Aversive Control: Avoidance and Punishment Notes

Aversive Control: Avoidance and Punishment

Chapter Preview

• Aversive stimulation controls behavior through avoidance and punishment.
• Avoidance increases target behavior, while punishment decreases it.
• Both minimize exposure to aversive stimuli.
• Theoretical analyses share concepts but are studied independently.
• Fear, pain, and disappointment influence behavior.
• Avoidance: Response prevents aversive stimulus (negative contingency).
• Punishment: Response produces aversive outcome (positive contingency).

Modern Running Wheel for Rodents

• Avoidance procedures increase instrumental behavior. Safety is achieved by doing something (active avoidance).
• Punishment procedures suppress instrumental behavior. Increased safety is achieved by not doing something (passive avoidance).
• Avoidance research focuses on theoretical mechanisms responsible for behavior whose consequence is absence of something.
• Punishment research focuses on practical and ethical considerations such as effective procedures and justified circumstances.

Avoidance Behavior

• Avoidance learning has been studied for about 100 years using lab rats and humans.
• Aversive stimuli include loss of points/money, white noise, computer game, and time-out.

Origins of the Study of Avoidance Behavior

• Avoidance study originated in classical conditioning.
• Bechterev (1913) studied associative learning in humans.
• Participants lifted finger from metal plate to avoid shock.
• Bechterev's method allowed participants to control the US delivery.
• Lifting finger in response to CS cancelled shock.
• This differed from Pavlovian conditioning where CR doesn't change US delivery.
• Brogden, Lipman, and Culler (1938) compared classical and avoidance conditioning: tone (CS) and shock (US) with guinea pigs in a rotating wheel apparatus.
• Classical conditioning group always received shock 2 seconds after the tone.
• Avoidance conditioning group avoided shock by rotating wheel during tone CS.

Figure 10.1

Panel B: Percentage of trials when guinea pigs moved the running wheel on successive days of training. Such responses prevented shock delivery for the avoidance group but not for the classical group. (From `The Role of Incentive in Conditioning and Extinction' by W. J. Brogden, E. A. Lipman, and E. Culler, 1938. American Journal of Psychology, 51, pp. 109-117.)

Discriminated Avoidance Procedure

• Avoidance behavior is not just another case of classical conditioning but the classical conditioning heritage of the study of avoidance behavior has greatly influenced its experimental and theoretical analysis to the present day.
• Investigators are concerned with the importance of the warning signal in avoidance procedures and the relation of the warning signal to the US and the instrumental response.
• Discriminated or signaled avoidance involves a warning signal.
• Avoidance trial: Response during CS prevents US (CS turns off).
• Escape trial: No response during CS-US interval, shock presented until response occurs; CS and US terminate.
• Early training: Escape trials predominate.
• Later training: Avoidance trials predominate.
• Shuttle box: Two compartments separated by opening.
• Animal moves between sides to avoid shock.
• Two-way shuttle avoidance: Animal moves in both directions on successive trials.
• One-way avoidance: Animal always starts on the same side, easier to learn.

Two-Process Theory of Avoidance

• Avoidance involves negative contingency between response and aversive stimulus.
• Absence of aversive stimulus is the reason responses occur.
• Mowrer and Lamoreaux (1942) questioned what "individuals get" in avoidance conditioning.
• Two-process theory (Mowrer, 1947; Miller, 1951): Two mechanisms are involved in avoidance learning.
• Classical conditioning of fear to the CS.
• Instrumental reinforcement of the avoidance response through fear reduction.
• Classical and instrumental processes depend on each other.
• Classical conditioning enables fear reduction.
• Avoidance responses are extinction trials for the CS.
• Classical conditioning makes possible instrumental negative reinforcement, but successful instrumental avoidance responding can result in extinction of the classically conditioned fear.
• Explains avoidance by escape from fear, not prevention of shock.
• Fear reduction reinforces instrumental response.

