1962
DOI: 10.1037/h0047412
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Secondary reinforcement as a suppressor of rate of responding in the free operant situation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1966
1966
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most research on conditioned reinforcement has involved sounds or lights presented simultaneously or preceding the sound of the magazine (Bell & McDevitt, 2014). With the exception of a few studies (see Tombaugh, 1970; Weiss & Lawson, 1962) there has been almost no research manipulating the sound of the feeder as a conditioned reinforcer, perhaps due to technical requirements. However, even though the sound of the magazine is called a conditioned reinforcer, it normally differs from other conditioned reinforcers used in the experimental analysis of behavior in terms of its guidance or response‐discriminative properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most research on conditioned reinforcement has involved sounds or lights presented simultaneously or preceding the sound of the magazine (Bell & McDevitt, 2014). With the exception of a few studies (see Tombaugh, 1970; Weiss & Lawson, 1962) there has been almost no research manipulating the sound of the feeder as a conditioned reinforcer, perhaps due to technical requirements. However, even though the sound of the magazine is called a conditioned reinforcer, it normally differs from other conditioned reinforcers used in the experimental analysis of behavior in terms of its guidance or response‐discriminative properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experiments in this area, however, have produced conflicting results (Fort, 1961;Fox & King, 1961). While some studies have presented evidence that conditioned reinforcement phenomena can be explained in terms of discrimination (Bitterman, Feddersen, & Tyler, 1953;Weiss & Reed, 1962), others indicate that it is something more than a result of the discriminability between training and testing procedures (Saltzman, 1949).…”
mentioning
confidence: 89%