Response cost and the aversive control of human operant behavior

The effects of cost (point-loss per response) upon human avoidance, escape, and avoidance-escape behavior maintained by PLPs (point-loss periods) were investigated. Cost had a marked but differentially suppressive effect upon responding under all schedules. The greatest number of PLPs taken under cost occurred on the escape schedule. In most instances PLPs were more frequent on the avoidance-escape schedule than on the avoidance schedule under cost. Inferior avoidance performance appeared only under cost conditions. Under no-cost, all subjects (Ss) successfully avoided all PLPs after the first hour of conditioning. These results indicate that the development and maintenance of human avoidance and escape behavior may, in part, be dependent upon response cost conditions. Aversive control of human operant behavior may be limited without an adequate specification of response-cost conditions.     

Effects of instructions and reinforcement-feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixed-interval reinforcement

In three experiments, human subjects were trained on a five-component multiple schedule with different fixed intervals of monetary reinforcement scheduled in the different components. Subjects uninstructed about the fixed-interval schedules manifested high and generally equivalent rates regardless of the particular component. By comparison, subjects given instructions about the schedules showed orderly progressions of rates and temporal patterning as a function of the interreinforcement intervals, particularly when feedback about reinforcement was delivered but also when reinforcement-feedback was withheld. Administration of the instructions-reinforcement combination to subjects who had already developed poorly differentiated behavior, however, did not make their behavior substantially better differentiated. When cost was imposed for responding, both instructed and uninstructed subjects showed low and differentiated rates regardless of their prior histories. It was concluded that instructions can have major influences on the establishment and maintenance of human operant behavior.     

Feeding behavior of Aplysia: a model system for comparing cellular mechanisms of classical and operant conditioning

Feeding behavior of Aplysia provides an excellent model system for analyzing and comparing mechanisms underlying appetitive classical conditioning and reward operant conditioning. Behavioral protocols have been developed for both forms of associative learning, both of which increase the occurrence of biting following training. Because the neural circuitry that mediates the behavior is well characterized and amenable to detailed cellular analyses, substantial progress has been made toward a comparative analysis of the cellular mechanisms underlying these two forms of associative learning. Both forms of associative learning use the same reinforcement pathway (the esophageal nerve, En) and the same reinforcement transmitter (dopamine, DA). In addition, at least one cellular locus of plasticity (cell B51) is modified by both forms of associative learning. However, the two forms of associative learning have opposite effects on B51. Classical conditioning decreases the excitability of B51, whereas operant conditioning increases the excitability of B51. Thus, the approach of using two forms of associative learning to modify a single behavior, which is mediated by an analytically tractable neural circuit, is revealing similarities and differences in the mechanisms that underlie classical and operant conditioning.     

On the impact of human operant research: Asymmetrical patterns of cross-citation between human and nonhuman research

Reactions to published accounts of research with human subjects, as well as research with nonhuman subjects, were assessed by examining citations in several samples of empirical articles in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. A stable, asymmetrical pattern emerged: Nonhuman research was cited in both human and nonhuman articles, but human research was cited primarily in human articles. Thus, human operant research appears to have had little influence on the nonhuman research which constitutes the bulk of the experimental analysis of behavior. Interpretation of this lack of impact depends on the functions one envisions for human research, several of which are discussed.     

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.     

Aggression as a reinforcer: operant behavior in the mouse-killing rat

Two experiments examined mouse killing as a reinforcer of key pressing by rats that killed mice. In Experiment I, mouse-killing rats performed the key-pressing response when each press was reinforced with presentation of a mouse. Offered a choice between a key that yielded presentation of mice and one that did not, the rats preferred the key that yielded mice. When the contingency was reversed, the rats preferred the other key and continued to kill mice. In Experiment II, mouse-killing rats that did not kill rat pups performed a key-pressing response reinforced with presentation of mice on a variable-interval schedule. In tests for responding reinforced on that schedule with presentation of normal mice, anesthetized mice, dead mice, or rat pups, these rats that killed mice but not rat pups exhibited a decline in response rate when rat pups were the reinforcer. Altering the condition of the mice did not significantly affect performance.     

Development and function of consequence classes in operant behavior

The term class has been discussed extensively in the behavioral literature for groups of stimuli or responses that share a common function. In contrast, the concept of consequence class, including its definition, its formation, and other relevant characteristics, has not been the topic of much attention in the literature. Issues pertaining to consequence classes are discussed to provide a more thorough analysis of the units of operant and discriminated operant functional relations. The concept of class for consequences provides a means to integrate data and theory from the behavior-analytic literature.     

Social reinforcement of operant behavior in rats: a methodological note.

An apparatus was developed to study social reinforcement in the rat. Four Long-Evans female rats were trained to press a lever via shaping, with the reinforcer being access to a castrated male rat. Responding under a fixed-ratio schedule and in extinction was also observed. Social access was found to be an effective reinforcer. When social reinforcement was compared with food reinforcement under similar conditions of deprivation and reinforcer duration, no significant differences were observed.