Title: Ratio responding as a function of concurrent avoidance schedules, yoked shocks and ratio value
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098669/00001
 Material Information
Title: Ratio responding as a function of concurrent avoidance schedules, yoked shocks and ratio value
Physical Description: v, 42 leaves : ill. ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wood, Keith Anthony, 1949-
Copyright Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Reinforcement (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Conditioned response   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Keith Anthony Wood.
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 27-28.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098669
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000169431
oclc - 02902253
notis - AAT5837

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

ratiorespondinga00wood ( PDF )


Full Text











RATIO RESPONDING AS A FUNCTION OF CONCURRENT AVOIDANCE
SCHEDULES, YOKED SHOCKS AND RATIO VALUE









By

KEITH ANTHONY WOOD


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1976

























In dedication to Richard D. Willis whose efforts as a

professor and a friend made this paper a reality.














Acknowledgments


The author would like to express his appreciation to Allan Happ

and Nicholas Sverchek III for their aid in running the subjects, and

Marc Branch and his doctoral committee for their support and comments

on the manuscript. A special thanks to Dr. Calvin Adams for providing

the facilities and supervision for this work.

Appreciation is also extended to Ruthell Smith for her patience,

understanding and encouragement throughout the collection and writing

of these data.


-iii-














Table of Contents


Acknowledgments iii

Abstract v

Introduction 1

Method 4

Results 9

Discussion 25

References 27

Appendix 29

Biographical Sketch 42














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosphy



RATIO RESPONDING AS A FUNCTION OF CONCURRENT AVOIDANCE
SCHEDULES, YOKED SHOCKS AND RATIO VALUE

By

Keith Anthony Wood

June, 1976

Chairman: Henry S. Pennypacker
Cochairman: Mark K. Goldstein
Major Department: Psychology

Fixed-ratio responding in rats was maintained alone, concurrent

with shock avoidance, or concurrent with response-independent shocks

matched to those that occurred in the avoidance condition for one

subject. Under each condition, fixed-ratio size was increased over

successive daily sessions. Fixed-ratio response rate generally

passed through a maximum as a function of fixed-ratio size. The

maximum occurred when 1) the time to complete a fixed-ratio approx-

imated the response-shock interval of the avoidance schedule, 2) the

shock rate increased, and 3) the ratio requirements were so high that

ratio strain occurred. Avoidance rates decreased to an asymptotic

value as fixed-ratio size increased.


-v-














Introduction


Previous studies determining the effects of one operant on

others have primarily used the same reinforcer, usually food, in the

different individual schedules. Further investigations are needed to

determine the effects of one operant maintained by a specific rein-

forcer on another operant maintained by a different reinforcer.

In general, responding when the reinforcement rate is relative-

ly constant decreases as a function of reinforcement from other

sources such as a concurrent schedule (see Catania, 1973 for discus-

sion). Such a relation may hold only when all the reinforcers are

the same. In concurrent schedule studies using food and water as rein-

forcers, decreasing the reinforcement rate for one response increased

that response but had little effect on responding maintained by the

other reinforcer (Wood and Willis, 1974; Wood et al,, 1975). Reso-

lution of this issue with food and water is difficult because of the

problems involved in determining the nature of the interactions of

these complex and sensitive reinforcers (see Willis et al., 1974).

Concurrent schedule studies using different reinforcers with less well

known interactions, such as food and shock avoidance, would be prefer-

able in initial studies.

Two experiments have looked at concurrent schedule responding

maintained by food reinforced and shock-avoidance schedules. The

first one was an attempt to maintain schedule appropriate behavior to

each schedule. Sidman (1958) studied responding to a concurrent








variable-interval (VI) Sidman avoidance (AV) schedule. Pulling a

chain produced food according to a VI 4 minute schedule. Pressing

a lever was maintained by an AV schedule with the response-shock (RS)

and shock-shock (SS) intervals both equal to 20 seconds. Under

these avoidance contingencies each response delayed the shock for 20

seconds (RS 20 sec). If no response was made shocks would occur

every 20 seconds (SS 20 sec). Because of the high rate of switching

between operants, preventing independence in responding to each sched-

ule, Sidman changed the VI to a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule. Under

concurrent (conc) FR AV contingencies switching decreased and respond-

ing was maintained appropriate to each schedule's requirements.

Catania, Deegan and Cook (1966) compared the effects of respond-

ing to a concurrent FR AV schedule with responding for each schedule's

contingencies alone. Pressing one lever produced food according to

an FR 100 schedule. Pressing a second lever was maintained by a modi-

fied Sidman avoidance schedule, with the RS and SS intervals both

equal at 30 seconds. The removal of either lever did not affect the

rate or pattern of the other response. These results were similar

to those of Kelleher and Cook (1950) in which the FR and AV contin-

gencies were concurrently programmed to responses on one lever.

Sidman (1958), Catania et al. (1966) as well as Kelleher and

Cook (1959) used only one fixed-ratio and one Sidman avoidance value.

