Self-punitive Behavior Research Articles

Self-punitive behavior: Differential effects of stimulus change on fear of preshock area cues

Two experiments investigated the effects of stimulus change on fear conditioned to apparatus cues in the self-punitive paradigm. In the first experiment, segment cues were changed in a preshock segment (the lower startbox or first runway segment) for half of the subjects (rats) prior to the start of 15 punished-extinction (PE) trials. Hurdle-jump learning following PE trials indexed the amount of fear elicited by cues in each segment. Of subjects tested in the startbox, subjects exposed to changed stimuli showed less fear than subjects exposed to unchanged stimuli. Subjects tested in the first runway segment did not differ as a function of stimulus change. In the second experiment, three groups were tested: The stimuli.were changed in the lower startbox, in the first runway segment, or were unchanged prior to the start of 15 PE trials. Half of the subjects in each condition with changed stimuli were tested in the preshock segment with changed cues, and half were tested in the preshock segment with unchanged cues. When subjects were exposed to changed cues in the startbox, fear of the changed startbox cues was significantly lower than fear of the unchanged first-segment cues. When subjects were exposed to changed cues in the first segment or to unchanged cues, the levels of fear conditioned to the various preshock cues did not differ. The results support the theory that the level of fear conditioned to apparatus cues during PE trials depends on the spatial/temporal relationship of the cues to shock onset (Dean & Pittman, 1991).

Self-punitive behavior: Strength of fear of startbox and third runway segment stimuli over punished-extinction trials

According to the learning theory interpretation of self-punitive behavior, conditioned fear is critical to the maintenance of self-punitive running. In this study, fear conditioned to startbox and third runway segment cues was measured before and after punished-extinction (PE) trials. After shock-escape training, 120 male rats were given 0, 5, 10, or 20 PE trials. Fear of segment cues then was measured in either the startbox or third runway segment using hurdle-jump performance as the index of fear. The results support the conditioned-fear explanation. As predicted, immediately following shock-escape training, no difference was found between the amount of fear elicited by startbox and third segment cues, but after five or more PE trials more fear was elicited by startbox cues than by third segment cues. Additional PE trials maintained, but did not increase, the level of conditioned fear of startbox cues.

Self-punitive behavior: Fear of different alley segments

According to the Mowrer-Brown hypothesis (Brown, 1969, Punishment and Aversive Behavior), conditioned fear is critical to the maintenance of self-punitive behavior. This study investigated the effects of midsegment shock on fear of different alley segments. Sixty male rats were given shock-escape training followed by 15 trials of regular or punished extinction. Animals were then blocked in one of the alley segments and allowed to escape by jumping over a hurdle into a safebox. Hurdle-jump performance indexed the level of fear of each segment. Fear of preshock segment cues was greater than fear of shock segment and postshock segment cues, and fear of first segment cues was greater for punishedextinction subjects than for regular-extinction subjects. The results support a conditioned-fear interpretation of self-punitive behavior.

Self-punitive behavior: An independent measure of fear of the startbox

The hurdle-jumping response was used as an independent index of conditioned fear to test differences in fear of the startbox predicted by the conditioned-fear interpretation of self-punitive behavior. Following shock-escape training and varying numbers of regular- or punished-extinction trials, subjects were dropped into the startbox with access to the runway blocked and allowed to escape by jumping over a hurdle into a safebox. All subjects learned to jump the hurdle. Subjects given punished extinction showed more fear of the startbox than those given regular extinction. Startbox fear increased with the number of punished-extinctinction trials up to a point and then decreased. The results validate the use of hurdle jumping as an independent index of fear and strongly support the conditioned-fear interpretation of self-punitive behavior.

Self-punitive behavior: Effects of number of massed acquisition trials and percentage of goal-shocked extinction trials

Using a massed trials procedure, rats were given 6, 12, or 24 shock escape acquisition trials in a runway, followed by extinction in which they received no further shock anywhere in the alley, or shock in the goalbox on 0%, 10%, or 100% of extinction trials. Results indicate that number of acquisition trials had no effect on run or start speeds during extinction. Percentage of shocked extinction trials did, however, affect extinction performance measures. In comparison with nonshocked controls, animals shocked on 10% of trials showed facilitation of extinction response measures. Extinction response measures for animals not shocked or shocked on 100% of trials were similar. The results further clarify what variables affect goal-shock-induced facilitation of extinction performance, and are discussed in the context of current theoretical interpretations of self-punitive behavior.

