TIME‐ALLOCATION MATCHING BETWEEN PUNISHING SITUATIONS 1

Increases in rates of punished behavior by the administration of anxiolytic drugs (called antipunishment effects) are well established in animals but not humans. The present study examined antipunishment effects of ethanol in humans using a choice procedure. The behavior of 5 participants was placed under six concurrent variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement. In three of the six concurrent schedules, punishment, in the form of monetary loss, was superimposed on one alternative. Data were analyzed according to the generalized matching equation which distinguishes between bias (allocation of behavior beyond what matching to relative reinforcer densities would predict) and sensitivity to reinforcement (how well behavior tracks relative reinforcer densities). In addition, participants completed a pencil-tapping test. Under placebo punishment conditions, all participants demonstrated low response rates and a bias against the alternative associated with punishment, despite a resultant loss of available reinforcers. Bias against the punished alternative was dose-dependently reduced in participants shown to be most sensitive to ethanol (0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 g/kg) in measures of overall responding and on the pencil-tapping test. No ethanol-induced change in bias was noted when punishment was not imposed. Sensitivity to reinforcement also decreased for participants shown to be sensitive to ethanol. In addition to extending antipunishment effects to humans, these results also show that antipunishment effects can be quantified via the matching equation.

supporting

confidence: 56%

Quantification of Ethanol's Antipunishment Effect in Humans Using the Generalized Matching Equation

Rasmussen

Newland

2009

“…Second, with those responses measured with some kind of discrete operandum (e.g., mechanical switch), punished responding generally goes unmeasured other than by indicating a decrease in responding. Some researchers argued that punishment functions as a negative reinforcer for other responses (e.g., Deluty, 1976;Deluty & Church, 1978) -the so-called additive theory of punishment -whereas others argued that punishment directly reduces responding that has produced a punisher (e.g., Critchfield et al, 2003;de Villiers, 1980;Farley, 1980)-the so-called subtractive theory of punishment. Klapes, Riley, and McDowell (2018) recently argued that neither theory describes the data adequately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator videos and electric shock function as punishers for zebrafish (Danio rerio)

Kuroda

Mizutani

Cançado

et al. 2018

Zebrafish (Danio rerio) are a promising animal model for studying the effects of gene–environment interactions on behavior. Two experiments were conducted to assess punishment effects of presenting predator videos (Indian leaf fish; Nandus nandus) and electric shock on operant approach responses in zebrafish. In Experiment 1, the predator video and shock stimuli were presented upon a response maintained by a single variable‐interval schedule of food reinforcement in different groups of fish. In Experiment 2, the predator video and shock stimuli were presented upon one of two response alternatives maintain by concurrently available variable‐interval schedules of food reinforcement in different groups of fish. Responding decreased when the predator video and shock stimuli were presented relative to their absence in both experiments. Moreover, responding on an unpunished alternative did not reliably decrease in Experiment 2. These results indicate that the decrease in responding resulted from the punishment contingency rather than from elicited species‐specific defense responses or conditioned avoidance. Thus, the predator video and electric shock functioned as punishers of operant behavior for zebrafish. Identifying punishers for this species could lead to research on how gene–environment interactions influence individual differences in sensitivity to punishment.

“…If we make the reasonable assumption that reinforcement of only one alternative produces exclusive preference for that alternative-i.e., that when proportion of reinforcement equals 1.0 or 0.0, so too does proportion of behaviorthen we see that deviations from matching in the coordinates of Figure 1 & Church, 1978;Menlove, Moffitt, & Shimp, 1973;Myers & Myers, 1977;Poling, 1978). Equation 1 provides a sensible alternative.…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Matching, Undermatching, and Overmatching in Studies of Choice

Baum

1979

613

271

Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B, and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r, and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best-fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B1 and B2 measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B1 and B2 measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.O. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.Key words: matching relation, undermatching, overmatching, choice, conc VIVIIn experiments with concurrent variableinterval schedules, when the ratio of responding or time spent at two alternatives (Bl/B2) is graphed in logarithmic coordinates as a function of the ratio of reinforcement (r1/r2) obtained from the two alternatives, the data points usually conform to a straight line: B1 = a log r + log b(1) log a log Exponentiating both sides of this equation produces a power function of the type familiar in psychophysics (Stevens, 1957(Stevens, , 1975: