Behavior simultaneously maintained by both presentation and - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6972916

Behavior simultaneously maintained by both presentation and termination of noxious stimuli

Article in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · June 1978

DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-375 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

20

READS

46

2 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Pain research and drug discovery View project Neuroactive Steroids View project James E Barrett Drexel University College of Medicine

238 PUBLICATIONS 4,915 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James E Barrett on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SLIDE 2

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

BEHA VIOR SIMULTANEOUSLY MAINTAINED

BY BOTH PRESENTATION AND

TERMINATION OF NOXIOUS STIMULI'

JAMES E. BARRETT AND ROGER D. SPEALMAN

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AND HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

AND NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a 3-minute variable-

interval schedule of response-produced electric-shock presentation. At the same time, re-

sponding on a second lever was maintained under a 3-minute fixed-interval schedule of termination of the shock-presentation schedule and shock-correlated stimuli. Under the termination schedule, the

first response after a 3-minute period produced a 1-minute

timeout, during which no events occurred and responding had no scheduled consequence. Relatively high and constant rates of responding were maintained on the lever where responding produced shock. Lower rates and positively accelerated patterns of responding

• ccurred on the lever where responding terminated the shock schedule. Thus, responding

was simultaneously maintained by presentation of an event and by termination of a stimulus associated with that event. Rates and patterns of responding on each lever were

reversed when the schedules arranged on each lever were reversed on two occasions. When shock intensity was increased from 0 to 10 mA, responding maintained both by presenta- tion of shock and by termination of the shock schedule increased, but responding main- tained by shock presentation increased to a greater extent. Positive and negative rein- forcement, usually regarded as separate behavioral processes involving different events, can coexist when behavior

is controlled by different contingencies involving the same

event.

Key words: response-produced shock, stimulus-shock termination, positive reinforcement,

negative reinforcement, concurrent schedules, variable-interval schedules, fixed-interval schedules, electric shock, squirrel monkeys

Under many circumstances, organisms

ter-

minate noxious environmental events and stim-

uli associated with them (e.g., Azrin, Holz, and

Hake, 1962; Dinsmoor, 1962; Dinsmoor and Winograd, 1958; Kaplan, 1956; Keller, 1941; Morse and Kelleher,

1966). Behavior main- tained in this manner has often been classified

as escape behavior and the process termed neg- ative reinforcement (Fantino, 1973; Reynolds,

1975; Skinner, 1953). A distinction is usually

made between negative and positive reinforce-

'Supported by grants AA-02104, DA-01839, and MH- 14275 from the Public Health Service and by contract

DAMD

17-77-C-7001 from the U.

• S. Army Medical

Research and Development Command. We thank J. L.

Katz, R. T. Kelleher,

• J. W. McKearney, and W. H.

Morse for their helpful comments, and Joanne Delaney, Nancy Gehman, Jennifer Stanley, and Beth Weinberg

for secretarial and technical assistance. Reprints may be obtained from J. E. Barrett, Department of Psy- chology, University of Maryland, College Park, Mary-

land 20742

• r

R. D. Spealman,

Harvard Medical

School, New England Regional Primate Research Cen-

ter, One Pine Hill Drive, Southborough, Massachusetts

01772.

• ment. Whereas the process of negative rein-

forcement refers

to increases in responding

that result from the termination of an event

and stimuli associated with it, positive rein- forcement refers

to increases in responding that result from the presentation of an event.

Sometimes, it also is assumed that events that function as either positive or negative rein-

forcers

belong

to mutually

exclusive

cate- gories and that the behavioral effects of those events depend entirely on their intrinsic physi- cal properties.

