Avoidance responding in pigeons

Avian Emotions: Comparative Perspectives on Fear and Frustration

Emotions are complex reactions that allow individuals to cope with significant positive and negative events. Research on emotion was pioneered by Darwin’s work on emotional expressions in humans and animals. But Darwin was concerned mainly with facial and bodily expressions of significance for humans, citing mainly examples from mammals (e.g., apes, dogs, and cats). In birds, emotional expressions are less evident for a human observer, so a different approach is needed. Understanding avian emotions will provide key evolutionary information on the evolution of related behaviors and brain circuitry. Birds and mammals are thought to have evolved from different groups of Mesozoic reptiles, theropod dinosaurs and therapsids, respectively, and therefore, their common ancestor is likely to be a basal reptile living about 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous or Permian period. Yet, birds and mammals exhibit extensive convergence in terms of relative brain size, high levels of activity, sleep/wakefulness cycles, endothermy, and social behavior, among others. This article focuses on two basic emotions with negative valence: fear and frustration. Fear is related to the anticipation of dangerous or threatening stimuli (e.g., predators or aggressive conspecifics). Frustration is related to unexpected reward omissions or devaluations (e.g., loss of food or sexual resources). These results have implications for an understanding of the conditions that promote fear and frustration and for the evolution of supporting brain circuitry.

Escape and avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Pigeons had been trained to peck a key when each peck removed a slowly increasing series of electric shocks. Without loss of the established key-pecking response, the birds were gradually weaned from this procedure to one where intense shocks were presented suddenly, duplicating features that had proved ineffective for initial shaping of the response. Finally, a procedure was introduced in which key pecks could avoid shock. Avoidance responding was maintained in two of three pigeons.

Incompatability between the pigeons' unconditioned response to shock and the conditioned key-peck response

High-speed photography was used to compare the pigeon's response to unsignalled shock with the pigeon's key-peck response. During shock, pigeons flex their neck (i.e., the distance between their eyes and shoulders decreases). Following shock, the neck is extended. During key pecking, the neck remains extended and the head moves toward the key in a slight arc as though attached to a fixed fulcrum. Response topography during pecking and shock appear to be incompatible, and it is concluded that the difficulty in key-peck training pigeons to escape electric shock is due to interference from the unconditioned flexion response. This conclusion supports the species-specific defense theory of escape and avoidance behavior.

Nondiscriminated avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Four pigeons were trained to avoid shock by pecking a key on a free-operant avoidance schedule in which no exteroceptive stimulus signalled impending shock. Response rate was an inverse function of response-shock interval when shock-shock interval was held constant at 2 sec and response-shock intervals varied from 5 to 40 sec. Amphetamine increased response rates in two subjects and reserpine markedly reduced responding in one.

Key pecking as a function of response-shock and shock-shock intervals in unsignalled avoidance

Five pigeons were exposed to an unsignalled avoidance procedure where key pecks were maintained through shock postponement. Functions obtained showed an inverse relationship between rate of responding and length of the response-shock interval, while changes in the shock-shock interval had no systematic effect on response rates. The rate of shocks delivered generally decreased with increases in length of both response-shock and shock-shock intervals. Results show that key pecking in pigeons, maintained through an unsignalled avoidance procedure, was affected by changes in response-shock and shock-shock intervals in the same manner as other responses in pigeons and in rats.

Signalled and unsignalled free-operant avoidance in the pigeon

Pigeons were trained to depress a lever to avoid electric shock under free-operant avoidance schedules without a warning signal, or with a warning signal that could be terminated only by a response. Most birds in the signalled avoidance procedure terminated more than 50% of the warning signals before shock. In the unsignalled avoidance procedure, several birds formed a temporal discrimination and received relatively few shocks; other birds responded only in post-shock bursts, and received many more shocks.

Notes on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval escape responding in the pigeon

After learning to peck a key when each peck removed a slowly increasing series of electric shocks, pigeons were placed on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval escape schedules. The resulting behavior was comparable to that of other species on ratio and interval escape schedules. Thus, while the pigeon apparently requires special techniques for the initial shaping of a key-peck response with negative reinforcement, this response, once obtained, can be subjected to intermittent schedules of negative reinforcement with no great difficulty.

