Double intermittent reward scheduling and secondary reinforcer strength

Double-intermittent reward scheduling and secondary-reinforcer strength: Discriminated escape

“…In general, the data from the present study are similar to those reported by Fox & King (1961) and Davenport & Sardello (1966) for a secondary reinforcement effect based on schedules of positive reinforcement. In a11 three studies the double-intermittent schedule ranked first, followed by the two single-intermittent schedules, and finally, the eontinuous-reinforeement sehedules.…”

“…Fox & King (1961), in an effort to avoid the criticisms leveled at Zimmerman, added some appropriate controls and found evidence for the superiority of the double-in termittent procedure. Davenport & Sardello (1966), in a partial replication of Fox & King, introduced other methodological changes to insure mobility of the Ss and minimize stimulus redundancy. They were able to secure additional evidence for the superiority of the double·intermittent schedule over procedures involving continuous reinforcement.…”

“…A procedure quite similar to Davenport & 'Sardello (1966) was used. Each S was given two 6Q.min training sessions in which every nose press resulted in a 60-sec eseape from shoek and the termination of two stimulus lights.…”