EFFECTS OF PUNISHING ELEMENTS OF A SIMPLE INSTRUMENTAL‐CONSUMMATORY RESPONSE CHAIN¹

Abstract

Rats were trained to press a lever, with every response reinforced with water. After responding was established, nine rats were administered a brief shock after each lever press, and nine others were shocked after drinking. The two procedures resulted in similar suppression of responding, and examination of the latency data when responding was partially suppressed indicated that under both conditions response suppression was due primarily to an increase in the latency of the instrumental response, rather than to pausing between the instrumental and consummatory responses. Thus, punishlient following either the instrumental or consumnmatory component of the simple response sequence reduced the number of sequences initiated, rather than selectively suppressing the punished behavior.Changes in rate of responding for food or water in a simple, continuous reinforcement, free-operant situation may be due to variation in either the latency or the duration of either the instrumental response or the consummatory response. Thus, suppression of responding by punishment may be due to increases in the amount of time spent performing the instrumental response, between the instrumental response and the consummatory response, performing the consummatory response, or between the consummatory response and the instrumental response. Punishment could be made contingent upon any components of the behavior sequence, although in laboratory experiments it is almost always contingent upon performance of the instrumental response. It is possible that punishment of different components of the response sequence might have different overall suppressive effects in terms of the total number of response sequences completed, and also might differentially affect the durations of various components of the sequence.Solomon (1964) (1972), employing rats in a free-operant situation with a water reinforcer, found punishment of the first lick after a reinforced lever press produced more suppression of both pressing and licking than punishment of lever pressing. Church (1969), trained rats to press a lever in a chamber in which the food reinforcer was delivered to a cup mounted on the wall opposite the bar. After responding was established, some of the rats received a mild shock after each lever press, and others were shocked as they seized the food pellet. Both punishment conditions reduced response rates, and punishment of the instrumental response produced considerably more suppression of responding than punishment at the beginning of the consummatory response. DeCosta and Ayres (1971), employing a conditioned suppression paradigm, also found greater suppression of lever pressing than of the consummatory response, licking at a dipper. Feirstein and Miller (1963), reported that rats previously trained to run an alley for food, and then presented an intense shock at the middle of the alley on each trial, displayed more suppression than rats that were shocked after they reached the food. Two other groups 251 1973, 19,[251][252][253][254][255][256][257...

Differential vulnerability to the punishment of cocaine related behaviours: effects of locus of punishment, cocaine taking history and alternative reinforcer availability

“…Whereas our present results agree with those of Church ( 1969 ) showing that instrumental response punishment more effectively suppresses behaviour than consummatory response punishment and De Costa and Ayres ( 1971 ) showing that instrumental responses are more sensitive to conditioned suppression than consummatory responses, they differ from the results of other studies. Thus, Myer ( 1973 ) showed no difference between consummatory and instrumental punishment in their overall effectiveness in suppressing responding. In contrast, Bertsch ( 1972 ) showed that consummatory response punishment was more capable of suppressing behaviour than instrumental punishment.…”

Punishment of instrumental and consummatory responses with a hot air blast in rats.

“…In Church (1969) shock was administered when the rat inserted its head into the feeder (slightly before the contact with the pellet). In Bertsch (1972) and Myer (1973) the shock happened after the consummatory response was finished. Other technical differences prevent a direct comparison of these studies, such as the length of the response sequence or the intensity of the punishing stimulus (Bertsch, 1976), as well as the type of deprivation imposed on the organism (e.g., water or food), the topography of the consummatory response (Walters & Herring, 1978), the baseline schedule (Myer, 1973), or the length of the punishment phase (Church, 1969).…”

Preference for punishment of the instrumental or the consummatory response

“…First, there is a theoretical interest concerning whether or not biologically significant or intrinsically reinforcing responses are relatively more resistant to the effects of punishment than are extrinsically reinforced responses (e.g., Estes, 1969;Solomon, 1964). Second, there is concern with how best to punish a response chain or sequence (e.g., Church, 1969;Myer, 1973). Experiments that have directly attempted to ascertain whether punishment of the instrumental or the consummatory response more effectively suppresses ongoing behavior have generally produced conflicting results.…”

“…For example, Church (1969) and Walker, Popovich, and Derby (Note 1) concluded that punishing the instrumental response suppressed behavior to a greater degree than did punishing the consummatory response. Myer (1973) concluded that there was no difference between punishing these types of responses, while Bertsch (1972) found that punishing the consummatory response more effectively suppressed behavior than did punishing the instrumental response.…”

“…In some instances, the "consummatory response" is punished before the subject receives reward (e.g. Bertsch, 1972, Experiment 1;Church, 1969;Walker et aI., Note 1) and at other times, after the subject receives the reward (e.g., Bertsch, 1972, Experiment 2;Myer, 1973).…”