Several experiments (e.g., Byrd, 1969; Kelle- her and Morse, 1968; McKearney, 1968),. how-

ever, have cast doubt on these two assumptions

and have demonstrated convincingly that the behavioral effects of an environmental event

are not an immutable property of that event. In these studies, characteristic schedule-con- trolled rates and temporal patterns of respond-

ing were maintained when the

sole conse-

quence

• f responding was

the delivery

• f

electric shock-an event often believed to main- tain responding by its removal, rather than

375

NUMBER 3 (MAY)

1978, 29, 375-383

SLIDE 3

JAMES E. BARRETT and ROGER D. SPEALMAN

by its presentation. Other experiments

(e.g.,

Barrett and Glowa, 1977; Kelleher and Morse, 1968; McKearney, 1972) have shown that under suitable conditions shock can both maintain

and suppress responding in the same organism

at about

the same time. In these studies, response-produced shock maintained charac-

teristic

schedule-controlled performances in

• ne component of a multiple schedule, but

suppressed responding in another component. Such findings

illustrate

that factors

• ther

than the physical properties of an environmen-

tal event can be important determinants of

the way that event controls behavior (see re- views by Morse and Kelleher, 1970, 1977). In the present experiment, separate

re-

sponses of individual squirrel monkeys were

developed and then maintained simultaneously both by shock presentation and by termination

• f the shock schedule and visual stimuli

as-

sociated with shock. Positive and negative re- inforcement, usually considered to be separate

and independent processes involving different

events, were obtained simultaneously when

behavior was controlled by different contin- gencies involving the same environmental

event.

METHOD

Subjects

Two mature male squirrel monkeys (Saimiri

sciureus), with experience under various food-

and shock-presentation schedules, were used. Both monkeys weighed approximately 750 g. Each was housed individually and had un-

restricted access to food and water except dur-

ing experimental sessions. Apparatus

During experimental sessions, each monkey

sat in a Plexiglas chair and was restrained in

the seated position by a waist lock (cf. Hake

and Azrin, 1963). Two response levers (BRS/

LVE #121-05) were mounted on a transparent

wall in front of the monkey, 8 cm above the waist lock and 13 cm apart. Operation of either lever by a minimal downward force of 0.20 N produced an audible click of a relay

mounted behind the front wall and was re-

corded as a response. Pairs of red, green, and white lamps (7.5 W, 115 V ac), mounted at

eye level behind the transparent front wall,

could be illuminated and used as visual stim-

• uli. Only the white lamps were used in the

present study. The monkey's

tail was held

motionless by a small stock located below the waist lock and fitted with brass electrodes that rested on a shaved portion of the tail. Elec- trode paste (EKG sol) ensured a low-resistance contact between the electrodes and the tail. Electric shock could be delivered to the tail

from a 650-V ac, 60-Hz transformer. The dura-

tion of shock was held constant at 200 msec.

Shock intensity was determined by a variable

resistor in series with the monkey's tail and

was monitored continuously by an alternating

current meter (Simpson #1257). The chair was placed inside a sound-attenuating enclosure furnished with a ventilation fan and white

masking noise. Scheduling and recording equip- ment was located in a separate room. Procedure

Previously, each monkey had been trained

to respond under variable-interval and fixed- interval schedules of response-produced elec- tric shock according to the general method

described by McKearney (1968). Briefly, this consisted of initial training under a shock- postponement (avoidance) schedule (Sidman, 1953) for about two weeks. During this time, each response postponed electric shocks for 25

sec (response-shock interval = 25 sec). In the

absence of responding, shocks occurred every 5

sec (shock-shock

interval = 5

sec). Next,

a variable-interval schedule of response-produced electric shock was arranged concurrently with the shock-postponement schedule. After about

two weeks, the shock-postponement schedule was discontinued and responding was main- tained solely under the variable-interval sched- ule of electric-shock presentation. Each mon- key was later studied under a fixed-interval schedule of shock presentation.

