The specificity of the effect of shock for error in maze learning with human subjects.

Bernard, Jack; Gilbert, Ralph W.

doi:10.1037/h0056240

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subjects were, no doubt, highly motivated by the experimental situation, and the shock may have added but little to this already-pre sent desire to do well. However, the addition of a shock to a maze-learning situation does increase the speed of learning (4,5,8,9,10,11). We may, then, extend our discussion as follows.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Table 1 gives the complete error scores for all S's of the U. C. L. A. experiment, and Table 2 shows the same data for the Alabama Group. It will be recalled from Figure 1 that Group I in each experiment was shocked in true Paths 1,2,4,8,and 9,and in Blinds 3,5,6,7,and 10. For Group II this situation was exactly reversed.…”

Section: B Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have been made of the effect of shock for errors (1,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,IS,17,18,19,21) , and for correct choices (12,18,20). In addition, a non-informative or unpredictable shock has been used (2,9,10).…”

Section: F Nowell Jones and J Ean Kerrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of the Elimination of Shock-Right and Shock-Wrong Blinds in a Finger Maze

Jones

Kerr

1945

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: B Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of the Elimination of Shock-Right and Shock-Wrong Blinds in a Finger Maze

Jones

Kerr

1945

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Only contacts with the ends of blinds were counted as errors, and retracing was prevented by means of a verbal signal. Full details of the procedure followed with the experimental group are given in an earlier paper (1).…”

Section: Subjects Apparatus and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A note on non-informative shock.

Bernard¹

1941

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have been reported in recent years concerning the effect of non-informative punishment for error, and non-informative reward for correct response, upon learning. Working independently, three workers almost simultaneously reported studies in this field. Eisenson (3), in a multiple-choice situation with human subjects, found that non-informative reward, while less effective than informative reward in stimulating the repetition of correct responses, still had a decided positive effect. In the same experiment he found informative and non-informative punishment for errors to be about equally effective. Bunch (2) reported data from a stylus maze experiment which indicated that the effectiveness of shock for error is only partly attributable to its informative value. That effectiveness over and above its informative value she called the 'punishment' value. Gilbert (4), also working with a stylus maze problem, drew the cautious conclusion that "electric shock may, under certain conditions at least, have a facilitating effect upon learning apart from its guidance value, and that there is evidence (although less positive) that learning motivated in this way is followed by better retention than that which follows less highly motivated learning." He later confirmed this finding in a punchboard maze situation (5).During the progress of a study reported in a recent paper (i), the writer and Gilbert ran a group of 24 subjects who learned the stylus maze employed in that experiment without shock for error. This additional group was intended to throw further light upon the problems of non-informative shock, was not in any way concerned with the main study of shock specificity, and was therefore not discussed in the report on that experiment. The main experimental group received shock in connection with certain of the culs-de-sac, and no shock in others. The control group was run on the hypothesis that a comparison between the rate of elimination of non-shock errors in the main group and the rate of elimination of the same errors in the non-shock group would be equivalent to a comparison between a non-informative shock group and a non-shock group, since the main group was receiving shocks which gave no information as to non-shock errors. If it were found that non-shock errors in the main group were eliminated more rapidly than the same errors in the control group, it would constitute additional evidence as to the effectiveness of non-informative shock in learning. The following is a report on this study.

show abstract

“…3. The effect of punishment or emphasis is general rather than specific, influencing total performance rather than the part responses 1 The writer is indebted to Professor Warner Brown for reading the ms. and for a number of helpful suggestions, to Dr. Joseph A. Yoshiota for statistical assistance, and to Mr. Jerome Rulon for assistance in administering the tests. 31 which it accompanies (8,24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trial and error learning with differential cues.

Jones¹

1945

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The specificity of the effect of shock for error in maze learning with human subjects.

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

A Comparison of the Elimination of Shock-Right and Shock-Wrong Blinds in a Finger Maze

A Comparison of the Elimination of Shock-Right and Shock-Wrong Blinds in a Finger Maze

A note on non-informative shock.

Trial and error learning with differential cues.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About