s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e c i t e d by Church  ( 1 9 6 3 ) , t h a t 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 aversive s t i m u l a t i o n shock) would shock.  (electric  suppress r e s p o n d i n g more than response-nonconting•;.•;•»t e l e c t r i c  I t was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t shock would n o t have a dynamogenic  e f f e c t on r e s p o n d i n g , b u t t h a t both r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t and r e s p o n s e n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock would suppress r e s p o n d i n g r e l a t i v e t o a no-shock c o n t r o l group.  I t was f u r t h e r e x p e c t e d , on t h e b a s i s o f the H o l z and A z r i n f i n d i n g s  (1961, 1962), t h a t shock a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e i n f o r c e m e n t would r e s p o n d i n g l e s s than shock a s s o c i a t e d , w i t h n o n r e i n f o r c e m e n t . was p r e d i c t e d t h a t shock d e l i v e r e d b e f o r e t h e to-be-rewarded  suppress Finally, i t response  would  a c q u i r e g r e a t e r d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l over t h e response than o t h e r 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 r e i n f o r c e m e n t , e. g. time e l a p s e d s i n c e t h e l a s t r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( C a t a n i a £ R e y n o l d s , 1968).  The d i s c r i m i n a t i v e  c o n t r o l a c q u i r e d by t h i s shock would be e v i d e n c e d by i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n d i n g i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e shock and decreased r e s p o n d i n g d u r i n g o t h e r p e r i o d s . The p a t t e r n o f r e s p o n d i n g produced !  i n t h i s way would mean i n c r e a s e d  ' e f f i c i e n c y " o f r e s p o n d i n g as measured by responses p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t  r e l a t i v e t o a comparison group r e c e i v i " ? t h e same amount o f shock  independent  of food.  Method Subjects F i f t y n a i v e , male r a t s d e r i v e d from t h e Long-Evans s t r a i n were used.  9  The r a t s were o b t a i n e d from the N a t i o n a l B r e e d i n g L a b o r a t o r i e s Company when a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60 days of age and were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 94 days o l d a t the b e g i n n i n g of e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . was  216  T h e i r average weight d u r i n g  experimentation  gm.  Apparatus The  experiment  was  conducted  i n f o u r i d e n t i c a l l e v e r boxes  (Scientific  P r o t o t y p e Model 100-A) l o c a t e d i n one room, w i t h e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l c o n t r o l and r e c o r d i n g equipment l o c a t e d i n a s e p a r a t e room. 8 i n . w i d e , 9 1/2  i n . l o n g , and  7 3/4  i n . high.  The  Two  l e v e r boxes were  s i d e s and t h e hinged  top were c l e a r p l a s t i c w h i l e the o t h e r two s i d e s were aluminum. cup, a 1 1/2  i n . square b r a s s c o n t a i n e r , 3/4  The  food  i n . deep, was mounted i n the  m i d d l e 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  s t a i n l e s s s t e e l , 5/8  2 i n . wide.  c o n s t r u c t e d of  i n . t h i c k and  16 s t a i n l e s s s t e e l b a r s 5/16 Each l e v e r box was  The  f l o o r was  i n . i n d i a m e t e r , mounted on 1/2  was  i n . centers.  e n c l o s e d i n a sound deadened chamber which a l s o c o n t a i n e d  a p e l l e t d i s p e n s e r ( D a v i s Model PD 101), a f a n , and a 7-w which was mounted d i r e c t l y above the l e v e r box.  incandescent  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 c o n s t a n t c u r r e n t 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 ) . 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 .  forcement c o n s i s t e d of 45 mg.  lamp  All  Positive rein-  Hoyes r a t - f o o d p e l l e t s .  Procedure The times.  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 a t a l l  P r i o r t o e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n each j? was  f o r approximately  10 sec.  p i c k e d up every day and  handled  Once e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n had begun, the h a n d l i n g of  Ss c o n s i s t e d of the r a t s b e i n g p l a c e d i n and removed from the l e v e r box each day of e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n .  on  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 a l l o w e d f r e e a c c e s s to P u r i n a L a b o r a t o r y Chow. was  On the 14th day  food  removed from the cages and on the 15th day and each day t h e r e a f t e r , J3s  were g i v e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 gm. 25 c c . of w a t e r .  