MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS OF ESCAPE FROM PUNISHMENT.
Escape responses can become stronger than reinforcement, so always plan escape contingencies when using punishment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers tested how animals learn to escape punishment. They used electric shocks of different strengths. The animals could press a lever to stop the shock.
They also gave food for other responses. This let them see if escape was stronger than food rewards.
What they found
Stronger shocks made animals escape more often. The escape response stayed strong even when it meant losing food rewards.
Animals kept escaping even when the food schedule stayed the same. The escape behavior did not weaken over time.
How this fits with other research
STEBBINROSS et al. (1962) showed punishment works differently during reinforcement versus extinction. This study extends that work by showing escape can override reinforcement entirely.
Hake et al. (1967) found punishment effects scale with intensity in monkeys. This study confirms the same scaling happens for escape responses.
Kruper (1968) later showed punishment suppresses responses by the same percentage regardless of reinforcement rate. This seems to contradict our finding that escape persists despite lost food. The difference is C studied suppression while we studied escape - two different punishment effects.
Why it matters
When you use punishment procedures, plan for escape behaviors. The client may learn to run away, hit the device, or engage stop the program even if it costs them preferred items. Build in safe escape options before you start.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a safe escape response to your punishment plan before your next session
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Punishment and escape were studied simultaneously by allowing a subject to escape from a stimulus situation in which responses were punished, into a stimulus situation in which responses were not punished. The frequency of the punished responses was found to be an inverse function of the intensity of punishment, whereas the frequency of the escape response was a direct function of the intensity of punishment. Both of these functions were obtained under three different schedules of food reinforcement. The strength of the escape behavior was evidenced by (1) the emergence of the escape response even when the frequency of food reinforcement decreased as a consequence of the escape response, (2) the maintenance of the escape response by fixed-interval and fixed-ratio schedules of escape reinforcement, and (3) the occurrence of escape responses at intensities of punishment that otherwise produced only mild suppression of the punished response when no escape was possible. This last finding indicates that a subject may be driven out of a situation involving punishment even though the punishment is relatively ineffective in suppressing the punished responses when no escape is possible.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1965 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1965.8-31