Effects of repeated exposure to escalating versus constant punishment intensity on response allocation

Abstract

The present experiment investigated the effects of 1) repeated exposures to escalating punishment intensities and 2) repeated exposure to punishment after periods of vacation on response allocation between punished and unpunished responding in three groups of rats. The first group (intensity + vacation) experienced repeated exposures to escalating punishment intensities after a period of vacation (i.e., return to baseline) from punishment. The second group (intensity‐only) experienced repeated exposures to escalating punishment intensities without vacation from punishment. The third group (vacation‐only) experienced repeated exposures to a constant punishment intensity after a period of vacation from punishment. Results showed that superimposition of punishment on one of two concurrently available responses decreased allocation toward the punished response and increased allocation toward the unpunished response. Furthermore, greater changes in allocation were observed with the introduction of a moderate constant intensity than with the introduction of a low intensity that increased across sessions. Reexposure to punishment had different effects between the groups. Although there was evidence that high shock intensities can enhance the efficacy of lower intensities to shift allocation away from the punished response and toward the unpunished response, there was little evidence of changes in response allocation with reintroduction of punishment after a period of vacation.

Prolegomena to any future philosophy of behavior analysis as a science

“…For example, we know too little about the effects of schedules of punishment. Such research still appears occasionally in our journals (e.g., Fontes & Shahan, 2022), but unlike other topics it is represented far less often than was once the case (Catania, 2008). Yet the news of the day tells us that aversive contingencies are common at every level from homes and schools to local communities through politics and all the way up to nations and international organizations.…”

A concurrently available negative reinforcer robustly decreases cocaine self-administration in male and female rats

“…Experiment 3: Effect of response requirement on cocaine-vs-negative reinforcer choice. Experiment 3 systematically manipulated the response requirement (1,2,4,8,16) for the negative reinforcer using a between-day progressive-ratio (PR) schedule for five consecutive days. Shock magnitude (0.7 mA), and cocaine dose (1.8 mg/kg/inf), and cocaine response requirement (FR3) parameters were held constant.…”

“…Addictive drug use despite adverse consequences in nonhumans has commonly been studied by pairing a self-administered intravenous drug infusion with a putative aversive stimulus, such as electric shock. Studies in both rodents and nonhuman primates consistently report that electric shock functions as a positive punisher and decreases cocaine self-administration under a broad range of experimental conditions [5][6][7][8]. Of particular interest, some studies report decreased sensitivity of cocaine selfadministration to punishment after a history of extended cocaine self-administration, suggesting that extended access cocaine might reveal an "addiction phenotype" of continued drug use despite adverse consequences [9][10][11].…”