SCHEDULES USING NOXIOUS STIMULI. III. RESPONDING MAINTAINED WITH RESPONSE‐PRODUCED ELECTRIC SHOCKS<sup>1</sup>

Kelleher, Roger T.; Morse, W. H.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-819

Cited by 251 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study provides an additional exception. These observations are consistent with the conclusions of Kelleher and Morse (1968) and Rachlin (1966) that a subject's history with shock is one determinant of how shock will affect behavior. Similar effects of experimental history have also been reported when positive reinforcement was used (e.g., Franks & Lattal, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

Sizemore

Maxwell

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three albino rats were exposed to a differential-punishment-of-other-behavior shock schedule superimposed on a variable-interval schedule of food presentation. With this arrangement, failure to barpress for a specified interval since the previous response resulted in delivery of shock. This procedure reliably decreased the number of specified pauses and was accompanied by increases in barpress rates and shifts in the distribution of responses. Subsequent exposure to noncontingent shock produced similar, but quantitatively smaller, changes for two of the three subjects. Training with barpress-dependent shock and reexposure to noncontingent shock further diminished these effects. This study demonstrates that pauses are conditionable units of behavior insofar as they are sensitive to a punishment contingency. In terms of the targeted unit of behavior, the current findings are similar to those obtained with barpress-dependent or interresponse-time-dependent shock schedules and suggest a continuum of response specification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

Sizemore

Maxwell

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The empirical half of the law has survived relatively intact. Punishment is effective in reducing the future probability of a response (Azrin and Holz, 1966;Fantino, 1973;Mackintosh, 1974;-but see Kelleher and Morse, 1968). Thorndike's theoretical interpretation has not fared as well.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Symmetrical Law of Effect and the Matching Relation in Choice Behavior

Farley¹,

Fantino²

1975

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons chose between outcomes that differed in the rate of response-independent delivery of food and electric shocks. The application of functional measurement techniques confirmed the matching relation-between choice and rate of reinforcement value-for two of three pigeons. Scale values of the outcomes were extracted for the two birds that conformed to matching, and the value of a single occurrence of shock per minute-in terms of negative food units-was estimated. A second experiment with concurrent chains provided a test of these parameter estimates. The close correspondence between predicted and obtained choice behavior found in Experiment II indicated that the estimates of outcome value were indeed reliable. Both experiments together support the contention that the effects on choice behavior of positive and aversive stimuli appear to be equal, though opposite in sign.Key words: choice, punishment, law of effect, functional measurement, matching, concurrent-chain schedules, variable-time schedules, pigeonsThe negative law of effect as originally formulated by Thorndike (1911, p. 244) asserts that responses ". . . which are accompanied or closely followed by discomfort to the animal will, other things being equal, have their connection with that situation weakened, so that, when it recurs, they will be less likely to occur." Two features of Thorndike's law can be distinguished. The first is an empirical assertion that aversive stimuli are effective in reducing the future probability of a response. The second point is a theoretical account of how this reduction occurs. The empirical half of the law has survived relatively intact. Punishment is effective in reducing the future probability of a response (Azrin and Holz, 1966;Fantino, 1973;Mackintosh, 1974;-but see Kelleher and Morse, 1968). Thorndike's theoretical interpretation has not fared as well. The notion that punishment results in the stamping out of S-R connections has been repeatedly challenged (Skinner, 1938;Estes, 1944;Skinner, 1953;Rescorla and Solomon, 1967) and was abandoned by Thorndike himself (1931, 1932 Recent views by a number of authors of divergent theoretical inclinations (e.g., Church, 1969;Estes, 1969;Logan, 1969;Rachlin and Herrnstein, 1969;de Villiers, 1972de Villiers, , 1974Fantino, 1973) have indicated that the process underlying the positive and negative halves of the law of effect is identical, though different from Thorndike's connectionism. Empirical symmetry, often in the form of a generalized set of equations, capable of accounting for both appetitive and aversive stimulus procedures, is said to dictate theoretical symmetry. Whatever the process that accounts for an increased probability of a response due to reinforcement is the same process, working in reverse, that results in a decreased probability of a response due to punishment.The verification and implications of empirical symmetry have received their most extensive investigation within the context of the matching law. On the positive si...

