No abstract

Sexual reinforcers are not part of a regulatory system involved in the maintenance of critical metabolic processes, they differ for males and females, they differ as a function of species and mating system, and they show ontogenetic and seasonal changes related to endocrine conditions. Exposure to a member of the opposite sex without copulation can be sufficient for sexual reinforcement. However, copulatory access is a stronger reinforcer, and copulatory opportunity can serve to enhance the reinforcing efficacy of stimulus features of a sexual partner. Conversely, under certain conditions, noncopulatory exposure serves to decrease reinforcer efficacy. Many common learning phenomena such as acquisition, extinction, discrimination learning, second-order conditioning, and latent inhibition have been demonstrated in sexual conditioning. These observations extend the generality of findings obtained with more conventional reinforcers, but the mechanisms of these effects and their gender and species specificity remain to be explored.

No abstract

Animals exposed to schedules of partial reinforcement are typically more resistant to extinction than are animals trained with continuous reinforcement. This is the partial reinforcement effect (PRE). Animals experienced with both partial and continuous schedules are often more persistent on the continuous schedule, yielding a reversed PRE. Both conventional and reversed PREs have been elusive with classical conditioning paradigms. The present experiment attempted to demonstrate between-and within-subject PREs using 50% and 100% autoshaping schedules. Presence or absence of a PRE depended on the behavioral measures used. Marked terminal group differences in acquisition produced a between-subjects PRE with absolute response levels but not with rate-of-change measures. Within subjects, only choice trial comparisons were sensitive enough to differentiate the two schedules. Acquisition data were inconsistent with most of the classical conditioning PRE literature, but consistent with results reported in the autoshaping literature. These discrepancies may reflect the operant-classical interaction in autoshaping.Brown and Jenkins (1968) signaled upcoming noncontingent food presentations with a keylight and found that their pigeons pecked reliably at the key, even though responding had no scheduled effect. This training procedure, known as autoshaping, was devised originally as a method of training pigeons to keypeck, a response widely regarded (at the time) as an operant. Subsequent research has caused the autoshaped response to be regarded as largely the result of classical conditioning, with operant conditioning playing a less important role in both acquisition and maintenance (e