of d r y P u r i n a mash mixed w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y  On a l l days of e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n Ss were f e d 1 hour a f t e r  b e i n g r e t u r n e d t o the home cages.  A l l e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n was  conducted  on a  Monday through F r i d a y b a s i s . Pretraining.  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  p r e s e n t and one p e l l e t was  not  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.  the f o l l o w i n g day the l e v e r was f o r each l e v e r - p r e s s response  p r e s e n t and one food p e l l e t was  (continuous reinforcement).  from the box a f t e r 30 r e i n f o r c e d l e v e r p r e s s e s .  On  delivered  Each S_ was  removed  The Ss t h a t d i d not r e a c h  the c r i t e r i o n of 30 l e v e r p r e s s e s a f t e r 1 b r . i n the l e v e r box were removed from the box and r e t u r n e d t o i t f o r a n o t h e r h r . the n e x t day, w i t h o u t h a v i n g been f e d .  By the end of the second h r . on the c o n t i n u o u s - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  a l l Ss had  reached  Reinforcement  the c r i t e r i o n of 30 l e v e r  schedule,  responses.  t r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s 1-10).  F o l l o w i n g p r e t r a i n i n g , Ss were  p l a c e d i n the l e v e r box f o r a 30-min. p e r i o d each day f o r 10 days. t h i s time r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t was  During  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 s c h e d u l e (VI-2') (see Appendix A ) . Punishment t r a i n i n g  ( S e s s i o n s 11-20).  F o l l o w i n g Reinforcement  S^s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e groups: food p e l l e t f o r the same response d i f f e r e n t responses  (Pun Group)•  training,  (a) shock and  (Pun-Rft C r o u p ) : (b) shock and food f o r (c) r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t  shock d e l i v e r e d  a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the n e x t response  (Shock-S' Group)*  a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent  (d) r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t  shock d e l i v e r e d  of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e i n f o r c e m e n t (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 p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1. D u r i n g Punishment t r a i n i n g a l l groups r e c e i v e d r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t on the same. V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e as was used d u r i n g Reinforcement training.  The Pun-Rft Group r e c e i v e d shock and food f o r the same r e s p o n s e .  The Pun Group r e c e i v e d r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock (punishment)  on a s e p a r a t e  V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e i n which shock o c c u r r e d o n l y on n o n r e i n f o r c e d responses not l e s s than 30 s e c . e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t .  The punishment and  r e i n f o r c e m e n t s c h e d u l e s were i n t e r d e p e n d e n t i n t h a t both stopped u n t i l S_ responded when an event on e i t h e r s c h e d u l e was a v a i l a b l e .  The two s c h e d u l e s  were a l s o a r r a n g e d t o a v o i d a s i m p l e a l t e r n a t i o n and consequent of food and shock.  predictability  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 r e g a r d l e s s of-whether or not Ss responded.  The  Shock-S^ Group r e c e i v e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y - d e l i v e r e d r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t  shock  i m m e d i a t e l y as food became a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response and thus shock on the same V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e as r e i n f o r c e m e n t , 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 a t each p o i n t i n the s e s s i o n when t h e next would produce f o o d .  was  response  As i n a l l o t h e r groups, the r e i n f o r c e m e n t remained  a v a i l a b l e u n t i l the a n i m a l responded.  The normal 0.10-sec. shock however,  b e i n g r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t , c o n t i n u e d t o be d e l i v e r e d on the average of every 2 min. even i f the s u b j e c t d i d not respond.  The c o n t r o l l i n g  apparatus  d i d not s t o p , 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 a t t h e end of each interval.  At the end of each i n t e r v a l , i f the r e i n f o r c e m e n t had not been  received., i . e . i f the S_ had not responded, r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t was a g a i n made a v a i l a b l e but at no time was a v a i l a b l e f o r a s i n g l e response.  