Effects of percentage of goal-punished extinction trials on self-punitive behavior

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

“…The results pertaining to the location of punishment are generally consistent with many prior studies in demonstrating facilitative effects from alley punishment (e.g., Brown, Martin, & Morrow, 1964) , but they are quite inconsistent with the fmdings of studies in which .5 sec of shock in the goalbox has been administered , just after entrance, as the punishment cond ition (Babb, 1980 ;Babb & Hom, 1971 ;Hom & Babb, 1975;Matthews & Babb , 1978) . In all of the latter studies, responding was facilitated by goal punishm ent , not suppressed.…”

“…However, much of the research so far reported has focused on the manipulation of aversive conditions in the start box and alley. Departing from that emphasis , and possibly from the self-punitive paradigm itself, there are a number of studies (Babb, 1963;Babb, 1980;Babb & Hom, 1971;Hom & Babb, 1975 ;Matthews & Babb, 1978) in which shock has been applied in the goalbox during extinction, with effects similar to those obtained when punishment is applied in the alley. Since these results did not seem consistent with a reinforcement interpretation, it was suggested that conditioned aversive stimuli may have a behavior-directing capacity as well as an energizing one (Babb, 1980).…”

Retardation of extinction of an escape response by prolonged, intense goal box shock.

“…Babb (1963), Campbell et al (1966), Kintz and Bruning (1967), and Seligman and Campbell (1965), using relatively long goal shocks (2 sec or longer) found that resistance to extinction was not increased and in some cases was decreased. However, Babb and Horn (1971), Horn and Babb (1975), Matthews andBabb (1978), andBabb, Kostyla, andBennett (1980) did find that extinction could be prolonged by relatively short shocks (1 sec or less) introduced into the goal box during extinction.…”

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

“…Earlier research, using a spaced trials procedure and goal-shock on 100% of extinction trials, indicated that number of acquisition trials does affect extinction performance, with greater facilitation associated with larger numbers of acquisition trials . Moreover, it has been demonstrated with both spaced and massed trials that percentage of shocked extinction trials affects extinction performance, with higher percentages of goal-shocked trials leading to suppression when a massed trials procedure is used (Meeker, Babb, & Matthews , 1980) and to facilitation when a spaced trialsprocedure is used (Matthews & Babb , 1978). Low percentages of goal-shocked extinction trials lead to facilitation regardless of whether a massed or spaced trials procedure is utilized (Babb et al, 1987).…”