Satiation of sensory reinforcement.

Kish, George B.; Baron, Alan

doi:10.1037/h0040362

Cited by 44 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The response that produces the un signaled schedule does not produce a stimulus. Finally, Furedy and Biederman point out that a changeover response produces a change in illumination as well as the signaled condition (stiJnulus-change confounding); thus, the response may be strengthened by photic reinforcement (Kish, 1966), not by the relationship between the illumination condition and the signal. In the foregoing criticisms, Furedy and Biederman have offered an "explanation" for the observed increases in barpressing other than the one offered by Badia and Culbertson (1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of preference for signaled shock

Lewis

Gardner

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Furedy and Biederman cited unreported silent parameters as the reason for their failure to replicate one of Badia and Culbertson's (1972) experiments. Badia and Culbertson reported that rats prefer signaled electric shock to unsignaled. The purpose of the present experiment was to determine if the preference for signaled shock would emerge, using the Badia and Culbertson procedure, in a different laboratory and, hence, to evaluate the Furedy and Biederman speculation about silent parameters. Rats were shocked, in one of two conditions, at unpredictable times throughout each session. In the signaled conditions, each shock was preceded by a tone; in the unsignaled condition, no shock was preceded by a tone. Later, when given the opportunity, each rat changed the unsignaled condition to the signaled condition. The results are very similar to those of Badia and Culbertson. It was concluded that the changeover procedure is valid, reliable, and interpretable. Badia and Culbertson (1972) reported that rats prefer signaled shock. In that study, rats received electric shocks delivered in one of two conditions. In a signaled condition, a warning signal preceded each shock; in an unsignaled condition, no warning signal was given. Later, rats were given a choice between the signaled and the unsignaled conditions. In the choice procedure, a rat could, by pressing a lever, change from the unsignaled condition to the Signaled. Badia and Culbertson (1972) reported that seven rats changed from the unsignaled to the signaled condition and allocated approximately 90% of each session to the latter condition.Preference for signaled shock has been observed many times in different situations (Arabian &

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of preference for signaled shock

Lewis

Gardner

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also several forms of delay, ranging from active ones-such as responding in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement (FI)-to passive ones-such as just waiting for the reinforcement. Because some stimulation associated with responses, such as kinesthesis, may serve as a reinforcement (Kish, 1966), this could affect whether the contrast effect is obtained among individuals even with apparently effortful requirements. Further examination focusing on performance in the preceding tasks with manipulations of effort for individuals would be necessary to determine the effects of the variables on the contrast effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The within-trial contrast hypothesis (WTC) provides a more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon that humans and animals prefer outcomes that follow more effortful events to outcomes that follow less effortful events (Zentall, 2013). We conducted two WTC experiments with human adults. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the difficulty of a preceding event by varying the interresponse time and the limited-hold interval during differential reinforcement with a low response rate schedule, to examine the effect of effort on the preference for the subsequent stimuli. In Experiment 2, we attempted to identify the variables that had affected the results of Experiment 1, by manipulating time as the delay of reinforcement. The results showed preferences based on WTC only when participants made a high rate of incorrect responses in the preceding event, which was used as an index of the strength of individual effort. These results extend the findings of previous human WTC studies and suggest that the difficulty of a task could serve as an aversive event that affects the WTC effect. It is possible that an index based on performance in the preceding event would provide useful information for predicting the contrast effect.

show abstract

“…In this connection, it is of particular interest that all the properties of objects that affect retrieval are also characteristics of rewards. This is well known for sweetness, "wateryness," and the presumed edibility features, as well as for contingent novelty or stimulus change (Fowler, 1965;Kish, 1966). The reinforcing effects of gnawing have also been demonstrated in a study of intracranial stimulation (Roberts & Carey, 1965).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Novelty and partibility as determinants of hoarding in the albino rat

Wallace

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Satiation of sensory reinforcement.

Cited by 44 publications

References 5 publications

The reliability of preference for signaled shock

The reliability of preference for signaled shock

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

Novelty and partibility as determinants of hoarding in the albino rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About