t h e r e more than one r e i n f o r c e m e n t  The HC-Shock Group r e c e i v e d n o n c o n t i n g e n t  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' probability  of c o n t i n u a l p a i r i n g  s c h e d u l e arranged t o m i n i m i z e t h e ,  of shock w i t h food and  v a r i a b i l i t y of the shock-food i n t e r v a l . contingent  reinforcement  r e c e i v e d no shock.  The  on the same V I - 2 '  Punishment t r a i n i n g  t o maximize the  C o n t r o l Croup r e c e i v e d  response-  s c h e d u l e as a l l o t h e r groups but  c o n s i s t e d of one  30-min. s e s s i o n  per  day f o r 10 days. Punishment-Extinction training  training  (Sessions  21-30).  a l l groups r e c e i v e d P u n i s h m e n t - E x t i n c t i o n  3 days Sis were p l a c e d  i n the l e v e r box  shock c o n d i t i o n s were m a i n t a i n e d  f o r 30 min.  but food was  F o l l o w i n g Punishment  training.  Fach day  for  D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d the  no l o n g e r  five  available.  Response Measures For a l l Ss, the number of responses e m i t t e d , the number of  reinforcements,  and number of shocks were recorded  f o r each e x p e r i m e n t a l  of r e s p o n s e s per r e i n f o r c e m e n t  computed f o r each jS f o r each s e s s i o n by  dividing  was  session.  The  the number of responses i n a g i v e n s e s s i o n by the number of  number  rein-  forcements r e c e i v e d i n t h a t s e s s i o n .  Results Reinforcement T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s  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 t h a t the groups d i d not d i f f e r  (F=1.17, 4&45 d f , n>.25).  A similar  a n a l y s i s f o r Sessions  6-10  significantly indicated 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 R e i n f o r c e m e n t training  (F=,2?., 4&45 d f , n>.25).  Punishment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s Response r a t e s .  11-20)  F i g u r e 1 d e p i c t s f o r each group the mean r e s p o n s e r a t e s  13  Fig. 1  The mean response r a t e as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and 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 groups"  shock and f o o d f o r t h e same response  (Pun-Pvft G r o u p ) , shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun Group), r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t f o o d becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r the next response (Shock-S^ Group), r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y independent 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 (NC-Shock G r o u p ) , and no shock ( C o n t r o l Group).  PUNISHMENT-EXTINCTION  PUNISHMENT  SESSIONS  15  as a f u n c t i o n o f Punishment and 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 ( S e s s i o n s 1130).  The C o n t r o l Group responded more than a l l o t h e r g r o u p s , w i t h response  r a t e s s t a b i l i z i n g o v e r 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 w i t h a S i n g l e C o n t r o l Group'* (Winer, 1962, p. 2 6 3 ) , o f t h e mean response r a t e f o r each S_ d u r i n g S e s s i o n s 16-20 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C o n t r o l Croup responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than t h e o t h e r groups (7=26.32, 1&45 d f , p<.005).  The r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t  not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=1.192, 1&45 d f , p>.25).  main e f f e c t was  The main e f f e c t o f a s s o c i a t i o n o f  shock w i t h food a l s o f a i l e d t o r e a c h 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 t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between the two main e f f e c t s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.011  ;  1&45 d f , n>.25).  A form o f t h e Dunnett t t e s t (Winer, 1962, p. 264)  comparing t h e C o n t r o l Group w i t h each e x p e r i m e n t a l group i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C o 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 o t h e r groups ( C o n t r o l v e r s u s Pun, t=3.29, df=45, p<.005: C o n t r o l v e r s u s P u n - R f t , t=4.05, df=45, p<.005- C o n t r o l v e r s u s Shock-S , t=4.90, df=45, p<.005; C o n t r o l v e r s u s NCShock, t=3.98, df=45, p<.005).  I n a d d i t i o n an F t e s t between t h e response  n r a t e s f o r t h e Shock-S ' Group and t h e response r a t e s f o r the NC-Shock Group I n d i c a t e d t h a t the S h o c k - S Group resnonded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the. NCD  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.  F i g u r e 2 d e p i c t s f o r each group the mean number of  r e i n f o r c e m e n t s r e 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 ( S e s s i o n s 11-20). I n s p e c t i o n o f F i g u r e 3 r e v e a l e d t h a t a l l groups w h i c h r e c e i v e d shock shox^ed a d e c r e a s e i n t h e number of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t few s e s s i o n s of Punishment t r a i n i n g .  