CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION, PUNISHMENT, AND AVERSION 1

Three experiments were conducted to assess the aversive properties of a visual stimulus in the presence of which one group of birds received response‐contingent shock (discriminated punishment) while a yoked group of birds received non‐contingent shocks (conditioned suppression). In Experiment 1, presentation of the visual stimulus contingent on key pecking reduced the response rate (conditioned punishment effect) for birds under the conditioned suppression procedure but did not reduce the response rate of birds under the discriminative punishment procedure. Non‐contingent shocks also produced greater suppression of responding maintained by positive reinforcement in the presence of a visual stimulus than did response‐contingent shocks. In Experiment 2, a greater shock intensity (2 mA) was used. All the differences between the two groups found in Experiment 1 were also found in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 demonstrated that response‐contingent shock did not result in a conditioned punishment effect even when positive reinforcers were unavailable during the discriminative punishment schedule. The exteroceptive stimulus that was paired with shock in the conditioned suppression procedure acquired the ability to punish behavior. The exteroceptive stimulus in the discriminative punishment schedule did not acquire this ability.