Experimental self-punishment and superstitious escape behavior.

The researchers punished bar-holding with brief shocks during escape training. They wanted to see if the shocks would stop the animals from holding the bar.

The animals could end shocks only by holding the bar. Then the same bar hold also produced a quick extra shock. The study kept this two-part setup running for many sessions.

The brief shocks did not reduce bar-holding. The animals kept holding the bar even though that choice brought thousands of extra shocks.

When the shocks became inescapable, the animals still pressed and held the bar. The escape response had turned into a superstitious habit that would not turn off.

Ulrich (1967) used the same shock-escape lab setup but changed the social layout. When a clear partition blocked fighting, escape stayed smooth. When the partition came out, fighting burst out and escape fell apart. Both papers show that extra events layered on escape do not always weaken the response.

Thompson et al. (1971) also used electric shock, but with turtles. Shock there produced threat and biting, a built-in defense pattern. MIGLELong (1963) shows that shock can also lock in an operant escape habit. Together the three studies map different ways aversive stimuli steer behavior.

English et al. (1995) looked at cost using unit price. As the price of opioid rose, consumption dropped. In MIGLELong (1963) the price of escape also rose because each response added a shock, yet consumption of the response stayed high. The findings do not clash; they simply show that escape maintained by negative reinforcement can resist added cost more than drug reinforcers do.

If you add a mild punisher to stop an escape behavior, the response may keep going. Check whether the behavior is still under negative reinforcement. If it is, strengthen the replacement or remove the reinforcer instead of stacking on more punishment.