Drugs and punished responding. II. d-Amphetamine-induced increases in punished responding.

Wilson et al. (1973) gave pigeons d-amphetamine while they pecked a key for food. A mild electric shock punished every twentieth peck. The team watched if the drug made the birds peck more or less during the shock periods.

They tested different shock levels and different punishment schedules. Sessions were videotaped so the researchers could split responding into high-rate and low-rate chunks.

Amphetamine rarely raised the total number of punished pecks. The drug only helped when the birds were already pecking slowly and the shock was weak or came only sometimes.

When the shock was strong and steady, the birds stayed quiet even on the drug. The key point: the medicine boosted low-rate punished responding, not high-rate punished responding.

Hearst et al. (1970) saw the same rate-dependence three years earlier. Their pigeons on amphetamine also kept timing poorly only when baseline responding was slow. The 1973 study repeats the pattern under punishment instead of spaced responding.

Lancioni et al. (2006) extends the idea to children. Kids with ADHD on Adderall shifted their choices between two equal tasks, showing the drug still reallocates responses even in humans.

Flory et al. (1974) helps explain why. When researchers blocked the birds’ extra movements, low-rate performance fell apart. Amphetamine likely works the same way: it cuts the tiny side behaviors that help animals pause, so punished responding creeps up only when the pause aids are already weak.

If a client on stimulant medication suddenly increases an old problem behavior you thought was suppressed, check the baseline rate and the punishment strength. A mild consequence plus a low initial rate sets the stage for a med-related burst. Tighten the punishment plan or add reinforcement for alternative pauses before you blame the drug.