IN COMPATABILITY BETWEEN THE PIGEONS' UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE TO SHOCK AND THE CONDITIONED KEY‐PECK RESPONSE 1

An interresponse time analysis was used to study the effects of variable-ratio punishment schedules on the temporal pattern of reinforced responding. Twelve pigeons responded on a baseline variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. A variable-ratio ten schedule of electric shock punishment was then introduced. The shock intensity was systematically increased to the highest intensity at which responding could be maintained. At this intensity, the mean variable-ratio value was increased and then decreased. Variable-ratio punishment resulted in an increased relative frequency of very short unreinforced interresponse times (response bursting). Increased response bursting accounted for instances of response rate facilitation. In addition, shock was followed by interresponse times of decreasing mean length over the first several responses after shock.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…It is clear that shock may elicit behavior that is incompatible with punished responding (e.g., Fowler & Miller, 1963;Smith et al, 1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interresponse Time Analysis of Variable‐ratio Punishment

Lande

1981

“…Key pecking would be incompatible with the unconditioned response elicited by shock. Smith, Gustavson, and Gregor (1972) presented data in support of this view, giving more weight to Bolles' (1970) species-specific defense theory of escape and avoidance behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

KEY PECKING AS A FUNCTION OF RESPONSE‐SHOCK AND SHOCK‐SHOCK INTERVALS IN UNSIGNALLED AVOIDANCE¹

Todorov¹,

Ferrari²,

Souza³

1974

Five pigeons were exposed to an unsignalled avoidance procedure where key pecks were inaintained through shock postponement. Functions obtained showed an inverse relationship between rate of responding and length of the response-shock interval, while changes in the shock-shock interval had no systematic effect on response rates. The rate of shocks delivered generally decreased with increases in length of both response-shock and shockshock intervals. Results show that key pecking in pigeons, maintained through an unsignalled avoidance procedure, was affected by changes in response-shock and shock-shock intervals in the same manner as other responses in pigeons and in rats.

“…Whether this results, however, from pecking being a low-probability SSDR or from competition between the required operant response and neck contraction elicited by shock presentation (cf. Smith, Gustavson, & Gregor, 1972) is not readily apparent in the absence of a comparative database involving a variety of species, responses, and aversive stimuli. Pecking under timeout postponement is of interest in this regard because it provides one such comparative analysis of species and response generality (Sidman, 1960) and utilizes an aversive stimulus other than electric shock.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus‐food Relations and Free‐operant Postponement of Timeout From Response‐independent Food Presentation

Galbicka¹,

Branch²

1983

Grain was briefly presented to food-deprived pigeons intermittently and response-independently except during signaled timeouts. During Experiment 1, key pecks postponed the next timeout for a specified interval. Rates of pecking during time in were inversely related to the length of time pecking postponed the next timeout. Response-independent presentation of temporal distributions of timeouts exactly matched to a preceding postponement condition decreased pecking rates during Experiment 2. These results indicate that key pecking of pigeons can be controlled by response-dependent postponement of timeout, but that responses elicited by stimulus-reinforcer relations inherent in timeout-postponement procedures may substantially modify rates and patterns of pecking.