Without further preliminary training, the monkeys were exposed to a variable-interval

schedule,

under which responding on

the right lever (initially, the only lever present)

produced a 7-mA electric shock on the aver-

age of once every 3 min. The variable-interval schedule was made up of 15 different time intervals derived from a constant-probability distribution (Catania and Reynolds, 1968) and arranged in an irregular order. Sessions lasted 60 min, during which the white stimulus lamps illuminated the chamber. 376

SLIDE 4

BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY NOXIOUS STIMULI

After 25 sessions, a second lever was intro-

duced to the left of the existing lever. Respond-

ing on the right lever continued to produce a

7-mA electric shock under the 3-min variable-

interval schedule. Concurrently, the first

re-

sponse on the left lever after 3 min (3-min

fixed-interval schedule) terminated the sched- ule of electric-shock presentation associated

with the right lever and initiated

a 1-min

timeout period. During the timeout, the white stimulus lamps that normally illuminated the chamber

were extinguished and responding

• n either lever had no scheduled consequences.

At the end of the timeout, the white stimulus lamps again illuminated the chamber and the

schedule conditions associated with each lever

were again in effect. Sessions were terminated

after the twentieth timeout (about 80 min du- ration).

After 112 sessions, the schedules associated with each lever were reversed: responding on the

left lever now produced electric shocks

under the variable-interval schedule and

re-

sponding on the right lever terminated the

shock-presentation schedule and the stimuli as- sociated with shock under the fixed-interval

• schedule. After 47 sessions, the schedules

as-

sociated with each lever were returned to the

• riginal condition for 50 additional sessions.

The intensity of electric shock

was then

varied between 0 and 10 mA. Each shock in- tensity remained in effect for a minimum of 15 sessions and until no systematic trends in responding were observed for

at least three

consecutive sessions. The order of shock in-

tensities, sequence of conditions, and number

• f sessions under each condition are given in

Table

• 1. Under all conditions, sessions were

conducted five days per week.

RESULTS

Figure

1 shows that under the two-lever

concurrent schedule, stable rates and patterns

• f responding on each lever were appropriate

to the contingencies and schedules prevailing

for responding on that lever. Responding on the right lever, where responses produced elec-

tric shocks under the variable-interval sched-

ule (upper record in each panel), occurred at

a moderately high and fairly constant rate,

characteristic of that maintained under vari- able-interval schedules of food or shock pre- sentation (Barrett, 1975; Ferster and Skinner, 1957;

McKearney,

1972, 1974). Patterns

• f

responding on the left lever, where the first

response after 3 min terminated the shock

schedule and the stimuli associated with shock (lower record in each panel), resembled those usually found under fixed-interval schedules

• f food presentation, electric-shock presenta-

tion,

• r stimulus-shock complex termination

(e.g., Ferster and Skinner, 1957; McKearney,

1968, 1976; Morse and Kelleher, 1966);

re-

sponding followed an initial pause and was

positively accelerated

as

the interval

pro-

• gressed. The delivery of shock following

a response on the right lever (diagonal marks, upper record in each panel) did not appear

either to initiate or to disrupt responding on the left lever.

Figure 2 shows the development of respond- ing under the two-lever concurrent schedule

for each monkey. Responding on the right lever, where responses produced shocks under the variable-interval schedule, was relatively

unaffected when the second lever was intro- duced:

compare panel A (left lever absent)

with panels B, C, and D (left lever present).

Table 1 Sequence of Conditions and Number of Sessions Under Each Condition Schedule

Shock Intensity

Number of Right Lever

Left Lever

(mA)

Sessions

VI (shock presentation)

7 25

VI (shock presentation) FI (stimulus-shock

7 112 termination) FI (stimulus-shock

VI (shock presentation)

7

47 termination) VI (shock presentation) FT (stimulus-shock

7, 5, 7,

50, 17, 15, termination) 10, 7, 1, 16, 21, 26, 7, 3, 0, 18, 16, 15, 7

20

377

SLIDE 5

JAMES E. BARRETT and ROGER D. SPEALMAN

U)

I

v v v V v v r

v

v v

v V V-I V v

v

• Lf' LL

W

Fl STIMULUS-SHOCK TERMINATION

Uf)

zT

01

U)

I |

VI SHOCK PRESENTATION

MS-2

Fl STIMULUS-SHOCK TERMINATION

I

30 MINUTES

Fig.

