1971
DOI: 10.3758/bf03332479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of partial reinforcement of running on the extinction of continuously reinforced barpressing in rats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
0
2

Year Published

1976
1976
1982
1982

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Lewis (cited in Spear & Pavlik, 1966) and Wenrich, Eckman, Moore, and Houston (1967) reported that requiring rats to perform several runway traversals per food pellet produced greater subsequent performance in extinction of a second behavior, continuously reinforced barpressing, than reward for each traversal. Rashotte (1971), however, failed to replicate the Wenrich et al results. McCuller, Wong, and Amsel (1976) found that speed during extinction of continuously rewarded runway traversal was an increasing function of the previously required number of barpresses per food pellet.…”
contrasting
confidence: 53%
“…Lewis (cited in Spear & Pavlik, 1966) and Wenrich, Eckman, Moore, and Houston (1967) reported that requiring rats to perform several runway traversals per food pellet produced greater subsequent performance in extinction of a second behavior, continuously reinforced barpressing, than reward for each traversal. Rashotte (1971), however, failed to replicate the Wenrich et al results. McCuller, Wong, and Amsel (1976) found that speed during extinction of continuously rewarded runway traversal was an increasing function of the previously required number of barpresses per food pellet.…”
contrasting
confidence: 53%
“…Lewis (unpublished experiment cited in Spear & Pavlik, 1966) and Wenrich,Eckman,Moore,and Houston (I967) found increased resistance to extinction of continuously rewarded barpressing after partially rewarded runway training. However, Rashotte (1971), in two experiments, failed to confirm these earlier findings. These conflicting results may be related to differences in the shaping procedures used and particularly to the ease with which shaping was accomplished.…”
contrasting
confidence: 45%