This study examined the role that signals have in signaled-avoidance contingencies and analyzed the environment-organism relationship as an example of a cost-benefit relation. Six rats served as subjects in a signaled free-operant procedure with a response-signal interval of 20 s (safe period) and a signal-shock interval of 10 s (warning period). In successive experimental conditions the response requirement during the signal was increased from 1 to 10 (FR1, 3, 5, 7, and 10). Response rate during the signal was an inverted-U function of the fixed-ratio requirement. Responding during the safe period and rate of shocks delivered were a direct function of the fixed-ratio requirement. Signal rate (number of times the signal was presented divided by time spent in the safe period) was an inverse function of the fixed-ratio requirement on the warning period. Results are consistent with a cost-benefit analysis of responding in signaled-avoidance procedures. With low response requirement during the signal, rats tended to respond less on the safe period, minimizing effort. Increasing the cost of responding during the signal resulted in that less effort for about the same benefit was attained by responding during the safe period.
negative reinforcement; signaled-avoidance; cost-benefit relation
