Effects of Variations in Water Need and Incentive Concentration on Bar-Pressing

Beck, Robert C.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.13.1.31

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many experiments have shown, however, that the water-deprived rat does not show this effect. It responds indiscriminately for water or different sucrose solutions in bar pressing situations (e_g., Beck, 1963;Collier, 1964;Oakley, 1965) until the sucrose reaches some high level of concentration (hypertonic) at which point it begins to prefer water over sucrose (Beck & Ellis, 1966). Indication that thirsty rats do prefer sucrose, however, comes from a study by Beck, Self, & Carter (1965) who found a higher sucrose preference threshold for waterdeprived (1_28%) than for non deprived (.43%) rats in 4-min tests, but nevertheless a preference.…”

Section: In Three Experiments It Was Demonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thirsty rats do prefer sucrose solutions

Beck

Nash

1969

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: In Three Experiments It Was Demonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thirsty rats do prefer sucrose solutions

Beck

Nash

1969

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The non-deprived rat, food-deprived rat, and water-deprived rat after either drinking or stomach loading with water, bar-press for sucrose reinforcements ar races generally proportionzl to their concentrations (Guctman, 1953;Collier & Myers, 1959;Beck, 1963;McLean & Beck, 1964;Beck 8: Ellis, 1966). The thirsty rat, on the other hand, bar presses pretty much indiscriminately for water or different sucrose reinforcements (Beck, 1963;Beck 8: Ellis, 1966;Collier & Knarr, 1966;Oakley, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Drive Shifting Prior to Extinction of Bar Pressing Reinforced by Different Sucrose Incentives

Beck

1967

Psychol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Srlmmary.-Rats were trained to bar press for 1 of 2 different sucrose reinforcements under a particular deprivation condition, then were extinguished under the same or a different condition. Independent groups of Ss were trained thirsty and extinguished thirsty or satiated, were trained hungry and extinguished hungry or thirsty, were trained thirsty and extinguished hungry or thirsty. Differential reintorcement effects were found only for those Ss trained under food deprivation; Ss trained while water deprived showed no reinforcement differences in training or extinction. There did appear to be drive stimulus generalization effects.

show abstract

“…Since each S received only a single stomach load, Hatton interpreted the depressive effect of NaCl as the result of a change in drive stimuli, conditioned drive stimuli having been replaced by the unconditioned stimuli evoked by the NaC1. Other investigators have reported depressive effects of NaCl loads which might be interpreted in the same manner (e.g., Beck, 1963;Beck & McLean, 1967).…”

Section: Wake Forest Universbymentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The apparatus, described more f~llly by Beck (1963), consisted of 3 identical Skinner boxes with automatic programming and recording. They were enclosed in ventilated ice chests in a room separate from the rest of the equipment.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of Drive Stimulus Theory Using Saline Stomach Loads

Beck

Brooks

1967

Psychol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wake Forest UniversBySt/mmary.-This study tested the hypothesis that the depression of barpressing following hypertonic NaCl stomach loads is due to their producing unconditioned drive stimuli. Ir was predicted rhar rats given a response-depressing load repeatedly would show less depression on successive occasions as the novel drive stimuli became conditioned to the response. The resulrs did not support this prediction.According to drive stimulus theory responses become conditioned to specific internal stimuli which are produced by particular deprivation conditions. If these internal stimulus conditions are altered, S is less likely to make the response conditioned to them. Estes' (1958) "stimulus-response theory of drive" predicts this by assuming :hat the conditioned stimuli in such a test situation make up a smaller proportion of the total stimuli than they had during prior training. In other words, there are relatively fewer conditioned stimulus elements in the test situation to evoke the response. Such theorizing accounts for satiation effects but also makes the more interesting prediction that as the length of deprivation in a test periad is lolzge~ than in the uaining periods S should also respond less. Supporting this view, Birch, Burnstein, and Clark ( 1958) reported that rats normally fed only zt a specific time each day responded more for food at that time than at shorter or longer deprivation periods. Brown and Belloni ( 1963), however, corrected for a number of deficiencies in the Birch experiment and were unable to replicate [he results. Hatton (1965) used NaCl stomach loads to increase test drive level above that of the training level. Rats were trained to bar-press for water while 23.5-hr. water deprived, then were extinguished after water or hypertonic loads. He obtained an inverted-U function, extinction being more rapid as a function of volume of water load or concenuation of NaCl load. Saline loads which produce more drinking were at the same time more inhibiting to bar-pressing. Since each S received only a single stomach load, Hatton interpreted the depressive effect of NaCl as the result of a change in drive stimuli, conditioned drive stimuli having been replaced by the unconditioned stimuli evoked by the NaC1. Other investigators have reported depressive effects of NaCl loads which might be interpreted in the same manner (e.g., Beck, 1963;Beck & McLean, 1967).In the present experiment rats were given the same response-depressing saline stomach load prior to bar-pressing on 4 different days. It was predicted

show abstract

Effects of Variations in Water Need and Incentive Concentration on Bar-Pressing

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Thirsty rats do prefer sucrose solutions

Thirsty rats do prefer sucrose solutions

Drive Shifting Prior to Extinction of Bar Pressing Reinforced by Different Sucrose Incentives

A Test of Drive Stimulus Theory Using Saline Stomach Loads

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About