The paradox of persisting self-punitive behavior

The paradox presented by the “masochist” who persists in behaviors that are followed contingently by seemingly aversive consequences is analyzed. Prototypical data from infra-human experiments are evaluated for their bearing on two theories of self-punitive actions, one based on traditional stimulus-response principles, the other on cognitive assumptions. Although the label “self-punitive” is widely used, a question remains as to whether animals that react so as to bring about so-called noxious outcomes are properly to be described as “punishing themselves.” In an attempt to resolve this question, two major conceptions of punishment are evaluated as they apply to self-punitive studies. Neither conception is deemed adequate because of a lack of criteria for determining which events are aversive. A search for criteria of aversiveness eventuates in a completely relativistic view in which noxiousness and attractiveness are judged to be relational rather than absolute properties of events.

Self-punitive behavior in humans: Effects of a self-fulfilling prophecy

Human subjects were exposed to contingencies which programmed aversive tones (100 db). Two types of contingencies were employed: self-confirming (i.e., self-fulfilling prophecies), in which the aversive tone was occasioned by the prediction it was about to occur; and self-disconfirming, in which the tone was probable when subjects predicted it would not occur. Experiments 1 and 2 used a modified classical conditioning paradigm, and demonstrated that a self-confirming contingency maintained reliable self-punitive responding, i.e., subjects consistently predicted and therefore obtained tones on every trial. Subjects in Experiment 3 were instructed to express predictions continuously throughout four sessions to ensure adequate sampling of the various predictions. Subjects exposed to a self-disconfirming contnngency reliably evidenced awareness of the contingency in effect (judged by answers on a postexperimental questionnaire), whereas subjects exposed to a self-confirming contingency failed to show effective avoidance behavior or contingency awareness. Experiment 4 investigated free-operant self-punitive behavior, utilizing a single prediction response button, which subjects depressed repeatedly. Subjects were exposed to either periodic or aperiodic punishment schedules over as many as four sessions. In general, more persistent self-punitive responding was found in the groups receiving periodic punishment. The results from the four experiments show that self-confirming contingencies can effectively prolong self-punitive responding in human subjects. The findings are consistent with a blocking interpretation of self-punitive behavior, which asserts that when an aversive event is already predicted by stimuli in the situation (including temporal cues), the association between a response and punishment is impaired, and self-punitive responding is likely to be maintained. An integration of human and animal self-punitive research is proposed.

Effects of stimulus change in prepunishment alley segments on self-punitive behavior

Three experiments investigated the effects of stimulus change during extinction on self-punitive behavior. In Experiment 1, changing alley brightness cues in all three segments of the alley prior to extinction eliminated self-punitive behavior. That is, subjects given shock in the third alley segment during extinction did not differ from nonshocked subjects in alley speed or in the number of trials to extinction. In Experiment 2, with shock also administered in the third alley segment, self-punitive behavior was eliminated when the stimulus change was made in segment 1 or in segments 1 and 2 but was obtained when the change occurred in segment 2 or in the lower startbox. In Experiment 3, shock was administered in the second alley segment. Self-punitive behavior was not obtained when the lower startbox cues were changed but was obtained with stimulus change in the upper startbox or in segment 1. The results are consistent with an expanded version of the Mowrer-Brown conditioned-fear hypothesis.

Personality correlates of self-punitive behavior.

Personality correlates of self-punitive behavior.

Personality correlates of self-punitive behavior.

Personality correlates of self-punitive behavior.

Some effects of a buzzer CS and a novel buzzer on self-punitive running in rats

Self-punitive behavior was demonstrated in prepunishment speeds during extinction following shock escape training in a straight runway under buzzer-CS and under no-CS conditions. The buzzer enhanced punished running (shock in the last half of the runway) and nonpunished running. The buzzer did not significantly enhance self-punitive behavior, defined as the difference between punishment conditions with faster running for punished rats than for nonpunished rats. Introduction of a novel buzzer at the beginning of extinction enhanced both punished and nonpunished running relative to no-CS conditions but had no effect on selfpunitive behavior. Discontinuance of the buzzer CS at the end of acquisition eliminated selfpunitive behavior during extinction. The results were interpreted as supporting explanations of self-punitive behavior in terms of fear conditioning and conflict resolution.

Some effects of methylphenidate on self-punitive running in rats

Self-punitive behavior was demonstrated in prepunishment speeds during extinction following shock-escape training in a straight runway under no-dose, low-dose (1-mg/kg), and high-dose (10-mg/kg) methylphenidate conditions. Increased dosage enhanced punished running (shock in the last half of the runway) and nonpunished running. Self-punitive behavior, defined as the difference between punishment conditions with faster running or increased persistence under punishment conditions, was not significantly affected by the drug variable. The results were interpreted as compatible with conditioned fear interpretations of self-punitive behavior but nonsupportive of cognitive interpretations.