D u r i n g the l a t e r s e s s i o n s t h e two groups  which r e c e i v e d p o n c o n t i n g e n t shock e x h i b i t e d an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f  16  Table 1  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Response Rates D u r i n g L a s t F i v e Days o f Punishment T r a i n i n g  Source  df  Sum o f Squares  (Sessions  16-20)  Mean Square  Between Groups  5,005,473.6  C o n t r o l v e r s u s A l l Others  2,733.028.5  2,733,028.5  A (Contingency)  123,743.4  123.743.4  B ( A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Food)  147,573.9  147,573.9  1,127.8  1,127.8  4,672,004.3  103,822.3  A X B Within C e l l  45  Total  49  26.32  <.005  17  Fig. 2  The mean number o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s r e 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 and PunishmentE 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 groups.*  shock and  food f o r t h e same response ( P u n - R f t G r o u p ) , shock .and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun 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 shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e c o n t i n g e n t food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e next response (Shock-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 shock delivered automatically  independent of t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y  of r e i n f o r c e m e n t (NC-Shock G r o u p ) , and no shock Group).  (Control  -VPUN-RFT -GCONTROL  -vS RFT D  -ANC-SHOCK  15  10  0  2  13  14  15  16  17  1___L 18  PUNISHMENT TRAINING SESSIONS  19  20  19  Fig. 3  The mean number of responses p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a f u n c t i o n of Punishment t r a i n i n g and PunishmentE 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 groups';  shock and  food f o r t h e same response (Pun-Rft G r o u p ) , shock and food f o r d i f f e r e n t responses (Pun 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 shock d e l i v e r e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y as r e s p o n s e c o n t i n g e n t food becomes a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e next response n (Shock-S  Group), r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock  delivered automatically  independent o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y  of r e i n f o r c e m e n t (NC-Shock Group), and no shock ( C o n t r o l Group).  1  I 12  & v a v A  APUN vPUN-RFT sCONTROL v S RFT AN C - S H O C K  I 13  I 14  D  I 15  ! 16  l_ 17  I 18  PUNISHMENT TRAINING SESSIONS  I 19  I 20  21  reinforcements  r e c e i v e d so t h a t they r e c e i v e d a l m o s t as many  reinforcements  as t h e C o n t r o l Group i n t h e f i n a l few s e s s i o n s of Punishment t r a i n i n g . two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f the. mean number of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s each  during Sessions  A  r e c e i v e d by  15-20 i n d i c a t e d t h a t the C o n t r o l Group r e c e i v e d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e i n f o r c e m e n t s  than o t h e r groups (F=5.535, 1&45 d f , p<.05).  The r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n c y 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 t h a t the groups r e c e i v i n g r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t received s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s reinforcements n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock.  shock  than t h e groups r e c e i v i n g r e s p o n s e -  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 t o r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e (F=.128, 1&45 d f , p>.25). form o f t h e Dunnett _t t e s t comparing t h e C o n t r o l Group w i t h each  A  experimental  group i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C o n t r o l Group r e c e i v e d 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 t h e Pun Group (t=3.76, df=45, p<.005) o r t h e Pun-Rft Group (t=2.65, df=45, p<.025). with their  Table 2 presents  together  sources.  Responses/Peinforcement.  F i g u r e 3 d e p i c t s f o r each group t h e mean  number o f r e s p o n s e s p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t (Sessions  the s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s  11-20).  as a f u n c t i o n o f Punishment t r a i n i n g  Inspection of Figure 3 revealed  t h a t a l l groups which  r e c e i v e d shock e x h i b i t e d a d e c r e a s e i n t h e number of responses p e r r e i n f o r c e ment over the 10 P u n i s h m e n t - t r a i n i n g the g r e a t e s t d e c r e a s e .  sessions.  