Random interval schedule of reinforcement influences punishment resistance for cocaine in rats

•Punishment resistance for cocaine is greater with RI60 schedule as compared to RR20.•Punishment resistance for food is greater with RI60 than RR20 in females, not males.•Male rats show more punishment resistance for food than cocaine.•Punishment effects on reward and response rate are dissociated for RI60 schedule. In an animal model of compulsive drug use, a subset of rats continues to self-administer cocaine despite footshock consequences and is considered punishment resistant. We recently found that punishment resistance is associated with habits that persist under conditions that typically encourage a transition to goal-directed control. Given that random ratio (RR) and random interval (RI) schedules of reinforcement influence whether responding is goal-directed or habitual, we investigated the influence of these schedules on punishment resistance for cocaine or food. Male and female Sprague Dawley rats were trained to self-administer either intravenous cocaine or food pellets on a seeking-taking chained schedule of reinforcement, with the seeking lever requiring completion of either an RR20 or RI60 schedule. Rats were then given four days of punishment testing with footshock administered at the completion of seeking on a random one-third of trials. For cocaine-trained rats, the RI60 schedule led to greater punishment resistance (i.e., more trials completed) than the RR20 schedule in males and females. For food-trained rats, the RI60 schedule led to greater punishment resistance (i.e., higher reward rates) than the RR20 schedule in female rats, although male rats showed punishment resistance on both RR20 and RI60 schedules. For both cocaine and food, we found that seeking responses were suppressed to a greater degree than reward rate with the RI60 schedule, whereas response rate and reward rate were equally suppressed with the RR20 schedule. This dissociation between punishment effects on reward rate and response rate with the RI60 schedule can be explained by the nonlinear relation between these variables on RI schedules, but it does not account for the enhanced resistance to punishment. Overall, the results show greater punishment resistance with the RI60 schedule as compared to the RR20 schedule, indicating that schedules of reinforcement are an influencing factor on resistance to negative consequences.