On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

Although response‐dependent shock often suppresses responding, response facilitation can occur. In two experiments, we examined the suppressive and facilitative effects of shock by manipulating shock intensity and the interresponse times that produced shock. Rats' lever presses were reinforced on a variable‐interval 40‐s schedule of food presentation. Shock followed either long or short interresponse times. Shock intensity was raised from 0.05 mA to 0.4 mA or 0.8 mA. Overall, shock contingent on long interresponse times punished long interresponse times and increased response rates. Shock contingent on short interresponse times punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates. In Experiment 1, raising the range of interresponse times that produced shock enhanced these effects. In Experiment 2, the effects of shock intensity depended on the interresponse times that produced shock. When long interresponse times produced shock, low intensities increased response rates. High intensities decreased response rates. When short interresponse times produced shock, high shock intensities punished short interresponse times and decreased response rates more than low intensities. The results may explain why punishment procedures occasionally facilitate responding and establish parameters for future studies of punishment.