Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules

Rats' responses on two levers were reinforced according to independent random-interval 1.5-min food schedules. In addition, both lever presses were intermittently punished according to several concurrent random-interval random-interval shock schedules. For the left, the scheduled rate of punishment was kept constant according to a random-interval 6-min schedule. For the right, the rate of punishment varied. As the frequency of punishment for the right lever press increased, its rate decreased. The rate of the left punished lever press increased, however, even though its scheduled reinforcement rate and punishment rate remained unchanged.     

Timeout as a punishing stimulus in continuous and intermittent schedules

The effectiveness of a brief period of isolation (timeout) in the control of disruptive behavior emitted by a retarded child in a preschool classroom setting was examined. Timeout was shown to be an effective punishing stimulus, and its control of the child's disruptive behavior was investigated under four schedules of intermittent timeout. The results suggest that as a larger percentage of responses were punished, a greater decrease in the frequency of that response occurred. This inverse relationship between the percentage of responses punished and the frequency of the response did not appear to be linear, but rather a non-linear function. This function suggests that some schedules of intermittent punishment may be as effective as continuous punishment, at least in the case of the continued suppression of a response that has already been reduced to a low frequency.     

A choice technique to assess the effects of selective punishment on fixed-ratio performance

The emission of a fixed number of responses by rats was followed by food reinforcement. This fixed number could be accumulated in any way from two continuously available but mutually incompatible response classes, bar pressing, and not bar pressing for a fixed time period. A preference for one response class was arranged by specifying different maximum reinforcement rates for the two classes. Under selective punishment conditions, the preferred response occasionally led to both food and electric shock, while the non-preferred response led only to food. Selective punishment effects were measured through changes in the preference to the two responses in the sequence. The actions of shock intensity, deprivation, the specification of the non-preferred response, and three drugs were investigated. The results were broadly similar to the work reported by Dardano and Sauerbrunn (1964), who found localized increases in interresponse times before punished responses in fixed-ratio schedules. Performance under this procedure was found to be stable and sensitive to each of the experimental variables examined.     

Fixed-ratio punishment by timeout of concurrent variable-interval behavior

Pigeons' responding was maintained by two concurrently available variable-interval reinforcement schedules. A fixed-ratio punishment schedule of timeout periods from the concurrent reinforcement schedules was arranged for responding during one of the variable-interval schedules. The greater the probability of a timeout after a response on the punished variable-interval schedule (the smaller the fixed ratio that produced timeout), the greater the decline in the relative punished response rates. Relative reinforcement rates remained invariant when relative response rates declined. Both behavioral contrast and induction effects were observed on the unpunished variable-interval schedule as a function of timeout punishment of the other schedule.     

Drugs and punished responding II: d-amphetamine-induced increases in punished responding

The effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding were studied in two experiments. In Experiment I, pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-ratio 30 response fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 60-sec limited holds in both components. Each response was punished with electric shock, the intensity of which was varied systematically. In Experiment II, another group of pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-interval 5-min fixed-interval 5-min schedule of food presentation with 40-sec limited holds. Each response was punished with shock during one component, and every thirtieth response was punished in the other component. d-Amphetamine increased overall rates of punished responding only rarely under any of the punishment conditions; however, response rates within the fixed-interval when rates were low were increased by d-amphetamine when the shock intensity was low (Experiment I), or when responses produced shock intermittently (Experiment II). The data suggest that the effects of d-amphetamine on punished responding depend on the control rate of responding, the punishment intensity, the punishment frequency, and the schedule of food presentation.     

The effect of punishment shock intensity upon responding under multiple schedules

In the first of two experiments, responses of two pigeons were maintained by multiple variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Concurrent punishment was introduced, which consisted of a brief electric shock after each tenth response. The initial punishment intensities had no lasting effect upon responding. Then, as shock intensity increased, variable-ratio response rates were suppressed more quickly than variable-interval response rates. When shock intensity decreased, variable-interval responding recovered more quickly, but the rates under both schedules eventually returned to their pre-punishment levels. In the second experiment, the following conditions were studied in three additional pigeons: (1) With each shock intensity in effect for a number of sessions, punishment shock intensity was gradually increased and decreased and responding was maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement; (2) Changes in punishment shock intensity as described above with responding maintained by either a variable-ratio or a fixed-ratio schedule, which were presented on alternate days; (3) Session-to-session changes in shock intensity with responding maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules. Responding under the two schedules was suppressed to approximately the same extent by a particular shock intensity. Also, post-reinforcement pauses under the fixed-ratio schedule increased as response suppression increased.     

