HUMAN RESPONDING ON RANDOM‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES OF RESPONSE‐COST PUNISHMENT: THE ROLE OF REDUCED REINFORCEMENT DENSITY

An experiment with adult humans investigated the effects of response‐contingent money loss (response‐cost punishment) on monetary‐reinforced responding. A yoked‐control procedure was used to separate the effects on responding of the response‐cost contingency from the effects of reduced reinforcement density. Eight adults pressed buttons for money on a three‐component multiple reinforcement schedule. During baseline, responding in all components produced money gains according to a random‐interval 20‐s schedule. During punishment conditions, responding during the punishment component conjointly produced money losses according to a random‐interval schedule. The value of the response‐cost schedule was manipulated across conditions to systematically evaluate the effects on responding of response‐cost frequency. Participants were assigned to one of two yoked‐control conditions. For participants in the Yoked Punishment group, during punishment conditions money losses were delivered in the yoked component response independently at the same intervals that money losses were produced in the punishment component. For participants in the Yoked Reinforcement group, responding in the yoked component produced the same net earnings as produced in the punishment component. In 6 of 8 participants, contingent response cost selectively decreased response rates in the punishment component and the magnitude of the decrease was directly related to the punishment schedule value. Under punishment conditions, for participants in the Yoked Punishment group response rates in the yoked component also decreased, but the decrease was less than that observed in the punishment component, whereas for participants in the Yoked Reinforcement group response rates in the yoked component remained similar to rates in the no‐punishment component. These results provide further evidence that contingent response cost functions similarly to noxious punishers in that it appears to suppress responding apart from its effects on reinforcement density.     

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.     

Fixed-ratio punishment with continuous reinforcement

Rats were reinforced with water for every bar-press and concurrently punished for every 10th or 20th bar-press. Punishment produced an initial suppression of responding followed by recovery. A slight change in the method of delivering punishment eventually led to a high response rate just after punishment, a low response rate just before punishment, and frequent intermediate pauses. The results are interpreted as showing that punishment became a safe signal and that the high rate of responding it released came to act as a conditioned aversive stimulus. The effects of amphetamine were consistent with this interpretation. Alcohol had the paradoxical effect of increasing pauses and depressing the low rate before punishment.     

Response strength in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules

Responding in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules of equal mean reinforcement rate was examined during extinction, satiation, and in the presence of various free-food schedules. In Experiments I and II, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval–fixed-interval schedules. Decreases in the rate of responding due to extinction, satiation, or food schedules were approximately equal regardless of the temporal pattern of reinforcer presentation. In Experiment III, pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which each component was a two-member homogeneous response chain terminating in a fixed-interval schedule during one component and in a variable-interval schedule during the other. The length of both terminal links was varied over a series of conditions. Initial-link responding in the fixed-interval component was reduced more by increasing terminal-link length than was initial-link responding in the variable-interval component. However, no differences in resistance to satiation and extinction were obtained across the fixed and variable components. If the relative decrease in responding produced by satiation and extinction is used as an index of the “value” of the conditions maintaining responding, then these data suggest that fixed and variable schedules of equal mean length are equally valued. This conclusion, however, is not consistent with findings of preference for variable over fixed schedules obtained in studies using concurrent-chain procedures.     

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.     

Interactions between the discriminative and aversive properties of punishment

Punishment acquires a discriminative property when it is selectively paired with either reinforcement or extinction. At the milder punishment intensities, the discriminative control exerted by punishment is similar to the discriminative control exerted by a response-produced neutral (nonaversive) stimulus. However, the effect of the aversive property is apparent as the intensity of the punishment is increased. The aversive property of the punishment acts to enhance the discriminative control when the punishment is selectively applied during extinction periods, and to attenuate the discriminative control when the punishment is selectively applied during reinforcement periods. One major difference was found between the control exerted by the punishment and the response-produced neutral simulus: Responding greatly increased after the S^Δ punishment but not after the S^Δ neutral stimulus; this increase in responding was independent of the punishment intensities studied.     

Punishment contras during free-operant avoidance

Punishment of bar-pressing responses of rhesus monkeys with electric shock in one component of a multiple free-operant avoidance schedule suppressed responding in that component. These decreases were concomitant with response rate increases in the unpunished component (punishment contrast). Response rates in both components increased when punishment was removed and decreased in successive sessions. These effects of punishment on unpunished responding were similar to those obtained during single and multiple schedules of positive reinforcement and they suggest a further similarity in the development of discriminations during positive and negative reinforcement schedules.     

