Efeitos Permanentes versus Temporários da Punição: Uma Replicação Sistemática de Boe e Church (1967) com o Jato de Ar Quente em Ratos

Abstract

Punishment is typically defined as a reduction in the probability of a response class as a result of the consequence it produces. B. F. Skinner, among other authors, questions this definition because he considers that the suppressive effects of punishment are transient and result from a competition between responses rather than from a history of direct consequence as in positive reinforcement. This view is supported primarily by the second experiment on "negative reinforcement" of Skinner (1938) and the experiment "A" performed by Estes (1944). However, other studies, such as Boe and Church (1967), found a permanent suppression of the punished response throughout the experiment, even after removal of the aversive stimulus. One of the decisive variables for the different results was the type and intensity of the punishing stimulus used. In the search for other variables that may explain the difference observed between the forementioned studies, the present work replicates the study of Boe and Church (1967) using two different aversive stimuli: electric shock (used in the original study) and Hot Air Blast (HAB, a new stimulus). In addition to the differences between stimuli, different forms of data analysis, the same used in the previous studies, were also compared. It was used 21 experimentally naive male Wistar rats (Rattus norvegicus), 9 used in the experiment with electric shock and 12 were used in the experiment with the HAB. The Study 1 consisted of magazine (feeder) training, shaping and strengthening lever press response in a continuous schedule of reinforcement; strengthening lever press response in a FI - 4 min schedule of reinforcement; nine extinction sessions with a concomitant punishment schedule for the lever press response in FI-30s from minute five to twenty of the first extinction session for half of the subjects. The other half only experienced extinction. All subjects passed through response reconditioning. Data from this study showed that at the end of the last session of extinction, the experimental groups showed response percentages of 59,2% (0,5 mA) and 12,43% (1,0 mA), while the control group registered 70,16%. The suppression of responding in relation to the last reinforcement session was 40,8% (0,5 mA), 87,47% (1,0 mA) e 29,84% (control). The data are similar to those found in the study of Boe and Church. The Study 2 had the same experimental phases of the Study 1, differing only in the use of HAB instead of the punishing shock stimulus. Data from this study showed that at the end of the last session of extinction, the experimental group showed response percentage of 46,45% while the control group registered 63%. The suppression of responding in relation to the last reinforcement session was 53,55% (HAB) e 37% (control), which was consistent with the overall result observed in Study 1. Even using different analysis data of the other studies, there wasn’t a recovery responding to the point of equaling the frequency of the experimental groups to the control groups at the end of the extinction phase. However, when analyzing the results based on absolute data, we observed a recovery of both respond upon punishment as the matching of control and experimental groups.