The influence of two variables upon the establishment of a secondary reinforcer for operant responses.

Bersh, Philip J.

doi:10.1037/h0059386

Cited by 67 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have investigated secondary-reinforcement effects as a function of such variables as amount of primary reward associated with PSR (Hopkins, 1955;Lawson, 1953), interval between PSR and primaryreward presentation (Bersh, 1951;Jenkins, 1950), and number of pairings of PSR and primary reward (Bersh, 1951). The results of the analysis performed on the control group indicate the absence of a strong secondary reinforcement effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Fort¹

1965

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Fort¹

1965

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The influence of CS-US delay was demonstrated for example by Bersh (1951) and Jenkins (1950), who showed that the number of lever presses made before CS delivery was reduced with an increased delay between the CS and US. CRH has more recently been supported by Donahoe and Palmer (2004) and Donahoe (2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

Prével

Rivière

Darcheville

et al. 2016

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, excitatory backward conditioning was assessed in a conditioned reinforcement paradigm. The experiment was conducted with human subjects and consisted of five conditions. In all conditions, US reinforcing value (i.e. time reduction of a timer) was assessed in phase 1 using a concurrent FR schedule, with one response key leading to US presentation and the other key leading to no-US. In phase 2, two discrete stimuli, S+ and S-, were paired with US and no-US respectively using an operant contingency. For three groups, backward contingencies were arranged, and two of these were designed to rule out a trace (forward) conditioning interpretation of the results. The two other groups served as control conditions (forward and neutral conditions).Finally, in phase 3 for all groups the CSs were delivered in a concurrent FR schedule similar to phase 1, but with no US. Responding during phase 3 showed conditioned reinforcement effects and hence excitatory backward conditioning. Implications of the results for conditioned reinforcement models are discussed.

show abstract

“…Thus, the pairing operations generally involved the brief stimulus preceding food. Previous research on conditioned reinforcement suggests that a stimulus that briefly precedes food might be more effective than a stimulus presented simultaneously with food (Bersh, 1951;Jenkins, 1950;Schoenfeld, Antonitis, and Bersh, 1950). The method of pairing a stimulus with food might be an important factor in determining whether paired and nonpaired stimuli have similar effects on behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING PAIRED AND NONPAIRED BRIEF STIMUL¹

Stubbs

Cohen

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons performed on a second-order schedule in which fixed-interval components were maintained under a variable-interval schedule. Completion of each fixed-interval component resulted in a brief-stimulus presentation and/or food. The relation of the brief stimulus and food was varied across conditions. Under some conditions, the brief stimulus was never paired with food. Under other conditions, the brief stimulus was paired with food; three different pairing procedures were used: (a) a response produced the simultaneous onset of the stimulus and food; (b) a response produced the stimulus before food with the stimulus remaining on during food presentation; (c) a response produced the stimulus and the offset of the stimulus was simultaneous with the onset of the food cycle. The various pairing and nonpairing operations all produced similar effects on performance. Under all conditions, response rates were positively accelerated within fixed-interval components. Total response rates and Index of Curvature measures were similar across conditions. In one condition, a blackout was paired with food; with this different stimulus in effect, less curvature resulted. The results suggest that pairing of a stimulus is not a necessary condition for within-component patterning under some second-order schedules.

show abstract

The influence of two variables upon the establishment of a secondary reinforcer for operant responses.

Cited by 67 publications

References 21 publications

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING PAIRED AND NONPAIRED BRIEF STIMUL¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The influence of two variables upon the establishment of a secondary reinforcer for operant responses.

Cited by 67 publications

References 21 publications

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Discrimination Based on Secondary Reinforcement

Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING PAIRED AND NONPAIRED BRIEF STIMUL1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR SCHEDULING PAIRED AND NONPAIRED BRIEF STIMUL¹