Effect of response-contingent vs. noncontingent shock on ducklings’ preference for novel imprinting stimuli

DePaulo, Peter; Hoffman, Howard S.; Klein, Sandra H.; Gaioni, Stephen J.

doi:10.3758/bf03209644

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paradoxical effect of punishment was unexpected , but it is consistent with the view that I-day-old chicks are deficient in associative ability. In avian imprinting studies, aversive stimulation has been found to have both an associative and a motivation effect on behavior (DePaulo, Hoffman, Klein, & Gaioni, 1978;Ratner, 1976). The associative effect usually results in an avoidance of those responses or stimuli paired with the aversive stimulation, whereas the motivation effect of shock nonspecifically energizes behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to extinction in the developing chick: Effects of punishment and preextinction training

Mattingly

Zolman

1982

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of punishment and amount of acquisition training on resistance to extinction of keypecking was determined in 1-and 4-day-old Vantress x Arbor Acre chicks. Socially reared 1-and 4-day·old chicks (N=96) were first autoshaped to keypeck for heat reward and then given an additional 12 or 84 acquisition trials before extinction testing. The extinction responses of one-half of the chicks of each age were also punished with wing shocks. Major findings were as follows: (1) When only 12 acquisition trials preceded extinction testing, t-day-old chicks were less resistant to extinction than 4-day-old chicks under nonpunishment conditions, but they were more resistant to extinction than 4·day-old chicks under punishment conditions, (2) when 84 acquisition trials preceded extinction testing, 1-and 4-day-old chicks did not significantly differ in resistance to extinction under either the punishment or nonpunlshment condition, and (3) punishment produced a decrease in the extinction responding of 4~day-old chicks following both 12 and 84 acquisition trials, but punishment produced a decrease in the extinction responding of l-day-old chicks only when 84 acquisition trials preceded extinction testing. These results suggest that the l-day-old chick, as compared to the 4-day-oldchick, may be deficient in associative, rather than inhibitive, ability.The age dependency of both key peck and approach passive avoidance (PA) learning of the young chick was found recently to be related specifically to the number of reinforced acquisition trials given before punishment is introduced (Mattingly & Zolman , 1980). As in previous PA studies with chicks (e.g., Brown, 1976Brown, ,1977, l-day-old chicks suppressed responding significantly less than 4-day-old chicks when tested for PA learning after minimal prepunishment training. But when given extensive prepunishment training , both 1-and 4-day·old chicks learned quickly to stop responding when punished , and no significant age differences in PA learning were observed.In these PA tests , separate groups of chicks were given either immediate or delayed response-contingent punishment. As expected , for 4-day-old chicks, delayed punishment resulted in less response suppression than did immediate punishment, regardless of the amount of prepunishment training. For I-day-old chicks , however , delayed punishment produced less response suppression than did immediate punishment only after extensive prepunishment training. The absence of a delay-ofpunishment effect for I-day-old chicks after minimal prepunishment training indicated that these chicks did not learn the appropriate stimulus-and responsepunishment contingencies during PA testing , and it suggested that the inferior PA performance of I-day-old chicks , as compared to 4-day-old chicks , was because of an associative deficiency. Increasing the amount of prepunishment train ing was assumed , therefore , to increase the l -day-old chicks' sensitivity to the appropriate stimulus-and response-shock contingencies to a level comparable to...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to extinction in the developing chick: Effects of punishment and preextinction training

Mattingly

Zolman

1982

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

ACTH and Brain Mechanisms Controlling Approach–Avoidance and Imprinting in Birds

Martín¹

1981

Endogenous Peptides and Learning and Memory Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of response-contingent vs. noncontingent shock on ducklings’ preference for novel imprinting stimuli

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Resistance to extinction in the developing chick: Effects of punishment and preextinction training

Resistance to extinction in the developing chick: Effects of punishment and preextinction training

ACTH and Brain Mechanisms Controlling Approach–Avoidance and Imprinting in Birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About