CHOICE AND THE RATE OF PUNISHMENT IN CONCURRENT SCHEDULES 1

Four hens worked under independent multiple concurrent variable-interval schedules with an overlaid aversive stimulus (sound of hens in a poultry shed at lOOdBA) activated by the first peck on a key. The sound remained on until a response was made on the other key. The key that activated the sound in each component was varied over a series of conditions. When the sound was activated by the left (or right) key in one component, it was activated by the right (or left) key in the other component. Bias was examined under a range of different variable-interval schedules, and the applicability of the generalized matching law was examined. It was found that the hens' behavior was biased away from the sound independently of the schedule in effect and that this bias could be quantified using a modified version of the generalized matching law. Behavior during the changeover delays was not affected by the presence of the noise or by changes in reinforcement rate, even though the total response measures were. Insensitivity shown during the delay suggests that behavior after the changeover delay may be more appropriate as a measure of preference (or aversiveness) of stimuli than are overall behavior measures.Key words: concurrent variable-interval schedules, generalized matching law, aversive sounds, behavior during and after changeover delay, key peck, hen Studies of concurrent schedules of reinforcement have most often been concerned with the effects of variations in the rates of reinforcement. In these situations, the relation between behavior and reinforcement rate is well described by the generalized matching law (Davison & McCarthy, 1988). This relation, when the behavior is measured in terms of responses allocated, is expressed in the following equation: log(P1/P2) = a log(rl/r2) + log c, (1) where PI and P2 refer to the responses made on the two alternatives, r1 and r2 are the number of reinforcements obtained on the two alternatives, and a and c are fitted parameters. Baum (1974, 1979) suggested that a measures the sensitivity of the behavior to changes in reinforcement rate. When a is larger than 1.0 (termed overmatching), proportionally more responses have been allocated to the schedules with the richer reinforcement rates than is predicted by an exact match to reinforcement-rate ratios. When a is less than 1.0 (termed undermatching), proportionally more responses have been allocated to the schedules with the leaner reinforcement rates than is predicted by an exact

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Concurrent Schedules: Quantifying the Aversiveness of Noise

McAdie

Foster

Temple

1996

“…In contrast, Equation 2b predicts R1 suppression because of an increase in its denominator; more specifically, that portion of the denominator which comprises the absolute value of alternative 2. An additional consequence of this suppression of R1 for both sets of equations is an increase in response rate to the nopunishment alternative (i.e., punishment-contrast: Azrin & Holz, 1966;Deluty, 1976 , however, predicts decreases in R2 because of a proportionally greater increase in the numerator, i.e., a direct increase in the absolute, and relative, value of alternative 2 events. The divergent predictions made by the two sets of equations are of greater interest.…”

Section: R1=kmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A different combination rule for punishment and reinforcement has recently been offered by Deluty (1976) and Deluty and Church (1978). In this model, punishment of a response can be interpreted as diminishing the relative value of associated events in an indirect manner, through an increase in the absolute value for alternative responses.…”

Section: R1=kmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reinforcement and Punishment Effects in Concurrent Schedules: A Test of Two Models

Farley

1980

The joint effects of punishment and reinforcement on the pigeon's key-peck response were examined in three choice experiments conducted to compare predictions of Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model with those made by Deluty's (1976) and Deluty and Church's (1978) model of punishment. In Experiment 1, the addition of equal punishment schedules to both alternatives of a concurrent reinforcement schedule enhanced the preference exhibited for the more frequent reinforcement alternative. Experiment 2 demonstrated decreases in the absolute response rate for each member of a concurrent reinforcement schedule when increasing frequencies of punishment were added to each alternative. Experiment 3 found that preference for the denser of two reinforcement schedules diminished when the absolute frequencies of reinforcement were increased by a constant factor and conditions of punishment for both alternatives were held constant.Diminished preferences were obtained regardless of whether the frequency of punishment associated with the denser reinforcement schedule was greater or less than that associated with the lean reinforcement alternative. The results from all three experiments uniquely supported Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model of punishment and reinforcement.Key words: subtractive model of punishment, matching relation, concurrent schedules, key peck, pigeons Farley and Fantino (1978) recently proposed a simple subtractive integration rule to summarize the effects of punishment and appetitive reinforcement upon choice behavior (cf. similar informal suggestions by de Villiers & Millenson, 1972;Estes, 1969). Punishment of a response directed toward one of two choice alternatives is viewed as subtracting directly from the "absolute reinforcement value" which sustains this response. In the absence of punishment, "absolute reinforcement value" may be regarded as synonymous with absolute rate of reinforcement. This diminished absolute reinforcement value is accompanied by a change in the "relative value" of the punishment alternative as well. These changes in both absolute and relative value produce shifts in absolute as well as relative response rates.A formal elaboration of this value view of , 1974), respectively. The scalar c is intended to reflect the value of punishment in terms of negative food units.

“…In Figure 4, the absolute response rate dur- (Brethower and Reynolds, 1962;Terrace, 1968) and concurrent schedules (Deluty, 1976). Working with rats in a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval food and shock schedule, Deluty (1976) Before attempting to modify Equation 9 to account for punishment-produced contrast, the reliability of this phenomenon still has to be established (Bouzas, 1976;Dinsmoor, 1952;Rachlin, 1966).…”

Section: The Connected Points Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

THE RELATIVE LAW OF EFFECT: EFFECTS OF SHOCK INTENSITY ON RESPONSE STRENGTH IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES¹

Bouzas

1978

Key pecking of four birds was reinforced with food according to a two-component multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 4-minute schedule. In addition, key pecking was punished by a brief shock according to a variable-interval 30-second schedule during both components of the multiple schedule. The intensity of the shock was varied. For all birds, punishment had a stronger suppressive effect on the responding maintained by the leaner food schedule, and the ratio of responding during the two components of the multiple schedule became closer to the ratio of reinforcement as shock intensity was increased, as the relative law of effect predicts. At the higher shock intensity, there was some evidence that the ratio of responses overmatched the ratio of reinforcements. In a concurrent schedule, when r, and r2 are simultaneously available, the reinforcement interaction is maximal (m = 1), and it can be shown that the relation between the responses R1 and R2 associated respectively with r1 and r2, is described by the equation:which is just another way of saying that the proportion of responding matches the proportion of reinforcement.Equation 2 predicts that as long at the ratio (r1 /r2) is not altered, the relation between R1 and R2 will remain unchanged in the face of interventions that modify the value of r1 and r2, and of changes in the value of alternative sources of reinforcement (re). For example, McSweeney (1975)