Cues for discrimination as secondary reinforcing agents: a confirmation.

1953 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilse B. Webb ◽  
Carson Y. Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Reinforcing

Effect of the secondary reinforcing agents on the primary thirst drive.

1951 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-70
Author(s):  
Charles W. Simon ◽  
Delos D. Wickens ◽  
Ursula Brown ◽  
Lewis Pennock
Keyword(s):  
Thirst Drive ◽  
Secondary Reinforcing

Secondary reinforcing effects of opiate agonists in mice

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
�. �. Zvartu ◽  
V. S. Kovalenko
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcing Effects ◽  
Secondary Reinforcing

Delay of Shock-Escape with and without Stimulus Change

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 315-318
Author(s):  
Jesse B. Milby
Keyword(s):  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Stimulus Change ◽  
Secondary Reinforcement ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Shock Termination ◽  
Control Procedure ◽  
Escape Conditioning ◽  
Background Stimulus ◽  
Shock Escape ◽  
Secondary Reinforcing

Effects of a stimulus change presented with delay of shock-escape were examined in escape conditioning. Where a stimulus change occurred with the delay, greater response rates were found before delay and lower rates during the delay. Results are interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of a stimulus change in maintaining behavior with delay of negative reinforcement. Results are consistent with an information account of secondary reinforcement. Data from a control procedure suggest the possibility that stimuli paired with shock termination might have two opposite properties, secondary reinforcing and conditioced aversive, depending upon the background stimulus conditions prevailing at testing.

Secondary Reinforcement and Frustration

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon H. Bower
Keyword(s):  
Food Reward ◽  
Secondary Reinforcement ◽  
Chain Condition ◽  
Frustration Theory ◽  
Short Chain ◽  
Optimal Conditions ◽  
Conventional Tests ◽  
Long Chain ◽  
Reward Effects ◽  
Secondary Reinforcing

It was pointed out that conventional tests for secondary reinforcement are also theoretically optimal conditions for the production of aversive frustration. Hence, positive demonstrations of secondary reinforcement create a paradox for frustration theory. A resolution of this paradox is offered in terms of the chain of behavior cued off by the secondary reinforcing stimulus. The analysis implies that secondary reward effects will be maintained longer the longer is the chain of behavior cued off by stimuli presented following the to-be-learned response. To test this prediction, rats were first trained to run an alley for food reward. Subsequently, they learned to press a lever to get out of the start box; Ss in the Short-chain condition exited directly into the goal box, whereas Ss in the Long-chain condition ran through the alley to the goal box. Sixty tests were given with food reward omitted from the goal box. As predicted, the bar pressing performance of the Long-chain Ss was consistently superior to that of the Short-chain Ss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document