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

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.

[1]  W M Baum,et al.  Choice as time allocation. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  R J Herrnstein,et al.  Formal properties of the matching law. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  R M Church,et al.  Time-allocation matching between punishing situations. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  R. Bolles Theory of Motivation , 1967 .

[6]  F. Mcsweeney,et al.  Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  W. K. Honig Operant behavior : areas of research and application , 1966 .

[8]  F K McSweeney Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  W. Holz,et al.  Punishment and rate of positive reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  E. Thorndike Educational psychology, Vol 2: The psychology of learning. , 1913 .

[11]  I W Hunter,et al.  Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  E F SEGAL,et al.  A RAPID PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING RANDOM REINFORCEMENT INTERVALS ON VI AND VR TAPES. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  N. Mackintosh The psychology of animal learning , 1974 .

[14]  J. Todorov Concurrent performances: effect of punishment contingent on the switching response. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  M. Z. Deluty,et al.  Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  D L Myers,et al.  Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  N H AZRIN,et al.  A technique for delivering shock to pigeons. , 1959, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of conditioned anxiety. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  J A Dinsmoor,et al.  Escape, avoidance, punishment: where do we stand? , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  E Fantino,et al.  The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.