» Articles » PMID: 16812169

Reinforcement and Punishment Effects in Concurrent Schedules: A Test of Two Models

Overview
Date 1980 May 1
PMID 16812169
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Resurgence and Behavioral Contrast, Compared and Contrasted.

Lattal K, Miles A Perspect Behav Sci. 2024; 47(2):315-334.

PMID: 39099738 PMC: 11294295. DOI: 10.1007/s40614-024-00408-2.


Effects of repeated exposure to escalating versus constant punishment intensity on response allocation.

Fontes R, Shahan T J Exp Anal Behav. 2022; 118(1):59-82.

PMID: 35553429 PMC: 9253053. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.766.


Punishment and its putative fallout: A reappraisal.

Fontes R, Shahan T J Exp Anal Behav. 2020; 115(1):185-203.

PMID: 33283288 PMC: 7855474. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.653.


Risky economic choices and frontal EEG asymmetry in the context of Reinforcer-Sensitivity-Theory-5.

Rollwage M, Comtesse H, Stemmler G Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017; 17(5):984-1001.

PMID: 28653192 DOI: 10.3758/s13415-017-0527-7.


Through the looking glass: symmetry in behavioral principles?.

Marr M Behav Anal. 2012; 29(1):125-8.

PMID: 22478458 PMC: 2223179. DOI: 10.1007/BF03392124.


References
1.
Hunter I, Davison M . Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978; 29(3):535-56. PMC: 1332851. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-535. View

2.
Norman W, McSweeney F . Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978; 29(3):453-62. PMC: 1332843. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-453. View

3.
Deluty M, Church R . Time-allocation matching between punishing situations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978; 29(2):191-8. PMC: 1332747. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-191. View

4.
Farley J, Fantino E . The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978; 29(1):37-60. PMC: 1332807. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-37. View

5.
Baum W, Rachlin H . Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969; 12(6):861-74. PMC: 1338696. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. View