Stimuli inevitably generated by behavior that avoids electric shock are inherently reinforcing.

A molecular analysis based on the termination of stimuli that are positively correlated with shock and the production of stimuli that are negatively correlated with shock provides a parsimonious count for both traditional discrete-trial avoidance behavior and the data derived from more recent free-operant procedures. The necessary stimuli are provided by the intrinsic feedback generated by the subject's behavior, in addition to those presented by the experimenter. Moreover, all data compatible with the molar principle of shock-frequency reduction as reinforcement are also compatible with a delay-of-shock gradient, but some data compatible with the delay gradient are not compatible with frequency reduction. The delay gradient corresponds to functions relating magnitude of behavioral effect to the time between conditional and unconditional stimuli, the time between conditioned and primary reinforcers, and the time between responses and positive reinforcers.     

Information on response requirements compared with information on food density as a reinforcer of observing in pigeons

On a variable-interval schedule, pecking the key to the pigeon's right (observing response) produced red or green displays relating to the delivery of grain and its dependence on pecking the key to the left (food key). During various blocks of sessions, mixed (no stimulus change) schedules including the following pairs of components were temporarily converted by the observing response to their corresponding multiple (correlated stimuli) schedules: variable-interval 60-s, extinction; variable-interval 60-s, variable-time (response-independent) 60-s; extinction, variable-time 60-s. Differences in food delivery maintained substantial rates of responding on the observing key, without regard to pecking requirements on the food key. Although stimuli correlated with differences in the response requirement on the food key maintained higher observing rates than those maintained by uncorrelated stimuli, they were much lower than those based on food. The value of predictive stimuli as reinforcers is determined by the value of the events predicted. In particular, the cost of pecking appears to be low, and this may place limitations on the applicability of energy-based and economic models of behavior.     

A discrimination based on punishment

Twelve white rats learned to press a bar or lever when this act was intermittently followed by pellets of food. Once a stable rate of pressing had been established, the animals were subjected to electric shock as a punishment for each response during alternate five minute periods within the experimental session. A difference in rates during the safe and punished phases was manifested both by the experimental group (8 rats), who were provided with a light as a signal when it was safe to respond, and also, contrary to expectation, by the control group (4 rats), who continued in darkness throughout the session. The differential responding by the control group was greatly reduced, however, when the duration of each phase was reduced from five minutes to one.

The investigation was then continued to determine the role of some of the other factors in the situation. Increasing the severity of the shock increased the difference between the light and the dark rates. Withholding the pellets of food reduced the overall rates but did not affect the light-dark discrimination. Withholding the shock, on the other hand, permitted an increase in rate and caused the animals to lose their discrimination; when food had previously been withheld, however, so that the rate of response was relatively low, this deterioration in the discrimination was not as rapid as before. Restoration of the discrimination training under a lower hunger drive confirmed the finding that the formation of the discrimination was quite rapid and showed that the level of drive did not affect the proportionality between the rates in the light and in the darkness. These findings were interpreted by comparing the current procedure with those previously used in studies of avoidance reactions and conflict.