Escape conditioning and goal punishment: Effects of acquisition trials, initial punishment trials, and CS extent

1987

Self Cite

Using a massed trials procedure, rats were given 6, 12, or 24 shock escape acquisition trials in a runway, followed by extinction in which they received no further shock anywhere in the alley, or shock in the goalbox on 0%, 10%, or 100% of extinction trials. Results indicate that number of acquisition trials had no effect on run or start speeds during extinction. Percentage of shocked extinction trials did, however, affect extinction performance measures. In comparison

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Matthews

1987

Self Cite

“…In terms of the present experiment, aversive unconditioned stimuli, such as intense noise and shock, are presumed to energize behavior and to direct it away from their respective spatial locations. They also make conditioned aversive excitatory stimuli of the stimulus complex that is concurrently present with shock, including any formal conditioned stimuli, and those stimuli also energize behavior and direct it away from their respective locations (Babb, 1980 ;Babb, Kostyla, & Bennett, 1980). If the animals subsequently receive food in the goalbox, the startbox and alley stimuli that precede food should become conditioned appetitive excitatory stimuli and become attracting, but their initial repellant characteristics might retard that process in comparison with nonshocked controls .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response compatibility in transfer from aversive to appetitive training

Bulgatz¹,

1981

Self Cite

In transfer from shock escape to appetitively motivated training in a straight runway, 64 male hooded rats were ·given various pretreatments, or none, prior to transfer. With appropriate controls, running was motivated by high-intensity noise (120 dB) or shock (1 mA), by low-intensity shock (.2 mAl, or by a second-order aversive excitatory stimulus prior to the elimination of those stimulus conditions and the initiation of food reinforcement. In general, all of the pretreatments produced extended suppression in the transfer condition. Controls for latent inhibition indicated none was present. High-intensity shock reduced eating on initial food reinforcement trials, but the other aversive conditions did not. The results were interpreted as possible consequences of stimulus-directive effects.There is now a substantial amount of reasonably consistent evidence that transfer from aversive to appetitive training in the runway produces suppressed responding in the transfer situation in comparison with a procedure in which the prior aversive training is not given (Babb, 1963 ; Babb & Leask, 1969;Mellgren, Haddad, Dyck, & Eckert, 1976 ; Nation, Wrather, Mellgren, & Spivey, 1980;Stoffer & Babb, 1976). One important theoretical question is whether such effects are attributable to some form of response competition or to some more central incompatibility between appetitive and aversive stimulation (Dickinson & Pearce, 1977). While the molar response of running to the goalbox is the same for aversive and appetitive conditions, the molecular components could be different, and possibly competitive (Babb , Bulgatz, & Matthews, 1969) .One way to test for the effects of response competition would be to use an aversive stimulus other than shock , such as loud noise, on the presumption that noise would elicit kinds of component responding that could be different from those elicited by the application of shock to the feet of the animals. Another way of testing for response compatibility would be to use secondorder conditioning, on the presumption that any such conditioning produced by an "off-baseline" conditioning procedure and tested in the runway should be reasonably divorced from first-order response-eliciting effects. If suppressive effects were obtained from the second-order conditioning procedure , it would emphasize the generality of whatever process underlies the production of suppression, and it would also emphasize This report is based on a dissertation submitted to the University of Montana by Marvin G. Bulgatz in partial fulfillment of requirements for the PhD degree.the ability of second-order conditioning to produce effects that are transferable to instrumental responding in the runway . Accordingly, a noise CS was paired with shock, presented randomly with shock, or given without shock in a behavior-restricting apparatus, and then subjects were transferred to noise alone in the runway. To control for possible latent inhibition effects (Lubow, 1973), other animals were presented high-intensity noise, high-intensity s...

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If that is true, the presence of aversiveness in the goalbox could complicate interpretations of self-punitive responding (Babb, Kostyla, & Bennett, 1980;Brown, 1969;Dean & Pittman, 1991) but might help to elucidate findings in which small frequencies of goal punishment, with short ITIs, produce facilitated responding and longer frequencies produce suppression (Matthews Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Harold Babb, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. Babb, 1985Babb, , 1987.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal aversiveness after escape training with short and long intertrial intervals

1992

Self Cite

Different intertrial intervals (lTIs) may influence the aversiveness of the goal area in aversive training with one-way procedures. That possibility was explored. Albino rats were given 20 shock-escape runway trials with short or long ITIs followed by 5 extinction test trials with goalbox measures for latency to eat, climb out, and move onto a wood floor. Different measures produced different outcomes. "Time to eat" did not differentiate groups. Massed-trials animals were quicker to "move over" initially but slowed down over trials. Spaced and massed procedures did not produce initial differences on "climb out," but spaced-trials animals speeded up over trials and massedtrials animals slowed down. Results suggested that differences in ITIs did not generate major differences in levels of aversion in the "safe" area. ITI effects on performance may be due to differential effects on the conditioning process.Aversive training in one-way apparatuses versus single compartment and two-way apparatuses pose different problems with respect to the relative aversiveness of the conditioned stimulus (CS) context, and post-unconditioned stimulus (US) conditions. In a one-way apparatus, such as the straight runway, a typical procedure is to apply the CS and US in the context of the startbox and alley, follow this with a period of time in the "safe" goalbox, and then have the animal spend the intertrial interval (lTI) in a retaining cage dissimilar from the runway apparatus. Except for a short period in the startbox at the beginning of each trial, the US is consistently present with the CS, startbox, and alley, whereas the US is consistently absent during the goalbox and IT! confmement periods. In contrast, a typical procedure in a two-way shuttlebox is to present the CS and shock in one compartment, allow escape to an adjoining compartment for a period of time during which the CS and US are absent, and then reinitiate the CS and US in that same compartment, with subsequent escape back to the initial compartment. In this two-way procedure, not only is the "safe" period of confinement the same as the ITI, but the two compartments are altematingly aversive and safe.Despite the absence of the US in the goalbox and ITI periods in the one-way procedure, an argument can be made that those periods are not actually devoid of aversive influence. If that is true, the presence of aversiveness in the goalbox could complicate interpretations of self-punitive responding (Babb, Kostyla, & Bennett, 1980;Brown, 1969;Dean & Pittman, 1991) but might help to elucidate findings in which small frequencies of goal punishment, with short ITIs, produce facilitated responding and longer frequencies produce suppression (Matthews