• 1. Cumulative response records showing schedule-appropriate rates and patterns of responding during

the ninety-fifth session under the two-lever concurrent schedule for each monkey. Responding on the right lever

produced a 7-mA electric shock on the average of once every 3 min (VI shock presentation; upper record in each

panel). A response on the left lever after 3 min terminated the schedule of shock presentation and extinguished the white light in the chamber for a 1-min timeout period (FT stimulus-shock termination; lower record in each panel). During timeouts, responding had no scheduled consequences and the recorder did not operate. Shock presentations are indicated by diagonal marks on the upper record in each panel. The pens reset at the end of each timeout period.

When the left lever was first introduced (panel

B), the rate of responding on that lever was initially very low for MS-2; throughout the

first session, the schedule of shock presentation

was often not terminated until well after the 3-min fixed interval had elapsed. The rate of responding on the left lever was initially much higher for MS-1, but patterns of responding

characteristic of those maintained under fixed- interval schedules did not occur. By the sixth session (panel C), the rate of responding on the left lever increased for MS-2, and charac-

teristic fixed-interval patterns of responding

began to emerge for both monkeys. By the

twelfth session (panel D), responding on the

left lever was typical of that maintained for

the next 100 sessions.

When

the schedule conditions associated with each lever were reversed, rates and pat-

terns of responding changed accordingly. Table

2 shows that the rate of responding maintained

under the variable-interval schedule of shock

presentation was consistently higher than that maintained under the fixed-interval termina- tion schedule, regardless of the particular lever associated with each schedule. These effects were again reversed when the original condi- tions were reinstated. Figure 3 shows the effects of changes in shock intensity on rates of responding on the two levers for individual monkeys. The rate

• f responding on each lever was lowest when

no shocks were delivered (O mA). As shock

intensity was increased from 0 to 10 mA, re-

sponding under the variable-interval schedule

• f shock presentation increased markedly. Re-

sponding under the fixed-interval termination

schedule increased when shock intensity was increased from 0 to 7 mA, but did not increase further when shock intensity was raised to 10

• mA. Increases in responding under the fixed-

interval termination schedule were never as VI SHOCK PRESENTATION

MS-I

VlA//A/AAAAAA1AAAAAAA

378

SLIDE 6

BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY NOXIOUS STIMULI

(I,

(I)

z

.

01

Q

MS-I 379

MS-2

10 MINUTES

• Fig. 2. Portions of cumulative records showing stable responding during the last session under the single-lever

variable-interval schedule of shock presentation (panel A) and the development of responding under the two- lever concurrent schedule for each monkey. Under the single-lever schedule, the pen reset every 3 min. Sessions

1, 6, and 12 under the concurrent schedule are shown in panels B, C, and D, respectively. Recordings under the

two-lever concurrent schedule are as in Figure 1.

great

as

those

under

the variable-interval for the other monkey. When no shocks were schedule of shock presentation. delivered (O mA), responding on each lever

Figure 4 shows changes in patterns of re-

• ccurred irregularly and

at a reduced rate

sponding at 0, 3, 7, and 10 mA intensities for

(panel A). At successively higher shock intensi- MS-2. These changes were essentially identical

ties (3, 7, and 10 mA), patterns of responding Table 2

Mean rates of responding (responses per second) on each lever when the schedules associated

with each were reversed on two occasions. Data are means based on the last three sessions under each condition. Ranges are in parentheses. MS-1 MS-2 Schedule

VI

FI

VI

FI Right Lever

Left Lever Presentation Termination Presentation Termination

VI (shock FI (stimulus-shock

0.97 (0.96-0.99) 0.45 (0.40-0.49) 0.85 (0.83-0.89)