In the present experiment a procedure was used that allowed for a

wide range of reinforcement rates on one schedule while keeping the

value constant on the other schedule. The procedure was introduced

by Wood and Willis (1974). Using concurrent fixed-ratio fixed-inter-

val (conc FR FI) schedules, Wood and Willis increased the FR value








daily by a constant multiple of the preceding day while keeping the

FI value constant. Cumulative records and response rates to these

daily FR increases did not differ from those under procedures where

repeated presentations of the same FR values were employed (LaBounty

and Reynolds, 1973; Wood, Martinez and Willis, 1975). Such a proced-

ure allows a comparison of rates and patterns of responding to sched-

ules maintained by the same and by different reinforcers (food and

water) as a function of a wide range of FR values.

The present experiments extend the generality of the previous

findings in which different reinforcers were scheduled concurrently.

The Wood and Willis (1974) procedure (increasing the FR value daily

while keeping the other schedule constant) was used with conc FR AV

schedules and compared to FR alone and FR matched shock conditions.














Method


Subjects. The subjects were three male hooded rats of Long Evans

descent. Each subject was deprived to approximately 70% of its ad

libitum weight. Two rats (21a and 35) were experimentally naive and

the other (33) had been previously run on the same Wood and Willis

(1974) procedure with cone FR VI schedules of food and water rein-

forcement.

Apparatus. Experimental sessions were conducted in two operant

chambers each containing two retractable levers, 3.0 cm above the

grid floor and 14.0 cm apart. The force required to operate each

lever was approximately 0.20 N. A food magazine was 4.0 cm to the

left of the right lever. A 2.5 sec tone accompanied delivery of

0.045 gram Noyes standard pellets. A constant-current shock genera-

tor delivered 0.5 sec, 0.8 ma a.c. scrambled shocks through the grid

floor. Masking noise was continuously present except for 30 msec

following a response: the resulting "pop" served as response feed-

back. Dim illumination was provided by a 7.5 watt lamp. The cham-

ber was located in a sound- and light-attenuating box. Standard

electromechanical scheduling and recording equipment was located in

an adjacent room.

Procedure. For Rats 21a and 33 responses to the right lever

were established under the FR schedule with the left lever retracted.

The subjects were trained under the AV schedule with the right lever

retracted. These session were followed by sessions in which the









levers were available alternately until the right lever controlled

responding appropriate to the FR schedule and the left lever control-

led responding appropriate to the AV schedule. Responding was then

allowed to develop on a cone FR 10 AV (RS 30 sec SS 10 sec) schedule

with both levers present. Baseline conditions of stable weight and

responding were defined as less than a 3 gram difference in body

weight and 2.0 response per min difference in responding over a

period of 5 or more days, and maintained prior to any change of

schedule values. Daily sessions ended when the subject received its

daily food allotment within a session (330 pellets for 21a and 370

pellets for 33) or when 90 min had elapsed, whichever came first.

To maintain stable body weights supplemental food was given after

the session when the daily allotment of food was not received during

the session.

Next, the ratio requirement was increased from FR 10 by a factor

of 1.2 (rounded to the nearest tenth) each session (10, 12, 14, 17,

...) until the subject's FR response rate clearly approached zero

(in all but one ascending series the resulting FR response rate on

the last session was below 4 per min). Baseline responding was then

developed on another cone FR 10 AV (RS X-sec SS 10-sec) schedule (X

being 7.5 sec, 15 sec or 60 sec). For Rat 33 the RS interval was 30

sec in the first FR ascending series, 15 sec in the second FR ascend-

ing series and 7.5 sec in the third FR ascending series. For Rat 21a

the RS interval was 30 sec in the first FR ascending series, 15 sec

in the second FR ascending series, and 60 sec in the third FR ascend-

ing series (conc FR RS 7.5 sec AV conditions did not result in stable

responding, so a cone FR RS 60 sec AV schedule was used). For both









rats a fourth FR ascending series was used with the FR schedule alone

(the AV lever was absent).

Next a VIAV schedule (DeVilliers, 1974) was developed for responses

to the left lever with the right lever retracted. In this schedule

the first response after a tape meter detects a hole in a tape of vari-

able intervals (Fleshler and Hoffman, 1962) avoids the next scheduled

shock delivery. The proportion of short intervals in this schedule

produces steady maintained responding. Failure to respond results

in shock delivery upon each hole detection. These sessions were fol-

lowed by sessions establishing multiple schedule behavior during

which the levers alternated until the right lever controlled re-

sponding appropriate to the FR schedule and the left lever controlled

responding appropriate to the AV schedule. Responding was then de-

veloped on a conc FR 10 VI 15 sec AV schedule with both levers pres-

ent. At this point in the investigation Rat 33 became ill and eventu-

ally died before systematic data could be collected. The procedure

was continued with Rat 21a. Baseline conditions of stable weight

and responding were maintained prior to any change of schedule values.

Food allotment and session duration procedures were identical to

those under cone FR AV conditions.

The ratio requirement was increased from FR 10 by a factor of

1.2 for each session to the ratio at which the subject's FR response

rate was less than 10 per min. Baseline responding was then estab-

lished on another conc FR 10 VI X AV schedule. The VI value was 15

sec in the first FR ascending series, 7.5 sec in the second FR as-

cending series and 30 sec in the third FR ascending series.

