Secondary Reinforcement or Response Facilitation?: II. Response Acquisition

Crowder, William F.; Gill, Kinloch; Hodge, Charles C.; Nash, Franklin A.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1959.9916367

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The test sessions conducted with no food reinforcers available to strengthen responses, but with the previously food-correlated stimuli presented after each correct response, demonstrated levels of accuracy and records of acquisition that were almost indistinguishable from sessions conducted with food available. Like previous demonstrations of acquisition of new behavior using only stimuli previously paired with primary reinforcement (e.g., Bersh, 1951;Clayton and Savin, 1960;Cowles, 1937;Crowder, Gill, Hodge, and Nash, 1959;Fox and King, 1961;Wolf, 1936) this demonstration showed that the stimuli functioned as reinforcers.…”

Section: Correct Responsessupporting

confidence: 83%

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

Hursh

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three monkeys were trained to emit a chain of three responses on three separate levers in a set of six levers to obtain food. The chain producing food (correct chain) was changed each day. During a trial, a press on any lever produced a feedback stimulus; a press on a correct lever produced an additional distinctive stimulus; the third correct press produced a food pellet. Test sessions in which either the food or the distinctive stimuli were removed were interspersed with baseline sessions. In tests without food presentations, the subjects acquired the correct chain rapidly, with a level of accuracy comparable to baseline. Removing the distintive stimuli for either the first or second member of the correct chain greatly retarded acquisition of that member of the chain. Removing all distinctive stimuli often reduced accuracy throughout the chain to chance level, even though food was presented following each correct chain. These results were interpreted as evidence that the distinctive stimuli presented after correct responses functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Reductions in accuracy following an omitted distinctive stimulus indicated that they were also discriminative stimuli for correct responding in their presence.

show abstract

Section: Correct Responsessupporting

confidence: 83%

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

Hursh

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same analysis applies to their experiment with the new response procedure. Crowder, Gill, Hodge, and Nash (1959) used the new response procedure, while controlling for response facilitation. During extensive magazine training, a buzzer and light briefly preceded each food-delivery.…”

Section: Facilitation Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

A REVIEW OF POSITIVE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT¹

Kelleher

Gollub

1962

J Exper Analysis Behavior

375

324

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review critically analyzes experimental data relevant to the concept of conditioned reinforcement. The review has five sections. Section I is a discussion of the relationship between primary and conditioned reinforcement in terms of chains of stimuli and responses. Section II is a detailed analysis of the conditions in which the component stimuli in chained schedules of reinforcement will become conditioned reinforcers; this section also analyzes studies of token reinforcement, observing responses, switching responses, implicit chained schedules, and higher-order conditioning. Section III analyzes experiments in which potential conditioned reinforcers are used either to prolong responding or to generate responding during experimental extinction. This section discusses hypotheses that have been offered as alternatives to the concept of conditioned reinforcement and hypotheses concerning the necessary and sufficient conditions for establishing a conditioned reinforcer. Section IV discusses other variables that act when a conditioned reinforcer is being established or that act when an established conditioned reinforcer is used to develop or maintain behavior. Section V is a general discussion of conditioned reinforcement. The evidence indicates that the conditioned reinforcing effectiveness of a stimulus is directly related to the frequency of primary reinforcement occurring in its presence, but is independent of the response rate or response pattern occurring in its presence. Results from chained schedules comprised of several components indicate that a stimulus can be established as a conditioned reinforcer by pairing it with an already established conditioned reinforcer rather than a primary reinforcer; however, this type of higher-order conditioning has not been clearly demonstrated with respondent conditioning procedures. Although discriminative stimuli are usually conditioned reinforcers, the available evidence indicates that establishing a stimulus as a discriminative stimulus is not necessary or sufficient for establishing it as a conditioned reinforcer. Discriminative stimuli in chained schedules with several components are not always conditioned reinforcers; stimuli that are simply paired with reinforcers can become conditioned reinforcers. The hypotheses that have been offered as alternatives to the concept of conditioned reinforcement are too limited to integrate the data that exist. The concepts of conditioned reinforcement and chained schedule, however, can be used to integrate the data obtained with diverse techniques. Recent experiments have revealed several techniques for the development of effective conditioned reinforcers. These techniques provide a powerful tool for advancing understanding of conditioned reinforcement and for extending control over behavior.

show abstract

“…The fact that Crowder and his students iCrowder, Gill, Hodge, & Nash, 1959;Crowder, Morris, & McDaniel, 1959) obtained secondary reinforcing effects while using Wyckoff and his associates' control techniques mentioned above (i.e., each time the experimental 5 pressed the lever, both 5s were presented with the light-buzzer signal) tends to sub->tantiate our explanation of Wyckoff's results. In a yoked-box design Crowder et al used a 1-^ec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In a yoked-box design Crowder et al used a 1-^ec. buzzer-light complex previously paired with reinforcement in order to retard extinction of a previously learned lever response (Crowder, Gill, Hodge, & Nash, 1959) and to condition a previously untrained lever response (Crowder, Morris, & McDaniel, 1959).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Weiss¹,

Lawson²

1962

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Secondary Reinforcement or Response Facilitation?: II. Response Acquisition

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

A REVIEW OF POSITIVE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT¹

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Secondary Reinforcement or Response Facilitation?: II. Response Acquisition

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION1

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION1

A REVIEW OF POSITIVE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT1

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

THE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT OF REPEATED ACQUISITION¹

A REVIEW OF POSITIVE CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT¹