PERSISTENT SHOCK‐ELICITED RESPONDING ENGENDERED BY A NEGATIVE‐REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE<sup>1</sup>

Powell, Robert; Peck, Stephen C.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-1049

Cited by 54 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Badia and Culbertson (1972) An unexpected observation was that, under the control treatment, three of four subjects increased in the per cent of time allocated to the alternate condition, apparently as a function of repeated exposures to the experimental treatment. Powell and Peck (1969) reported a similar finding after bar pressing had been reinforced by shock-intensity reductions. The bar pressing was maintained by response-inidependent shocks in control proceduires when the intensity of shock was not reduced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

Lewis

Gardner

Hutton

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were shocked at the rate of two per minute until they pressed a lever. In Experiment I, shocks were delivered at variable-time intervals averaging 30 sec; in Experiment II, shocks were delivered at fixed-time intervals of 30 sec. A response produced an alternate condition for a fixed-time period. The shock frequency following a response, calculated over the whole alternate condition, was two per minute. The pattern of shocks in the alternate condition was controlled so that the first shock occurred at the same time as it would have occurred had the response not been emitted; the remaining shocks were delayed until near the end of the alternate condition. Bar pressing was acquired in both experiments. This finding is not explained by two-factor theories of avoidance and is inconsistent with the notion that overall shock-frequency reduction is necessary for negative reinforcement. The data imply that responding is determined by the integrated delays to each shock following a response versus the integrated delays to shock in the absence of a response.Key words: aversive control, avoidance, delayed shock, shock frequency, bar press, rats A response on a free-operant avoidance schedule (Sidman, 1953) interrupts for several seconds (RS interval) a series of brief shocks spaced a few seconds apart (SS interval). A single response has two effects. It introduces a delay between the response and the next shock, and it reduces the overall frequency of shocks. Several investigators have attempted to determine which of the two, delay or reduced frequency, is necessary and which is sufficient to produce responding.Lambert, Bersh, Hineline, and Smith (1973) presented rats with a 10-sec stimulus followed by five shocks. A response during the stimulus produced one immediate shock, but caused the five shocks at the end of the stimulus to be omitted; thus, a response resulted in a decreased delay to shock and an 80% reduction in the total number of shocks. Several animals showed increased shuttle responding under this procedure; two rats, however, showed no acquisition of a bar-press response. Lambert ' Hineline's (1970) procedure. When a bar press delayed a single shock for 10 sec, but left the total number of shocks unchanged, the bar press was acquired. Hineline also found that responding stopped when it led to a 10-sec delay to shock accompanied by a shock-frequency increase. Gardner and Lewis (1976)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

Lewis

Gardner

Hutton

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results of other studies have shown response maintenance under noncontingent shock presentation (e.g., Herrnstein & Hineline, 1966;Kelleher, Riddle, & Cook, 1963). For example, Powell and Peck (1969) trained rats under conditions in which responding reduced the intensity of scheduled shocks but did not terminate or postpone shock. The subjects were then exposed to a noncontingent shock condi-tion in which responding had no effect on either shock intensity or frequency.…”

Section: Noncontingent Presentation and Removal Of Aversive Stimulimentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In fact, a few researchers have used punishment to produce reductions in responding maintained by negative reinforcement. For example, Powell and Peck (1969) found that rats trained under a procedure in which responding reduced the intensity of scheduled shocks continued to respond under a noncontingent-shock condition in which responding did not influence the schedule or intensity of shock. However, responding was reduced when each response resulted in additional shock.…”

Section: Contingency Reversalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

Thompson

Iwata

2005

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A demonstration of the effects of reinforcement requires comparison of response rates in the presence of a contingency with those in another condition that controls for the influence of extraneous variables. We describe several control conditions that have been used in evaluating the effects of positive and negative reinforcement. The methodological rigor and practical utility of each type of control condition are discussed, and recommendations for the use of these conditions are presented.

show abstract

“…Shock-elicited aggression might produce, for example, postshock response bursting during free-operant avoidance (e.g., Sidman, 1958) and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior (e.g., Herrnstein and Hineline, 1966;Powell and Peck, 1969).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But, by the nature of his procedure, his subjects were undoubtedly near the escape lever immediately after a shock, and thus would have been more likely to attack that lever than the other one. Powell and Peck (1969) found that a procedure in which intermittently scheduled shocks were reduced in intensity (but not avoided) by lever-press responses markedly increased the response rates of rats initially trained under a free operant avoidance procedure. They also found that high response rates could be maintained solely through the presentation of shocks that were not affected by responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

LEVER ATTACKING BY RATS DURING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE¹

Pear

Moody

Persinger

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.Aversive stimuli can cause animals to attack other organisms and inanimate objects. For example, O'Kelly and Steckle (1939) and Ulrich and Azrin (1962) found that when painful electric foot-shock is delivered to paired rats, a stereotyped fighting reaction results. This attacking occurs almost immediately after a shock presentation, and is therefore said to be elicited by the shock. Ulrich and Azrin (1962) were not able to demonstrate shockelicited attack by freely moving rats towards inanimate objects (a small doll and a stationary dead rat); however, Azrin, Rubin, and Hutchinson (1968) obtained reliable biting attacks towards metal, wood, and rubber targets when the rat was forced to face the target and was close to it.Azrin, Hutchinson, and Hake (1963) found that shock will elicit fighting in squirrel monkeys, and Azrin, Hutchinson, and Sallery (1964) showed that squirrel monkeys, when shocked, will attack not only other monkeys, rats, and mice, but also a stuffed doll and a cloth covered ball. Moreover, Hutchinson, Azrin, and Hake (1966) demonstrated that

show abstract

PERSISTENT SHOCK‐ELICITED RESPONDING ENGENDERED BY A NEGATIVE‐REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE¹

Cited by 54 publications

References 18 publications

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

LEVER ATTACKING BY RATS DURING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

PERSISTENT SHOCK‐ELICITED RESPONDING ENGENDERED BY A NEGATIVE‐REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE1

Cited by 54 publications

References 18 publications

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT1

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT1

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

LEVER ATTACKING BY RATS DURING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

PERSISTENT SHOCK‐ELICITED RESPONDING ENGENDERED BY A NEGATIVE‐REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURE¹

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

INTEGRATED DELAYS TO SHOCK AS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT¹

LEVER ATTACKING BY RATS DURING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE¹