Schedule‐induced Biting Under Fixed‐interval Schedules of Food or Electric‐shock Presentation

Abstract

Squirrel monkeys pressed a lever under fixed-interval schedules of food or of electric-shock presentation. Both schedules induced repeated biting on a latex hose. Whether lever pressing was controlled by food or by electric shock, a pattern of decreasing hose biting and increasing lever pressing occurred within fixed-interval cycles. As the fixed-interval duration was increased from 6 to 600 sec, average rates of lever pressing decreased under both schedules. Average rates of hose biting first increased with increasing parameter value, reaching a maximum at values that varied from 60 to 337 sec in different monkeys, and then declined at higher values. d-Amphetamine at appropriate doses increased overall rates of lever pressing maintained by food or by shock, but either did not affect or decreased overall rates of hose biting. When no timeout period occurred between fixed-interval cycles, the monkeys bit most frequently immediately after food or electric shock was presented. When there was a timeout period, hose biting began shortly after the start of the fixed-interval cycles, with little or no hose biting immediately after food or electric shock was presented. Most hose biting appeared to be schedule-induced rather than food- or shock-induced.

Organization of attack and other behaviors of White King pigeons exposed to intermittent water presentations

“…This general process view is consistent with demonstrations of schedule-induced attack in rats and monkeys, using various reinforcers, including food (e.g., Deweese, 1977;Gallup, 1965), morphine (e.g., Boshka, Weisman, and Thor, 1966), and electrical brain stimulation (Huston and DeSisto, 1971;Hutchinson and Renfrew, 1978), and with the results of studies with humans, using money and smoking as reinforcers (Frederiksen & Petersen, 1977;Hutchinson & Emley, 1973). The assortment of reinforcers used in these studies contrast sharply, however, with the exclusive use of food reinforcement in the more extensive and systematic experiments with pigeons (e.g., Azrin, Hutchinson, & Hake, 1966), which have provided the primary data base for evaluating current theory.…”

“…This biting aspect of schedule-induced attack is consistent with other observations (e.g., Rilling, 1977, Figure 20) that pigeons pull feathers from the head and neck region of live and stuffed targets. Biting thus appears to be a major component of aggression engendered by intermittent reinforcement in pigeons, as it is in monkeys (DeWeese, 1977), rats (Thompson & Bloom, 1966), and possibly humans (Hutchinson et al, 1977).…”

“…In pigeons, schedule-induced attack does not always initially occur in the immediate postreinforcement period but can develop into that pattern over several sessions (Yoburn & Cohen, 1979). Similarly, attack can be displaced away from the immediate postreinforcement period by imposing a time-out immediately following reinforcement (DeWeese, 1977) or by making a target available only later in the interreinforcement interval (Muller & Cheney, Note 1).…”

Responding Maintained Under Intermittent Schedules of Electric‐shock Presentation: “Safety” or Schedule Effcts?

“…These results include: (1) characteristic patterns of responding maintained under FI schedules (DeWeese, 1977;Kelleher & Morse, 1968Malagodi et al, 1973b;Malagodi et al, 1978;McKearney, 1968McKearney, , 1969Morse, Mead, & Kelleher, 1967;Stretch, Orloff, & Dalrymple, 1968;Stretch et al, 1970), VI schedules (Bacotti, 1978;Barrett, 1975;Barrett & Spealman, 1978;Malagodi et al, 1973b;McKearney, 1972aMcKearney, , 1974cWebbe, 1974), concurrent VI VI schedules (Malagodi et al, 1973b;Webbe, 1974), multiple Fl FR schedules (McKearney, 1970), and second-order schedules of electric-shock presentation (Byrd, 1972); (2) an inverse relation between rate of responding and parameter value of Fl schedules (Malagodi et al, 1973b;McKearney, 1969); (3) a direct relation between rate of responding and shock intensity (Kelleher & Morse, 1968;McKearney, 1969); (4) a decrease in rate of responding following introduction of a brief delay between the effective response and shock presentation (Byrd, 1972); (5) the maintenance of a higher rate of responding under response-dependent than under response-independent schedules (Bacotti, 1978;Malagodi et al, 1978;McKearney, 1974a;Morse & Kelleher, 1970); (6) the cessation of responding under extinction with subsequent recovery of performance following reintroduction of an Fl schedule (Kelleher & Morse, 1968;McKearney, 1969); and (7) an increase and then a decrease in schedule-induced hose biting correlated with increases in an FI schedule (DeWeese, 1977;Malagodi et al, 1973b).…”

Comportamento adjunto: controvérsias e contribuições teóricas

“…Wetherington (1982), fazendo um paralelo entre a polidipsia e a resposta eliciada por um estímulo incondicionado, examinou vários estudos mostrando a mesma função em U invertido entre a resposta incondicionada e o intervalo entre apresentações do estimulo incondicionado. A função bitônica que caracteriza a polidipsia foi observada com ataque em sujeitos pombos (Flory, 1969); fuga do esquema em pombos (Brown & Flory, 1972); com o com-portamento de morder em sujeitos macacos submetidos a esquema de FI de liberação de alimento ou choque (Deweese, 1977) e com o comportamento de roer em ratos submetidos a esquema FI de liberação de comida (Roper, 1980). Foi obtida de modo semelhante em crianças para os comportamentos de beber, de "movimentos motores finos" e de "limpeza" {grooming) (Granger, Porter & Christoph, 1984 (Falk, 1969).…”