0.11 (0.09-0.12)

presentation) termination) Fl (stimulus-shock

VI (shock

1.30 (1.28-1.33) 0.51 (0.46-0.54) 0.94 (0.91-0.97) 0.32 (0.31-0.33)

termination) presentation) VI (shock FI (stimulus-shock 0.91 (0.87-0.94)

0.41 (0.38-0.45) 0.64 (0.61-0.68) 0.32 (0.28-0.35) presentation)

termination)

A A

Ll/Vl/V/lv1 A/VXv V//

B B C

C D D

vVv

V/

SLIDE 7

JAMES E. BARRETT and ROGER D. SPEALMAN

MS-I

1.00 a

z

w

Uf)

w

0-

U)

40

z

c

.20

MS-2

.,

*

VI SHOCK PRESENTATION

O Fl STIMULUS-SHOCK TERMINATION

10

1

INTENSITY 3 5 7

10

(mA)

• Fig. 3. Effects of changes in shock intensity on responding under the two-lever concurrent schedule. Except

for the 7-mA condition, points are based on means of the last three sessions under each condition. Points for the 7-mA condition are based on means of the last three sessions during each of five separate exposures to this

• condition. Vertical lines show the ranges; where there is no vertical line, all measures fell within the point.
• n each lever emerged that were characteristic
• f those described earlier (panels B, C, and

D, respectively).

DISCUSSION

In the

present study, responding on

• ne

lever produced electric shock under a variable- interval schedule; responding on a second lever

terminated the shock schedule and the stimuli associated with shock under

a fixed-interval

• schedule. Distinctly different rates and

tem-

poral patterns of responding occurred on each

• f the two levers. Further, characteristic sched-

ule-controlled performances were maintained regardless of the particular lever associated with each schedule. These results are entirely

compatible with an account of responding on each lever based primarily on the maintenance

• f behavior by

its scheduled

consequences.

When shock intensity was varied between 0

and 10 mA, rates and patterns of responding

• n each lever changed accordingly. Respond-

ing on the lever associated with the variable- interval schedule

• f shock

presentation

in-

creased as shock intensity increased. To a lesser

extent, responding on the lever associated with

the fixed-interval schedule of stimulus-shock termination also increased

as shock intensity

increased from 0 to 7 mA, but did not increase further at the 10-mA intensity. Thus, respond- ing maintained under each schedule was dis- tinguishable

not only in terms of

response

patterning, but also in terms of the sensitivity

• f responding to changes in shock intensity.

When

shocks

were not delivered,

• r when

shock intensity was low, responding on each

lever was less distinctly patterned and occurred

at a reduced rate.

It is interesting to note that under suitable

conditions, responding also can be maintained

by termination of a visual or auditory stimulus

associated

with various schedules

• f

food presentation

(e.g., Appel,

1963; Azrin, 1961;

Brown and

Flory, 1972; Thompson, 1964), concurrent food and shock presentation (e.g.,

SHOCK

i

380

I

SLIDE 8

BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY NOXIOUS STIMULI

MS-2

In

ii

10 MWJTES

• Fig. 4. Cumulative records showing changes in rates and patterns of responding at 0-, 3-, 7-, and 10-mA shock

intensities (panels A to D, respectively) for MS-2. Records showing responding under the 0-, 3-, and 10-mA in- tensities are from the last session of these conditions. Records showing responding under the 7-mA intensity are

from the last session of the last exposure to this condition. Recordings are as in Figure 1.

Hearst, 1963; Hearst and Sidman, 1961),

• r

shock postponement (e.g., Findley and Ames, 1965; Sidman, 1962; Verhave, 1962). While the

theoretical disposition of these results remains unclear

at present,

the similarity

• f such

findings

to those reported here stresses the

critical role of the environmental context in

which behavior occurs as a means of revealing

the multiple behavioral

effects

• f environ-

mental events. Although both food and shock

can each maintain responding when studied

in isolation, the availability of another

re-

sponse

discloses the

dynamic

effects

these

events can have on behavior.

