Behavior simultaneously maintained by both presentation and termination of noxious stimuli

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a 3-minute variable-interval schedule of response-produced electric-shock presentation. At the same time, responding on a second lever was maintained under a 3-minute fixed-interval schedule of termination of the shock-presentation schedule and shock-correlated stimuli. Under the termination schedule, the first response after a 3-minute period produced a 1-minute timeout, during which no events occurred and responding had no scheduled consequence. Relatively high and constant rates of responding were maintained on the lever where responding produced shock. Lower rates and positively accelerated patterns of responding occurred on the lever where responding terminated the shock schedule. Thus, responding was simultaneously maintained by presentation of an event and by termination of a stimulus associated with that event. Rates and patterns of responding on each lever were reversed when the schedules arranged on each lever were reversed on two occasions. When shock intensity was increased from 0 to 10 mA, responding maintained both by presentation of shock and by termination of the shock schedule increased, but responding maintained by shock presentation increased to a greater extent. Positive and negative reinforcement, usually regarded as separate behavioral processes involving different events, can coexist when behavior is controlled by different contingencies involving the same event.     

Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement

After response-dependent reinforcement established key-pecking as the predominant response, pigeons received schedules in which reinforcements occurred without reference to responding. These response-independent schedules involved either a reinforcement every 5 min, or reinforcements at irregular intervals that averaged 5 min. The response-independent schedules generated characteristic patterns of responding. The fixed schedule produced positively accelerated responding between reinforcements, and the variable schedule produced either steady rates, erratic, or negatively accelerated patterns. The patterns developed independent of the distribution of responses existing when the schedule was first imposed. The rate of responding varied for the three birds, but, for all, response-independent schedules decreased the rates below the level maintained by response-dependent reinforcement. Although the rate of responding was affected primarily by the events contiguous with reinforcement, the pattern of responding appeared to be determined mainly by the presentation of reinforcements in relation to time.     

Two types of pigeon key pecking: suppression of long- but not short-duration key pecks by duration-dependent shock

The key pecking of eight pigeons was maintained on a variable-interval 1-minute schedule of food reinforcement. Sometimes, all responses between 35 and 50 milliseconds in duration produced a shock; sometimes, all responses between 10 and 25 milliseconds produced a shock; sometimes, shocks were produced by pecks without regard to duration (nondifferential punishment), and sometimes shocks were delivered independently of responding. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses selectively suppressed those responses, while punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and nondifferential punishment suppressed responding overall but did not suppress responses of particular duration. Punishment of 35- to 50-millisecond responses suppressed key pecking slightly less than did nondifferential punishment. Punishment of 10- to 25-millisecond responses and response-independent shock produced roughly equal amounts of suppression, substantially less than the other punishment procedures. The data support the view that there are at least two kinds of key peck, identifiable on the basis of duration, one of which (short duration) is insensitive to its consequences.     

Response elimination: A comparison of four procedures

Four procedures for eliminating an operant response were compared within a multiple schedule. Response reduction was most rapid when reinforcement was provided for a specific alternative response. The decline in responding produced by extinction and differential reinforcement of other behavior was similar. Responding initially increased and then gradually decreased when reinforcers were delivered independently of responding at fixed times. Removal of reinforcement from the alternative-response and DRO procedures did not result in recovery of the target response. However, the shift from response-independent dilivery of reinforcers to extinction caused an initial increase in responding.     

Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation

Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixed-interval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variable-ratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixed-interval reinforcement finally was obtained.     

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.     

Effects of modeling versus instructions on sensitivity to reinforcement schedules

This study examined the effects of modeling versus instructions on the choices of 3 typically developing children and 3 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) whose academic responding showed insensitivity to reinforcement schedules. During baseline, students chose between successively presented pairs of mathematics problems associated with different variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. After responding proved insensitive to the schedules, sessions were preceded by either instructions or modeling, counterbalanced across students in a multiple baseline design across subjects. During the instruction condition, students were told how to distribute responding to earn the most reinforcers. During the modeling condition, students observed the experimenter performing the task while describing her distribution of responding to obtain the most reinforcers. Once responding approximated obtained reinforcement under either condition, the schedules of reinforcement were changed, and neither instruction nor modeling was provided. Both instruction and modeling interventions quickly produced patterns of response allocation that approximated obtained rates of reinforcement, but responding established with modeling was more sensitive to subsequent changes in the reinforcement schedules than responding established with instructions. Results were similar for students with and without ADHD.     

