Avoidance of Timeout from Response-Independent Schedules of Food or Sucrose Water with and without a Limited Hold on Consumption

Holtyn, August F.

doi:10.33915/etd.4868

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, any changes in the avoidance response rate can be attributed to changes in the aversiveness of the timeout. Holtyn's (2012) results showed clearly that when time-in was enriched systematically, the timeouts became increasingly aversive, which engendered systematic increases in the avoidance response.…”

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Timeout's aversiveness is evaluated by assessing changes in behavior in either avoidance or punishment experiments (Leitenberg, 1965). Although reinforcement rate has been shown to be a controlling variable of timeout's aversiveness in avoidance experiments (Holtyn, 2012;Richardson & Baron, 2008), timeout's aversiveness in punishment experiments has not been sufficiently explored. Because of this lack of research, it has been difficult to assess whether reinforcement rate interacts with timeout aversiveness in similar ways across paradigms.…”

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This line remains the same across the three graphs. The timeout avoidance experiments (Holtyn, 2012;Richardson & Baron, 2008) and Fantino's (1977) hypothesis suggest that timeout should become increasingly aversive as the reinforcement rate is raised. Therefore, the falling dashed line represents the increasing aversiveness of the timeouts on response strength.…”

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major limitation of these studies is that comparisons were made between only two schedule values. Two later studies were designed to evaluate the function across a wider range of reinforcement rates, and they found that avoidance responding increased as the rate of reinforcement was raised, that is, they reported a direct relation between the rate of reinforcement and the aversiveness of timeout (Holtyn, 2012;Richardson & Baron, 2008). Richardson and Baron (2008, Experiment 1) delivered food pellets to rats independently of responding at variable times (VT schedule).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across conditions, the programmed rates of reinforcement were 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 6 pellets per min. If the effects of enriching the time-in environment in a punishment paradigm is parallel to the effects in studies of avoidance (Holtyn, 2012;Richardson & Baron, 2008), then suppression of responding in the punishment component should be a direct function of the reinforcement rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of Reinforcement Rate on the Aversive Function of Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Whirtley¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the use of timeout from positive reinforcement is widespread and has been shown to be an effective punisher in clinical settings, the factors responsible for its effectiveness are not fully understood. The present experiment was designed to evaluate one of these factors, the reinforcement rate underway during periods of time-in. Rats' lever pressing was maintained on variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement in a multiple schedule with two components. In one component, no timeouts were delivered. In the other component, when a variable-ratio schedule was met, lever presses were followed by a 30-s timeout during which a tone sounded, the component light was extinguished, and the food schedule was suspended. Across conditions, the reinforcement rates in both components ranged from 0.5 to 6 pellets per min and the degree of response suppression was evaluated. In the leanest condition, 0.5 pellets per min, the timeouts failed to suppress responding. Generally, as the reinforcement rate was increased, the degree of suppression was enhanced systematically, showing that the punitive function of timeout is directly related to time-in reinforcement rate. The results are discussed in relation to laboratory research on timeout avoidance and shock punishment.

show abstract

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analyzing Aversiveness Of Timeoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Reinforcement Rate on the Aversive Function of Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Whirtley¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Variable-Interval and Variable-Ratio Schedules of Punishment by Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Hall¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timeout punishment is among the most commonly reported disciplinary procedures (Barkin, Scheindlin, Ip, Richardson, & Finch, 2007). Despite the frequent use of timeout, little basic research has systematically examined different schedule effects of timeout from positive reinforcement. Using pigeons as subjects, the current series of experiments arranged variable schedules of timeout from positive reinforcement within a multiple-schedule arrangement where 20-s timeouts were response-dependent, response-independent, and delayed. Experiment 1 used a within-subject yoking procedure to compare schedules of variable-ratio (VR) and yokedinterval (YI) timeouts. Experiment 2 arranged separate parametric analyses of variable-interval (VI) and VR schedules of timeout. Within-session, yoked-control components delivered response-independent timeouts according to the same temporal distribution as in the preceding response-dependent timeout components in an attempt to isolate a direct response-decreasing effect of timeout presentations from indirect reductions in reinforcement rate. In Experiment 3, delays to timeout were studied using the same yoked-control procedure as in Experiment 2. Experiment 4 was designed to address confounds in the control conditions that were arranged for reduced timeout rate during delays in Experiment 3. The primary findings were: 1) responsedependent VR 2 and VR 3 timeout resulted in the most response reduction and the highest timeout rates across Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2) schedules of VI timeout reduced responding relative to baselines for the most frequent mean schedule values in Experiments 1 and 2, 3) response rate increases occurred during the introductions of delays to timeout in Experiment 3 and were partially attributed to the introduction of the delays in Experiment 4, and 4) response rates in the response-dependent timeout components were not always lower than their corresponding response-independent timeout components.

show abstract

Avoidance of Timeout from Response-Independent Schedules of Food or Sucrose Water with and without a Limited Hold on Consumption

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

Effects of Reinforcement Rate on the Aversive Function of Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Effects of Reinforcement Rate on the Aversive Function of Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Variable-Interval and Variable-Ratio Schedules of Punishment by Timeout from Positive Reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About