In this experiment, as in others (e.g., Byrd, 1969; Kelleher and Morse, 1968, 1969; McKear-

ney,

1968, 1969, 1970; Stretch, Orloff, and

Dalrymple, 1968), the presentation of electric shock maintained schedule-appropriate

pat- terns of responding. In the present study, how-

ever, responding

was

simultaneously main- tained by termination of the shock schedule and of the stimuli associated with shock. These

results illustrate

the dangers of categorical

classifications of behaviorally relevant events

based on their intrinsic physical properties.

The seemingly paradoxical effects of electric

shock observed here emphasize the difficulty in attempting to assign behavioral properties to

events independently of the effects those events

have on behavior. Environmental events can

exert multiple behavioral effects and a classi- fication of those events cannot be based mean-

ingfully on a priori considerations about their

nature.

Previous experiments in which

response-

produced presentations of electric shock main-

tained responding have stressed the critical

B A

z_~~~~~~~~;_, t_;

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c

D~

__

.

..I/V

I9

• a
• -.a
• --.Ae

4-.

A-A-.

381

SLIDE 9

382

JAMES E. BARRETT and ROGER D. SPEALMAN

role of the organism's prior experience, on-

going behavior, and the prevailing schedule

in developing those performances (Kelleher

and Morse, 1968; McKearney, 1968; Morse and

Kelleher, 1970, 1977). In the present study,

responding was first established under a shock- postponement schedule and, somewhat later, was maintained under the variable-interval schedule of shock presentation.

Finally,

re-

sponding was maintained simultaneously by

presentation of shock and by termination of the shock schedule and the stimuli associated with shock. Although the processes of positive

and negative reinforcement have been applied

to these respective conditions, these terms all too often have unfortunate connotations that

imply inherent

qualitative event character-

• istics. Since behavior

is always increased by

reinforcement, the additional specification of

whether events are presented or terminated

(i.e., a description of the schedule) is sufficient

and may circumvent

possible erroneous

as-

sumptions about the nature of those events.

REFERENCES

Appel, J. B. Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive

• reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analy-

sis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 423-428.

Azrin, N. H.

Time-out from positive reinforcement.

Science, 1961, 133, 382-383. Azrin, N. H., Holz, W. C., and Hake, D. F. Intermit- tent reinforcement by removal

• f

a conditioned aversive stimulus. Science, 1962, 136, 781-782. Barrett,

J. E.

The

Estes-Skinner procedure: Inade- quacy of traditional

• interpretations. Psychological

Record, 1975, 25, 167-172.

Barrett, J.

• E. and Glowa, J. R.

Reinforcement and punishment of behavior by the same consequent

• event. Psychological Reports, 1977, 40, 1015-1021.

Brown, T. G. and Flory, R. K. Schedule-induced es- cape from fixed-interval reinforcement. Journal of

the Experimental Analysis

• f Behavior,

1972, 17,

395-403. Byrd, L. D.

Responding in the cat maintained under response-independent

electric shock and response-

produced

electric

• shock. Journal
• f

the Experi- mental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 1-10. Catania, A. C. and Reynolds, G.

S.

A quantitative

analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experi-

mental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 327-383. Dinsmoor, J. A. Variable-interval escape from stimuli accompanied by shocks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 41-47. Dinsmoor, J. A. and Winograd, E. Shock intensity in

variable-interval escape

• schedules. Journal
• f

the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1958, 1, 145-148. Fantino, E. Aversive control. In J. A. Nevin and G. S. Reynolds (Eds), The study of behavior. Glenview,

Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1973. Pp. 239-279. Ferster, C. B. and Skinner, B. F.

Schedules of rein- forcement.

New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,

1957. Findley, J. D. and Ames, L. L.

A note on time out

from avoidance with the chimpanzee. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1965, 8, 419-423. Hake, D. F. and Azrin, N. H.