show abstract

“…This indieates that, although the rate of presentation of response-contingent shock may determine whether an inerease or a deerease in responding oceurs (Kelleher & Morse, 1968), the schedule of shock presentation, itself, is an important faetor.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…It is therefore possible that this effect is limited to this type of species, especially as the effect is not limited to situations using an avoidance baseline. Kelleher & Morse (1968) have shown that an FI schedule of response-contingent shock increases responding on a VI schedule of food presentation, an'd Morse, Mead, & Kelleher (1967) showed that noncontingent shocks, which originally elieited responses, could later be used to reinforce responding when there was no other schedule of reinforcement in operation and shocks were made response-contingent. Both of these experiments used squirrel monkeys as Ss.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of response-contingent and noncontingent shock on free operant avoidance

Jones

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ellect 01 noncontingent shock and the same rate 01 FI and FR Davis, Cohen, & French (1968). The superirnposition of response-contingent shock has led to a decrease in response rate when every response was punished (PoweIl & Morris, 1969) and when additional shocks were programmed on fixed-ratio (FR) schedules (Sandler, Davidson, & Holzschuh, 1966; Mclntire et al, 1968), but to an increase in responding when programmed on fixed-interval (FI) schedules (McKearney, 1969).higher shock rate prevailing in this component of the schedule: high shock rate may lead to a decrease in responding but low shock rate to an increase. Using rats, Mclntire et al (1968) found that a FR schedule of response-contingent shock led to a decrease in responding of an avoidance baseline whereas the same rate of noncontingent shock increased responding.This investigation studied the effect of the same rate of noncontingent shock; and FI and FR schedules ofresponse-contingent shock on an operant avoidance baseline in rats. SUBJECTS The Ss were four male hooded rats, 4 months old at the start of the experiment. APPARATUS Two Lehigh Valley operant conditioning boxes, Nos. 1316 and 1417, were used. Each was enclosed in a sound-resistant cubicle, Lehigh Valley Models 1316C and 1417C, respectively. Only the right-hand lever was present in each box. Illumination was provided by a 7-W houselight.The floor of each box consisted of 16 steel rods through which foot shock from a Behaviour Apparatus constant power shock scrambler was delivered at a set 0.8 mA. The duration of each shock was 0.34 sec and this and other experimental contingencies were control1ed by relays and circuitry in an adjacent room. PROCEDURE The experiment was conducted in four stages. At each stage performance was allowed to stabilize; the criterion of stability was that none of the response rates of the last four sessions should differ from the mean ofthese sessions by more than 5%.The Ss were first put on a schedule of nondiscriminated free-operant avoidance (Sidman, 1953) with shock-shock interval = 5 sec and response-shock interval = 30 sec. This baseline schedule remained unaltered throughout the experiment. Deliveries of noncontingent shocks were then overlaid on the basic schedule every 5 min. These shocks were next made response-contingent. In the fourth stage, a FR schedule of response-contingent shock was introduced. This was adjusted for each S until the rate of presentation of response-contingent shock was the same as in the second and third stages, Le., 24 per session.Sessions, which were run every day, were 3 h in length and data were only collected from the fmal 2 h. RESULTSThe number of responses in each stage of the experiment for each S are shown in Table 1. Three Ss gave an identical pattern of results. The FR schedule of response-contingent shock led to a decrease in responses when compared with the basic avoidance schedule. Both the FI schedule of response-contingent shock and the noncontingent shock presentations led to increases in responding, the...

show abstract

SCHEDULES USING NOXIOUS STIMULI. III. RESPONDING MAINTAINED WITH RESPONSE‐PRODUCED ELECTRIC SHOCKS¹

Cited by 251 publications

References 24 publications

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

The Symmetrical Law of Effect and the Matching Relation in Choice Behavior

The effects of response-contingent and noncontingent shock on free operant avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

SCHEDULES USING NOXIOUS STIMULI. III. RESPONDING MAINTAINED WITH RESPONSE‐PRODUCED ELECTRIC SHOCKS1

Cited by 251 publications

References 24 publications

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

Differential punishment of other behavior: Effects of pause-dependent shock on variable-interval performance

The Symmetrical Law of Effect and the Matching Relation in Choice Behavior

The effects of response-contingent and noncontingent shock on free operant avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

SCHEDULES USING NOXIOUS STIMULI. III. RESPONDING MAINTAINED WITH RESPONSE‐PRODUCED ELECTRIC SHOCKS¹