Suppressive and facilitative effects of shock intensity and interresponse times followed by shock.
The same punisher can speed up or slow down behavior depending on which response speed it follows.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Leaf et al. (2012) tested how shock intensity and timing work together. They gave small electric shocks right after certain lever presses in rats.
Some shocks were weak. Some were strong. Some shocks came only after long pauses between presses. Others came after quick, rapid presses.
What they found
Weak shocks that followed long pauses made the rats press faster. Strong shocks that followed quick presses made the rats press slower.
The same small shock could either help or hurt the behavior, depending on which presses it followed.
How this fits with other research
Poling et al. (1977) showed that strong, response-contingent shock can almost wipe out cigarette smoking in adults. B et al. extend that idea by showing the same shock can also speed up behavior if it lands on slow responses.
DARDANO et al. (1964) saw mixed effects when shock intensity changed inside fixed-ratio schedules. B et al. clarify why: intensity matters, but timing matters just as much.
Hineline (1970) proved that merely delaying shock can keep a lever press alive. B et al. add the twist: the delay must hit the right inter-response time or the effect flips.
Why it matters
When you use punishment or response-cost, think about which responses you tag. A mild consequence that follows slow, off-task behavior might actually make the child work faster. A strong consequence that follows fast, impulsive behavior can slow it down. Check your data: if the rate moves the wrong way, shift the contingency to a different response speed before you raise the intensity.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph each learner’s inter-response times, then deliver the consequence only for the speed band you want to change.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although response-dependent shock often suppresses responding, response facilitation can occur. In two experiments, we examined the suppressive and facilitative effects of shock by manipulating shock intensity and the interresponse times that produced shock. Rats' lever presses were reinforced on a variable-interval 40-s schedule of food presentation. Shock followed either long or short interresponse times. Shock intensity was raised from 0.05 mA to 0.4 mA or 0.8 mA. Overall, shock contingent on long interresponse times punished long interresponse times and increased response rates. Shock contingent on short interresponse times punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates. In Experiment 1, raising the range of interresponse times that produced shock enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, the effects of shock intensity depended on the interresponse times that produced shock. When long interresponse times produced shock, low intensities increased response rates. High intensities decreased response rates. When short interresponse times produced shock, high shock intensities punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates more than low intensities. The results may explain why punishment procedures occasionally facilitate responding and establish parameters for future studies of punishment.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2012 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-311