1978
DOI: 10.3758/bf03326702
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphine injections in the taste aversion paradigm: Extent of aversions and readiness to consume sweetened morphine solutions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1979
1979
1984
1984

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experiment used the now classical taste aversion paradigm (Garcia, Hankins, & Rusiniak, 1974;Riley & Baril, 1976). It has been shown that morphine, when used as the unconditioned stimulus, can sustain a poison aversion (LeBlanc & Cappell, 1974;Parker, Failor, & Weidman, 1973), but the resultant poison aversion is less intense than those sustained by unequivocally toxic agents (Gorman et al, 1978;Riley, Jacobs, & Lolordo, 1978). The taste aversion paradigm is theoretically sensitive to the ability of an agent to produce nausea and, combined with results indexing the possibility for an agent to elicit positive effect, can be used to determine if an agent produces negative effects or mixed affective events.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The experiment used the now classical taste aversion paradigm (Garcia, Hankins, & Rusiniak, 1974;Riley & Baril, 1976). It has been shown that morphine, when used as the unconditioned stimulus, can sustain a poison aversion (LeBlanc & Cappell, 1974;Parker, Failor, & Weidman, 1973), but the resultant poison aversion is less intense than those sustained by unequivocally toxic agents (Gorman et al, 1978;Riley, Jacobs, & Lolordo, 1978). The taste aversion paradigm is theoretically sensitive to the ability of an agent to produce nausea and, combined with results indexing the possibility for an agent to elicit positive effect, can be used to determine if an agent produces negative effects or mixed affective events.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%