Another set of FR ascending series was used with Rats 21a and









35. For Rat 35 the FR schedule was developed to responses on the

right lever. Responding for both rats was then developed on a FR 10

schedule and matched to Rat 33's previously received baseline shocks.

The subjects received each shock at the same temporal point in a

specific session that it occurred with Rat 33, independent of their

responding. The intervals separating Rat 33's received shocks were

determined from the cumulative records. Baseline conditions of

stable weight and responding were maintained prior to any change of

schedule values. Food allotment and session duration procedures

were identical to those under cone FR AV conditions.

The ratio requirement was increased for Rats 21a and 35 from

FR 10 by a factor of 1.2 for each session. Response independent

shocks were delivered at the same temporal point in each session as

they were received at each FR for Rat 33 in a specific ascending ser-

ies under conc FR AV conditions. Once the ratio requirement reached

the ratio at which Rat 33's FR response rate was below 10 per min,

baseline responding was re-established under another conc FR 10

matched shock condition. Each time Rat 33 received a shock under

one ascending series, a shock was delivered under that ascending ser-

ies to the subject. In a fourth ascending series the ratio require-

ment was increased from FR 10 by a factor of 1.2 for each session to

the ratio requirement at which the subject's response rate was below

10 per min (no shocks were delivered). For Rat 21a the FR alone

ascending series was last, preceded by the matched 7.5 sec FR as-

cending series, 15 sec FR ascending series and 30 sec FR ascending

series, in that order. For Rat 35 the FR alone FR ascending series

was first, followed by the matched 15 sec FR ascending series, 30






-8-


sec FR ascending series and 7.5 sec FR ascending series, in that

order.














Results

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the overall response rate functions for

the different ascending series under conc FR AV conditions (Figure 1),

conc FR VIAV conditions (Figure 2) and matched shock conditions (Fig-

ure 3). Response rates were computed by dividing the total responses

on one lever by the total minutes (including the reinforcement dura-

tion) in a session. The FR response rate first increased over ses-

sions (and, thus over FR values), increasing to some peak, then de-

creased as the ratio requirement was increased further. A close

examination of the cumulative records (see point "a" of Figures 4

and 5) and each session's overall shock rate (Table 2) show that the

ratio requirement beyond which the FR response rate consistently de-

creased depended upon both the temporal pattern and rate of received

shocks. When a rat received several shocks within a short period

of time its FR response rate decreased during that time. Fixed-ratio

response rates continued to decrease throughout the session and sub-

sequent sessions once there were several increased shock periods

within a session. In general, the shorter the RS or variable inter-

val (either under avoidance or matched shock conditions) the earlier

there were several increased shock periods within a session, and

thus the earlier the decrease in the FR response rate. The simi-

larity of the FR response rate functions under the various conditions

(compare Figures 1, 2 and 3) suggests that received shocks have a

similar affect on FR responding irrespective of concurrent avoidance





-10r


o : '00 .4' FR
.- FA A '* *
ecol ra assa'" *


00 \ \


so SID AV




10

0 oo100 20 00 0 00oo


FR






LI.
510 AV







RATIO


Figure 1. Ra'2s of responding for Rat 21a (left side) and Rat
33 (right side) as a function of the FR requirement. Fixed-ratio
response rates are shown in the top panels and AV response rates
are shown in the bottom panels. Open triangles represent FR alone
conditions, closed squares represent conc FR RS 60 sec AV conditions,
open circles represent conc FR RS 30 sec AV conditions, closed cir-
cles represent conc FR RS 15 sec AV conditions, and open squares
represent conc FR RS 7.5 sec AV conditions.














FR


ocoa e rn vt so
*Come ravrn'se











V o VI AV









S 000 100 00

FIXED HATIO



Figure 2. Rates of responding for Rat 21a as a function of the
FR requirement. Fixed-ratio response rates are shown in the top
panel, VIAV response rates are shown in the bottom panel. Open cir-
cles represent conc FR VI 30 sec AV conditions, closed circles
represent cone FR VI 15 sec AV conditions, and open squares repre-
sent conc FR VI 7.5 sec AV conditions.





















100


2 00




10
o
n;


0;


" FR AtFR

ecomc FR YOKro Io'SH
CO r 10vo*0eo I5'S0
a0CO r30 40 0 0'S0










I0o 200 1on 400 500


FIXED RATIO


Figure 3. Rates of responding for Rat 21a (left side) and
Rat 35 (right side) as a function of the FR requirement. Open tri-
angles represent FR alone conditions, open circles represent conc
FR Matched 30 sec SH conditions, closed circles represent conc FR
Matched 15 sec SH conditions, and open squares represent conc FR
Matched 7.5 sec SH conditions.


MAT U


ioo Im uo aa








response contingencies.