Conditioned suppression or facilitation as a function of the behavioral baseline

Rats were exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement. During one component, a bar-press was followed by reinforcement only if it occurred between 15 and 20 sec after the previous response. This differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule produced a typical slow rate of responding. During the other component, reinforcement followed the first response to be emitted during limited periods of time which occurred at fixed intervals. These fixed-interval schedules with a limited hold produced higher response rates, described as `interval' or `ratio-like' behavior. Responding during the DRL component increased in frequency during a tone which ended with an unavoidable shock of low intensity, but decreased during the tone when the shock intensity was raised. The `interval' and `ratio-like' responding decreased in frequency during the tone at all shock intensities. Initial acceleration of the DRL responding appeared to be due to adventitious punishment of collateral behavior which was observed between the bar-presses. The more severe conditioned suppression during the fixed-interval components might be the result of the lower probability of reinforcement after any single response.     

A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We evaluated one method for determining whether response suppression under noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function of satiation or extinction. Three individuals with developmental disabilities who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggression participated. Results of functional analyses indicated that their problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. NCR procedures, individualized for each participant, were implemented in a multiple baseline across subjects design and were associated with decreases in all participants' problem behavior. Identification of the mechanism by which NCR produced these effects was based on examination of cumulative records showing response patterns during and immediately following each NCR session. Satiation during NCR should lead to a temporary increase in responding during the post-NCR (extinction) period due to a transition from the availability to the unavailability of reinforcement (satiation to deprivation). Alternatively, extinction during NCR should reveal no increase in responding during the extinction period because the contingency for the problem behavior would remain unchanged and the transition from satiation to deprivation conditions would be irrelevant. Results suggested that the operative mechanisms of NCR were idiosyncratic across the 3 participants and appeared to change during treatment for 1 of the participants.     

Continuous punishment of free-operant avoidance in the rat

Three groups of albino rats were trained under a free-operant avoidance (Sidman) procedure with equal shock-shock and response-shock intervals. After stable performance was achieved, the animals were concurrently exposed to a brief electric shock after each response. The procedures were as follows: Punishment Schedule I: punishment shock was introduced at an intensity approximately one quarter that of avoidance shock; increments of nearly this same size were made as stable performance was achieved at succeeding punishment shock intensities. Punishment Schedule II: punishment shock was introduced at approximately one-half the intensity of avoidance shock; after stable performance, punishment shock was increased to the same intensity as avoidance shock. Punishment Schedule III: punishment shock was introduced and maintained at the same intensity as avoidance shock. Punishment was continued for all groups until one of two suppression criteria was attained. All animals made fewer responses and received more avoidance shocks as a function of increasing punishment shock. Half of the animals under Punishment Schedule I required punishment shock higher than avoidance shock to meet their assigned suppression criterion. A comparison of all procedures showed that suppression was greater when punishment shock was initially at high intensity.     

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.     

Analysis of factors that affect responding in a two-response chain in children with developmental disabilities

A sequence of behaviors consisting of appropriate responses, inappropriate responses, or a combination of both can be linked together in a behavior chain. Several operant processes may disrupt behavior chains. For example, one or more members of the behavior chain may be affected when reinforcement is withheld for the last response in the chain (extinction), when the last response is reinforced even if it occurs without the other responses in the chain (unchaining), or when access to the terminal reinforcer is available independent of responding (satiation). However, few studies have examined the effects of these types of procedures on responding that occurs in the context of behavior chains. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of three clinically relevant procedures and processes (i.e., extinction, satiation, and unchaining) on behaviors that occur as part of a behavior chain. Overall, extinction and satiation resulted in a decrease in both responses in the chain. During the unchaining procedure, decreases were observed in the first response in the chain but not in the second response.     

Selective punishment of fixed-ratio performance

Key-pecking of pigeons, maintained by an FR 50 grain reinforcement schedule, was punished by shocking the first, middle, or last response of the ratio. Under high shock levels, the three punishment conditions produced differential effects on the behavior. Punishment of the first response of the ratio resulted in consistent and extended post-reinforcement pausing and frequent extended breaks after the initial response(s) of the ratio. Punishment of the 25th response disrupted responding in the first half of the ratio with little effect on the last half of the ratio. Punishment of the final response resulted in breaks and local rate changes in various parts of the ratio. Durations of pauses after reinforcement were more variable when the 25th and 50th responses were punished relative to those when the first response was punished.     