Experimental Analysis of Avoidance Behavior

• Research stimulated by efforts to prove or disprove two-process theory of avoidance.

Escape From Fear Experiments

• Classical conditioning of fear and instrumental reinforcement through fear reduction occur intermixed across trials
• Escape from fear (EFF) procedure: Condition fear to CS, then allow instrumental response to turn off CS.
• Esmorís-Arranz et al. (2003): Rats confined to shock side of shuttle box, received Pavlovian trials (tone CS, foot shock US).
• Delayed conditioning: US at end of CS.
• Simultaneous conditioning: US at same time as CS.
• Control group: CS and US unpaired.

Figure 10.4 EFF Experiment result graph

*After fear-conditioning phase, the rats were tested
for escape from fear. Each trial started with the rat
placed on the shock side with the CS turned on. If the rat moved to the other side within
a minute, it turned off the CS and was allowed to stay on the other side for 30 seconds.

Independent Measurement of Fear During Acquisition of Avoidance Behavior

• If fear motivates avoidance, they should correlate.
• Conditioned fear and avoidance correlate early in training.
• Avoidance persists without fear later (Mineka, 1979).
• Solomon et al. (1953): Dogs less fearful with proficient avoidance.
• Lovibond et al. (2008): Students conditioned with stimuli A (avoidance), B (Pavlovian), and C (control).
• Fear decreased for avoidance stimulus (A+), increased for Pavlovian stimulus (B+), remained low for control (C-).
• Avoidance behavior associated with low fear and danger expectations.

Extinction of Avoidance Behavior Through Response Blocking and CS-Alone Exposure

• Extinction usually involves disconnecting shock generator and allowing responses to terminate CS.
• Avoidance persists for a long time, like in Solomon, Kamin, and Wynne (1953).
• Most effective extinction involves CS exposure without US.
• Response blocking prevents premature CS termination.
• Flooding: Long CS exposure by blocking avoidance response (Baum, 1970).
• Schiff, Smith, and Prochaska (1972): Longer CS exposure leads to successful extinction.
• Blocking access to avoidance can facilitate extinction, even without increasing CS duration.
• Lovibond et al. (2008): Fear and expectancy returned during test trials when avoidance was blocked.
• Response blocking disconfirms shock expectancies (Lovibond, 2011).

Figure 10.6

Trials to an extinction criterion

Rats were trained to avoid shock in response to an auditory CS by going to a safe compartment. After acquisition, the safe compartment was blocked off by a barrier, and the rats received various amounts of exposure to the CS without shock. Different groups received 1, 5, or 12 blocked trials, and on each of these trials the CS was presented for 1, 5, 10, 50, or 120 seconds. The barrier blocking the avoidance. At the start of each test trial, the ani- mal was placed in the apparatus and the CS was presented until the animal crossed into safe compartment. Shocks never occurred during the test trials, and each animal was tested for this extinction criterion

Nondiscriminated (Free-Operant) Avoidance

• Two-process theory emphasizes warning signal (CS).
• Sidman (1953a, 1953b, 1966) devised free-operant avoidance without warning stimulus.
• Aversive stimulus occurs periodically without warning.
• Response provides period of safety.
• S-S interval: Time between shocks without response.
• R-S interval: Time between response and next shock; period of safety.
• Avoidance response resets R-S interval.
• Demonstrations of Free-Operant Avoidance Learning.
• Lejuez et al. (1998): College students avoided CO2 enriched air by operating a plunger.
• Responses per minute increases during contingency phase.

Figure 10.8 Rate of responding and rate of C02 presentation

*Lejuez, et al [1998]. Participants pressed the plunger to avoid shock. *

Alternative Theoretical Accounts of Avoidance Behavior

• Beyond two-process theory.
• Positive reinforcement, or neither negative nor positive reinforcement.

