Punishment-induced facilitation: Comments and analysis

Abstract

A theoretical and methodological analysis of recent research (e.g., Smith, Misanin, & Campbell, 1966) was done in order to reconcile some divergent results. Varied effects of punishment of escape and avoidance responses were attributed, in large degree, to the location of punishment in the response sequence.

Self-punitive responding by goal-shocked rats.

“…Experiments demonstrating self-punitive responding have most often involved the use of a straight-runway apparatus with shock occurring in some intermediate portion of the alley during punishment trials (Brown, 1969). Studies in which shock has been applied in the goal box (Babb, 1963b;Eison & Sawrey, 1967;Kintz & Bruning, 1967;Seligman & Campbell, 1965) have failed to demonstrate self-punitive responding, and several theorists (Brown, 1969;Church, 1963;Eison & Sawrey, 1967;Martin & Melvin, 1966;Melvin, Athey, & Heasley, 1965) have emphasized the importance of the location of punishment in the response sequence with regard to f acilitative or suppress!ve consequences. Certainly, the weight of evidence at the present time suggests that punishment applied in the goal box is not likely to maintain responding.…”

The vicious circle phenomenon: A result of measurement artifact.

“…A review of the literature concerned with the effects of punishment contingent upon the completion of a learned appetitive or negative instrumental response supports such a common sense position (Holz & Azrin, 1963;Kamin, 1959;Misanin, Campbell, & Smith, 1966). Martin and Melvin (1966), however, have argued that while punishment contingent upon the completion of abient response may produce response inhibition, punishment introduced in an intermediate section of a response chain will increase the vigor and probability of the entire response sequence.…”

Effect of punishment: Facilitation or inhibition? A reply to Martin and Melvin

“…It is further cone luded that the experimental conditions leading to vicious circle behavior are not yet fully de lineated. This is a rebuttal to Martin & Melvin's (1966) critique of our recent paper (Smith, Misanin, & Campbell, 1966). Its aim is to substantiate our claim and to challenge a number of Martin and Melvin's conceptions of vicious circle behavior.…”