Punishment of Autoshaped Key‐peck Responses of Pigeons

Abstract

The effects of different voltages of response-dependent and response-independent electric shock on the frequency of key-peck responses engendered by an autoshaping procedure were studied. In Experiments I and II, each response produced a brief electric shock, and response frequency generally decreased more with higher-voltage shock. Preshock frequencies of responding were generally recovered across successive sessions of relatively lowvoltage shock delivery but not at higher shock voltages. The effects of response-dependent and response-independent shock were compared in Experiment III by using a yoked-control procedure in which each pigeon received each type of shock delivery at different times. Response-dependent shock generally produced greater decreases in response frequency. In the final experiment, one response-independent shock per autoshaping trial was scheduled. The number of autoshaped responses per trial was related to shock voltages. These results suggest that response-dependent and response-independent electric shock effectively decrease frequency of autoshaped responses.Key words: punishment, response-dependent electric shock, response-independent electric shock, autoshaping, fixed-trial procedure, key peck, pigeons Delivery of response-independent food after a response key is illuminated can result in key-peck responding in pigeons (Brown and Jenkins, 1968). This phenomenon has been called autoshaping and these autoshaped responses may persist for many sessions under such conditions (Brown and Jenkins, 1968;Ricci, 1973 Williams and Williams reported persistent key pecking under these contingencies. Other techniques of reducing response probability have been studied in relation to autoshaped responding. Schwartz and Williams (1972a) used a two-key procedure to suppress responding during a negative automaintenance procedure. After negative automaintenance was established with pigeons, a second response key, on which pecks had no scheduled consequence, was occasionally illuminated concurrently with the key associated with negative automaintenance. During trials on which both keys were illuminated, response rates on the negative automaintenance key were generally lower than during trials on which only the negative automaintenance key was illuminated. Eliminating food after the trial stimulus (Wasserman, 1972) and eliminating a positive correlation between occurrence of the trial stimulus and food presentation (Gamzu and Williams, 1971)

Suppression of Ethanol‐reinforced Lever Pressing by Delaying Food Availability

“…The reliable differences between the performances of yoked-control and experimental animals is consistent with a number of studies that have reported differences in the behavioral effects of response-dependent and response-independent events of various sorts (e.g., Wesp, Lattal, and Poling, 1977;Zeiler, 1977). This suppression was not due to variations in the schedule of food presentation alone, since the liquid-reinforced responding and liquid consumption of yoked-control animals were not similarly suppressed.…”

“…This suppression was not due to variations in the schedule of food presentation alone, since the liquid-reinforced responding and liquid consumption of yoked-control animals were not similarly suppressed. The reliable differences between the performances of yoked-control and experimental animals is consistent with a number of studies that have reported differences in the behavioral effects of response-dependent and response-independent events of various sorts (e.g., Wesp, Lattal, and Poling, 1977;Zeiler, 1977).…”

Responding Changes Systematically Within Sessions During Conditioning Procedures

“…Second, some studies report relatively constant performance, even in measures of behavior that were observed to change in other studies (e.g., Bloomfield, 1967;Hutt, 1954;Wesp, Lattal, & Poling, 1977;Wheatley & Welker, 1977). Unfortunately, the relative frequency with which responding changes and remains constant cannot be estimated from the literature, because authors have little reason to report constant responding.…”

The “Where Is It?” Reflex: Autoshaping the Orienting Response

“…The available evidence suggests that, indeed, animals tend to withdraw from aversive CSs. This negative sign-tracking (Green, 1978;Leclerc & Reberg, 1980;Peden et al, 1977;Wesp, Lattal, & Poling, 1977; Boakes, Note 1) decreases the likelihood that the animal will learn its detailed features. More research is needed, however, to elucidate the nature of behavior evoked by stimuli predicting aversive USs.…”