Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

1961, Vol. 54, No. 6, 7J6-720

PUNISHMENT AND PRESHOCK AS DETERMINANTS
OF BAR-PRESSING BEHAVIOR
1
ALAN BARON AND JOSEPH J. ANTONITIS
University of Maine
One variable that has been neglected in
studies of punishment is the degree of prior
contact that the 5 may have had with the
punishing stimulus. The hypothesis that the
effectiveness of a punishing stimulus may be
altered by pre-e.xposure to such stimulation
was suggested by recent reports of improved
escape and avoidance learning (Baron, Brook-
shire, & Littman, 1957) and more rapid fear
conditioning (Kurtz & Pearl, 1960) fol l owi ng
exposure to inescapable electric shock.
In attempting to account for their findings,
Baron et al. (1957) proposed that preshock
experiences result in increasing resistance to
the emotionalizing effects of shock, thus
permitting more integrated behavior when
shock is again encountered. Kurtz and Pearl
(1960), however, suggested the contrary hy-
pothesis that preshock experiences result in
generalized fear states which ". . . predispose
5s to react with increased fear in subsequent
encounters with aversive stimuli" (p. 206).
Although both hypotheses imply that pre-
shock experience may be an important de-
terminant of the efficacy of such stimulation
when employed as punishment, the former
hypothesis suggests that preshock will reduce
any subsequent depressive effects of punish-
ment upon operant behavior while the latter
hypothesis suggests that preshock will in-
crease such effects.
The present study was designed to test the
predictions of these divergent hypotheses by
observing the consequences of various com-
binations of preshock and punishment upon
the unconditioned bar-pressing behavior of
mice. This particular response was chosen
in order to obtain needed evidence of the
consequences of punishment on a response
of relatively low strength; prior studies of
punishment effects have characteristically in-
1
This research was supported, in part, by Grant
R625-DY from the Wilson Coe Research Fund. The
technical assistance of G. W. Barnes is also grateful l y
acknowledged.
volved strongly established habits (e.g., Azrin,
1959, 1960; Estes, 1944).
METHOD
Subjects
Twenty-four experimentally naive male mice of the
CS7 Black Subline 6 strain served as 5s. Four additional
animals were discardedtwo because they did not
attain a predetermined response criterion and two in
order to equate the number of 5s in each group.
Animals were received f rom the supplier when they
were about eight weeks old, and the experiment proper
was begun 10 days later. Before and during the course
of the experiment 5s were housed in pairs in standard
laboratory mouse boxes with free access to food and
water.
A pparatus
The apparatus in which preshock took place con-
sisted of two identical boxes, 6 in. long, 4 in. high, and
4 in. wide, mounted in tandem on supports so that they
could be rotated simultaneously through 90. When
these boxes were in the "no-shock" position, clear-glass
sliding panels formed the tops, and grids (i-in. brass
rods set f-in. apart) formed the front walls. The floors,
rear walls, and side walls of the boxes were wood panels
painted black. Shocking of the 5s was accomplished by
rotating the cages through 90, causing the 5s to slide
or drop on the grid which now formed the floor. As
dictated by the procedure, the grid of one of the boxes
was charged with current from an Applegate, Model
228, constant-current stimulator.
Bar-pressing behavior was observed in four identical
wooden test boxes, 4 in. long, 4 in. wide, and 6 in. high
on the insides, with hardware cloth floors. The interior
walls were painted white. Dim illumination within
the boxes was provided from 7J-w. frosted-glass lamps
operated at reduced voltage (30 v.) above 3-in. squares
of frosted glass inset in the ceilings. Positioned at the
midline of one wall of each box, in. above the floor
and extending jin. into the box through a small slot,
was a T-shaped aluminum bar whose cross piece
measured 2 in. A downward pressure upon the bar of
about 2 gm. , through an excursion of A in., closed a
snap-action switch and denned a bar-press response.
The lower portion of the walls from which the bars
protruded was reinforced with Plexiglas (painted white)
to discourage gnawing at the bar slot. Punishment for
bar pressing could be administered f rom the constant-
current stimulator when 5 simultaneously contacted
the mesh floor of the test box and the bar.
The number of bar presses was recorded at 1-min.
intervals on printing counters, and the total time that
716
BAR-PRESSING DETERMINANTS
717
the bar remained depressed during each test period
was read to the nearest .005 rain, f rom self-starting
electric time meters. All recording and programing
equipment was located in a room adjoining the test
room, and extraneous noise was masked by the con-
tinuous noise of an electric fan within the test room
itself.
Procedure
Six mice were randomly assigned to each of f our
groups: a preshock-punishmenl group (PS-PN), a
preshock-no-punishment group (PS-NPN), a no-
preshock-punishment group (NPS-PN), and a control
group that was neither preshocked nor punished
(NPS-NPN).
