Response-contingent and non-contingent informative and redundant secondary reinforcers

McCausland, Donald F.; Menzer, George W.; Dempsey, T. K.; Birkimer, John C.

doi:10.3758/bf03331668

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike Egger and Miller (1962) and Seligman (1966), but similar to McCausland et al (1967) and Thomas et al (1968), the SI-S2 sequence was not overlapping. The confounded group earned SI-S2 sequences for responses to a white key; the unconfounded group earned SI-S2 sequences for responses to a colored key.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 45%

“…A redundant 82 is a more effective conditioned reinforcer than an informative S1. Additionally, supportive experiments (Davis & Oliphant, 1968;Egger & Miller, 1962;McCausland et al, 1967;Seligman, 1966;and Thomas et al, 1968), which purported to show that an informative Sl was more effective, are clearly HANCOCK confounded by differential generalization decrements, as demonstrated in Experiment 1. A second prediction derived from the information hypothesis, that an informative 52 is a more effective conditioned reinforcer than a redundant 52, has not been unequivocally confirmed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A number of experiments (Davis & Oliphant, 1968;Egger & Miller, 1962;McCausland, Menzer, Dempsey, & Birkimer, 1967;Seligman, 1966;Thomas, Berman, Serednesky, & Lyons, 1968) have shown that an informative SI is a more effective conditioned reinforcer than a redundant S2. However, the interpretation of all of these experiments is complicated by a confounding variable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In test, 51 and 52 in-VALUE OF SEQUENTIAL STIMULI 47 dividually followed leverpresses. McCausland et al (1967) and Thomas et al (1968) employed training procedures in which SI termination and S2 onset were simultaneous. Conditioned reinforcement tests again consisted of making SI and S2 individually contingent on responding under stimulus conditions that preceded only SI in training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Tests of the conditioned reinforcement value of sequential stimuli in pigeons

Hancock

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Egger and Miller (1962) hypothesized that the conditioned reinforcing value of stimuli depends on their information value. Egger and Miller and others have tested this hypothesis by comparing the conditioned reinforcing value of 81 and 82 following Sl-Sz-reward training. However, none of these experiments have controlled for differential generalization of conditioned reinforcement value from training to comparison tests. That is, the 81 cue pattern during the conditioned reinforcement tests has been very similar to the 81 cue pattern of training, while the training and test 82 cue patterns have been quite dissimilar. In Experiment 1, pigeons in a procedure unconfounded by differential generalization produced 82 reliably more frequently than 81, and pigeons in a confounded procedure produced 81 somewhat more frequently than 82. A significant groups X stimuli interaction was attributed to differential stimulus generalization from training to test for 81 and 82 in the confounded condition. In Experiment 2, pigeons in an unconfounded procedure again produced 82 reliably more frequently under a different testing procedure. The results are interpreted as demonstrating that, following Sl-Sz-food training trials, 82 is the more effective conditioned reinforcer in unconfounded conditions. A reconceptualization of the information hypothesis is shown to be consistent with these results.A pure tone is sounded before each of several deliveries of a food pellet to a hungry rat. Later, each time the rat presses a bar. the tone follows. The frequency of responding increases; barpressing is positively reinforced by the tone. This example illustrates the phenomenon of conditioned or secondary reinforcement. A previously neutral stimulus, by virtue of having been followed by a reward (e.g., food), acquires the capacity to positively reinforce antecedent responses; the stimulus has become a positive conditioned reinforcer. Miller's (1962, 1963;Miller, 1961) information hypothesis is an attempt to specify the conditions under which reinforcement occurs and previously neutral stimuli acquire reinforcing properties. Egger and Miller (1963) hypothesized that "reinforcement occurs primarily at the point at which information is delivered .... Indeed, the arrival of information about primary reward may be the only occasion when reinforcement occurs" (p. 132). Egger and Miller (1962) defined "information" with respect to the procedures outlined in Figure 1. The S2 redundant and S2 informative procedures This article is based on a portion of a dissertation submitted to Kansas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. The author wishes to thank his committee for their cooperation and most especially Charles C. Perkins for his persistent encouragement. The research reported was supported by NSF Grant DB 27595 and NIMH Training Grant 5TOIMH 08359 awarded to Kansas State University. Reprint requests should be sent to the author at the Department of Psychology, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryvil...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 45%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tests of the conditioned reinforcement value of sequential stimuli in pigeons

Hancock

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding of superior resistance to extinction in Group I also supports the information hypothesis since this was the only group for which the stimulus was not redundant. In a previous study (McCausland, Menzer, Dempsey, & Birkimer, 1967) similar to the present one, both the responsecontingent and non-response-contingent methods of stimulus-reinforcement pairings were used. However, reinforcement was programmed on a variable interval 60-sec.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%