Influence of the schedule of positive reinforcement on punished behavior.

Church, Russell M.; Raymond, George A.

doi:10.1037/h0024382

Cited by 28 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, if pi = p2, two relevant predictions follow from Equation 9 as shock value is increased independently of the value of m. First, of two response rates, the one associated with the leaner schedule of reinforcement will decrease faster. This prediction is consistent with the data reported by Church and Raymond (1967). Second, the relation between R1 and R2 will approach but will not exceed (r1/r2)2.…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

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

Bouzas

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

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

Bouzas

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although prepunishment responding on the VI schedules showed an orderly decline as reinforcement density decreased, the relative response rate during punishment was virtually unaffected. This is contrary to results reported by Church and Raymond (1967), who found that the effectiveness of punishment was inversely related to the rate of positive reinforcement. The present fmdings, however, are consistent with a previous study using multiple schedules of reinforcement (Tullis & Walters, 1968), as well as that of Holz (1968), who found the effectiveness of punishment to be unrelated to the rate of positive reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Amount of prior learning, density of reinforcement and “Vacation” from punishment as determinants of punishment effectiveness: Some negative results

Walters

1978

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some relations between positive reinforcement and punishment effectiveness were explored in three studies employing shock punishment of food-motivated leverpressing. Amount of prepunishment training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement was varied over 7, 21, 35, 49, and 63 h and was found to be unrelated to magnitude of suppression produced by shock punishment. A second study found no relationship between density of reinforcement delivered on a variable-interval schedule during prepunishment training and subsequent response suppression. In a third study, alternating cycles of punishment/no punishment (vacation from punishment) eventually resulted in a lessening of the initial disruptive effects of punishment, although contrary to previous reports, successive vacations did not enhance the suppressive effects of punishment.The bulk of research on punishment has concentrated on the study of behaviors established by positive reinforcement. Therefore, it is not surprising that many investigators have been concerned with the question of how punishment interacts with variables supporting the maintenance of the punished behavior. The purpose of the present paper is to report on the influence of three such variables: the amount of prepunishment training, the density of the reinforcement schedule supporting the punished response, and the alternation of periods of punishment and withdrawal of punishment (vacation from punishment). The reason these three particular variables were chosen for study is that they so often play a part in the apparently arbitrary selection of baseline parameters used in studies of the punishment of learned instrumental behaviors. Additionally, as indicated in the text of this paper, there is some evidence indicating that each of these variables may influence the outcome of any given punishment procedure. EXPERIMENT 1The initial study investigated whether the strength of learning, as manipulated by the number of prepunishment positive reinforcement training sessions, influences the amount of response suppression produced by punishment. Both intUitively and in terms of a small amount of empirical evidence on overlearning, it may be expected that increases in strength of the prepunished behavior

show abstract

“…The middle panel shows the response rate during the warning stimulus when the co-actor was present but not eating. The shock intensity was 70 v for S-11, 180 v (Dinsmoor, 1952;Azrin, 1960;Azrin et al, 1963) and frequency of reinforcement (Lyon, 1963;Church and Raymond, 1967) If this is the case, the question arises concerning what it is about responding under aversive stimulation that makes that responding more sensitive to social facilitation. Is it the aversive stimulation per se, the suppression, or the low response rate which in this case necessarily accompanied the suppression?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first concerns the sensitivity of a baseline that is suppressed by aversive stimulation. Previous studies of conditioned suppression and punishment indicate that changes in non-social variables such as food deprivation (Dinsmoor, 1952;Azrin, 1960;Azrin, Holz, and Hake, 1963) and frequency of reinforcement (Lyon, 1963;Church and Raymond, 1967) produce proportionately larger changes in responding when the responding is suppressed by electric shock than when it is not. Such findings raise the possibility that responding that is suppressed by aversive stimulation may be an unusually sensitive baseline for a number of variables, including social stimuli.…”

Section: Anna State Hospitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION AS A SENSITIVE BASELINE FOR SOCIAL FACILITATION¹

Hake¹,

Powell²,

Olsen

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key pecking of pigeons maintained on a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement was suppressed during occasional presentations of a warning stimulus paired with electric shock. On alternate sessions, a co-actor pigeon was visible in an adjoining chamber where it emitted the same food-reinforced key peck during the warning stimulus that signalled shock for the subject. With no shock and at low shock intensities, where the subject's responding was not suppressed or suppressed only slightly, the co-actor had little effect. At the higher shock intensities, where the subject's responding was reduced by at least 40%, the response rate during the warning stimulus was consistently higher when the co-actor was present. One explanation of these results assumes a special relationship between social stimuli and aversive stimuli in which the presence of another animal reduces emotional reactions and thereby allows operant responses to increase. This was not the case here because the mere presence of the co-actor did not maintain social facilitation. Rather, the present results, taken in conjunction with previous findings, suggest that changes in social and non-social variables which affect the rate of food-reinforced responding may produce proportionately larger changes in responding when that responding is suppressed by aversive stimulation than when it is not.

show abstract

Influence of the schedule of positive reinforcement on punished behavior.

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Amount of prior learning, density of reinforcement and “Vacation” from punishment as determinants of punishment effectiveness: Some negative results

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION AS A SENSITIVE BASELINE FOR SOCIAL FACILITATION¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Influence of the schedule of positive reinforcement on punished behavior.

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Amount of prior learning, density of reinforcement and “Vacation” from punishment as determinants of punishment effectiveness: Some negative results

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION AS A SENSITIVE BASELINE FOR SOCIAL FACILITATION1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

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

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

CONDITIONED SUPPRESSION AS A SENSITIVE BASELINE FOR SOCIAL FACILITATION¹