Preshock was administered on the day before the
first bar-press test day. Preshocked and nonpreshocked
5s were handled identically except for exposure to the
shock itself. The preshock procedure involved placing a
member of one of the preshocked groups (PS-PN or
PS-NPN) and a member of one of the nonpreshocked
groups (NPS-PN or NPS-NPN) in each of the two
compartments of the shocking apparatus. The appa-
ratus was then rotated gently through 90 so that both
5s dropped upon their respective grids. The grid of the
compartment containing the preshocked 5 was charged
with a 1-ma. (peak amperage) electric current while the
grid of the compartment containing the nonpreshocked
5 was always uncharged. After an interval of 1 to 2
sec., the apparatus was returned to the upright position
so that both 5s fell off their respective grids onto the
wooden floors, thus completing the trial. This procedure
was repeated for a total of 18 trials at intervals of about
10 sec. The shock reliably elicited squealing, jumping,
and agitated running by the preshocked 5s on every
trial.
The bar-pressing behavior of each 5 was observed
daily for 17 consecutive days, 30 min. per day. Four 5s
were tested simultaneously during each J-hr. period,
one from each of the four experimental groups, so that
there were six daily replications. From day to day, 5s
were systematically rotated among the four test boxes.
Testing took place in the morning, and each 5 was
observed at about the same time each day.
The punishment condition was introduced on Test
Days 1 and 2. On these two days complete depression
of the bar by members of the two punished groups
(PS-PN and NPS-PN) resulted in the application of a
1-ma. (peak amperage) electric current through the
floor of the test box and the response bar. The 5s
experienced the shock only so long as the bar remained
in the depressed position and they were in simultaneous
contact with both the floor and the bar. On Test Days
1 and 2, members of the nonpunished groups (PS-NPN
and NPS-NPN) were never punished in the test boxes.
From Day 3 through Day 17 the punished and non-
punished 5s were observed under identical conditions,
i.e., bar-press responses were not associated with
punishment.
RESULTS
The median number of bar-press responses
made on each of the 17 days of the experi-
ment is shown in Figure 1. Similar curves for
median bar-press times, i.e., time that the
bar remained in the depressed position, are
presented in Figure 2. The median was used
to describe the data because the daily distribu-
tions of scores were often markedly skewed.
The figures show that the control group
(NPS-NPN) responded at a stable daily rate
following a decrease from an initially high
level on the first test day. In contrast, the three
groups that were exposed to the various com-
binations of preshock and punishment were
beneath the control-group level during the
early days of testing, but, as daily testing con-
tinued, tended to approach the level of the
control group. Inspection of the curves also
suggests that recovery was most rapid in the
PS-NPN Group, slightly less so in the PS-PN
Group, and slowest of all in the NPS-PN
Group.
Group differences attributable to punish-
ment or preshock were evaluated by comparing
frequency and time scores at four points during
the course of the experiment: on the two
punishment days (Day 1 and 2), and then,
in 5-day intervals during the 15 postpunish-
ment days (Days 3-7, Days 8-12, and Days
13-17). Marked intergroup differences in
variability and distribution form necessitated
the use of a nonparametric statistic (Mann-
Whitney U test). Since only a priori hypotheses
were tested, the p values reported below are
for one-sided hypotheses.
GROUPS
OO PRESHOCK-PUNISHMENT (PS-PNJ
O---0 PRESHOCK-NO PUNISHMENT (PS-NPN) -
NOPRESHOCK-PUNISHMENT (NPS-PN)
NO PRESHOCK-NO PUNISHMENTINPS-NPN)
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17
SUCCESSIVE DAYS
FIG. 1. Median numbers of bar-press responses
made by each group during each of 17 daily test sessions.
(Members of the PS-PN and the NPS-PN Groups were
punished for each bar-press response on Days 1 and 2.)
718 ALAN BARON AND JOSEPH J. ANTONITIS
The statistical analyses confirmed the im-
mediate and delayed effects of punishment
apparent in the response curves. The combined
punished groups (PS-PN and NPS-PN)
showed lower bar-press frequencies and times
than the combined nonpunished groups (PS-
NPN and NPS-NPN), not only on the two
punishment days (p < .001 for both frequency
and time), but also for at least 10 days after
the punishment contingency was removed
(p at least .05 in all comparisons). By Days
13 to 17, however, punishment was no longer
a significant determinant of bar-press fre-
quency or time. The statistical analyses also
suggested the presence of an interaction be-
tween preshock and punishment. Compari-
sons of the two nonpunished groups (PS-NPN
vs. NPS-NPN) indicated that preshock de-
pressed response time and frequency on the
2 punishment days (p = .05 for both fre-
quency and time) and for the next 5 days as
well (p < .05 for both frequency and time).
