On secondary reinforcement and shock termination.

Beck, Robert C.

doi:10.1037/h0044276

Cited by 44 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research on this latter point, however, has produced contradictory results. Barlow (1952) and Evans (1962), for example, have reported the successful development of a positive secondary reinforcer while several studies have failed to demonstrate this phenomenon (Beck, 1961). The reason for these contradictory results appears to be the number of shock-tone pairings that have been used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

The development of a conditioned positive reinforcer based upon the termination of shock

Wagman¹,

Allen²

1964

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was an attempt to clarify the data concerned with the adient properties of stimuli which have been associated with the termination of shock. Six different groups of rats were subjected to varying numbers of shock-tone pairings. The positively reinforcing effects of the tone were tested in an operant conditioning situation. The data showed that these properties are demonstrated within a narrow range of shock-tone pairings. IntroductionCurrent reinforcement theories (Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950;Mowrer, 1960) hypothesize that the termination of shock is a positive reinforcer. It should than follow that stimuli associated with this event develop positively reinforcing properties. The research on this latter point, however, has produced contradictory results. Barlow (1952) and Evans (1962), for example, have reported the successful development of a positive secondary reinforcer while several studies have failed to demonstrate this phenomenon (Beck, 1961). The reason for these contradictory results appears to be the number of shock-tone pairings that have been used. The unsuccessful studies have employed 25 to 100 pairings; the successful, one to eight. The present study was designed to investigate this parameter. MethodForty-five male rats of albino, hooded and Harvard Brown strains were divided into nine groups of five Ss each. The groups contained the same proportion of animals in each strain. The procedure involved three stages. Initially, all subjects were trained to press a lever on a CRF schedule in an operant conditioning test chamber for 45 mg food pellets and remained in the chamber for 1 hr. or until 100 reinforcements were received. Most animals met this requirement. On the third day all animals were again placed in the operant box for a 30-min. period of free responding on CRF. The number of responses made during this period was used as a measure of the subject's pre-test response strength.Stage II was initiated on the fourth day. The subjects were placed in a shock chamber where they were exposed to shock-tone pairings. At this point they were split into six experimental and three control groups. The experimental groups all received 1 ma shocks (3-sec. duration) followed by a .5 sec. 6000 cycle tone. Each of the experimental groups received a different number of shock-tone pairings (2,4,8,12,16, and 20). These stimuli were presented on a VI schedule for a Psycho... Sci., 1964, Vol. 1. Mean response ratios for all subjects during test phase. Each point represents the mean of five subjects. The S -T groups are the experimental subjects. The S -0, the two no-tone controls and the OS -T, the group which received neither shock nor tone.I-hr. period. The schedule was designed so that the minimum time between stimuli was 2 min. Two of the control groups received 12 and 20 presentations of shock with no tone. The third group was put into the shock chamber but no shocks or tones were delivered.The test phase of the experiment began 23 hr. after the shock exposures. All subjects were put in...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

The development of a conditioned positive reinforcer based upon the termination of shock

Wagman¹,

Allen²

1964

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite evidence from previous studies and that presented in Experiments 1 and 2, demonstrations of the reinforcing properties of a safety signal have not always been successful (see Beck 1961;Lolordo 1969 for reviews). Fernando et al (2013), failed to detect reinforcement of instrumental behavior by a safety signal when trained using a Pavlovian explicitly unpaired inhibition procedure.…”

Section: Safety Signals Reinforce Avoidance Behaviormentioning

confidence: 94%

Safety signals as instrumental reinforcers during free-operant avoidance

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safety signals provide "relief" through predicting the absence of an aversive event. At issue is whether these signals also act as instrumental reinforcers. Four experiments were conducted using a free-operant lever-press avoidance paradigm in which each press avoided shock and was followed by the presentation of a 5-sec auditory safety signal. When given a choice between two levers in Experiment 1, both avoiding shock, rats preferentially responded on the lever that produced the safety signal as feedback, even when footshock was omitted. Following avoidance training with a single lever in Experiment 2, removal of the signal led to a decrease in avoidance responses and an increase in responses during the safety period normally denoted by the signal. These behavioral changes demonstrate the dual conditioned reinforcing and fear inhibiting properties of the safety signal. The associative processes that support the reinforcing properties of a safety signal were tested using a novel revaluation procedure. Prior experience of systemic morphine during safety signal presentations resulted in an increased rate of avoidance responses to produce the safety signal during a drug-free extinction test, a finding not seen with d-amphetamine in Experiment 3. Morphine revaluation of the safety signal was repeated in Experiment 4 followed by a drug-free extinction test in which responses did not produce the signal for the first 10 min of the session. Instrumental avoidance in the absence of the signal was shown to be insensitive to prior signal revaluation, suggesting that the signal reinforces free-operant avoidance behavior through a habit-like mechanism.

show abstract

“…The early studies (Lee, 1951;Mowrer & Aiken, 1954;Litman & Wade,1955;Crowder, 1959;andBeck,1958,1961) have not been able to demonstrate that stimuli associated with the termination of electric shock develop positive reinforcing qualities. Barlow (1952) did show positive results, but the response measure he used has been criticized by Beck (1961). Later studies (Hunter, 1961;Evans,·1962;Wagman & Allen, 1964) have also demonstrated positive results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%