A new method of appetitive classical conditioning has the great economy of using laboratory rats and tongue-licking, a short-latency response. Tests for effect of drive on learning were carried down to the theoretically crucial level of zero relevant drive, with adequate exposure to the goal substance. When rats were classically conditioned under 4 levels of thirst drive, high drive Ss learned better than moderate drive ones, who learned better than satiated and supersatiated Ss which showed no appreciable learning. When drives were equalized by testing Vz of each group under high drive and Vz when satiated, only rats conditioned under high or medium drive showed evidence of learning, such evidence being clear-cut for only those tested under high drive.There is considerable theoretical controversy over the role of drive in learning and the experimental data (e.g., Kimble, 1961, pp. 414-415) are far from clear-cut. Some of this confusion comes from certain theoretical misunderstandings, and some from technical difficulties in collecting the data under the crucial condition of zero appetitive drive.As Spence (1956) has so clearly pointed out, one cannot expect any simple effect of drive on learning in many complex situations involving conflicting response tendencies. Although increased drive may strengthen all of the tendencies, if those responsible for errors are strengthened

No abstract

Continuously rewarded rats show a decrease in running speed on a runway recently traversed by other rats undergoing experimental extinction. This "pseudo-extinction" effect is caused by discriminable odors emitted by extinction subjects. These odors could be confounding variables in studies using forms of aversive stimulation.

No abstract

No abstract