The Shock-S^ Group e x h i b i t e d  The C o n t r o l Group e x h i b i t e d an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number  of r e s p o n s e s p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t  over the same p e r i o d .  A two-way a n a l y s i s o f  v a r i a n c e o f the mean number of r e s p o n s e s p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t Sessions  f o r each S_ d u r i n g  15-20 i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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 r e i n f o r c e m e n t  than t h e o t h e r groups (F=26.167, 1&45 d f , p<.005).  The  22  Table 2  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Number o f R e i n f o r c e m e n t s R e c e i v e d D u r i n g t h e L a s t F i v e Days o f Punishment T r a i n i n g ( S e s s i o n s 16-20)  Source  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  F  p  Between Groups  4  433.0  C o n t r o l v e r s u s 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  Total  49  1,355.0  23  r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n c y main e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t p>.25).  (F=1.181, 1&45 d f ,  The main e f f e c t o f a s s o c i a t i o n o f shock w i t h food a l s o f a i l e d t o  reach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F=1.924, l£45 d f , p>.10).  I n a d d i t i o n , the i n t e r a c t i o n  between t h e two main e f f e c t s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t (F=.024, 1&45 d f , p>.25). A form o f the Dunnett t_ t e s t comparing the C o n t r o l Group w i t h each e x p e r i m e n t a l group i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C o n t r o l Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more per r e i n f o r c e m e n t than a l l o t h e r groups ( C o n t r o l v e r s u s Pun, t=3.147, df=45, p<.01- C o n t r o l v e r s u s P u n - R f t , t=4.017, df=45, p<.005- C o n t r o l v e r s u s Shocks' , t=4.896, df=45, P<.005 3  C o n t r o l v e r s u s 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 p e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r t h e ShockS" Group and the response r a t e s f o r the > C-Shock Group i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e T  Shock-S^ Group responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s per r e i n f o r c e m e n t than d i d the NC-Shock Group (F=17.67, 1&18 F r a t i o s together with t h e i r  d f , p<.001).  T a b l e 3 p r e s e n t s the s i g n i f i c a n t  sources.  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 ( S e s s i o n s 21-30) Response r a t e s .  I n s p e c t i o n of F i g u r e 1 i n d i c a t e d t h a t response r a t e s  f o r a l l groups d e c l i n e d s h a r p l y over the f i r s t few days o f PunishmentE x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g . ( S e s s i o n s 21-30).  The response r a t e s f o r t h e Pun and  Pun-Rft Groups q u i c k l y dropped, t o a lower l e v e l than the o t h e r t h r e e groups and remained lower throughout t h e 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 .  A two-way  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f the mean response r a t e f o r each S_ d u r i n g S e s s i o n s 26-30 i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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 o t h e r groups (P=7.59  s  1&A5 d f , p<.005).  The r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n c y 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 t h a t t h e groups r e c e i v i n g r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t 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 r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t 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 T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Mean Number o f Responses P e r R e i n f o r c e m e n t D u r i n g t h e L a s t F i v e Days o f Punishment T r a i n i n g (Sessions  Source  df  16-20)  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  Between Groups  4  13,871.0  C o n t r o l v e r s u s A l l Others  1  12,337.2  12,337.2  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  45  22,059.4  490.2  49  35,930.4  Within Total  Cell  F  25.17  p  <.01  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  inter-  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 t o r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e 1&45 d f , p>.10).  (F-2.65,  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 e x p e r i m e n t a l group i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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) o r 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 with t h e i r sources.  Discussion The p r e s e n t s t u d y y i e l d e d no e v i d e n c e 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 the response r a t e s of the f o u r groups s  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 o f the noshock C o n t r o l Group.  