Table 1 shows the mean time it took each subject to complete a

ratio in each session under cone FR AV contingencies. The mean time

to complete a ratio was determined by dividing the total number of

FR reinforcers into the cumulative seconds spent from the first press

on the FR lever after an avoidance response to the next press on the

avoidance lever. Once the mean time to complete a ratio approximated

the time permitted by the RS interval the shock rates generally in-

creased (Table 2) and the FR response rate began to consistently de-

crease (Figure 1). The underlined points in Tables 1, 2 and 3 show

the FR value at which the FR response rate decreased to approximately

50% of its maximum rate for each of the ascending series. Those ratio

values were generally the same as or close to those sessions in which

the mean time to complete a ratio approximated the time of the RS

interval (Table 1) and the shock rate suddenly increased (Table 2).

Changeovers generally decreased with the increase in ratio require-

ments (Table 3).

The overall Sidman and VI avoidance rate (bottom frames of

Figures 1 and 2) for each session declined slightly with the concur-

rent ratio increases, even though a burst of AV responses frequently

occurred after shock delivery, and shock frequency often increased

(see Myer, 1975). Shock rates generally increased slightly with the

higher ratio requirements. Avoidance response rates were highest

with the shortest response-shock or variable interval and lowest

with the longest response-shock or variable interval.

Figures 4 and 5 show cumulative response records of the first

50 minutes of sessions under various cone FR AV conditions. Fixed-














Table 1


Mean number of seconds
are the ratios to which the
50% of its maximum rate,


Rat 21a

Ratio RS 60"

10 7.31
12 7.45
14 7.33
17 7.76
20 8.04
24 9.44
29 9.45
35 9.37
42 11.03
50 13.40
60 16.70
72 16.94
86 20.14
103 21.91
124 22.83
149 46.95
179 78.58
215 128.87
258 657.00
310 643.00
372


to complete a ratio, The underlined times
FR response rate decreased to approximately


RS 30" RS 15" RS 7.5" FR Alone

6.37 6.04 6.26
6.39 6.11 6.49
7.35 5.97 6.43
7.60 5.95 8.22
7.44 6.11 6.27
9.39 7.01 7.18
10.33 7.09 8.42
10.60 8.33 10.11
12.97 9.53 11.12
12.51 10.60 11.97
14.56 11.40 13.14
16.06 13.40 15.98
20.65 17.52 17.08
23.77 21.35 23.14
27.01 56.38 26.92
30.56 180.13 29.96
44.06 265.45 44.04
140.65 53.70
70.84
105.63
227.33
496.27


Rat 33


5.56
5.88
7.18
7.86
8.99
9.22
9.79
11.88
14.01


6.71
7.16
7.10
8.03
9.24
9.04
10.76
14.50
32.60


4.59
5.12
6.61
9.69
12.42
13.96
17.50


9.61
11.06
10.68
11.65
11.21
14.70
12.39
13.78
16.28






-15-



Table 1 (cont.)

Ratio RS 60" RS 30" RS 15" RS 7.5" FR Alone

50 15.65 39.33 16,04
60 21.84 43.80 23.08
72 34.53 88.50 24.43
86 50.75 30.67
103 60.29 31.78
124 44.34
149 64.66
179 92.48
215 160.41














Table 2


Mean number of shocks per minute. The underlined values are the
ratios to which the FR response rate decreased to approximately 50%
of its maximum rate.


Rat 21a


Sid AV Sid AV VIAV
Ratio 60" 30"


0.09
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.21
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.07


Rat 33

10
12
14
17
20
24
29
35
42
50


0.08
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.08
0.18
0.10
0.07
0.14
0.07
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.13
0. -4
0.13


0.14
0.22
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.05
0.19
0.23
0.22
0.30
0.27
0.41
0.31
0.36
0.40
0.36
0.44
0.44
0.53
0.36


0.16
0.15
0.13
0.21

0.16
0.14
0.17
0.11
0.11


Sid AV VIAV
15"


0.03
0.07
0.05
0.08
0,03
0.23
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.10
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.18
0.15


Sid AV VIAV
7,5"


0.24
0.29
0.42
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.52
0.53
0.61
0.59
0.61
0.94
0.71
0.77
1.01


0.07
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.28
0.44
1.04
0.61


0.66
1.04

0.68
0.59
0.98
2.04
1.18
1.28
1 .56
2.04


0.15
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.27






-17-


Table 2 (cont.)


Sid AV Sid AV VIAV
Ratio 60" 30"


0.11
0.17
0.29
0.24
0.31


Sid AV VIAV
15"


0.39
0.62


Sid AV VIAV
7.5"














Table 3


Mean number of changeovers per minute, The underlined values
are the ratios to which the FR response rate decreased to approximately
50% of its maximum rate,

Rat 21a


Sid AV Sid AV VIAV
Ratio 60" 30"


10
12
14
17
20
24
29
35
42
50
60
72
86
103
124
149
179
215
258
310
372

Rat 33

10
12
14
17
20
24
29
35
42
50
60


3.94
6.38
3.96
3.15
2.52
2.65
2.48
2.99
3.18
3.01
2.62
3.15
2.71
2.60
2.39
2.41
1.53
1.28
0.69
0.62
0.36


