Temporal relationship between response and punishment.

Camp, David S.; Raymond, George A.; Church, Russell M.

doi:10.1037/h0024518

Cited by 51 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are also consistent with the research that has demonstrated that punishers can enhance performance to a greater degree than reinforcers alone (Harris & Tramontana, 1973;Munson & Crosbie, 1998;Penney, 1967;Penney & Lupton, 1961;Stevenson, et al, 1959). The results of the current study coincide with the research showing that punishers of greater magnitude (Camp et al, 1967), including time-outs of longer duration (Ferster & Appel, 1961;Hobbs, Forehand, & Murray, 1978;Zimmerman & Ferster, 1963), are more effective at altering behavior than punishers of lesser magnitude. The data from the current study also suggest the effectiveness of increasing the duration of the time-out asymptotes at 10 s and that for this paradigm, the effects of delays on recall (i.e., time-out following incorrect responses) do not disrupt behavior to the degree observed in delayed matching-to-sample paradigms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Positive punishment involves the application of an aversive stimulus, after an undesirable behavior, that results in the reduction of the probability of recurrence of that behavior. For example, when rats were punished with a strong shock for pressing a lever that delivered food, the rats rarely pressed the lever for food (Camp, Raymond, & Church, 1967). Negative punishment involves the removal of a desired stimulus following an undesirable behavior that results in the reduction of the probability of the recurrence of that behavior (…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Time-Out on Adult Performance of a Visual Discrimination Task

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined how the magnitude of time-out duration following incorrect responses affected the ability of adults to learn simple visual discriminations. Sixty-four college students were randomly assigned to one of four groups that received a 0-, 5-, 10-, or 20-s time-out duration after an incorrect response. Each participant completed a simple visual discrimination task by attempting to determine and remember the correct response for each of eight different color-shape combinations. The results indicated that timeout was effective at enhancing performance, even when reinforcers for correct responses were used. In addition, the effectiveness was dependent on the duration of the time-out. Punishment can be defined as a consequence of behavior that reduces the future probability of that behavior (Azrin & Holz, 1966). Punishment is typically either positive or negative. Positive punishment involves the application of an aversive stimulus, after an undesirable behavior, that results in the reduction of the probability of recurrence of that behavior. For example, when rats were punished with a strong shock for pressing a lever that delivered food, the rats rarely pressed the lever for food (Camp, Raymond, & Church, 1967). Negative punishment involves the removal of a desired stimulus following an undesirable behavior that results in the reduction of the probability of the recurrence of that behavior (

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Time-Out on Adult Performance of a Visual Discrimination Task

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 (5) biting with longer temporal delays in the delivery of punishment was supported in the latter phase of the experiment. The finding of a delay of punishment effect for shock-elicited aggression is in agreement with the analogous delay effect shown for barpressing (Camp et al, 1967). Such an effect, however, was not statistically demonstrated among the four delay groups, though the groups were ranked with a positive association between biting and delay times.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Camp, Raymond, & Church (1967) showed that increasing delays in the delivery of a punishment lead to progressively less suppression of a rat's barpressing. Furthermore, the longer the punisher was delayed, the more its effects were like the relatively nonsuppressive effects of noncontingent shock.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delay of punishment in shock-elicited aggression

Wetzel

1972

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty restrained rats, given tailshocks to elicit biting on a target, were given a second shock contingent on the biting at different delay times. Comparisons made in different phases among four (0, 3, 6, and 9 sec) and two (0 and 9 sec) conditions showed longer delays of punishment to produce less suppression of the biting, though not significantly so in the former comparison. The results indicated that shock stimuli in elicited aggression have dual functional properties where longer delayed and free shocks serve to elicit, while more immediately contingent shocks serve to suppress biting.

show abstract

“…Punishment is response contingent in that the response producing reinforcement also initiates the punishment delay. Camp, Raymond, and Church (1967) demonstrated an inverse relationship between punishment delay and response suppression which supports this suggestion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Discriminative control and response maintenance by a brief aversive stimulus in a fixed-interval schedule

Kilbourne

Fox

1976

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discriminative and suppressive properties of a brief aversive light intruded into a fixed-interval schedule were investigated using 24 albino rats. The aversive light was intruded into the early, middle, or terminal 6 sec of a FI 50-sec food-reinforcement schedule for three groups of eight rats each. After 5 days of training, rats which initially had the light paired with reinforcement received the light in early and initial FI periods on 2 transfer test days. When the light was paired with reinforcement, response suppression during the light was minimized. In transfer tests, after the light was initially paired with reinforcement two effects existed: (1) Response suppression was decreased during the light, and (2) response facilitation occurred immediately following the light. Pervasive control by the FI schedule was reflected in a return to the baseline response rate following response facilitation. Reduced suppression during the light and response facilitation following light offset were ascribed to discriminative properties resulting from the predictive temporal relationship between the light and reinforcement opportunity.Single stimuli intruded into fixed~interval (FI) schedules acquire response-maintaining properties when occurring late in the interval (near reinforcement availability) and suppressive properties when occurring in central portions of the interval. This basic effect has been demonstrated with both neutral (Farmer & Schoenfeld, 1966) and aversive stimuli (Snapper, Kadden, Shimoff, & Schoenfeld, 1975). However, when Farmer and Schoenfeld presented a neutral light twice within each FI segment, pigeons tended to respond during both presentations of the light and to pause when the light was absent if the second light was contiguous with reinforcement. With this procedure, the response-maintaining properties of the intruded stimulus were apparently dependent upon pairing the light with reinforcement.Using this double-stimulus method, Farmer and Shoenfeld (l966) demonstrated a gradient of discriminative control along a temporal continuum, with response strength systematically decreasing as the stimulus became farther removed from reinforcement. Since the stimulus maintained control over responding at long temporal intervals from reinforcement, Farmer and Schoenfeld concluded that it functioned as a discriminative stimulus.this research was submitted by Brock Kilbourne in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree. This paper is an expanded version of a paper delivered at the Western Psychological Association meetings in Los Angeles, April 1976. The authors wish to thank Ronald Rabedeau, who sponsors this paper, for his helpful comments during the design of this research and for his editorial assistance in the preparation of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert A. Fox, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California 95192.Using a single aversive stimulus paired with reinforcement, Snapper et a1. (l975) found suppression of response ...

show abstract

Temporal relationship between response and punishment.

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Effect of Time-Out on Adult Performance of a Visual Discrimination Task

Effect of Time-Out on Adult Performance of a Visual Discrimination Task

Delay of punishment in shock-elicited aggression

Discriminative control and response maintenance by a brief aversive stimulus in a fixed-interval schedule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About