J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jan;47(1):97-113. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-97.
Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other occasionally produced a 2-min timeout during which the shock-postponement schedule was suspended and its correlated stimuli were removed. Throughout, the shock-postponement schedule maintained proficient levels of avoidance. Nevertheless, in Experiment 1 responding on the timeout lever was established rapidly, was maintained at stable levels on variable-interval schedules, was extinguished by withholding timeout, was reestablished when timeout was reintroduced, and was brought under discriminative control with a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of timeout. These results are in contrast with Verhave's (1962) conclusion that timeout is an ineffective reinforcer when presented to rats on intermittent schedules. In Experiment 2 the consequence of responding on the timeout lever was altered so that the shock-postponement schedule remained in effect even though the stimulus conditions associated with timeout were produced for 2 min. Responding extinguished, indicating that suspension of the shock-postponement schedule, not stimulus change, was the source of reinforcement. By establishing the reinforcing efficacy of timeout with standard variable-interval schedules, these experiments illustrate a procedure for studying negative reinforcement in the same way as positive reinforcement.
大鼠接受同时性程序训练,按压一个操纵杆可延迟电击,按压另一个操纵杆偶尔会产生 2 分钟的超时,在此期间,电击延迟程序暂停,其相关刺激被移除。整个过程中,电击延迟程序保持了熟练的回避水平。然而,在实验 1 中,超时操纵杆的反应迅速建立,在可变间隔程序上维持稳定水平,通过取消超时来消除,当重新引入超时后重新建立,并且通过超时的多重可变间隔消退程序被置于辨别性控制之下。这些结果与 Verhave(1962)的结论相反,即当在间歇性程序上向大鼠呈现超时,它是一种无效的强化物。在实验 2 中,改变了超时操纵杆反应的后果,即使超时相关的刺激条件产生了 2 分钟,电击延迟程序仍然有效。反应被消除,表明强化物是暂停电击延迟程序,而不是刺激变化。通过用标准可变间隔程序建立超时的强化效力,这些实验说明了一种以与正强化相同的方式研究负强化的程序。