Some effects of type of auditory CS on self-punitive running in rats

Self-punitive behavior was demonstrated in prepunishment speeds during extinction following shock escape training in a straight runway under buzzer-CS and tone-CS conditions. Relative to the tone, the buzzer enhanced punished running (shock in the last half of the runway) and nonpunished running. These results extend the findings of Myers (1962), who reported better avoidance conditioning with a buzzer than with a tone. Self-punitive behavior, defined as the difference between punishment conditions with faster running under punishment conditions, was not significantly enhanced by the buzzer. These results do not support the suggestion (Delude, 1973) that self-punitive behavior may be uniquely affected by the use of a buzzer CS.

Self-punitive behavior: Nonreinforcement procedure of extinction

Two groups of rats were given escape training in an automated double runway. During a nonreinforcement procedure of extinction (no shock offset in the goal/startboxes), punishment was introduced to one group by increasing the alleyways’ shock intensity above that of the goal/startboxes. The other group was not punished. The results revealed that the punished group was more resistant to extinction. This finding enables a more direct comparison of results obtained under appetitive and aversive motivation conditions and supports the need for a motivational factor split.

Effects of percentage of goal-punished extinction trials on self-punitive behavior

Following 20 shock-escape acquisition trials in a straight runway, 36 female albino rats were given.5-sec shock after entering the goalbox on 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% of extinction trials. Relative to the 0% controls, all punished groups ran significantly faster during extinction but did not differ significantly among themselves. The results confirm earlier studies demonstrating self-punitive behavior using the goal-shock procedure and are consistent with other research in which intermittent punishment has been applied in the alley. Nevertheless, the results do not seem to be supportive of theoretical points of view that stress the critical importance of maintaining the eliciting stimuli and the reinforcing conditions that were present during acquisition.

The neurotic paradox and self-punitive behavior in humans

Human subjects learned a key-pressing response in order to avoid or escape shock. The reinforcement contingencies were then changed to punishment or to regular nonpunished extinction. The locus of shock onset and offset was systematically varied during the punishment phase. More subjects reported awarencess of the change in the nonpunished extinction group. By inference, the punished groups responded more, and thus the results appear analogous to animal studies on vicious circle, self-punitive responding. Discriminability of change from acquisition to extinction appeared to affect detection of the change.

Influence of amygdaloid lesions on self-punitive behavior in rats

Self-punitive or masochistic behavior describes a phenomenon in which, during the extinction of escape behavior, rats will leave a start box and cross an electrified shock grid to enter a goal. Rats need only remain in the start box to avoid shock, yet they persist in running into shock. In the present study this self-punitive behavior was eliminated by bilateral lesions of the caudal amygdala. Analyses of the running speeds indicate that the lesions left the pain inducing properties of shock intact, while decrementing the fear produced by shock. Evidence was taken as support for the Mowrer — Brown explanation of self-punitive behavior as a product of conditioned fear.

Startbox-goalbox confinement durations as determinants of self-punitive behavior

Two levels of confinement duration (5 or 60 sec) in either startbox or goalbox were factorially combined with presence or absence of shock during extinction of a runway escape response in a self-punitive paradigm under a spaced-trials procedure. All groups were equated for amount and temporal spacing of handling before and after each trial. Shocked rats were more resistant to extinction than nonshocked rats only when startbox confinement was short. When startbox confinement was long, shock facilitated extinction. Long goalbox confinement enhanced running speed for shocked rats, but only in the presence of shock. It was suggested that duration of startbox confinement affects strength of conditioned fear, with long confinement leading to its extinction.

Elimination of self-punitive behavior with a novel stimulus and safety signal.

After escape training in an alley, rats received either nonpunished (NP) or punished (P) extinction, During extinction, NP and P groups received (a) a novel tone in the startbox, (b) a tone in the start- and goalboxes (the tone had been presented in the goalbox to these subgroups during acquisition—safety signal condition), or (c) no tone. Punishment produced greater resistance to extinction than nonpunishment (self-punitive effect) only under no-tone conditions. The elimination of self-punitive behavior with novel tone and safety signal treatment is consistent with the hypothesis that self-punitive running is motivated by excessive fear.

Self-punitive behavior with changing percentages of reinforcement: The proper role of discrimination

Past research on self-punitive behavior has been interpreted as supporting a theoretical éxplanation based on a vicious circle rather than a discrimination hypothesis. Using rats, Melvin (1964) found that self-punitive behavior is not reduced when discrimination is aided by changing the percentage of shock trials from acquisition to extinction. This past research is inconclusive because it is based on a misinterpretation of what is the critical discrimination for extinction, namely the new response-punishment contingency. Using humans, the present study provides evidence that subjects can and do discriminate the change in percentage, but continue to show self-punitive behavior until they make the discrimination that responding results in shock rather than escape.