A comparison of two procedures for breaking the response-reinforcement contingency in discriminated barpress avoidance

Jackson, Mason C.; Scheuer, Cynthia

doi:10.3758/bf03336551

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pre sen t results may at first appear to conflict with those of Jackson and Scheuer (1972) and Scheuer and Sutton (1973), who found greater resistance to extinction under shock than under no-shock conditions. However, for their subjects, the presence of shock was the only relevant cue common to acquisition and extinction; neither warning signal termination nor feedback was permitted for either group during either phase of their experiments.…”

Section: Feedback and Avoidance Extinction 385 Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

The effect of response-contingent feedback stimuli under two types of avoidance extinction conditions

Scheuer

Schonfeld

1979

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four groups of rats were conditioned to avoid shock in a two-way shuttlebox. During acquisition. each response both precluded a brief programmed shock and produced a I-sec feedback signal. CS termination was not permitted during either acquisition or' extinction. During extinction, response-produced or yoked feedback was combined with either 100% response-independent shock or no-shock conditions. Greatest resistance to extinction of avoidance behavior was obtained when response-produced feedback occurred in the absence of shock relative to any other combination of these events. These results, when compared to those of previous studies investigating the role of warning signal termination in combination with the presence or absence of shock in extinction (Hartley, 1968), clearly reveal a functional similarity between feedback and CS termination.The most prevalent interpretation of discriminative avoidance behavior has been the two-factor theory, originally discussed by Mowrer and Lamoreaux (1946) and more recently by Solomon and Brush (1956). According to the theory, conditioning is accomplished by both Pavlovian and operant processes. A classically conditioned fear response develops by repeated pairings of CS and US. This fear reaction motivates the subject to avoid the US. Reinforcement of avoidance occurs when fear is reduced by response-produced termination of the CS and preclusion of the US.An alternative explanation of avoidance views the CS, CS termination, and the presence or absence of the US as having discriminative rather than motivational properties (Mowrer & Jones, 1945;Sheffield, 1949). When one or all of these cues are altered during extinction, avoidance behavior declines due to generalization decrement. Thus, if a subject is avoiding either a high proportion of shocks during terminal acquisition or all of them, a no-shock extinction procedure should prolong extinction over a procedure in which shocks occur on all extinction trials. Similarly, any extinction procedure that alters the consequences of responding from those occurring during the acquisition phase, whether the events be CS termination, US avoidance, or any other highly discriminable events, should facilitate extinction of the behavior.This study was a portion of a thesis submitted by the second author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in psychology at Florida Atlantic University.

show abstract

Section: Feedback and Avoidance Extinction 385 Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

The effect of response-contingent feedback stimuli under two types of avoidance extinction conditions

Scheuer

Schonfeld

1979

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Discriminative vs motivational interpretations of avoidance extinction: Extensions to learned helplessness

Scheuer

Sutton

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resistance to extinction of discriminated barpress avoidance in rats was assessed through the use of three procedures. each of \I hich served to break the response-reinforcement contingency: classical extinction ICEl. operant ex tinction (OL). and a variable-ratio shock schedule (VR). Greatest resistance to extinction was found for the VR group. followed by or and then b~C1 55. thus supporting a discriminative rather than a motivational analysis. Reacquisition rates 1'0110\\ ing extinction suggested evidence of "learned helplessness" in some Ss exposed to noncontingent C5-lJ5 presentations.

show abstract

A comparison of two procedures for breaking the response-reinforcement contingency in discriminated barpress avoidance

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

The effect of response-contingent feedback stimuli under two types of avoidance extinction conditions

The effect of response-contingent feedback stimuli under two types of avoidance extinction conditions

Discriminative vs motivational interpretations of avoidance extinction: Extensions to learned helplessness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About