Response suppression as a function of the schedule of punishment

Camp, David S.; Raymond, George A.; Church, Russell M.

doi:10.3758/bf03328260

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increasing the intensity of a punisher, for example, can either enhance or degrade the efficacy of intermittent schedules, depending on other factors (e.g., Appel, 1968;Lande, 1981). Certain punishment schedules (e.g., VI) also have been associated with greater decreases in responding than other schedules (e.g., FR or FI; Azrin, 1956;Camp, Raymond, & Church, 1966), although the nature of this relation is complex (e.g., Arbuckle & Lattal, 1992) and appears to be influenced by the schedule of reinforcement that maintains the behavior (e.g., Bradshaw et al, 1977Bradshaw et al, , 1978Powell, 1970;Scobie & Kaufman, 1969).…”

Section: Schedule Of Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of conditioned punishers may enhance the likelihood of fading certain dimensions of intrusive punishers while treatment effects are maintained over the long run. Moreover, basic studies have found that response recovery is more gradual following the withdrawal of intermittent shock punishment than following the removal of other punishment schedules (e.g., Azrin et al, 1963;Camp et al, 1966). Thus, strategies to increase the utility of conditioned punishers and intermittent punishment for routine clinical practice also may promote the longterm efficacy of punishment.…”

Section: Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders

Lerman¹,

Vorndran²

2002

J of App Behav Analysis

212

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review basic and applied findings on punishment and discuss the importance of conducting further research in this area. The characteristics of responding during punishment and numerous factors that interact with basic processes are delineated in conjunction with implications for the treatment of behavior disorders in clinical populations. We conclude that further understanding of punishment processes is needed to develop a highly systematic, effective technology of behavior change, including strategies for improving the efficacy of less intrusive procedures and for successfully fading treatment.

show abstract

Section: Schedule Of Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders

Lerman¹,

Vorndran²

2002

J of App Behav Analysis

212

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another aspect of schedules of shock is the degree to which the distribution of shocks in time affects response suppression. Camp, Raymond, and Church (1966) suppression in rats that were exposed either to VI or fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of electric shock, witlh slhock frequency, intensity, and duration held constant. The group of rats exposed to the VI schedule of shock showed the greater degree of response suppression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons Between Variable‐interval and Fixed‐interval Schedules of Electric Shock Delivery

Hymowitz

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding maintained in rats under a variable-interval 35-sec food schedule was suppressed more by 60-sec and 240-sec fixed-interval schedules of shock delivery than by 60-sec and 240-sec variable-interval schedules of shock delivery. When the delivery of shock was preceded by a 5-sec visual stimulus, little overall response suppression was found with either fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules. In a third experiment, the percentage of occasions on which a cue preceded each shock delivery was varied from 0% to 100%. For the fixed-interval shock condition, the most suppression occurred with the 0% treatment, the least with 100%, and an intermediate amount with the 50% treatment. For the variable-interval groups, the most suppression occurred in the 50% condition, the least in the 100% group, and an intermediate amount with 0%.

show abstract

“…First, while shock intensity was high at times, shock duration was only 100 ms, which is relatively brief when rats are used as subjects. Other commonly used durations include 400 ms, 500 ms, and 1000 ms (Boe, 1966; Boroczi et al, 1964; Church et al, 1967; Camp et al, 1966; Seligman & Campbell, 1965). Second, although the shock schedule may have seemed dense, it was relatively lean when compared with previous research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suppressive and Facilitative Effects of Shock Intensity and Interresponse Times Followed by Shock

Everly

Perone

2012

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although response‐dependent shock often suppresses responding, response facilitation can occur. In two experiments, we examined the suppressive and facilitative effects of shock by manipulating shock intensity and the interresponse times that produced shock. Rats' lever presses were reinforced on a variable‐interval 40‐s schedule of food presentation. Shock followed either long or short interresponse times. Shock intensity was raised from 0.05 mA to 0.4 mA or 0.8 mA. Overall, shock contingent on long interresponse times punished long interresponse times and increased response rates. Shock contingent on short interresponse times punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates. In Experiment 1, raising the range of interresponse times that produced shock enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, the effects of shock intensity depended on the interresponse times that produced shock. When long interresponse times produced shock, low intensities increased response rates. High intensities decreased response rates. When short interresponse times produced shock, high shock intensities punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates more than low intensities. The results may explain why punishment procedures occasionally facilitate responding and establish parameters for future studies of punishment.

show abstract

Response suppression as a function of the schedule of punishment

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders

On the Status of Knowledge for Using Punishment: Implications for Treating Behavior Disorders

Comparisons Between Variable‐interval and Fixed‐interval Schedules of Electric Shock Delivery

Suppressive and Facilitative Effects of Shock Intensity and Interresponse Times Followed by Shock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About