Comparison of the two punished groups
(PS-PN vs. NPS-PN) indicated, by contrast,
that preshock facilitated unconditioned bar
pressing when this response was punished.
Although the difference between the PS-PN
Group and the NPS-PN Group was slight on
the two punishment days, differences in rates
of recovery were apparent on Days 3 to 7,
when the PS-PN Group exceeded the NPS-PN
Group in response frequency (p = .066) and
response time (p < .05).
1.25 -
O OPRESHOCK-PUNISHMENT (PS-PN)
O--OPRESHOCK- NOPUNISHMENT (PS- NPN) ]
NO PRESHOCK-PUNISHMENT (NPS-PN) -
NO PRESHOCK-NO PUNISHMENT (NPS NPN
.00
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17
SUCCESSIVE DAYS
FIG. 2. Median times that the bar remained de-
pressed for each group during each of 17 daily test
sessions. (Members of the PS-PN and the NPS-PN
Groups were punished for each bar-press response on
Days 1 and 2.)
600
co
u
$500
UJ
cr
Q_
a:
<
CD
400
300
200
100
GROUPS
O O PS- PN
O--0 PS- NPN
NPS- PN
- NPS- NPN
I 2 3 4 5 6
SUCCESSIVE 5-MIN. PERIODS
FIG. 3. Total numbers of bar-press responses made
by each group during successive 5-min. periods pooled
for the total of 17 daily test sessions.
The preceding analyses of inlersession per-
formance of the four groups considered to-
gether indicate that (a) punishment had a
depressant effect upon unconditioned bar
pressing regardless of the inclusion or omission
of the preshock variable, and (6) preshock
had the opposite effects of inhibiting bar
pressing, when this behavior was unpunished,
but of facilitating recovery of bar-pressing
tendencies when bar-pressing behavior was
subsequently associated with punishment.
To obtain some idea of the effects of pre-
shock and punishment on intrasession bar
pressing, the number of responses made by
each group during each 5-min. segment of
the 30-min. test session was determined for
each of the 17 days of the experiment. Since
the shapes of these intrasession response-
frequency curves did not change in any major
way during the course of the experiment,
data were pooled over the total 17 days. The
pooled 17-day data in Figure 3 show that all
four groups responded at lowest levels during
the first 5 min. in the apparatus. The two
punished groups (NPS-PN and PS-PN) mani-
fested a continuous increase in responding
during the remaining 25 min. of the test ses-
sion. By contrast, the two nonpunished groups
(PS-NPN and NPS-NPN) attained a peak
of responding during the second 5-min. seg-
ment of the test period, then declined to a
point slightly above the initial 5-min. response
level during the remainder of the test session.
BAR-PRESSING DETERMINANTS 719
DISCUSSION
In accord with studies of the effects of
punishment on conditioned behavior (Estes,
1944; Skinner, 1938), punishment was found
to exert a similar depressant effect upon
unconditioned bar pressing. Furthermore, just
as studies of the punishment of conditioned
behavior have generally shown an eventual
recovery of the punished response following
removal of the punishment contingency, the
results of the present study indicated that the
effects of punishment upon unconditioned
behavior are also temporary. With continued
testing, punished 5s gradually approached the
level of the control group.
A major difference, however, between the
effects of punishment on conditioned and
unconditioned behavior is suggested by the
finding that the total numbers of responses
eventually emitted by punished 5s of the
present study fell considerably short of the
totals emitted by nonpunished 5s. This result,
while contrary to the virtually complete
recovery obtained when well-conditioned habits
are punished (Azrin, 1960; Estes, 1944; Skin-
ner, 1938), is somewhat similar to results
obtained by Estes (1944) when either in-
tense or prolonged punishment was applied
to a conditioned response. While punishment
of lesser intensity than that employed in the
present study may permit unconditioned com-
pensatory responding after removal of the
punishment contingency, the present findings
must be regarded as negative evidence with
respect to the hypothesis of an "unconditioned
reserve" of bar-press responses (Antonitis &
Baron, 1961).
A consideration of the intrasession perform-
ance of punished 5s suggests that recovery from
the depressive effects of punishment primarily
involved the extinction of conditioned emo-
tionality elicited by the test environment and,
in particular, by the response bar. The con-
tinuous increases in responding within each
daily session by nonpunished 5s indicates
both a reduction of the depressive effects of
punishment within each session and a spon-
taneous recovery of this depression from the
end of each session to the beginning of the next
one. By contrast, the two nonpunished groups
manifested increasing response rates during
the initial third of each session followed by a
gradual decline, a pattern of responding which
has previously led the authors to postulate
that unconditioned bar pressing may be self-
reinforced by the sensory consequences of this
activity, and that continued opportunity to
bar press within a single session results even-
tually in satiation of the 5s with the sensory
consequences of this behavior (Antonitis &
Baron, 1961).
