FIXED‐RATIO PUNISHMENT¹

Abstract

Responses were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. At the same time, punishment was delivered following every nth response (fixed-ratio punishment). The introduction of fixed-ratio punishment produced an initial phase during which the emission of responses was positively accelerated between punishments. Eventually, the degree of positive acceleration was reduced and a uniform but reduced rate of responding emerged. Large changes in the over-all level of responding were produced by the intensity of punishment, the value of the punishment ratio, and the level of food deprivation. The uniformity of response rate between punishments was invariant in spite of these changes in over-all rate and contrary to some plausible a priori theoretical considerations. Fixed-ratio punishment also produced phenomena previously observed under continuous punishment: warm-up effect and a compensatory increase. This type of intermittent punishment produced less rapid and less complete suppression than did continuous punishment.

Fixed‐ratio Punishment With Continuous Reinforcement

“…The main result of this experiment is the considerable amount of differentiated responding between punishments. Differences in this respect between the present results and those of Azrin et al (1963) Fig. 9.…”

“…The introduction of punishment had the same effect as that found by Azrin et al (1963). Initial suppression was followed by the temporary appearance of accelerated responding between Runishments.…”

“…This result was not obtained by Azrin, Holz, and Hake (1963), using concurrent VI reinf and FR pun. They found a uniform depressant effect of punishment on response rate, and only rare instances of a differentiated pattern of responding between punishments.…”

Intermittent punishment of responding maintained by variable ratio reinforcement

“…The results of previous work on intermittent punishment of concurrently reinforced behavior have shown that when moderate to severe punishment is employed, stable response rates are established under intermittent punishment which fall somewhere between unpunished rates and the suppressed rates established by continuous punishment (Azrin, Holz, & Hake, 1963;Zimmerman & Baydan, 1963). However, all of the previous work on intermittent punishment has employed either continuous or variable interval (VI) reinforcement schedules.…”

TIMEOUT AS A PUNISHING STIMULUS IN CONTINUOUS AND INTERMITTENT SCHEDULES1

“…Previous laboratory research concerning schedules of intermittent punishment typically has found an inverse relationship between the probability of punishment and the resultant rate of response (Intermittent shock: Azrin, Holz, and Hake, 1963;Estes, 1944;Filby and Appel, 1966;McMillan, 1967. Intermittent timeout: McMillan, 1967Thomas, 1968;Zimmerman and Baydan, 1963;Zimmerman and Ferster, 1963).…”