The one e x c e p t i o n was  found i n the l a s t f i v e days of  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 where the C o n t r o l Group was observed t o respond s i g n i f i c a n t l y mors than the t w o - r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock groups but n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the two r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock groups. A l t h o u g h t h e r e 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 r e s p o n d i n g of the two r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock, groups and t h a t of the two r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock groups i n Punishment  t r a i n i n g , the r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock  groups  responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock groups i n Punishment-Extinction t r a i n i n g . zations'  These r e s u l t s suggest the f o l l o w i n g  (a) r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t and r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock  reduce r e s p o n d i n g e q u a l l y i n Punishment  training:  (b) f o l l o w i n g  generali-  will  Punishment  t r a i n i n g , r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock w i l l reduce r e s p o n d i n g i n PunishmentE x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g whereas r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock w i l l have no on r a t e of r e s p o n d i n g i n R u n i s h m e n t - F x t i n c t i o n t r a i n i n g .  effect  26  Table 4  Source T a b l e f o r A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Mean Response Rates D u r i n g the L a s t F i v e Days o f 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 ( S e s s i o n s 26-30)  Source  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  F  p  Between Groups  4  9,094.7  C o n t r o l v e r s u s 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  Within C e l l  45  14,430.7  328.0  Total  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 t h a t shock d e l i v e r e d b e f o r e the  rewarded response  to-be-  a c q u i r e d g r e a t e r d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n t r o l over the  than o t h e r l e s s s p e c i f i c s t i m u l i such as time e l a p s e d s i n c e l a s t  response  reinforcement.  T h i s 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 while  both groups r e c e i v e d the same number of shocks and a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same T>  number of r e i n f o r c e m e n t s , the Shock-S  Group not o n l y responded  significantly  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 r e i n f o r c e m e n t and thus more !  e f f i c i e n t l y " than d i d the NC-Shock Group.  The  i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y of the  P.  Shock-S  0rour> over the NC-Shock Group can o n l y 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 o t h e r w i s e t r e a t e d i d e n t i c a l l y . I n 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 , on the o t h e r hand, no d i f f e r e n c e s i n response NC-Shock Group.  r a t e s were observed  T h i s f i n d i n g suggests  between the Shock-S  significant D Group and  the  t h a t 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 s t i m u l u s 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  c o n d i t o n f o r reducing, the s u p p r e s s i v e e f f e c t s of shock i n P u n i s h m e n t - E x t i n c t i o n . Furthermore,  the f a i l u r e of the a s s o c i a t i o n - o f - s h o c k - w i t h - f o o d 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 t h a t 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 r e d u c i n g the s u p p r e s s i v e 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 o r P u n i s h m e n t - E x t i n c t i o n  training.  Thase r e s u l t s r a i s e c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s about the P o l z and A z r i n 1962)  studies.  I t had been expected  on the b a s i s of the H o l z and A z r i n work  t h a t shock a s s o c i a t e d w i t h food would suppress r e s p o n d i n g associated with food.  (1961,  T h i s e x p e c t a t i o n was not c o n f i r m e d .  l e s s than shock not The  discrepancy  28  between the p r e s e n t d a t a and difference:  H o l z and  those of H o l z and  A z r i n used pigeons as s u b j e c t s .  however, t h a t the H o l z and  acquisition conditions.  greater  I t seems more p r o b a b l e ,  Because a l l s u b j e c t s  punishment t r a i n i n g (and  i n the H o l z and  none r e c e i v e d  s i m p l y r e f l e c t the g r e a t e r  t r a i n i n g ) , the  The  introduced  and  acquisition conditions.  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggested by H o l z and s t u d y H o l z and  r e i n f o r c i n g power of shock.  