Positive Reinforcement Through Conditioned Inhibition of Fear or Conditioned Safety Signals

• Avoidance response produces stimuli (spatial cues, tactile cues, etc.) called response feedback cues.
• Safety-signal hypothesis: Safety signals accompany avoidance responses may reinforce behavior.
• Modified to include a distinctive stimulus (a brief light or tone) after each response to facilitate learning.
• Safety signals can provide positive reinforcement for the free-operant avoidance response.

Reinforcement of Avoidance Through Reduction of Shock Frequency

• Shock-frequency reduction: Avoidance prevents shock, reducing shock frequency.
• Alternative to two-process theory.
• Gardner & Lewis (1976): Animals learn avoidance even without reducing shock frequency.

Avoidance and Species-Specific Defense Reactions

• Bolles (1970, 1971): Aversive stimuli elicit innate responses (SSDRs) evolved for defense.
• SSDRs: Flight, freezing, defensive fighting, thigmotaxis, defensive burying, seeking dark areas.
• SSDR theory: Instrumental responses similar to SSDRs will be learned more easily.
• Rats rapidly learn to run in a wheel to avoid shock.

Predatory Imminence and Defensive and Recuperative Behaviors

• Fanselow and associates formulated the concept of a predatory imminence continuum (Fanselow & Lester, 1988; Fanselow, 1997; Rau & Fanselow, 2007).
• Different defensive responses occur depending on the level of danger faced by an animal.
• Preferred activity pattern Pre-encounter defense Post-encounter defense Circa-strike defense. Point of no return Recuperative string satiable. Predator detected Predator makes contact Predator makes the kill.

Expectancy Theory of Avoidance

• Expectancy theory: Encounters with aversive events trigger threat appraisal, generating expectations of future threat (or lack of threat) based on cues and responses.
• Studies of avoidance learning with human partcipants have generally confirmed predictions of expectancy theory. Explain why avoidance persists even with disabled shock generator.

The Avoidance Puzzle: Concluding Comments

• Theories offer creative answers about how no getting something is so powerful.
• Two-process theory, conditioned inhibition reinforcement, and shock-frequency-reduction reinforcement offer different views as to why.
• Predatory imminence gives insight during early-stage training.
• Expectancy theory is useful in dealing with the cognitive aspects of human avoidance behavior.

Punishment

• Society is greatly concerned about punishment.
• Punishment is used as a form of retribution for egregious criminal acts.
• Punishment is used to encourage adherence to religious and civil codes of conduct.
• What constitutes acceptable punishment in the criminal justice system, is a matter of continual debate.
• Thorndike (1932) and Skinner (1938, 1953) concluded that punishment was not an effective method for controlling behavior.
• Azrin & Holz, 1966; Church, 1963 challenged this.
• Punishment can be a highly effective technique for modifying behavior.

Experimental Analysis of Punishment

• Basic procedure: Aversive stimulus after target response.
• Suppression of harmful activities.
• Vorndran and Lerman (2006): Documented punishment in two participants with developmental disabilities.
• Experimental setup: Establish target response with positive reinforcement, then add punishment.
• Electric shock, a sudden burst of air, loud noise, verbal reprimands, a physical slap, a squirt of lemon juice in the mouth, and a cue previously conditioned with shock
• Other response-suppression procedures have involved the loss of positive reinforcement, time out from positive reinforcement, overcorrection, and manual restraint
• Time out involves removal of the opportunity to obtain positive reinforcement time-out chair suppresses behavior
• Overcorrection involves requiring a person not only to rectify what was done badly but to overcorrect for the mistake
• O'Donnell et al., 2000: College students pressed a response lever to obtain points that could be exchanged for money at the end of the experiment.

Figure 10.10 Response rates

O'Donnell, et al [200]. shows the effect of Baseline and Point Loss Sessions
*
*#### Point loss

*More intense and longer shocks are more effective in punishing responding (Azrin & Holz, 1966; Church, 1969).