Topography of the food-reinforced key peck and the source of 30-millisecond interresponse times

High-speed photography of key pecking revealed that the arc described by the upper bill as a pigeon closes its beak is capable of operating a Lehigh Valley pigeon key set at 8 to 14 g. Arc-produced switch closure follows initial switch closure in less than 50 msec. When birds were trained on ratio schedules, the probability of interresponse times (IRTs) shorter than 50 msec exceeded 0.30. Interval-trained birds produced a much lower probability of short-IRTs. When the schedules were reversed, there was only weak evidence of a reversal in the probability of short IRTs. A temporal analysis of topographic features observed in the original photographs failed to reveal differences between ratio and interval pecking topography. It appeared that only the point of contact with the key differed between subjects trained on the two schedules. It was concluded that only the locus, but not the topography, of the food-reinforced key peck was modified by the schedule of reinforcement.

Free-operant avoidance in the pigeon using a treadle response

A free-operant avoidance schedule was used to establish and maintain foot-treadle responding by two Homing, one White King, and two Carneaux pigeons. In the absence of responding, the interval between shocks equaled 10 sec. Each time a treadle response occurred the shock was postponed for 32 sec. Pigeons appear to learn the treadle response more quickly and use it to avoid shock more successfully than do rats bar pressing on similar schedules. The treadle response becomes highly stereotyped and interresponse time distributions obtained from terminal behavior appear very similar to data obtained from rats. It is concluded that the difficulty in training pigeons to avoid electric shock is not in establishing avoidance behavior but in attempting to evaluate such behavior with the key-peck response.

Transfer of control of the pigeon's key peck from food reinforcement to avoidance of shock

Eight pigeons were initially trained to peck a white key for food under a variable-interval 1-min schedule of reinforcement. Then, a shock-avoidance schedule was initiated and food was no longer available in the experimental situation. Under the avoidance schedule, each peck on the key postponed shock for 40 sec. A warning signal, consisting of tone and red houselights, was presented after 30 sec without a response. If no response occurred, a shock was delivered 10 sec after warning-signal onset. Shocks were delivered every 10 sec in the presence of the warning signal until a response was made. The warning signal was terminated only by a response. Key pecking of all eight pigeons came under control of the avoidance schedule and responding continued throughout the 20-day avoidance training period.

Decision-making: Context matters

Research and theory in human decision-making has increasingly stressed the importance of the context in which the problem is embedded. This emphasis is consistent with that supported by research of behavior analysts on natural concept formation and in problem solving, as well as in the study of choice. We present data on reasoning problems that further support the role of context in decision-making.

Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: an emerging technology

Although the effects of negative reinforcement on human behavior have been studied for a number of years, a comprehensive body of applied research does not exist at this time. This article describes three aspects of negative reinforcement as it relates to applied behavior analysis: behavior acquired or maintained through negative reinforcement, the treatment of negatively reinforced behavior, and negative reinforcement as therapy. A consideration of research currently being done in these areas suggests the emergence of an applied technology on negative reinforcement.

Signalled free-operant avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Two pigeons were trained to peck a key under a free-operant avoidance schedule. Then, changes in key color signalled the beginning (safe period) and the end (warning period) of the response-shock interval, with a response required to change the key color. Finally, a change in key color signalled the warning period and either a response or a shock reinstated the safe stimulus. During signalled avoidance, response rate was higher during the warning stimulus than during the safe stimulus. More responding tended to occur in the warning stimulus when it was terminated by either a response or a shock than by only a response. In either procedure, response latency during the warning stimulus was a function of the duration of the warning stimulus. In general, response and shock rate were higher during unsignalled than during signalled avoidance. When the warning stimulus was brief, the results were similar to those of unsignalled avoidance. These results confirm previous findings with pigeons, are in general agreement with data provided by other species in studies of signalled avoidance, and thereby indicate the transituationality of the key-pecking operant.

Effects of response-shock interval and shock intensity on free-operant avoidance responding in the pigeon

Two experiments investigated free-operant avoidance responding with pigeons using a treadle-pressing response. In Experiment I, pigeons were initially trained on a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 32 sec and a shock-shock interval of 10 sec, and were subsequently exposed to 10 values of the response-shock parameter ranging from 2.5 to 150 sec. The functions relating response rate to response-shock interval were similar to the ones reported by Sidman in his 1953 studies employing rats, and were independent of the order of presentation of the response-shock values. Shock rates decreased as response-shock duration increased. In Experiment II, a free-operant avoidance schedule with a response-shock interval of 20 sec and a shock-shock interval of 5 sec was used, and shock intensities were varied over five values ranging from 2 to 32 mA. Response rates increased markedly as shock intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, but rates changed little with further increases in shock intensity. Shock rates decreased as intensity increased from 2 to 8 mA, and showed little change as intensity increased from 8 to 32 mA.