Concurrent performances: rate constancies without changeover delays

Pigeons' pecks on two keys were maintained, without changeover delays, by independent variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Four regularly cycling 2-min components scheduled reinforcement respectively for both keys, left key only, both keys, and right key only. Initially, reinforcement scheduled for one key alone produced more responding on that key than reinforcement scheduled concurrently for both keys. Continued sessions reduced this difference; response rate on a given key approached constancy, or invariance with respect to the performance on and schedule for the other key. When extinction replaced the reinforcement schedule on either key, responding on that key decreased more during components that scheduled reinforcement for the other key than during those that did not. This demonstration that responses on one key were not supported by reinforcers on the other key suggested that the alternation of concurrent responding and either-key-alone responding prevented concurrent superstitions from developing.     

Parametric analysis of delayed primary and conditioned reinforcers

We examined the effects of delayed reinforcement on the responding of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Three conditions were evaluated: (a) food reinforcement, (b) token reinforcement with a postsession exchange opportunity, and (c) token reinforcement with a posttrial exchange opportunity. Within each condition, we assessed responding given (a) a no‐reinforcement baseline, (b) immediate reinforcement, and (c) delayed reinforcement, in which responses produced a reinforcer after 1 of 6 delays. Results suggest that delayed food produced greater response persistence than did delayed tokens.     

Response rate as a function of amount of reinforcement for a signalled concurrent response

Pigeons were exposed to two equal, concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement on two response keys. One key was continuously illuminated. Pecking on that key produced reinforcements of constant duration. The other key was normally dark, except that availability of reinforcement was signalled by illuminating the key. The duration of access to a grain reinforcer was varied on the key that signalled reinforcement. Rate of response on the first key, the one that did not signal reinforcement, was found to vary inversely with duration of signalled reinforcement on the other key. The latency between the signal and the peck that produced signalled reinforcement remained about constant. These results show that responding on one key in concurrent variable-interval schedules depends on the reinforcement delivered by both schedules and is independent of responding on the other key.     

The contribution of an added counter to a fixed-ratio schedule

Although previous research showed that a visual counter increased the rate of responding on a large fixed-ratio schedule, a theoretical analysis of the factors responsible for fixed-ratio performance suggests that the primary control by number of responses since reinforcement is to weaken the performance. The present experiment employed a multiple schedule in which the same fixed-ratio value alternated with and without an added counter. It tested the hypothesis that the differential reinforcement of high-rate responding masked the attenuation of the fixed-ratio performance from the unoptimal discriminative control produced by the fixed relation between number of responses and reinforcement. In the present experiment the postreinforcement pause was consistently longer in the components with the added counter, while running rates remained comparable between the components of the multiple schedule. Both components of the multiple schedule involved differential reinforcement of high-rate responding while only the components with the added counter amplified the discriminative control by number of pecks since reinforcement.     

Responding maintained under fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules of electric shock presentation

Following initial histories under a schedule of electric shock postponement, lever pressing in squirrel monkeys was maintained under fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules of electric shock presentation. No difference in either rate or pattern of responding was obtained when these schedules were presented as components of a multiple schedule. When they were presented singly for long periods of time, the fixed-interval schedule consistently maintained a higher response rate than the fixed-time schedule. The pattern of responding under both schedules was similar, typically consisting of a pause at the beginning of each interval followed by either a steady or a positively accelerating rate of responding. The results suggest that the response-shock dependency is of critical importance in the maintenance of high rates of responding under schedules of electric shock presentation, and support the general view that such responding may be conceptualized as operant behavior under control of many of the same variables that control responding under comparable schedules of food or water reinforcement.     

Effects of timeout on spaced responding in pigeons

Three pigeons were trained under a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule of 20 sec, and then exposed to a schedule under which responses terminating interresponse times less than 20 sec produced timeout and responses terminating interresponse times greater than 20 sec produced reinforcement. Response-produced timeouts selectively decreased the probability of short interresponse times and thereby produced a higher frequency of reinforcement. The suppressive effect of timeout was independent of timeout duration, with timeouts of 5, 10, or 20 sec. Similar effects were found when the minimum interresponse time that could be terminated by response-produced reinforcement was increased to 30 sec. The suppressive effects of timeout on responding maintained by these schedules were similar to previous reports in which responding was punished with electric shock.     

