The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 187–196 | Cite as

Punished and Nonpunished Responding in A Multiple Schedule in Humans: A Brief Report

  • Robert H. Bennett
  • Don R. Cherek


Four male subjects responded on a multiple schedule in which responding was maintained by a random interval 20-sec (RI20) schedule of point presentation. Responding was suppressed in alternating components by an added variable ratio 30 (VR30) schedule of point subtractions. Each component was accompanied by distinctive stimulus lights. Subjects were exposed to the multiple schedule from the initial session. Two subjects experienced four 50-min sessions daily (Experiment 1) and the other two subjects participated in one 50-min session daily (Experiment 2). Once responding in the punished components had stabilized, responding in the nonpunished components continued to increase across sessions. Nonpunished responding did not stabilize even after as many as 36 sessions. These results are discussed in the context of previous studies using animals which employed multiple schedules with punished and nonpunished response contingencies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AZRIN, N. H. (1956). Some effects of two intermittent schedules of immediate and non-immediate punishment. The Journal of Psychology, 42, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BRETHOWER, D. M., & REYNOLDS, G. S. (1962). A facilitate effect of punishment on unpunished behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CHAIT, L. D., WENGER, G. R., & MCMILLAN, D. E. (1981). Effects of phencyclidine and ketamine on punished and unpunished responding by pigeons. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 15, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DUREL, L. A., KRANTZ, D. S., & BARRETT, J. E. (1986). The antianxiety effect of betablockers on punished responding. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 25, 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FANTINO, E., & LOGAN, C. A. (1979). The experimental analysis of behavior: A biological perspective. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GELLER, I., & SEIFTER, J. (1960). The effects of meprobamate, barbituates, d-amphetamine, and promazine on experimentally induced conflict in the rat. Psychopharmacologia, 1, 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. REYNOLDS, G. S. (1961). Behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. SANGER, D. J., & BLACKMAN, D. E. (1978). A variable-interval punishment procedure for assessing anxiolytic effects of drugs. Psychological Reports, 42, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. SCHWARTZ, B., & GAMZU, E. (1977). Pavlovian control of operant behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 53–97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. WITKIN, J. M., & BARRETT, J. E. (1981). Effects of pentobarbital on punished behavior: Persistent increases with chronic administration. Psychopharmacology, 75, 324–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Bennett
    • 1
  • Don R. Cherek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations