Classical Avoidance without a warning stimulus

White rats were scheduled to be shocked every 15 sec; but they were given a limited time interval between shocks when they could prevent the next scheduled shock from occurring if they pressed a lever. The duration of this limited avoidance period was varied, as was its location within the interval between scheduled shocks. Response rate, shock frequency, and the temporal distribution of lever presses were examined. Conditions were generated in which the formation of a temporal discrimination prevented the animals from maintaining successful avoidance behavior.     

The effects of escape conditioning and shock intensity on responding during inescapable shock

Eight albino rats, conditioned to press a lever to escape shock, continued to lever press during short inescapable shocks presented subsequently. The rate of this behavior was found to be higher for higher shock intensities regardless of the order in which shock values were presented. Relative to the immediately preceding escape rate, responding during inescapable shock was higher following conditioning at higher fixed-ratio escape requirements. Four subjects not conditioned to escape shock pressed the lever very infrequently during inescapable shock and showed little change with changes in shock intensity. The escape conditioning effects suggest that responding during inescapable shock is superstitious escape behavior. The effects of shock intensity on this behavior appear to be similar to reported effects of shock intensity on escape behavior.     

Lever attacking by rats during free-operant avoidance

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.     

Avoidance based on shock intensity reduction with no change in shock probability

Rats were trained on a free-operant avoidance procedure in which shock intensity was controlled by interresponse time. Shocks were random at a density of about 10 shocks per minute. Shock probability was response independent. As long as interresponse times remained less than the limit in effect, any shocks received were at the lower of two intensities (0.75 mA). Whenever interresponse times exceeded the limit, any shocks received were at the higher intensity (1.6 mA). The initial limit of 15 seconds was decreased in 3-second steps to either 6 or 3 seconds. All animals lever pressed to avoid higher intensity shock. As the interresponse time limit was reduced, the response rate during the lower intensity shock and the proportion of brief interresponse times increased. Substantial warmup effects were evident, particularly at the shorter interresponse-time limits. Shock intensity reduction without change in shock probability was effective in the acquisition and maintenance of avoidance responding, as well as in differentiation of interresponse times. This research suggests limitations on the generality of a safety signal interpretation of avoidance conditioning.     

Integrated delays to shock as negative reinforcement

Rats were shocked at the rate of two per minute until they pressed a lever. In Experiment I, shocks were delivered at variable-time intervals averaging 30 sec; in Experiment II, shocks were delivered at fixed-time intervals of 30 sec. A response produced an alternate condition for a fixed-time period. The shock frequency following a response, calculated over the whole alternate condition, was two per minute. The pattern of shocks in the alternate condition was controlled so that the first shock occurred at the same time as it would have occurred had the response not been emitted; the remaining shocks were delayed until near the end of the alternate condition. Bar pressing was acquired in both experiments. This finding is not explained by two-factor theories of avoidance and is inconsistent with the notion that overall shock-frequency reduction is necessary for negative reinforcement. The data imply that responding is determined by the integrated delays to each shock following a response versus the integrated delays to shock in the absence of a response.     

Suppression of operant behavior and schedule-induced licking in rats

The first experiment studied the effects of punishment on rats' lever pressing maintained by a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement and on the associated schedule-induced licking. When licking was followed by shock, licking was suppressed but lever pressing was largely unaffected. When lever pressing was followed by shock, lever pressing was suppressed but licking was unaffected. In both cases, the punished behavior recovered its previous unpunished level when the shocks were discontinued. In a second experiment, the rats' lever pressing was maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement under which polydipsic licking also developed. Both lever pressing and licking were partially suppressed during a stimulus correlated with occasional unavoidable electric shocks. With a higher shock intensity, both behaviors were suppressed further. Both lever pressing and licking recovered their previous levels when shocks were discontinued. These results show that schedule-induced licking, which has been described as adjunctive behavior, can be suppressed by procedures that suppress reinforced lever pressing, an operant behavior.     

Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of conditioned anxiety

Three rats were trained to lever press on concurrent random interval 2-min random interval 2-min schedules of milk reinforcement. With a 5-sec changeover delay, relative response rate matched the relative reinforcement duration associated with each lever. A stimulus, during which unavoidable shocks occurred at random intervals, was superimposed on this concurrent baseline, and shifts in preference were found. However, data from this procedure were ambiguous, apparently confounded by shock-elicited response bursts. Termination of the shocks during the stimulus resulted in a rapid recovery of matching, which was preceded by a brief facilitation of responding on the less-preferred lever. The procedure was then changed to a conventional conditioned anxiety paradigm with a variable duration pre-shock stimulus. A marked shift in relative response rate towards the preferred lever was found in all three rats; that is, responding on the preferred lever was far less suppressed during the pre-shock stimulus than responding on the less-preferred lever.     

Some effects of response-independent shocks after unsignaled avoidance conditioning in rats

After extended unsignaled avoidance training, the majority of rats continued frequent responding during long periods when only response-independent shocks were presented. Most responses were shock elicited, i.e., followed immediately after shock. Response rates were directly related to both the frequency and the intensity of response-independent shocks. Responding continued to approximately the same extent, whether shocks were presented at fixed or variable intervals. Few responses were directed toward a second lever in the test chamber, even when the lever previously associated with avoidance was removed. When avoidance was scheduled on the second lever, the rats learned to avoid by operating it. Meanwhile, responding on the first lever became infrequent. Subsequently, when only response-independent shocks were presented, almost all responses occurred upon the lever initially associated with avoidance. Responding that was elicited by response-independent shocks was suppressed by response-dependent (punishment)_shocks of the same intensity. When punishment was withdrawn, recovery of responding occurred. An explanation of the results based upon shock-elicited behaviors is preferred to one stressing unextinguished avoidance responding.     

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF EFFORT REDUCTION IN THE REINFORCING EFFICACY OF TIMEOUT FROM AVOIDANCE

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable‐cycle 30‐s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2‐min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock‐frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.     

Extinction of responding maintained by timeout from avoidance

The resistance to extinction of lever pressing maintained by timeout from avoidance was examined. Rats were trained under a concurrent schedule in which responses on one lever postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance (Sidman) schedule (response-shock interval = 30 s) and responses on another lever produced 2 min of signaled timeout from avoidance on a variable-ratio 15 schedule. Following extended training (106 to 363 2-hr sessions), two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1 two different methods of extinction were compared. In one session, all shocks were omitted, and there was some weakening of avoidance but little change in timeout responding. In another session, responding on the timeout lever was ineffective, and under these conditions timeout responding showed rapid extinction. The within-session patterns produced by extinction manipulations were different than the effects of drugs such as morphine, which also reduces timeout responding. In Experiment 2 shock was omitted for many consecutive sessions. Response rates on the avoidance lever declined relatively rapidly, with noticeable reductions within 5 to 10 sessions. Extinction of the timeout lever response was much slower than extinction of avoidance in all 4 rats, and 2 rats continued responding at baseline levels for more than 20 extinction sessions. These results show that lever pressing maintained by negative reinforcement can be highly resistant to extinction. The persistence of responding on the timeout lever after avoidance extinction is not readily explained by current theories.     

Analysis of response rates during stimulus generalization

In the presence of one click frequency, the presses of two hungry rats on one of two levers were reinforced with food on variable-interval schedules; in the presence of a different click frequency, presses on the other lever were reinforced. In stimulus generalization tests, a variety of click frequencies were presented and reinforcement withheld. The test stimuli were found to exert control over which of the two levers the rats pressed, but not over the rate of pressing the selected lever. The results were interpreted as further evidence that intermediate rates in generalization gradients may be the result of the alternation of several distinct behavior patterns.     

Fix and sample with rats in the dynamics of choice

The generality of the molar view of behavior was extended to the study of choice with rats, showing the usefulness of studying order at various levels of extendedness. Rats' presses on two levers produced food according to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Seven different reinforcer ratios were arranged within each session, without cues identifying them, and separated by blackouts. To alternate between levers, rats pressed on a third changeover lever. Choice changed rapidly with changes in component reinforcer ratio, and more presses occurred on the lever with the higher reinforcer rate. With continuing reinforcers, choice shifted progressively in the direction of the reinforced lever, but shifted more slowly with each new reinforcer. Sensitivity to reinforcer ratio, as estimated by the generalized matching law, reached an average of 0.9 and exceeded that documented in previous studies with pigeons. Visits to the more-reinforced lever preceded by a reinforcer from that lever increased in duration, while all visits to the less-reinforced lever decreased in duration. Thus, the rats' performances moved faster toward fix and sample than did pigeons' performances in previous studies. Analysis of the effects of sequences of reinforcer sources indicated that sequences of five to seven reinforcers might have sufficed for studying local effects of reinforcers with rats. This study supports the idea that reinforcer sequences control choice between reinforcers, pulses in preference, and visits following reinforcers.     

Free-operant acquisition with delayed reinforcement

The acquisition of free-operant lever pressing by hungry rats was investigated under a schedule in which the first lever press in each second programmed a reinforcer delivery after a fixed delay. In two studies acquisition was observed under programmed delays ranging between 0 and 32 sec, although animals trained with a delay of 64 sec pressed no more than yoked, non-contingent controls. In the final study an attempt was made to enhance sensitivity to the instrumental contingency under a 64-sec delay by exposing the animals to the operant chamber in the absence of the lever prior to each training session. Only animals receiving such exposure pressed significantly more than their non-contingent controls.     

A direct comparison of four methods for eliminating a response

Thirty-two rats pressed one lever (lever A) on a VI 30-sec schedule of food reinforcement and were then shifted to one of four procedures for eliminating the lever A response: extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, reinforcement of a different response (pole pushing), and reinforcement of a similar response (pressing lever B). Effectiveness of a response-elimination procedure was measured by (1) how quickly lever A response rate fell to a low level when the procedure was in effect, (2) how much lever A responding recovered when the procedure was discontinued, and (3) how resistant lever A responding was to reinstatement when the VI reinforcement schedule was reimposed. No one method was superior by all three measures. Extinction produced the most variable behavior, while differential reinforcement of other behavior produced the least. Reinforcing alternative behavior produced the greatest recovery in the original lever A response when the response-elimination procedure was discontinued.     

An experimental social relation between two monkeys

A technique was developed for studying the reinforcement of one organism by another. Two pairs of monkeys served as subjects in adjoining but separate lever-pressing chambers. However, they were in visual, aural, and tactile contact with each other. After both pairs were trained to tolerate delays of reinforcement and one pair was trained under stimulus control to exchange reinforcements, monkey A of each pair pressed a lever to feed monkey B, and monkey B pressed to feed monkey A. The experiment sought to determine if this social interaction could be maintained. With a free responding procedure where the monkeys could work at any time in any order, the social relation proved unstable. After several oscillations in which one monkey did most of the responding and the other monkey did most of the eating, the reinforcement frequency for both pairs of animals decreased to very low levels. The final outcome would have been starvation had the experimenter not intervened.     

Schedules of food postponement: II. Maintenance of behavior by food postponement and effects of the schedule parameter

In Experiment I, food-deprived, feeder-trained squirrel monkeys pressed a lever to postpone brief electric shocks (Response-Shock=Shock-Shock interval=30 seconds). Forty-one three-hour sessions of shock postponement were followed by 120 sessions of concurrent shock and food postponement. The shock schedule was unchanged and the food schedule was Response-food interval–20 seconds, Food-food interval 10 seconds. After concurrent shock and food postponement, the shock schedule was discontinued and 40 sessions of food postponement ensued, followed by 53 sessions of extinction. After extinction, food postponement was resumed for 11 sessions. Stable responding with low food rates was maintained under food-postponement after the concurrent schedule. Responding decreased to low levels under extinction and recovered immediately to previous levels when the food-postponement schedule was re-instated. In Experiment II, a parameter of the food-postponement schedule was studied sequentially. Using the same subjects, the Response-food–Food-food interval was manipulated from four seconds to 80 seconds with several orders of presentation. Relations of response rates and food rates to the parameter were similar to those seen under shock postponement. Exposure to very short postponement times (four seconds), resulting in very high food rates, decreased but did not abolish subsequent responding at longer postponement times. Results are discussed from the point of view that reinforcing functions of stimuli consequent on responding depend on a prior history of scheduled contact with those stimuli.     

Within-session changes in key and lever pressing for water during several multiple variable-interval schedules

Rats pressed keys or levers for water reinforcers delivered by several multiple variable-interval schedules. The programmed rate of reinforcement varied from 15 to 240 reinforcers per hour in different conditions. Responding usually increased and then decreased within experimental sessions. As for food reinforcers, the within-session changes in both lever and key pressing were smaller, peaked later, and were more symmetrical around the middle of the session for lower than for higher rates of reinforcement. When schedules provided high rates of reinforcement, some quantitative differences appeared in the within-session changes for lever and key pressing and for food and water. These results imply that basically similar factors produce within-session changes in responding for lever and key pressing and for food and water. The nature of the reinforcer and the choice of response can also influence the quantitative properties of within-session changes at high rates of reinforcement. Finally, the results show that the application of Herrnstein's (1970) equation to rates of responding averaged over the session requires careful consideration.     

Responding under schedules combining response-dependent and response-independent shock delivery

Lever pressing of three squirrel monkeys with experience under continuous avoidance schedules was maintained by response-produced shock under a 5-minute variable-interval schedule. Responding decreased when half of the scheduled shocks were delivered independently of lever pressing and decreased further when all shocks were independent of lever pressing. Responding was lowest when all shocks were eliminated. When the proportion of response-dependent shocks increased, responding increased. This relation occurred even though the frequency and temporal distribution of shock delivery remained the same. Responding of two monkeys increased in a graded fashion as the frequency of shock was increased by arranging variable-time 5-minute, 2-minute, and 1-minute schedules jointly with the variable-interval 5-minute schedule. Thus, increasing the proportion of response-independent shocks decreased responding when the overall frequency of shocks stayed the same, but increased responding when the overall frequency of shock delivery increased.     

Within-Session Changes in Adjunctive and Instrumental Responding

Rats pressed levers for food delivered by several fixed interval schedules. A drinking spout or running wheel was also available during some conditions, but not during others. The rate of lever pressing, drinking and running often changed within experimental sessions. The within-session patterns of lever pressing did not differ when drinking or running was available and when it was not. The correlation between the amount of lever pressing and the amount of drinking or running at a particular time in the session was inconsistently positive or negative. Finding within-session changes in responding for adjunctive behaviors implies that the factors that produce these changes are present for both adjunctive and instrumental behavior. Finding inconsistent correlations between instrumental responding and adjunctive behaviors questions arousal and interference from adjunctive behaviors as explanations for within-session changes in instrumental responding.     

Lever attacking and pressing as a function of conditioning and extinguishing a lever-press avoidance response in rats

Six experimental rats were conditioned to press one of two available levers to avoid shock. The levers registered bites as well as presses. For four of these rats, shock was contingent on lever bites when a specified time period had elapsed after the previous shock. An extinction period, in which only periodic noncontingent shocks were presented, followed avoidance training. Six yoked-control rats received the same sequence of shocks as did the corresponding experimental rats in both the conditioning and extinction phases. All six experimental rats repeatedly bit the avoidance lever. Four bit it more than the nonavoidance lever during conditioning, and five bit it more during extinction. Five of the six experimental rats consistently bit the levers many more times during each session than did their respective control rats, suggesting that avoidance conditioning facilitated lever biting. Rates of lever biting and pressing by all of the experimental rats and by some of the control rats were highest immediately following shock throughout both phases. During later portions of the intervals following shock, characteristic effects of conditioning and extinction were observed. This finding suggests that extinction of avoidance behavior by unavoidable shock presentations can be demonstrated more readily when shock-elicited responding is extricated from the data.