Punishment shock intensity and basal skin resistance.
High-intensity punishment stops behavior for a moment, but the behavior comes right back.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults without disabilities pressed a button for money. Every tenth press also gave them a brief electric shock. The team turned the shock up in small steps across sessions. They watched how button pressing and skin-sweat levels changed.
What they found
Stronger shocks slowed pressing at first. By the next session, most people were pressing almost as fast as before. Skin-sweat jumped when the shock got stronger, then also settled back down. High pain did not keep the behavior away for long.
How this fits with other research
Sailor (1971) repeated the plan with pigeons and saw the same quick bounce-back. The pattern is real across species.
Appel (1968) went further and showed that recovery time does grow a little with higher shock, but only while the shock is still coming. Once shock stops, behavior climbs back fast. The early worry that “more pain equals lasting stop” is only half true.
Reynolds (1968) added a twist: if the shock comes even a few seconds late, you need much higher intensity to get the same brief pause. Timing matters more than strength.
Why it matters
If you use punishment in treatment, know that intensity buys you only a short break. The behavior will return unless you teach a replacement skill or add reinforcement for the right response. Use the quiet moment to build what you want, not to celebrate victory.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After any brief punishment procedure, immediately reinforce a replacement behavior before the problem response returns.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The relationship between punishment shock intensity and basal skin resistance (BSR) was investigated in two sessions with human females selected for their ability to maintain a fairly substantial operant rate under a wide range of shock intensities. In both sessions each button-pressing response was reinforced with a counter tally. Subjects were paid one cent for each 20 counts. In session 1, punishment followed each response during alternate 4-min periods; in session 2 punishment was programmed in all 4-min periods. Shock intensities were presented randomly among the 4-min shock periods, with the restriction that the first three presentations occurred in ascending order. Operant responding showed some suppression at higher shock intensities in session 1, with substantial recovery in most subjects during session 2. Respondent behavior was characterized by greater activity at successively higher intensities, with recovery at all shock levels, especially the lowest levels, apparent during the second session.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1965 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1965.8-389