Punishment of an extinguishing shock-avoidance response by time-out from positive reinforcement

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of punishment by time-out from positive reinforcement on the extinction of discriminated shock-avoidance responding. Subjects were trained initially to bar press for food on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement and, concurrently, to avoid shock at the onset of a warning signal. Experiment I compared avoidance extinction performance under no punishment and when avoidance responding resulted in a 30-sec TO from reinforced appetitive responding. In Exp II, the contingent use of TO punishment was compared with its random, or noncontingent use. The results of both experiments showed that in the absence of punishment, avoidance extinction was characterized by short latencies and nearly 100% avoidance responding. Avoidance responding in extinction was little affected by noncontingent TO punishment. When TO was made contingent upon avoidance responding, however, avoidance latencies immediately increased and the frequency of avoidance responses subsequently decreased to zero.     

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.     

EFFECTS OF SPACED RESPONDING DRL ON THE STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR OF PROFOUNDLY RETARDED PERSONS

Stereotypic responding and social behaviors of three profoundly retarded children were measured before and during application of a DRL contingency for stereotypic responding. A variant of the standard DRL procedure, spaced responding DRL, was used, in which reinforcement is delivered following a response if that response has been separated from the previous response by at least a fixed minimum time interval. Three children were treated by using a reversal design. Results showed that: (a) during baseline sessions, the children engaged in high rates of stereotypic responding and very low rates of appropriate social behavior; and (b) during DRL sessions, appropriate behavior increased markedly as stereotypic responding was reduced. The data suggest that spaced responding DRL may be effective in increasing appropriate social behavior as well as in reducing stereotypic responding.     

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.     

On the effects of noncontingent food delivery during naturally occurring periods of deprivation and satiation

Four adults diagnosed with moderate to profound mental retardation performed a manual response that was reinforced with food identified from a stimulus preference assessment. During baseline, the response was reinforced on a variable ratio (VR) schedule. Participants were then exposed to noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) plus extinction, and no‐food (i.e., extinction) conditions. A combination multielement and reversal design was used to evaluate intervention effects. For each participant, sessions were conducted both before and after the midday meal during baseline and NCR‐plus‐extinction conditions, thus capitalizing on naturally occurring states of food deprivation and satiation. Results showed that response rates were slightly higher during deprivation sessions than during satiation sessions during NCR‐plus‐extinction and VR schedules for three of the four participants. For three participants, initial NCR schedules did not reduce responding; however, subsequent NCR schedules, which were twice as dense, were effective in reducing response rates. The results are discussed in terms of the development of NCR as a reductive technology and the manipulation of establishing operations applied to the habilitation of individuals with developmental disabilities. The use of a basic experimental preparation as a method of examining decelerative interventions is also addressed. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reversal of preference under progressive-ratio schedules by punishment

A progressive-ratio reinforcement schedule, in which successive reinforcements required an additional 50 responses, was programmed on one key. A response on a second key reset the progressive-ratio schedule to the first step. Before punishment, all pigeons consistently reset the schedule after reinforcement on the first step, thereby minimizing the number of responses required for reinforcement. Punishment was a brief electric shock contingent upon each response on the reset key. The first effect of punishment was to change the frequency of extra responses on the reset key. Under higher intensities of punishment, the pigeons completed the advanced steps of the progressive-ratio schedule before resetting to the first step. Completions of advanced steps were accompanied by decreases in the overall rate of responding and the rate of reinforcement. When the punishment contingency was removed, the major features of pre-punishment performance were recovered.     

The neurotic paradox and self-punitive behavior in humans

Human subjects learned a key-pressing response in order to avoid or escape shock. The reinforcement contingencies were then changed to punishment or to regular nonpunished extinction. The locus of shock onset and offset was systematically varied during the punishment phase. More subjects reported awarencess of the change in the nonpunished extinction group. By inference, the punished groups responded more, and thus the results appear analogous to animal studies on vicious circle, self-punitive responding. Discriminability of change from acquisition to extinction appeared to affect detection of the change.