An apparatus for de-

livering pain shock to monkeys. Journal of the Ex-

perimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 297-298. Hearst,

E.

Escape from a stimulus associated with both reward and punishment. Journal of Compara-

tive and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 1027- 1031. Hearst, E. and Sidman, M.

Some behavioral effects of

a concurrently positive and negative stimulus. Jour- nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961,

4, 251-256.

Kaplan, M.

The maintenance of escape behavior un-

der fixed-ratio reinforcement. Journal of Compara-

tive and Physiological Psychology, 1956, 49, 153-157.

Kelleher, R. T. and Morse, W. H. Schedules using noxious stimuli.

• III. Responding maintained with

response-produced

electric

• shocks. Journal
• f the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior,

1968, 11, 819- 838. Kelleher, R. T. and Morse, W. H.

Schedules using noxious stimuli.

• IV. An

interlocking shock-post-

ponement schedule in the squirrel monkey. Journal

• f the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12,

1063-1079. Keller, F. S. Light aversion in the white rat. Psycho- logical Record, 1941, 4, 235-250.

McKearney, J. W. Maintenance of responding under

a fixed-interval schedule of electric shock presenta-

• tion. Science, 1968, 160, 1249-1251.

McKearney, J. W.

Fixed-interval schedules of electric shock presentation: extinction and recovery of per-

formance under different shock intensities and fixed-

interval durations.

Journal

• f

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 301-313. McKearney, J. W.

Responding under fixed-ratio and multiple fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules of elec-

tric shock presentation. Journal of the Experimental

Analysis of Behavior, 1970, 14, 1-6. McKearney,

• J. W.

Maintenance and suppression

• f

responding under schedules of electric shock pre-

• sentation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 1972, 17, 425-432.

McKearney,

J.

W. Responding under

a constant- probability schedule of electric shock presentation. Psychological Reports, 1974,35, 907-914. McKearney,

• J. W.

Punishment of responding under

schedules of stimulus-shick termination:

effects of

d-amphetamine and pentobarbital. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976, 26, 281-

287. Morse, W. H. and Kelleher, R. T. Schedules using noxious stimuli.

• I. Multiple fixed-ratio and fixed-

interval termination of schedule complexes. Jour- nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 267-290.

Morse, W. H. and Kelleher, R. T. Schedules as fun- damental determinants

• f

behavior. In

W.

N. Schoenfeld (Ed), The theory of reinforcement sched-

• ules. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Pp.

139-185.

SLIDE 10

BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY NOXIOUS STIMULI

383

Morse, W. H. and Kelleher, R. T. Determinants of reinforcement and punishment. In W.

• K. Honig

and J. E. R. Staddon (Eds), Handbook of operant

• behavior. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice- Hall, 1977. Pp. 174-200. Reynolds, G.

S.

A primer of operant conditioning, 2nd Edition.

Glenview,

Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1975.

Sidman, M. Avoidance conditioning with brief shock and no exteroceptive warning signal. Science, 1953,

118, 157-158.

Sidman, M.

Time out from avoidance as a reinforcer:

a study of response interaction. Journal of the Ex-

perimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 423-434. Skinner, B.

F. Science and human

• behavior. New

York: Macnillan, 1953. Stretch, R., Orloff, E. R., and Dalrymple, S. D.

Main-

tenance of responding by a fixed-interval schedule

• f electric shock presentation in squinTel monkeys.

Science, 1968, 162, 583-586.

Thompson,

• D. M.

Escape from SD associated with

fixed-ratio reinforcement.

Journal of the Experi- mental Analysis of Behavior, 1964, 7, 1-8. Verhave, T.

The functional properties of a time out

from an avoidance schedule. Journal of the Experi- mental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5, 391-422. Received 17 June 1977.

(Final acceptance 16 November 1977.)

View publication stats View publication stats