Self-punitive responding by goal-shocked rats.

Babb, Harold; Hom, Harry L.

doi:10.1037/h0031891

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results pertaining to the location of punishment are generally consistent with many prior studies in demonstrating facilitative effects from alley punishment (e.g., Brown, Martin, & Morrow, 1964) , but they are quite inconsistent with the fmdings of studies in which .5 sec of shock in the goalbox has been administered , just after entrance, as the punishment cond ition (Babb, 1980 ;Babb & Hom, 1971 ;Hom & Babb, 1975;Matthews & Babb , 1978) . In all of the latter studies, responding was facilitated by goal punishm ent , not suppressed.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…However, much of the research so far reported has focused on the manipulation of aversive conditions in the start box and alley. Departing from that emphasis , and possibly from the self-punitive paradigm itself, there are a number of studies (Babb, 1963;Babb, 1980;Babb & Hom, 1971;Hom & Babb, 1975 ;Matthews & Babb, 1978) in which shock has been applied in the goalbox during extinction, with effects similar to those obtained when punishment is applied in the alley. Since these results did not seem consistent with a reinforcement interpretation, it was suggested that conditioned aversive stimuli may have a behavior-directing capacity as well as an energizing one (Babb, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Meeker

Babb

Matthews

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two different starting procedures, drop box vs . guillotine door, were used in giving 36 male rats 20 massed shock-escape trials in a straight runway. On subsequent trials, the animals encountered no shock at all, shock punishment in the middle 2 ft of the 4-ft alley, or shock for .5 sec immediately after entering the goalbox. The guillotine-door procedure produced faster running in extinction, alley punishment facilitated responding, and goal punishment suppressed responding. Results were interpreted in terms of stimulus-directive effects, as modified by massing vs. spacing trials.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Meeker

Babb

Matthews

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Babb (1963), Campbell et al (1966), Kintz and Bruning (1967), and Seligman and Campbell (1965), using relatively long goal shocks (2 sec or longer) found that resistance to extinction was not increased and in some cases was decreased. However, Babb and Horn (1971), Horn and Babb (1975), Matthews andBabb (1978), andBabb, Kostyla, andBennett (1980) did find that extinction could be prolonged by relatively short shocks (1 sec or less) introduced into the goal box during extinction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Retardation of extinction of an escape response by prolonged, intense goal box shock.

Anderson¹,

Crowell²,

Brown³

1982

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Assuming the US aftereffects constitute a component of the aversive response to shock, rather than an opponent reaction (Solomon & Corbit, 1974), they may add to any aversive tendencies in the goalbox and they may do so to a greater degree the shorter the interval between trials. Considering these various possible influences, an experiment was designed to test the thesis that the goalbox of a straight runway becomes more aversive when shock-escape trials are massed as compared with spaced, with those terms designating procedures used in prior relevant studies (Babb & Hom, 1971;Meeker, Babb, & Matthews, 1980). After 20 massed or spaced shock-escape trials, animals were given 5 successive trials without shock but with one of three test conditions present in the goalbox.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal aversiveness after escape training with short and long intertrial intervals

Babb

1992

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard 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

show abstract

Self-punitive responding by goal-shocked rats.

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Goal vs. alley punishment after escape training: Massed trials and startbox conditions

Retardation of extinction of an escape response by prolonged, intense goal box shock.

Goal aversiveness after escape training with short and long intertrial intervals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About