Summary
Rats were trained under two sets of conditions to press two bars for food. Under one condition Ss were differentially reinforced for perseverating on the same bar after a reinforcement, and under the other condition they were differentially reinforced for switching bars after a reinforcement. Then all Ss were extinguished with a click on one bar and no click on the other. It was found that bar “preference” depended upon the bar’s cue function rather than whether or not it presented the click.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CROWDER, W. F., GILL, K., JR., HODGE, C. C., and NASH, F. A., JR. Secondary reinforcement or response facilitation?: II. Response acquisition. J. Psychol., 1959, 48, 303–306.
HULICKA, IRENE M. and CAPEHART, J. Is the “Click” a secondary rein-forcer? Psychol. Rec., 1960, 10, 29–37.
MILLER, N. E. Studies of fear as an acquirable drive: I. Fear as motivation and fear-reduction as reinforcement in the learning of new responses. J. exp. Psychol., 1948, 38, 89–101.
WYCKOFF, L. B., SIDOWSKI, J., and CHAMBLISS, D. J. An experimental study of the relationship between secondary reinforcing and cue effects of a stimulus. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1958, 51, 103–109.
ZIMMERMAN, D. W. Durable secondary reinforcement: method and theory. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64, 373–383.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported by a research grant (M-2798) from the National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bolles, R.C. Is the “click” a token reward?. Psychol Rec 11, 163–168 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393399
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393399