Intermittent reinforcement and intertrial interval effects on shuttlebox avoidance in the gerbil

Abstract

However, these result s do suggest that the use of threat s, und er the appropriate conditions, can have beneficial effects on further inte raction which occurs when the threat is no longer present.In conclusion, the present study suggests that threats, as coercive but justifiable devices, can induce a high rate of compli ance without necessarily creating conditions which so often seem to result in an eventual increase of conflict.

Duration of CS termination delay in avoidance extinction following partial and continuous reinforcement

“…In other words, the relative resistance to extinction of PR animals was not reliably greater than CR gerbils. Other recent studies of intermittent reinforcement in shuttle box avoidance learning with gerbils have not reported a PRE (Galvani, 1976;Galvani, Twitty, & Foster, 1975) when shocks were omitted in extinction. The most compelling evidence of a PRE following avoidance learning has in fact 'been obtained in those studies in which shock was unavoidable on each extinction trial (Galvani, 1973a, b) although one exception to the above pattern exists (see Galvani, 1971).…”

Effects of percentage of shock avoidance on avoidance behavior in gerbils

“…As many as four sources-US escape, US avoidance, CS termination, and feedback-might be regarded as potential facilitators of avoidance response strength. Previous studies of intermittent reinforcement in the author 's laboratory (Galvani, 1971(Galvani, , 1973aGalvani, Twitty, & Foster, 1975) have employed a "classical trial" to define nonreinforcement. Procedurally classical trials eliminate, or at least attenuate, all of the above noted sources of reinforcement for the avoidance response.…”