5.08
5.33
5.04
4.42
5.20
4.02
4.76
4.23
3134
4.31
3.93
4.15
3.49
3.32
3.55
2.79
2.81
3.36
0.20


5.20
5.27
4.57
4.36
3.33
4.13
4.62
3.88
4.17
4.08
4.08


6.41
4.99
4.61
4.80
4.95
5.38
5.04
4.93
4.22
3.43
3.94
2.87
1.83
2.28
1.89
1.36
1.17
0.92
0.51
0.36


Sid AV VIAV
15"


7.62
7.61
7.71
7.71
7.60
6.25
6.30
5.62
5.66
4.97
4.64
4.25
3.71
4.47
5.07
4.59
4.32


7.21
6.42
6.12
6.50
5.86
5.81
6.48
5.47
11.22
8.67
10.94
3.47
2.90
2.56
1.92
2.42
1.16
0.88


5.81
5.81
5.75
5.18
4.60
5.34
4.41
2.84
0.86
1.04
0.98


Sid AV VIAV
7.5"


6.77
6.17
5.35
7.08
5.20
5.02
3.47
3.71
3.03
2.77
1.53


5.69
5.81
3.87
2.67
1.11
0.98
0.30







-19-


Table 3 (cont.)


Sid AV Sid AV VIAV
Ratio 60" 30"


2.64
1.35
1.17
0.23


Sid AV VIAV
15"


0.57
0.66


Sid AV VIAV
7.5"








ratio responding is shown on the left with the concurrent AV re-

sponding on the right. These response patterns were typical of the

entire session. The top set of cumulative records (#1) show base-

line responding (FR 10) for the conc FR RS 15 sec AV ascending ser-

ies. At baseline conditions the subjects responded much like they

did when responding to each schedule's contingencies alone. At an

intermediate ratio requirement (#2) the subjects' pattern of AV re-

sponding remained similar to that of baseline conditions, while the

AV rate of responding dropped slightly. The pattern of FR responding

showed a little disruption in the beginning of the session (what

looked like a warm-up effect typically seen in AV responding, e.g.,

Sidman, 1953), followed by a high rate of responding. At a high

ratio requirement (#3) the subjects' pattern of AV responding again

remained similar to that of baseline conditions while the overall

rate of responding dropped further. The pattern of FR responding

showed marked ratio strain throughout the session.

The effects of the avoidance RS interval on FR responding can

be seen by comparing the three bottom FR cumulative records. Only

one ratio requirement is presented (FR 72 for Rat 33 and FR 149 for

Rat 21a) with a concurrent 15 sec AV schedule (#3), a concurrent

RS 30 sec AV schedule (#4), or no concurrent schedule at all (#5).

Depending on the concurrent avoidance requirement, the pattern of

FR responding under a specific ratio requirement showed a marked

decrease in responding, a slight decrease in responding, or no de-

crease in responding. Cumulative records of sessions under conc

FR VIAV and FR matched shock conditions were quite similar to the

ones presented.
























Figure 4. Cumulative records of rates and patterns of respond-
ing by Rat 21a under cone FR AV and FR alone schedules. The records
numbered 1, 2 and 3 are from three sessions in which the same RS in-
terval was used (15 sec) with three different FR requirements (10,
72 and 149). The records numbered 4 and 5 are from two sessions in
which the FR requirement was the same as that used in record #3 (FR
149) with either a longer RS interval (30 sec) or no concurrent
avoidance schedule. Paper drive motors ran throughout sessions.
Fixed-ratio records are on the left side, AV records are on the right
side; changeovers are below the response records. Pips on the left
response records indicate food delivery; pips on the right response
records indicate shock delivery.









FR 10


FR72


co


R 49


3,


F


FR 149 R I30AV

4ON C




F 120IN


RAT 21o


RS IVAV
CONC


CONC


/ -


/


/1


























Figure 5. Cumulative records of responding by Rat 33 under
cone FR AV and FR alone conditions. The top three records (1, 2
and 3) are from three sessions in which the same RS interval was
used (15 sec) with three different FR requirements (10, 24 and 72).
The bottom two records (4 and 5) are from two sessions in which the
FR requirement was the same as that used in record #3 (FR 72) with
either a longer RS interval (30 sec) or no concurrent avoidance
schedule.













RAT 33

FR 10 "S ISAV
















CO
F / / I /
CO 11 1 .. -----*--.-- --- ----



c I0







OCOAC




CO
CO 11. -,..--.. .....*----~------- ------- -









FR 72 RS 30'AV




40 CONC





FR 72




20MN














Discussion


The data presented here indicate that behavior maintained by

an FR schedule can be affected by a concurrently programmed AV sched-

ule. The extent of that effect is primarily determined by concurrent

responding contingencies affecting the rate and temporal pattern of

received shocks.

Though the procedures and subjects of the present experiment

are different than those of the Catania, Deegan and Cook (1966)

study, the results are comparable. In both studies FR and AV re-

sponding appear independent and, under certain conditions, have lit-

tle or no effect on a subject's concurrent schedule response rate

or pattern. The conditions when responding is affected appear to

be when the time to complete a ratio is greater than the time allowed

by the RS interval, usually resulting in an increase in shock den-

sity and a decrease in FR responding.

These data are also similar to conc FR FI studies using food

and water as reinforcers (Wood, Martinez and Willis, 1975; Wood and

Willis, 1974). As in this study FR response rates were inverted U

shaped as a function of the size of the ratio requirement; FI re-

sponse rates either showed no systematic effect as a function of

ratio size (Wood, et al. 1975), or showed slight increases as the

ratio requirement was increased (Wood and Willis, 1974). These

similarities strongly suggest that behaviors maintained by different

reinforcers are different from behaviors maintained by the same rein-






-26-


forcer. Such results may have serious implications for previous

generalizations taken from controlled animal research. Responding

for a specific reinforcer is effected by concurrent contingencies,

especially if they involve aversive events. Further research should

investigate behavior to various schedules maintained by different

reinforcers.














References


Catania, A.C, Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 19, 517-526.

Catania, A.C., Deegan, J.F. and Cook, L. Concurrent fixed-ratio
avoidance responding in the squirrel monkey. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 227-231.

DeVilliers, P.A. The law of effect and avoidance: a quantitative
relationship between response rate and shock frequency reduction.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 21,
223-235.

Fleshler, M. and Hoffman, H.S. A progression for generating variable
interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 1962, 5, 529-530.

Kelleher, R.T. and Cook, L. An analysis of the behavior of rats and
monkeys on concurrent fixed-ratio avoidance schedules. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1959, 2, 203-211.

LaBounty, C.E. and Reynolds, G.S. An analysis of response and time
matching to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 19, 155-
166.

Myer, J.S. Shock-induced suppression and potentiation of instrumental
responding by rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 1975, 88, 580-585.

Sidman, M. Avoidance conditioning with brief shock and no extero-
ceptive warning signal. Science, 1953, 118, 157-158.

Sidman, M. By-products of aversive control. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 1958, 1, 265-280.

Willis, R.D., Van Hartesveldt, C., Loken, K.K., and Hall, D.C. Mo-
tivation in concurrent variable-interval schedules with food
and water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 1974, 22, 323-331.

Wood, K.A., Martinez, E.S. and Willis, R.D. Ratio requirement and
reinforcer effects in concurrent fixed-interval fixed-ratio
schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
1975, 23, 87-94.





-28-


Wood, K.A. and Willis, R.D. Reinforcer and ratio requirement effects
on concurrent fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules. Bulletin
of the Psychonomic Society, 1974, 4, 541-543.














Appendix


Rat 33, cone FR RS 7.5 sec conditions

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C.O. Mins.

10 3852 2080 360 10 383 67.5

12 4497 2193 355 11 443 76.2

14 2967 2663 206 29 348 90.0

17 1459 2265 85 26 215 80.4

20 635 2530 31 24 100 90,0

24 634 2207 26 25 88 90.0

29 181 2145 6 22 27 90.1

Rat 33, conc FR RS 15 sec conditions

10 3701 1169 340 4 347 59.7

12 4457 1143 345 6 368 63.3

14 5147 1236 346 6 380 66.1

17 6429 1364 350 8 380 73.3

20 4737 2355 225 8 279 60.7

24 8928 1474 355 7 433 81.1

29 9142 1362 303 25 400 90.7

35 4775 1486 133 41 264 93.1

42 879 1262 20 93 77 89.5

50 912 1230 18 55 94 90.0

60 955 1225 15 35 88 90.0

72 304 1082 4 56 51 90.1


-29-








Rat 33, cone FR RS 30 sec conditions

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C.O. Mins.

10 3978 500 360 9 286 55.0

12 4695 443 360 8 272 51.8

14 5420 607 360 8 281 62.5

17 6424 492 360 13 266 61.0

20 7613 480 360 -- 218 65.5

24 9069 510 360 11 277 67.0

29 10855 627 360 11 353 76.4

35 13115 709 360 15 353 90.9

42 12236 1052 284 10 393 94.2

50 13126 886 257 10 367 89.9

60 10948 954 180 10 373 91.5

72 4850 901 66 15 238 90.0

86 2450 662 28 26 122 90.1

103 1812 659 17 22 105 90.1

124 88 580 0 26 19 83.5

Rat 33, FR Alone conditions

10 3730 369 59.1

12 4407 332 61.2

14 5276 340 60.5

17 6285 342 66.4

20 7246 340 63.5

24 9160 365 89.4

29 10252 340 70,2

35 11192 313 71.9









Rat 33, FR Alone conditions (continued)

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C.O. Mins.

42 14267 327 94.2

50 16885 352 94.1

60 14301 235 90.4

72 16392 225 91.6

86 15709 180 92.0

103 18312 175 92.7

124 15490 123 90.9

149 12845 85 91.6

179 10425 58 89.4

215 7336 34 90.9

258 3982 15 90.1

310 2065 6 91.5

372 1200 3 91.3

446 579 1 91.8

Rat 21a, conc FR RS 15 sec conditions

10 3562 577 325 1 307 40.3

12 4176 740 325 3 324 42.6

14 4935 581 325 2 310 40.1

17 6586 748 367 4 355 47.6

20 6815 563 320 1 308 40.5

24 8198 583 320 11 293 46.9

29 9445 683 310 5 315 50.0

35 11033 767 300 6 334 59.4

42 13560 969 310 11 419 74.1

50 15495 900 300 11 392 78.9








Rat 21a, conc FR RS 15 sec conditions (continued)


Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf,

60 18635 886 302

72 23691 1087 315

86 14757 1161 139

103 14644 1161 139

124 6999 1010 55

149 2428 896 16

179 2126 945 11

Rat 21a, cone FR RS 30 sec conditions


3274

3956

4602

5528

6503

7805

9383

11391

13718

16327

18626

20076

19479

18916

18003

16359

11689


332 320

308 320

437 320

347 320

427 320

890 321

792 320

672 320

812 320

861 320

962 300

875 270

701 215

831 181

831 137

937 104

950 62


Shocks

14

10

19

19

14

18

14



3

3

4

5

4

14

7

5

13

6

11

4

4

7

8

7

12


C,0, Mins.

396 85.4

426 100.3

411 91.8

411 91.8

458 90.3

413 90.2

390 90.2



199 39.3

212 39.8

236 47.0

207 46.8

250 48.1

318 79.1

346 72.7

298 70.5

309 92.4

378 87.7

372 95.0

381 91.8

316 90.5

301 90.7

317 89.2

255 91.5

256 91.1









Rat 21a, conc FR RS 30 sec conditions (continued)

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C,


215 4534 953 20

258 61 778 0

Rat 21a, cone FR RS 60 sec conditions


31

1


0. Mins,

3 93.2

8 91.0


297 230


10

12

14

17

20

24

29

35

42

50

60

72

86

103

124

149*

149

179

215

258

310

372


2484

3245

3505

4205

5445

6265

7441

9385

12219

12158

15536

19953

18581

20687

23983

11271

13153

7132

3356

405

401

105


3 124 31.5

2 250 39.2

1 128 32.3

3 113 35.9

3 111 44.0

3 124 46.8

3 108 43,5

2 132 44.2

2 189 59.4

6 194 64.5

8 237 90.6

8 281 89.1

5 244 90.0

6 234 90.1

6 215 90.1

10 157 90.2

19 217 90.1

10 154 90.7

6 119 93.3

8 62 90.3

9 56 90.1

4 22 60.3









Rat 21a, FR Alone conditions

Ratio FR FR
Value Resp. Reinf. Mins.

10 3395 305 32,1

12 3834 311 32.7

14 4491 300 32.5

17 5345 300 41.4

20 6708 305 32.1

24 7964 305 36.8

29 9749 308 44.1

35 12106 332 56.2

42 14667 330 62.2

50 17045 323 64.7

60 20039 323 71.1

72 25201 337 90.3

86 28375 317 90.7

103 25507 241 93.4

124 26066 205 92.5

149 27982 182 91.4

179 22785 124 91.5

215 21933 100 89.9

258 20556 77 91.4

310 16159 51 90.2

372 9116 24 91.4

446 5397 11 91.4

535 328 0 91.2









Rat 21a, cone FR VI 7.5 sec AV conditions

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C.O. Mins.

10 4143 708 377 37 379 56.0

12 6012 638 456 68 404 65.5

14 6247 742 413 112 426 79.7

17 7903 729 430 44 456 64.4

20 9035 650 423 43 378 72.7

24 10739 729 420 82 422 84.0

29

35 6960 1131 187 108 340 91.7

42 6984 1020 157 117 277 91.5

50 4517 1040 86 143 254 91.8

60 821 760 13 180 135 88.1

Rat 21a, conc FR VI 15 sec AV conditions

10 2909 707 262 10 302 41.9

12 3883 941 300 16 353 55.0

14 5194 1195 350 28 405 66.2

17 8523 1327 480 26 535 82.5

20 7287 1122 332 22 412 70.3

24 9307 1288 362 28 500 86.0

29 10357 1423 337 38 549 84.7

35 11554 1310 312 39 505 92.3

42 9419 1098 216 38 1036 92.3

50 10031 1016 193 47 780 90.0

60 4709 985 75 48 985 90.0

72 12129 1100 160 53 312 90.0









Rat 21a, conc FR VI 15 sec AV conditions (continued)

Ratio FR AV FR
Value Resp. Resp. Reinf. Shocks C.O. Mins.

86 8859 1003 97 55 261 90,0

103 8299 560 77 67 183 71.6

124 5178 792 40 73 175 91.1

149 4536 874 29 65 221 91.3

179 1150 877 6 70 106 91.5

215 420 754 1 91 79 90.0

Rat 21a, cone FR VI 30 sec AV conditions

10 4685 825 437 9 411 64.1

12 4907 816 387 16 363 72.7

14 5740 629 380 9 310 67.3

17 6916 1175 381 13 383 79.8

20 7326 813 340 13 339 68.5

24 8666 987 340 10 357 66.4

29 10981 757 357 13 337 66.8

35 12751 1065 345 17 369 74.8

42 13716 853 311 15 324 76.8

50 17172 720 324 27 313 91.2

60 16670 892 268 24 354 89.8

72 11525 673 156 37 261 91.1

86 3758 746 42 28 166 90.8

103 4245 737 44 33 208 91.2

124 2781 595 22 37 173 91.5

149 2125 707 14 33 124 91.4

179 3998 476 22 40 107 91.1










Rat

Rati
Valu

215

258

310

Rat

10

12

14

17

20

Rat

10*

12*

10

12

14

17

20

24


I 30 sec


AV conditions (continued)


21a, conc FR \

o FR
e Resp.

2621

1605

199

21a, FR Yoked

4363

5377

6140

6876

8256

21a, FR Yoked

3910

4235

4302

5095

5772

7357

8473

10178



9008

6906

21a, FR Yoked

4471

4497


255

162

30 sec SH conditions

431

364


AV FR
Resp. Reinf. Shocks

530 12 40

430 6 48

417 0 43

7.5 sec SH conditions

395 10

412 8

402 17

380 25

388 19

15 sec SH conditions

351 5

336 6

411 4

414 5

407 6

425 7

418 7

422 7


Mins.

91.1

91.4

91.5



65.7

69.1

69.7

90.5

69.3



65.7

63.0

58.2

56.2

70.1

65.8

66.3

71.1



90.9

94.2



64.0

59.7










Rat 21a, FR Yoked 30 sec SH conditions (continued)

Ratio FR FR
Value Resp. Reinf. Shocks Mins.

14 6067 425 7 65.0

17 7286 423 13 83.0

20 7885 388 10 74.8

24 3783 156 12 53.6

29 4975 170 5 46.3

35 6469 184 4 50.8

42 12791 303 9 85.2

50 13942 278 9 88.2

60 12294 204 7 85.0

72 12557 173 15 90.8

86 11575 134 19 90.3

103 12480 121 20 90.5

124 3446 28 26 85.2

Rat 21a, FR Alone conditions

10 4569 428 62.1

12 4939 385 60.3

14 4108 277 39.1

17 7849 442 63.6

20 8323 401 69.5

24 11174 444 78.7

29 12841 426 79.8

35 16110 440 79.8

42 19611 451 96.7

50 14990 292 82.3










Rat 21a, FR Alone

Ratio FR
Value Resp.

60 19849

72 25327

86 24487

103 21534

124 14394

149 21246

179 15809

215 10958

258 8382

310 7887

372 2333

446 1994

535 409

Rat 35, FR Yoked 7

10 3513

12 4225

14 3846

17 3460,

20 3363

Rat 35, FR Yoked 1

10 3624

12 4248

14 5147

17 6234


conditions (continued)

FR
Reinf. Shocks

321

342

275

203

114

140

87

50

32

25

6

4

0

.5 sec SH conditions

344 10


343

267

199

163

5 sec SH conditions

353

340

360

356


Mins.

90.1

90.0

90.1

86.6

88.5

91.4

89.2

84.3

90.4

90.0

60.8

104.0

103.2


70.7

87.1

90.3

72.0

90.0










Rat

Rati
Valu

20

24

29

35

42

Rat

10

12

14

17

20

24

29

35

42

50

60

72

86

103

124

Rat

10

12


conditions (continued)


35, FR Yoked 15 sec SH

o FR
e Resp.

7057

7592

8525

5635

2027

35, FR Yoked 30 sec SH

3480

3096

4260

4884

6332

5616

6342

5259

5979

6590

4776

7248

5167

4483

2312

35, FR Alone conditions

4218

4150


Shocks

6

7

23

37

80


FR
Reinf.

345

314

287

159

47

conditions

334

251

296

285

312

231

216

148

141

130

79

99

59

43

18


Mins.

84.4

91.9

92.4

93.0

93.1



73.7

60.9

65.6

70.2

77.1

84,5

85.0

87.1

91.5

91.8

55.2

90.2

88.8

90.0

90.0



57.9

58.5










Rat 35, FR Alone conditions (continued)

Ratio FR FR
Value Resp. Reinf. Mins.

14 4263 283 55,2

17 5457 303 64.6

20 7942 380 78.9

24 7406 294 64.0

29 8636 284 72.9

35 10282 284 85.6

42 9604 219 73.0

50 13384 257 90.0

60 14045 228 90.8

72 15226 207 90.3

86 14598 164 90.0

103 14598 138 90.0

124 15326 121 90.1

149 12780 84 93.9

179 11485 63 90.5

215 5938 27 90.4

258 3530 13 90.0

310 1389 4 90.0

372 156 0 90.9













Biographical Sketch


Keith Anthony Wood was born on October 25, 1949 in Washington

D.C. He did his undergraduate work in psychology at Oakwood College

from which he graduated in 1971. He did his graduate work in psy-

chology at the University of Florida from which he earned his

master's in 1973. He completed a clinical psychology internship

at the University of Washington Medical School in 1976.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs