Premium
RESPONDING MAINTAINED UNDER INTERMITTENT SCHEDULES OF ELECTRIC‐SHOCK PRESENTATION: “SAFETY” OR SCHEDULE EFFCTS?
Author(s) -
Malagodi E. F.,
Gardner Michael L.,
Ward Susan E.,
Magyar Regis L.
Publication year - 1981
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-171
Subject(s) - schedule , lever , electric shock , wheel running , interval (graph theory) , food delivery , reinforcement , shock (circulatory) , psychology , simulation , stimulus (psychology) , computer science , mathematics , social psychology , engineering , medicine , cognitive psychology , electrical engineering , mechanical engineering , combinatorics , marketing , endocrinology , business , operating system
Four experiments were conducted in which lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under multiple, mixed, or chained schedules of electric‐shock presentation. In the first two experiments, a multiple schedule was employed in which a fixed‐interval schedule of shock presentation alternated with a signaled two‐minute component. Initially, no events were scheduled during the two‐minute component (a safety period). In the first experiment, the safety period was “degraded” by introducing and systematically increasing the frequency of periodic shocks presented during that component. In the second experiment, the proportion of overall safe time to unsafe time was decreased by decreasing the value of the fixed‐interval schedule while holding constant shock frequency during the two‐minute component. In the third experiment, the overall arrangement was changed from a multiple to a mixed schedule in an attempt to determine whether fixed‐interval responding would be maintained when a single exteroceptive stimulus was associated with both components. In the fourth experiment, the overall arrangement was changed from a multiple to a chained schedule in an effort to determine whether fixed‐interval responding would be maintained when its consequence was presentation of a signaled “unsafe” period. Fixed‐interval responding was well maintained under all experimental conditions; the varied relationships obtained lend more support to conceptualizations of shock‐maintained behavior as exemplifying schedule‐controlled behavior than to suggestions that such behavior may be readily accounted for by “safety theory.”