Suppression of behavior by timeout punishment when suppression results in loss of positive reinforcement

This investigation, using rats as subjects and punishment by timeout for responses maintained on a ratio schedule, sought to determine whether behavior would be suppressed by timeout punishment when such suppression also reduced reinforcement density or frequency. A series of experiments indicated that timeout punishment suppressed responding, with the degree of suppression increasing as a function of the duration of the timeout period. Suppressive effects were found to decrease as a function of increases in deprivation (body weight) and were eliminated when the punished response also was reinforced. It was concluded that timeout can produce aversive effects even when loss of reinforcement results. An alternative interpretation of the findings, based on the effects of extinction periods and delay of reinforcement on chained behavior, was discussed.     

Relative frequency of reinforcement and rate of punished behavior

After training on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, each response in one component of the schedule was followed by a brief electric shock. When the rate of punished responses stabilized, the frequency of reinforcement in the other component was first decreased and then increased from the baseline frequency. The effects of these manipulations were consistent with reports of interactions in multiple schedules involving only unpunished behavior, i.e., the rate of punished responses increased with a higher relative frequency of reinforcement in the punishment component and decreased with a lower relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. The relevance of such findings to a further generality of behavioral contrast effects is discussed.     

A facilitative effect of punishment on unpunished behavior

The key pecking of two pigeons was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement during the presentation of each of two stimuli. In various phases of the experiment, punishment followed every response emitted in the presence of one of the stimuli. In general, when the rate of punished responding changed during the presentation of one stimulus, the rate of unpunished responding during the other stimulus changed in the opposite direction. This sort of change in rate is an example of behavioral contrast. When punishment was introduced, the rate of punished responding decreased and the rate of unpunished responding increased as functions of shock intensity. When the rate of previously punished responding increased after the termination of the shock, the rate of the always unpunished responding decreased. When the procedure correlated with a red key was changed from variable-interval reinforcement and punishment for each response to extinction and no punishment, the rate of reinforced responding during presentations of a green key decreased and then increased while the rate of the previously punished responding during red first increased and then decreased during extinction.     

The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans

During Phase I, three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, response rates conformed to Herrnstein's equation for single variable-interval schedules. Punishment suppressed responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, and the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was elevated. During Phase II, the same five schedules (A) were in operation (without punishment), but in addition, a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) of standard reinforcement frequency was introduced. On alternate days, responding in Component B was punished according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, absolute response rates conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe performance in concurrent schedules; the ratios of the response rates in the two components and the ratios of the times spent in the two components conformed to the Matching Law. When responding in Component B was punished, response rates in Component B were reduced and those in Component A were elevated, these changes being reflected in distortions of the matching relationship.     

The effects of punishment intensity on squirrel monkeys

Responses of squirrel monkeys were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Concurrently, punishment consisting of a brief electric shock followed each response. As has been found for pigeons and rats, punishment did not produce extreme, all-or-none reactions. By gradually increasing the punishment intensity it was possible to produce response rates intermediate to no suppression and complete suppression. Similarly, the moment-to-moment response rate was free of extreme fluctuations. A “warm-up” effect occurred in which the punished responses were especially suppressed during the initial part of a session. The pre-punishment performance was negatively accelerated within a session, and punishment reduced the degree of negative acceleration. When punishment was discontinued, responding recovered immediately except when suppression had been complete or prolonged. When the punishment intensity was decreased gradually, more suppression resulted at a given intensity than when intensity was increased gradually. This suggests a “behavioral inertia” effect wherein behavior at a new punishment intensity is biased toward the behavior at the previous value. A corollary generalization is that the larger the change in intensity, the less the behavior at the new value will be biased toward the behavior at the previous value.     

Punishment by noise in an alternative response situation

Operant responses of human subjects were conditioned according to a variable-interval schedule of positive reinforcement. A brief noise was delivered as punishment for each of the responses. The noise suppressed the punished responses more when an alternative unpunished response was concurrently available than when only a single punished response was available. This finding extends the generality of a previous study that had used a period of extinction rather than the brief noise as the punishing stimulus.     

Some effects of punishment shock intensity upon discriminative responding

Three pigeons received visual discrimination training under both multiple variable-ratio extinction and variable-interval extinction schedules. All birds developed nearly perfect discrimination. When punishment for every tenth response during food reinforcement was presented, responding decreased as shock intensity increased. At the same time, responding during extinction, which was not punished, increased at intermediate punishment intensities, but returned to low levels under severe punishment. A second procedure, in which punishment and no-punishment sessions alternated unsystematically, was employed with two of the birds. The results under this procedure essentially replicated the data obtained as punishment shock intensity increased gradually.     

Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive reinforcement

Six male White Carneaux pigeons were trained to peck at one of two keys to obtain food on several fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Concurrently, the first response on a second key could, I—change the conditions of visual stimulation and remove the food reinforcement contingency, II—change the conditions of stimulation and have no effect upon the reinforcement contingency, or III—do nothing. The second response on the stimulus change key always restored baseline conditions. When second-key responses produced a stimulus change, the number of such responses was a function of the ratio value on the first key. Typically, second-key responses occurred before the start of fixed-ratio runs. The duration of stimulus change periods was an exponential function of the number of responses required for reinforcement when the possibility for reinforcement was not disturbed by periods of stimulus change (Condition II).     

Multiple punishment schedule

Concurrent schedules of punishment and fixed-ratio reinforcement were studied in six white Carneaux pigeons. Two stimuli were alternated on the translucent key which served as the response mechanism. The pigeons were exposed to continuous punishment in one stimulus and first response punishment in the other. It was found that continuous punishment suppressed the fixed-ratio performance more than did punishment of the first response. Typically, a ratio run of responses was completed in spite of the onset of continuous punishment. Responding was then reduced for the remainder of the continuous punishment stimulus, except for those times when responding was initiated near the end of the stimulus. The results indicate that a multiple schedule can be used to compare different schedules of punishment in the same organism.     

Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance

Three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the relationship between response rate and reinforcement frequency conformed to Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, while the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was increased.     

Punishment of temporally spaced responding

The responses of pigeons were maintained by a DRL schedule of food reinforcement. With this schedule, responses were reinforced only when a fixed period of time elapsed without an intervening response. Punishment of all responses reduced the frequency of these responses as a direct function of the punishment intensity. As a consequence of the increased temporal spacing of responses, more reinforcements resulted during punishment. Under progressively higher intensities of punishment, the reinforcement frequency increased to a maximum value and then decreased at the highest intensities. The increased frequency of reinforcement which resulted during punishment did not counteract the suppressive effect of punishment, nor did it lead to a low response rate after punishment was removed. Punishment did not reduce the inter-response time distribution uniformly, but rather especially reduced the number of short inter-response times. Even at the low punishment intensities, the number of short inter-response times was considerably reduced. After punishment was discontinued, performance recovered almost completely after a compensatory burst. The number as well as the temporal pattern of responses returned to normal.     

Effect of variable-interval punishment on the behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement

One male and three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement under a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtraction of money) according to a variable-interval 170-second schedule. In the absence of punishment, the rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency, as predicted by Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding under lower frequencies of reinforcement; responding under higher reinforcement frequencies was much less affected. This was reflected in an increase in the value of K_H (the constant expressing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate), whereas there was no significant change in the value of R_max (the constant expressing the maximum response rate). Previous results had shown that variable-ratio punishment resulted in a change in the values of both constants (Bradshaw, Szabadi, and Bevan, 1977). The results of the present study were consistent with the concept that the suppressive effects of punishment on responding depend on the nature of the punishment schedule.     

Toward a quantitative theory of punishment

In two experiments, pigeons' key pecking for food on concurrent variable-interval schedules was punished with electric shock according to concurrent variable-interval punishment schedules. With unequal frequencies of food but equal rates of punishment associated with the two keys and at several intensities of shock, the response and time allocation of all six pigeons overmatched the obtained relative frequency of food. The overmatching was predicted by a subtractive model of the interaction between punishment and positive reinforcement but not by two alternative models. Increases in the k and r_e parameters of the generalized matching law could not account for the observed shifts in preference.