Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1980 May;33(3):311–326. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-311

Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test of two models

Joseph Farley
PMCID: PMC1332957  PMID: 16812169

Abstract

The joint effects of punishment and reinforcement on the pigeon's key-peck response were examined in three choice experiments conducted to compare predictions of Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model with those made by Deluty's (1976) and Deluty and Church's (1978) model of punishment. In Experiment 1, the addition of equal punishment schedules to both alternatives of a concurrent reinforcement schedule enhanced the preference exhibited for the more frequent reinforcement alternative. Experiment 2 demonstrated decreases in the absolute response rate for each member of a concurrent reinforcement schedule when increasing frequencies of punishment were added to each alternative. Experiment 3 found that preference for the denser of two reinforcement schedules diminished when the absolute frequencies of reinforcement were increased by a constant factor and conditions of punishment for both alternatives were held constant. Diminished preferences were obtained regardless of whether the frequency of punishment associated with the denser reinforcement schedule was greater or less than that associated with the lean reinforcement alternative. The results from all three experiments uniquely supported Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model of punishment and reinforcement.

Keywords: subtractive model of punishment, matching relation, concurrent schedules, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
311

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. AZRIN N. H. A technique for delivering shock to pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1959 Apr;2:161–163. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Mar;27(2):275–279. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. De Villiers P. A., Millenson J. R. Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of conditioned anxiety. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):287–294. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Deluty M. Z. Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):75–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Deluty M. Z., Church R. M. Time-allocation matching between punishing situations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):191–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dinsmoor J. A. Escape, avoidance, punishment: where do we stand? J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jul;28(1):83–95. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Farley J., Fantino E. The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):37–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Herrnstein R. J. Formal properties of the matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):159–164. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hunter I. W., Davison M. C. Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):535–556. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McSweeney F. K. Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):193–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Myers D. L., Myers L. E. Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):203–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Norman W. D., McSweeney F. K. Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):453–462. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. SEGAL E. F. A RAPID PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING RANDOM REINFORCEMENT INTERVALS ON VI AND VR TAPES. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Jan;7:20–20. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Todorov J. C. Concurrent performances: effect of punishment contingent on the switching response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):51–62. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES