Renewal after the punishment of free operant behavior

Abstract

Three experiments examined the role of context in punishment learning. In Experiment 1, rats were trained to lever press for food in Context A and then punished for responding in Context B (by presenting response-contingent footshock). Punishment led to complete suppression of the response. However, when responding was tested (in extinction) in Contexts A and B, a strong renewal of responding occurred in Context A. In Experiment 2, renewal also occurred when initial reinforcement occurred in Context A, punishment occurred in Context B, and testing occurred in a new context (Context C). In both experiments, behavioral suppression and renewal were not observed in groups that received noncontingent (yoked) footshocks in Context B. In Experiment 3, 2 responses (lever press and chain pull) were separately reinforced in Contexts A and B and then punished in the opposite context. Although the procedure equated the contexts on their association with reinforcement and punishment, renewal of each response was observed when it was tested in its nonpunished context. The contexts also influenced response choice. Overall, the results suggest that punishment is specific to the context in which it is learned, and establish that its context-specificity does not depend on a simple association between the context and shock. Like extinction, punishment may involve learning to inhibit a specific response in a specific context. Implications for theories of punishment and for understanding the cessation of problematic operant behavior (e.g., drug abuse) are discussed.

Figure 1

Results of Experiment 1. Mean responses per minute during each 30-min acquisition session in Context A (left) and sessions in which punishment was introduced in Context B (middle). The right panel shows the mean responses per minute during each 10-min test session in the punishment (Context B) and renewal (Context A) contexts. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Error bars are included to help interpret between-group differences, and are not relevant for interpreting within-subject differences (i.e., the context effect during the renewal test).

Figure 2

Results of Experiment 2. Mean responding per minute during each 30-min acquisition session in Context A (left) and sessions in which punishment was introduced in Context B (middle). The right panel shows the mean responses per minute during each 10-min test session in the punishment (Context B) and renewal (Context C) contexts. Error bars represent SEM. Error bars are included to help interpret between-group differences, and are not relevant for interpreting within-subject differences (i.e., the context effect during the renewal test).

Figure 3

Results of Experiment 3. Mean responses for R1 and R2 (lever or chain, counterbalanced) during each 30-min session of acquisition (left) and sessions in which punishment was added (right). Acquisition of R1 occurred in Context A and R2 in Context B; each response was punished in the opposite context. SEMs are not shown because all available comparisons are within-subject.

Figure 4

Results of the Experiment 3 renewal tests. Left: Mean responses per minute during 10-min tests in each context when both responses were simultaneously available. Right: Mean responses per minute during four 10-min tests in which each response was tested separately in each context. SEMs are not shown because all available comparisons are within-subject.