ASSESSING THE ROLE OF EFFORT REDUCTION IN THE REINFORCING EFFICACY OF TIMEOUT FROM AVOIDANCE

Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Acr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 2012-11, Vol.98 (3), p.257-271
Main Authors: Galuska, Chad M., Mikorski, Jeff, Perone, Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Association Learning
Avoidance Learning
Conditioning, Classical
Cues
electric shock
Experiments
Feedback (Response)
lever press
Male
Motivation
Negative Reinforcement
rat
Rats
Reaction Time
Reinforcement (Psychology)
Reinforcement Schedule
Rodents
Stimuli
Suspension
Time Perception
Timeout
timeout from avoidance
warning signal
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Rats responded on concurrent schedules of shock‐postponement or deletion (avoidance) and timeout from avoidance. In Experiment 1, 3 rats' responses on one lever postponed shocks for 20 s and responses on a second lever produced a 1‐min timeout according to a variable‐interval 45‐s schedule. Across conditions, a warning signal (white noise) was presented 19.5 s, 16 s, 12 s, 8 s, or 4 s before an impending shock. Raising the duration of the warning signal increased both avoidance and timeout response rates. Timeout responding, although positively correlated with avoidance responding, was not correlated with the prevailing shock rate. In Experiment 2, 3 rats' responses on one lever deleted scheduled shocks according to a variable‐cycle 30‐s schedule and responses on a second lever produced a 2‐min timeout as described above. After this baseline condition, the avoidance lever was removed and noncontingent shocks were delivered at intervals yoked to the receipt of shocks in the baseline sessions. Timeout responding decreased when the avoidance lever was removed, even though the shock‐frequency reduction afforded by the timeout remained constant. These results suggest that a key factor in the reinforcing efficacy of timeout is suspension of the requirement to work to avoid shock, rather than the reduction in shock frequency associated with timeout.
ISSN:0022-5002
1938-3711
DOI:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-257