The Effects of Punishment on Avoidance Behavior

IMADA, HIROSHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.1959.8_27

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The above analyses, as well as the data reported by Smith et aI, are supported by the findings of two earlier studies (Imada, 1959;Kamin, 1959). Both Kamin and Imada used rats in a shuttle box, and both investigators reported that, in general, punishment inhibited avoidance behavior during extinction.…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

Punishment-induced facilitation: Comments and analysis

Martin

Melvin

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

Punishment-induced facilitation: Comments and analysis

Martin

Melvin

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three other studies, however, present evidence that the punishment-extinction procedure may produce more rapid extinction than the regular extinction procedure. Moyer (1955) found this result with rats in a straight alley, and Kamin (1959) and Imada (1959) found this result with rats in a shuttlebox. Thus, as in the case of punishment of escape responses, there is evidence that punishment-extinction is more effective, equally effective, and less effective than regular-extinction.…”

Section: Punishment Of Avoidance Responsesmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Seward and Raskin (1960) suggested that the shock intensity they used for punishment, 190 volts through 150,000 ohms resistance, may be too great to obtain a facilitation effect whereas the milder shocks of Gwinn, 60 volts and 120 volts through 250,000 ohms, might produce facilitation. Available data on variations of punishment intensity on negative instrumental responses, however, suggest greater facilitation as a function of increase in shock intensity (Gwinn, 1949;Imada, 1959). Using five levels of punishment intensity and a regular-extinction control group, Imada (1959) found that weaker shocks appeared to suppress responding more than stronger shocks, although response speed and number of responses to extinction were less under conditions of punishment-extinction than under conditions of regularextinction.…”

Section: Factors Affecting Punishment-extinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The varied effects of punishment on behavior.

Church¹

1963

Psychological Review

242

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The punishment procedure is one in which an aversive stimulus is contingent upon the occurrence of a response. Various theories of the mechanism through which punishment exerts its influence on behavior emphasize the unconditioned fear response, the unconditioned skeletal response, the escape response, the similarity between the conditions of punishment and the conditions of training, the correlation of response and punishment, and the possible sources of reinforcement for nonresponse. The major problem of this paper was to determine whether any of the proposed mechanisms, or a combination of them, are sufficient to account for the varied effects of punishment on behavior. A systematic examination of the data led to the conclusions that if an aversive stimulus is contingent upon a response there will be greater suppression (or less facilitation) of the response than if the aversive stimulus is not contingent upon the response, but that the aversive stimulus, itself, may result in response facilitation under some conditions and response suppression in others.

show abstract

“…The above line of interpretation is essentially the same as that attempted by the senior author (Imada, 1959) of the effects of punishment upon avoidance response. This interpretation, however, may have difficulty in accounting for the fact of "spontaneous responses" which are commonly observed during intertrial intervals in a free responding shuttling situation (e.g., Mowrer & Lamoreaux, 1942).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 80%