The effect of punishment shock intensity upon responding under multiple schedules.
Punishment hits ratio schedules harder and faster than interval schedules, yet interval schedules rebound sooner when the punisher is eased.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested how shock strength changes behavior under two reward schedules.
Pigeons pecked a key. Every tenth peck earned food. Half the birds worked on a VR schedule. The other half worked on a VI schedule.
After baseline, a brief electric shock followed every tenth response. Shock strength went up, then back down. The researchers counted pecks throughout.
What they found
Stronger shocks stopped the VR birds faster than the VI birds.
When shock strength dropped, the VI birds bounced back sooner. Both groups returned to baseline once shock ended.
How this fits with other research
Hake et al. (1967) showed monkeys also scale their behavior with shock level. The 1970 data match that orderly dose-response curve, but add schedule type as a key factor.
Kruper (1968) found punishment cuts response rate by the same percent no matter how rich the food schedule is. McKearney (1970) agrees punishment works, yet shows the schedule form still matters. VR and VI do not shrink equally.
SHETTLEWORTCHARNEY et al. (1965) proved that shock must be response-contingent to suppress behavior. McKearney (1970) keeps the contingency constant and asks the next question: given equal contingency, does schedule type change the speed of suppression? It does.
Why it matters
When you add a punisher, know the child’s schedule. Ratio programs like token boards stop faster than interval programs like DRL. Expect quicker drops, but also plan for faster recovery if you fade the punisher. Match your data sheets to the schedule, not just the topography.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph baseline rate under VR and VI first; if you must punish, start with a lower intensity on VR schedules because they suppress faster.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In the first of two experiments, responses of two pigeons were maintained by multiple variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Concurrent punishment was introduced, which consisted of a brief electric shock after each tenth response. The initial punishment intensities had no lasting effect upon responding. Then, as shock intensity increased, variable-ratio response rates were suppressed more quickly than variable-interval response rates. When shock intensity decreased, variable-interval responding recovered more quickly, but the rates under both schedules eventually returned to their pre-punishment levels. In the second experiment, the following conditions were studied in three additional pigeons: (1) With each shock intensity in effect for a number of sessions, punishment shock intensity was gradually increased and decreased and responding was maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement; (2) Changes in punishment shock intensity as described above with responding maintained by either a variable-ratio or a fixed-ratio schedule, which were presented on alternate days; (3) Session-to-session changes in shock intensity with responding maintained by multiple variable-ratio, fixed-ratio schedules. Responding under the two schedules was suppressed to approximately the same extent by a particular shock intensity. Also, post-reinforcement pauses under the fixed-ratio schedule increased as response suppression increased.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1970 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.14-201