(t = 2 7. Of = I! 35. P < 0 I 13m.! Group SlS2S3 (t = :.2. dt' = j1J5. P < .0 I). A cumparisun between GIDUpS

Escape-trained rats exposed to shock interposed between start box and goal box in a runway persist in running through the shock zone although the start box and part of the alley before the shock zone are never electrified after the original escape training. If self-punitive running is motivated by fear conditioned during escape training and reinforced by fear reduction during punishment testing, it should be possible to obtain a learning curve in the first few trials of this extinction-with-punishment paradigm. To detect such learning it may be necessary to limit the amount of escape training prior to testing so that initial running, based on retention of escape training, is slow enough that an improvement in the early extinction trials can be observed. In this experiment rats were given just enough escape training one day to insure running from start box to goal box on the first trial the next day. MethodThe apparatus was the masochism alley described by Brown, Martin, & Morrow (1964). It consists of a duplex start box, a 6-ft alley, and a large goal box. start box and alley are painted gray; the goal box is black. The experiment was run in two replications which differed only with respect to the use of an intermittent buzzer beginning 7 sec before the floor of the upper level of the start box dropped depositing the' rat on the grid floor in the lower half of the start box. This variable had no effect on escape performance, so the two replications were combined.The Ss were handled for two days. On the third day the escape response was shaped by: (1) two trials with start box connected directly to goal box; (2) three trials with 2-ft segment between start and goal boxes; (3) three trials with 4-ft segment; (4) two trials with the full alley. Shock was 45 V for the first five trials and 50 V for the last five trials. Two Ss were discarded for difficulty in handling and one for experimental error during shaping prior to assignment of Ss to groups. The surviving Ss were 22 female hooded rats 81-85 days old when shaped. They were roughly matched in pairs on the basis of speed in running the first 4 ft of the alley on the last shaping trial, then one of each pair was randomly asSigned to each group. On the next day, the control Psycbon.

Partial punishment schedules (20% or 50% trials punished) are as effective as 100% punishment in generating and maintaining self-punitive behavior following avoidance training. If punishment is not continued. running extinguishes fairly quickly.After a ratlearns an avoidance running response, punishment given in the last section of the alley before the goal box is similar in some respects to the avoidance training shock. Given a few avoidance training trials, the animal is usually well on the way to the goal when shock onset occurs and the shock continues during the balance of the run. In the punishment case we have studied, the animal encounters shock 1 ft from the goal box and runs through the punishment zone to complete the trial. We have made use of the presumed similarity of avoidance training and punishment during extinction in predicting that self-punitive running will persist longer following avoidance training than following escape training (Beecroft & Brown, 1967). The first experiment reported in this paper was concerned with a related issue, the resistance to ordinary extinction without punishment which is produced by punishment training as compared to avoidance training. Insofar as punishment training is similar to avoidance training, comparable amounts of such training should produce equal resistance to extinction. EXPERIMENT 1 MethodThe runway and the avoidance training procedures have been described previously (Beecroft, Bouska, & Fisher, 1967). All Ss, female hooded rats 84-94 days old, were trained to one avoidance with a 3 sec avoidance interval. One group of 20 Ss was given 10 more avoidance training trials. The number of additional shocks received by the avoidance Ss ranged from 0 to 7 with a mean of 3.4. The other group of 20 Ss was given punishment training for 10 trials. The punishment was a55 V shock applied in thelastlftofthealley. After receiving either avoidance or punishment training for 10 trials, shock was discontinued for all Ss. The extinction criterion was 60 sec without entering the goal box. A maximum of 100 extinction trials was permitted, although no S approached this limit in Experiment 1. Four Ss were discarded. One did not reach the goal on the first avoidance training trial, one was lost because of an equipment breakdown, and two Ss extinguished during punishment training. ResultsThe Ss given extended avoidance training showed slightly more resistance to extinction than the punishment-trained Ss. The respective means were 23.5 and 17.5 trials completed; medians were 20 and 12.5. The difference between the means was not statistically significant. The resistance to extinction displayed by these groups is somewhat greater than that of Ss who are ex-