A z r i n d i d not  Azrin  any  The  r e s u l t s of  Group.  However, the  the  a  possibility  A z r i n s t u d y shock m e r e l y enhanced the  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 i t s e l f acquire  appropriate  t h i s statement s i n c e shock s e r v e d as  i n the Shock-S  remains t h a t i n the TIolz and  "conditioned-  (1961).  They s i m p l y s t a t e t h a t , under  p r e s e n t s t u d y do not c o n t r a d i c t  the  t e s t f o r the secondary  c o n d i t i o n s , shock can s e r v e a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e f u n c t i o n .  d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus  into  In l i g h t of  p r e s e n t d a t a 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  I n t h e i r 1962  intermediate  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  5  regular  s i m i l a r i t y of the punishment-  r a t e s of r e s p o n d i n g observed when n o n c o n t i n g e n t shock was  reiriforcer'  the  A z r i n (1961)  regular  e x t i n c t i o n s i t u a t i o n to the p u n i s h m e n t - t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n .  r e g u l a r e x t i n c t i o n may  differential  e x t i n c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and  response r a t e i n punishment e x t i n c t i o n as compared w i t h  e x t i n c t i o n may  d i d not  species  A z r i n (1961) f i n d i n g s were a r e s u l t of  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n decrements between the two  study r e c e i v e d  Azrin reflect a  discrimina-  w i t h the f i x e d - i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e , and i t  discriminative control.  I n summary t h e n , the r e s u l t s of the p r e s e n t study s u p p o r t statements by H o l z and  A z r i n (1961, 1962)  t h a t shock may  serve a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e  i n a d d i t i o n to i t s w i d e l y demonstrated a v e r s i v e  function.  do n o t , however, s u p p o r t the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s  The  function  present data  h y p o t h e s i s of secondary  29  reinforcement  as proposed by K e l l e r and  S c h o e n f e l d (1950, p. 236), o r  the  p  statement by F o l z and A z r i n (1966) t h a t i n becoming an S bar-press,  shock becomes a c o n d i t i o n e d  reinforcer.  for a reinforced  I n p a r t i c u l a r the  p r e s e n t d a t a ( i . e . Shock-S^ Group v e r s u s NC-Shock Croup i n PunishmentE 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 t h a t t o the e x t e n t  which s t a t e s  t h a t a s t i m u l u s 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 a c q u i r e d inasmuch as t h e s e c o n d i t i o n e d reduce the s u p p r e s s i v e discriminative  hypothesis  conditioned  reinforcing properties—at least  r e i n f o r c i n g p r o p e r t i e s would be expected t o  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  stimulus.  30  Bibliography A z r i n , N. H., & H o l z , W. C. Punishment. I n I". K. Honig ( E d . ) , Operant B e h a v i o r : Areas o f Research and A p p l i c a t i o n . New Y o r k : Appleton-CenturyC r o f t s , 1966. P P . 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 o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 74, 114-123. C a t a n i a , A. C., & R e y n o l d s , G. S. A q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e s p o n d i n g m a i n t a i n e d by i n t e r v a l s c h e d u l e s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1963, 2 ( P a r t 2 ) , 327-333. Church, R. V. The v a r i e d e f f e c t s o f punishment on b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1963, 70, 369-402. E s t e s , TJ. K. An e x p e r i m e n t a l study of punishment. 1944, 57 ( 3 , Llhole No. 2 6 3 ) . F e r s t e r , C. P.. , h S k i n n e r , B. F. A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s . 1957.  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs,  Schedules o f R e i n f o r c e m e n t .  New York"  H o l z , 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 o f punishment. of E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1961, 4, 225-232.  Journal  Holz, \1. C . , & A z r i n , M. H. I n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i v e and a v e r s i v e p r o p e r t i e s o f punishment. J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , " 1 9 6 2 , 5, 229-234. Hunt, II. F. , & B r a d y , 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 a n x i e t y ' 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 ' a n x i e t y " on a s i m p l e o p e r a n t . J o u r n a l of Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1955, 48, 305-310. ;  K e l l e r . F. R., & S c h o e n f e l d , W. ?T. P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y . A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s . 1950.  New Y o r k :  L o h r , T. F. The e f f e c t of shock on t h e r a t ' s c h o i c e o f a path t o f o o d . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 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 t h e 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 o f Comparative P s y c h o l o g y , 1934, 17, 267-277.  31  Muenzinger, K. F. D i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g 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 E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1948, 38, 201-203. Muenzinger, K. F. , B e r n s t o n e , A. P.., & R i c h a r d s , 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 . E q u i v a l e n t 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1938, 26, 177-186. Muenzinger, K. F., Brown, W. 0., Crow, W. J . , & P o w l o s k i , R. F. M o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g . X I . 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 a v o i d a n c e and a c c e l e r a t i n g components. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 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 e n f o r c e d d e l a y a t the p o i n t of c h o i c e 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 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 t u r n s 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 E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 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 t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n t o the a c t of c h o i c e 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1935, 20, 95-106. P a v l o v , I . P. C o n d i t i o n e d R e f l e x e s . ( T r a n s l a t e d by G. V. Andred) 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 E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n . M c G r a w - H i l l , 1962.  New  London:  York-  W i s c h n e r , G. J . A r e p l y t o 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 n o n - 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 E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1948. 38, 203-204. W i s c h n e r , 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 nonc 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 E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1947, 37, 271-284. W i s c h n e r , G. J . , F o w l e r , H., & K u s h n i c k , S. A. The e f f e c t o f s t r e n g t h of punishment f o r correct*" and i n c o r r e c t responses on performance. Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 65, 131-138.  32  Appendix  A  Throughout e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n 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 s c h e d u l e s 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 l e n g t h of 2 min. f i v e i n t e r v a l s comprised a 10-min. c o n t i n u o u s c y c l e . employed i n one of the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r s : (b) 1, 2, Ik, 3, and 2k min.  The  The i n t e r v a l s were  (a) 2k, 3, 1 % , 2 and 1 min., o r  Order (b) i s s i m p l y the r e v e r s e of o r d e r ( a ) .  For response c o n t i n g e n t e v e n t s (shock or food) the c o n t r o l a p p a r a t u s stopped a t the end of each i n t e r v a l u n t i l the response o c c u r r e d p r o d u c i n g the g i v e n event.  The o c c u r r e n c e o o f the event s t a r t e d the c o n t r o l a p p a r a t u s and began  the n e x t i n t e r v a l .  Response n o n c o n t i n g e n t 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 n o t s t o p but c o n t i n u e d on t o the n e x t interval.  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 a t which the 30-min.  e x p e r i m e n t a l 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 c o u l d o c c u r i n a s e s s i o n v a r i e d between 14 and  16.  R e i n f o r c e m e n t was programmed on a V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n o r d e r (a) f o r both R e i n f o r c e m e n t 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 r e c e i v e d r e s p o n s e - c o n t i n g e n t shock on a V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n o r d e r ( b ) .  The punishment s c h e d u l e  was  a l s o s t a g g e r e d r e l a t i v e t o the r e i n f o r c e m e n t s c h e d u l e by 30 s e c . so t h a t 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 r e i n f o r c e m e n t c y c l e had a l r e a d y completed 30 s e c . of the f i r s t i n t e r v a l .  I n Punishment  t r a i n i n g the NC-Shock Group a l s o r e c e i v e d shock on a V I - 2 ' s c h e d u l e w i t h the i n t e r v a l s i n o r d e r (b).  The shock however was  r e s p o n s e - n o n c o n t i n g e n t and  was  33  delivered automatically.  These v a r i a t i o n s i n programming the basic VI-2'  schedule were provided to meet the conditions described i n 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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104022/manifest

Comment

Related Items