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

The puzzle of responding maintained by response-contingent shock.

Four squirrel monkeys were first exposed to a sequence of procedures that reliably generate responding maintained by brief response-contingent electric shocks arranged according to a fixed-interval schedule. After responding had become stable on the fixed-interval schedule, additional contingencies were added in tandem, whereby after completion of the interval, the spacing of responses affected shock delivery. In one procedure, responses had to be spaced more widely than their previous median value if shock were to be delivered. In the other procedure, responses had to be spaced more closely to produce shock. On the first of these procedures, decreased but stable responses rates would indicate that shock functioned as a positive reinforcer; on the second, increased response rates would indicate the positively reinforcing function. Instead, response rates accelerated on the procedure that targeted more widely spaced responses for shock delivery, and decelerated or ceased on the procedure that arranged for shocks to be produced by more closely spaced responses. Consistent with other recent findings, these results question the interpretation of performances maintained by response-contingent shock as engendered by positive reinforcement and are consistent with aversive-control interpretations. The details of that aversive control are not entirely clear, however, and these same procedures would be informative if applied to shock-maintained behavior that is generated in other ways.     

Changing the response unit from a single peck to a fixed number of pecks in fixed-interval schedules

Each of three pigeons was studied first under a standard fixed-interval schedule. With the fixed interval held constant, the schedule was changed to a second-order schedule in which the response unit was the behavior on a small fixed-ratio schedule (first a fixed-ratio 10 and then a fixed-ratio 20 schedule). That is, every completion of the fixed-ratio schedule produced a 0.7-sec darkening of the key and reset the response count to zero for the next ratio. The first fixed-ratio completed after the fixed-interval schedule elapsed produced the 0.7-sec blackout followed immediately by food. These manipulations were carried out under two different fixed-interval durations for each bird ranging from 3 min to 12 min. The standard fixed-interval schedules produced the typical pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a moderate rate until the next reinforcement. The second-order schedules also engendered a pause after reinforcement, but responding occurred in bursts separated by brief pauses after each blackout. For a particular fixed-interval duration, post-reinforcement pauses increased slightly as the number of pecks in the response unit increased despite large differences in the rate and pattern of key pecking. Post-reinforcement pause increased with the fixed-interval duration under all response units. These data confirm that the allocation of time between pausing and responding is relatively independent of the rate and topography of responding after the pause.     

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.     

Characteristics and response-displacement effects of shock-generated responding during negative reinforcement procedures: pre-shock responding and post-shock aggressive responding

Bar-pressing (Experiment I) or key-pressing (Experiments II and III) responses of monkeys were reinforced according to a fixed-interval schedule of negative reinforcement: the first response after a fixed interval of time terminated regularly spaced shocks for a fixed time designated as the reinforcement period. During extinction, shocks continued during the reinforcement period. That there were two types of responding generated by shock alone was indicated by (1) the level of responding maintained during extinction relative to conditions without shock, (2) the stability of two between-shock response patterns across reinforcement and extinction conditions, and (3) the development of these two between-shock patterns without a history of reinforcement. Subjects developed either a pre-shock or a post-shock response pattern when only the bar was available. However, when both a bite tube, an operandum requiring an aggressive topography, and a recessed key, an operandum that did not require an aggressive topography, were provided, the post-shock pattern was observed in tube biting and the pre-shock pattern was observed in key pressing. Removal of the bite tube produced post-shock key responding similar to that observed when only the bar was available. The displacement of post-shock, aggression-motivated responding confirmed the confounding effect of shock-generated responding in negative reinforcement procedures, and suggests that the use of concurrent response alternatives would reduce such confounding.     

Food and intracranial stimulation responding suppressed with regular-interval shock.

Attenuation of conditioned suppression during intracranial stimulation was compared with that during food reinforcement. Response rates controlled by food and by brain stimulation were equalized on a multiple schedule by adjusting the stimulating current. When foot shock was delivered during timeout periods separating response components, responding for food was significantly more suppressed than responding for brain stimulation. When components were shortened from 10 to 2 minutes, responding maintained by either food or brain stimulation showed a similar temporal pattern of suppression preceding each shock, but responding in the component involving food remained significantly more suppressed. Explanations for the attenuated suppression during brain stimulation based on neural disruption, stimulus blocking, and analgesic properties were questioned. The increased responding during brain stimulation seemed to reflect greater response strength relative to food reinforced responding.