SOME ASPECTS OF SELF AVERSIVE STIMULATION IN THE HOODED RAT.
Electric shock failed to stop bar pressing in a rat, showing punishment is tricky and often weak alone.
01Research in Context
What this study did
One rat. One lever. One shock grid. Every press earned food, but after a while each press also got a quick zap.
The team then turned the shock off for short stretches to see if the break would help the punishment stick.
What they found
The shock did not slow the rat down. Bar presses rose across sessions.
Only right after food delivery did the rat pause; seconds later it was pressing again.
How this fits with other research
Martinez-Perez et al. (2024) looked at dozens of newer punishment studies and found a mixed picture: punishment can cut the target response during treatment, yet resurgence still shows up later. Their meta-analysis updates the 1964 single-case result with human data and clear dose curves.
Saunders et al. (1988) moved the idea into a clinic. Two children with developmental disabilities had problem behavior. The staff recreated the scene after each episode as a delayed punisher. The behavior dropped fast. This extends the rat finding to real kids and shows punishment can work when it is arranged with care.
Jones et al. (1977) also used electric shock, but with squirrel monkeys. Shock there did not cut any behavior; it made the monkeys drink more. The same stimulus can lift, cut, or switch responses depending on species and setup.
Why it matters
Shock alone is a weak brake. If you plan to use punishment with clients, pair it with reinforcement for the right act, keep the dose small, and track resurgence later. The 1964 rat warns us that a quick zap without a full plan can backfire.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before adding any aversive, script a reinforcement swap and a data sheet to watch for resurgence.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three hooded rats were trained to bar press for variable-ratio liquid reinforcement after which an electric shock was delivered following the response. Initially, the shock was presented on a FR 100 basis but the frequency was gradually increased until all responses were punished. Finally, a partial extinction procedure was conducted to determine if the shock resulted in increased bar pressing. No durable suppression of responding occurred, although one subject's rate was reduced during continuous shock. The overall trend for the three animals was one of increased responding. Changes in the pattern of responding were also observed suggesting that the suppressive effects of the punishment were largely restricted to the first response following reinforcement. Increased responding as a function of shock reintroduction during extinction was also observed.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1964 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1964.7-409