Resistance to extinction as a function of degree of reproduction of training conditions.

Persistence of nonreinforced responding as a function of the direction of a prior-ordered incentive shift.

“…The major theoretical significance of the present results is the demonstration of the necessity for assuming some kind of a nonassociative-that is, motivational-factor to account for the differential persistence of nonreinforced responding. More specifically, these data give support to the interpretation of extinction as a reduction in performance that is essentially due to a motivational decrement (Marx, 1958(Marx, , 1960 rather than merely the terminal level of reinforced performance. The present test is a particularly rigorous one of the motivational account because of the great weight typically accorded rate of reinforced responding as a determiner of nonreinforced response rate.…”

“…This experiment was designed to test certain implications of a motivational theory of extinction (Marx, 1958(Marx, , 1960Marx & Murphy, 1961) in which a decrease in 5"s motivation is held to be the primary factor responsible for the decrement in response that occurs during extinction.…”

Effects of ordered and constant sucrose concentrations on nonreinforced performance.

“…Although 5s bar pressing on the increasing order had a reliably lower terminal response level than those on the decreasing order, they pressed more during the nonreinforced trials. These results suggest a motivational determination of resistance to extinction, and support the interpretation that extinction is essentially a function of a motivational decrement (Marx, 1958(Marx, , 1960. That is, 5s which received progressively more desirable incentives (increasing order) were more motivated to respond during extinction than 5s offered progressively less desirable incentives (decreasing order).…”

Effect of stimulus variation upon resistance to extinction in kindergarten children.

“…The slopes of the curves from the McCleary and two-way tasks, indicating the rate of acquisition after the first correct response, appear to be quite similar, while the points of origin indicating the first correct response were significantly different (p < .01, for both experiments). EFFECT Considerable experimental evidence (e.g., Hulicka, Capehart, & Viney, 1960;Mackintosh, 1955;Marx, 1960) supports the hypothesis that resistance to extinction is partly a function of the degree of commonality between the stimulus conditions of acquisition and the stimulus conditions of extinction. The suppori for this explanation of resistance to extinction is generally provided by animal research.…”