Reductions in Shock Frequency and Response Effort as Factors in Reinforcement by Timeout From Avoidance

Abstract

Rats' presses on one lever canceled shocks programmed after variable cycles, while presses on a second lever occasionally produced a 2-min timout during which the shock-delection schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli removed. These concurrent schedules of avoidance and timeout were embedded in a multiple schedule whose components differed, within and across conditions, in terms of the programmed shock rate associated with the shock-deletion schedule. Analyses based on the generalized matching law suggest that the reduction in the response requirement correlated with termination of the avoidance schedule was a more important factor in the reinforcing effectiveness of timeout than was shock-frequency reduction, at least in 2 of 3 rats. After training in each condition, responding on the timeout lever was extinguished by withholding timeouts in both components over seven sessions. Resistance to extinction varied directly with the rates of both shock-frequency reduction and avoidance-response reduction experienced during training. Although reduction in response effort appeared to dominate shock-frequency reduction in the maintenance of responding, neither factor had a clear advantage in predicting the course of extinction.

Operant generalization in quail neonates after intradimensional training: Distinguishing positive and negative reinforcement

“…Yet gradients are excitatory, not inhibitory. However, the rats and pigeons commonly used in shock avoidance studies become proficient and rarely experience the aversive (although the situation itself can remain aversive, e.g., Courtney and Perone, 1992). Our motivational modality was inherently different, especially for this very young, rapidly developing population.…”

Análise custo-benefício do reforço negativo em contingências de esquiva sinalizada

“…Ou seja, ao produzir o timeout os ratos escapam da contingência que exige responder contínuo e inicia-se uma situação alternativa sem requerimento de resposta. Os autores concluem que os resultados apóiam a sugestão de Hineline (1984) de que a aversividade de uma situação comportamental pode depender de uma faixa de eventos (ou relações entre eventos), além do estímulo primário como o choque (Courtney & Perone, 1992).…”

Contingency Enhances Sensitivity to Loss in a Gambling Task with Diminishing Returns

“…Although contingent consequences are more preferred, they necessitate behavior on the part of the organism, thus requiring some degree of effort. It has been long established that effort can be an aversive feature of responding that organisms behave to minimize or avoid (e.g., Courtney & Perone, 1992; Perone & Baron, 1980). For example, Miller (1968) manipulated effort by changing the force necessary for human participants to emit responses on mechanical devices and found that participants not only preferred to emit responses of relatively lower effort, but also escaped from schedule components that required relatively greater response effort.…”