A major finding of the present experiment
was that preshock depressed performance
levels of nonpunished 5s but reduced the de-
pression of performance levels when punishment
was associated with bar pressing. The depres-
sive effects of preshock upon nonpunished bar
pressing confirmed the result of a previous in-
vestigation which showed that the exposure to
inescapable shock may weaken subsequent
unconditioned bar-pressing tendencies (Baron,
1959). The further finding that preshock
decreased the depressive effects of later punish-
ment is in accord with the previously stated
hypothesis that experience with shock adapts
the organism so that the later disorganizing,
i.e., emotionalizing, consequences of shock are
reduced.
Although the present results and interpreta-
tion appear to conflict with those reported by
Kurtz and Pearl (1960), who concluded that
preshock enhances the later development of
conditioned fear, differences between their
study and this one may stem, in part, from the
behavioral indicators used to define "fear."
In the present study, fear was inferred from
the relative inactivity of the 5s (e.g., crouching
and freezing) in the presence of fear-producing
cues, while Kurtz and Pearl assumed that
fear was manifested in increased activity
directed toward escape from fear-producing
cues. The Kurtz and Pearl findings may,
however, be reinterpreted in terms of the
"inactivity" definition of fear by proposing
that the superior escape behavior of their
preshocked 5s, in comparison with nonpre-
shocked 5s, was indicative of a higher level
of activity and, hence, lower levels of fear
in a fear-inducing test environment.
Additional support for the adaptation in-
terpretation of preshock is provided by a
recent study (Kamin, 1960) showing that
preshock retarded the development of con-
ditioned suppression of food-motivated bar
720 ALAN BARON AND JOSEPH J. ANTONITIS
pressing. There is, however, also reason to
suppose that any adaptive process resulting
from experience with aversive stimulation
involves more than a simple change in sensory
thresholds since preshock does not appear to
alter "shock thresholds," i.e., the lowest level
of shock eliciting jumping or flinching be-
havior (Brookshire, Littman, & Stewart, 1960
unpublished).
Regardless of whether preshock brings about
subsequent adaptation to shock or heightened
sensitivity to shock, the results of the present
and prior studies show clearly that exposure
to aversive stimulation has significant effects
upon later behavior.
SUMMARY
The effects of preshock stimulation on the
later efficacy of electric shock punishment in
depressing unconditioned bar-pressing behavior
were studied in an experiment involving four
groups of mice which were either punished and
preshocked, preshocked and not punished, not
preshocked and punished, or not preshocked
and not punished.
Punishment was found to have a significant
depressing effect on unconditioned responding;
however, the unconditioned response rates
of the punished groups recovered toward
the level of the nonpunished groups over a
17-day series of daily bar-press tests. Pre-
shock and punishment interacted in a sig-
nificant fashion, namely, the not-preshocked-
not-punished 5s showed higher performance
levels than did the preshocked-not-punished
5s, but the preshocked-punished 5s showed
higher performance levels than did the 5s
that were punished but not preshocked. These
results were interpreted as showing that while
aversive stimulation (preshock) has a gen-
eralized depressing effect upon operant be-
havior, experience with such stimulation acts
to reduce its later depressing effect when such
stimulation serves as response-contingent pun-
ishment. It was concluded that the findings
support the hypothesis that exposure to
aversive stimulation results in an adaptive
process which reduces the emotionalizing and
depressing effects of such stimulation on later
occasions.
REFERENCES
ANTONITIS, J. J., & BARON, A. A test of the hypothesis
of an unconditioned reserve. /. comp. physiol.
Psychol, 1961, 54, 457-460.
AZ RIN, N. H. Punishment and recovery during fixed
ratio-performance. /. ex p. Anal. Behav., 1959, 2,
301-305.
AZ RIN, N. H. Sequential effects of punishment. Science,
1960, 131, 605-606.
BARON, A. Functions of CS and US in fear conditioning.
/. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1959, 52, 591-593.
BARON, A., BROOKSHIRE, K. H., & LITTMAN, R. A.
Effects of infantile and adult shock-trauma upon
learning in the adult white rat. /. comp. physiol.
Psychol., 1957, 60, 530-534.
ESTES, W. K. An experimental study of punishment.
Psychol. Monogr., 1944, 57(3, Whole No. 263).
KAMIN, L. J. A decrement in the acquisition of condi-
tioned suppression produced by prior experience
with shock. Paper read at Eastern Psychological
Association, New York, 1960.
KURTZ , K. H., & PEARL, J. The effects of prior fear
experiences on acquired-drive learning. /. comp.
physiol. Psychol., 1960, 53, 201-206.
SKINNER, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York:
Appleton-Century, 1938.
(Received September 6, 1960)