Low-intensity punishment produces only moderate suppression of behavior. Even Mild punishment often recovers behavior

Spending a month in jail is not a disturbing experiencefor a repeat offender. who has become accustomed to shorter periods of incarceration

Factors related to punishment.

*Suppose an individual is first exposed to intense shock that results in strong response suppression. If the shock intensity is subsequently reduced, the severe suppression of behavior should persist.

Figure 10.11 Hypothetical data.

The effects of the strength of the initial punishment and effects on phase 2

Church, 1969)initial exposure to mild aversive stimulation that does not disrupt behavior reduces the effects of later intense punishment. By contrast, initial exposure to intense aversive stimulation increases the suppressive effects of later mild punishment

It is highly recommended to have a strong initial application in the punishment

Response-Contingent Versus Response-Independent Aversive Stimulation

• Response-independent aversive stimulation can result in some suppression of instrumental behavior
• Significantly more suppression of behavior occurs if the aversive stimulus is triggered by the instrumental response.
• Goodall, 1984) compared lever-press responding in rats in the presence of two different stimuli (a tone and a light).

Effects of Delay of Punishment

• Increasing the delay of punishment results in less suppression of behavior can make punishment totally ineffective.
• If you cannot punish the target response right away, you might as well not punish it at all.

Effects of Schedules of Punishment

• the degree of response suppression produced by punishment depends on the proportion of responses that are punished.
• Azrin et al., 1963)pigeons. Some suppression of behavior was observed even when only every 1,000th responsewas followed by shock*

Effects of Schedules of Positive Reinforcement

• target response is simultaneously maintained by a schedule of positive reinforcement alternative source of reinforcement is obvious.

Figure 10.15 Graph displaying the number of responses when the rat is expecting cocaine vs sugar.

One of the hall- marks of severe drug addiction is that the individual continues to seek and take the drug even if the addiction causes the person to lose his or her job, family, house, and health

availability of Alternative Reinforced Responses

• Punishment has dramatically different outcomes depending on whether the individual is able to obtain reinforcement by engaging in some other activity.
• the availability of an alternative responsefor obtaining positive reinforcement greatly increased the suppressive effects of *punishment.

Figure 10.16:
Cumulative record of
responding when the

Figure 10.16: displays response rates:

*1. When the behavior is not punished
*2. When the behavior has no other alternative for reinforcement
3. When behavior has an alternative method for reinforcement

Effects of a Discriminative Stimulus for Punishment

• Such a procedure is called discriminative punishment. With discriminative punishment training, the suppressive effects of punishment will come to be limited to the presence of the discriminative stim- ulus*

Punishment as a Signal for the Availability of Positive Reinforcement

• Experimental evidence suggests that individuals may seek punishment if positive reinforcement is available only when the instrumental response is also punished. In such circumstances, punishment becomes a signal, or dis- criminative stimulus, for the availability of positive reinforcement. When this occurs, punishment will increase rather than suppress responding*

Theories of Punishment

• In contrast to the study of avoidance behavior, investigations of punishment, by and large, have not been motivated by theoretical considerations*

The Conditioned Emotional Response Theory of Punishment

• One of the first theories of punishment was proposed by Estes (1944) and is based on the observation by Estes and Skinner (1941) that a CS that has been paired with shock will suppress the performance of food-reinforced instrumental behavior*

The Avoidance Theory of Punishment

• An alternative to the conditioned emotional response theory regards punishment as a form of avoidance behavior.

Dinsmoor:

-proposed that organisms learn to escape from the conditioned aversive stimuli related to the punished response by engaging in some other behavior that is incompatible with the punished activity*

Punishment and the Negative Law of Effect

• The third and last explanation of punishment that I will describe is also the oldest. Thorndike (1911) originally proposed that positive re inforcement and punishment involve symmetrically opposite processes*

Punishment Outside the Laboratory

• The circumstances under which punishment outside of a lab isn't as effective.
  Punishment is associated within poor family life with children and less likely to reward them for good behavior*.