Abstract
Treadle presses in two pigeons produced changeover from a program of unsignaled, unavoidable, and inescapable shock to a program in which such shock was preceded by a 5.0-sec visual and auditory preshock signal. Different houselight colors were correlated with the two programs. Both Ss, albeit marginal in one S, spent more session time in the signaled shock program when the above conditions prevailed than if (a) only the stimulus correlated with the signaled shock program but not the preshock signal occurred or (b) neither preshock signal nor correlated stimulus occurred.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Azrin, N. H. A technique for delivering shock to pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1959, 2, 161–163.
Badia, P., Coker, C., & Harsh, J. Choice of higher density signalled shock over lower density unsignalled shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 20, 47–55.
Badia, P., & Culbertson, S. The relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled escapable and inescapable shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 17, 463–471.
Badia, P., Culbertson, S., & Harsh, J. Choice of longer or stronger signalled shock over shorter or weaker unsignalled shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973, 19, 25–32.
Biederman, G. B., & Furedy, J. J. The preference-for-signalled-shock phenomenon: Signalling shock is reinforcing only if shock is modifiable. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 22, 681–685.
Biederman, G. B., & Furedy, J. J. Preference-for-signalled-shock phenomenon: Effects of shock modifiability and light reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 100, 380–386.
Dinsmoor, J. A., Flint, G. A., Smith, R. F., & Viemeister, N. F. Differential reinforcing effects of stimuli associated with the presence or absence of a schedule of punishment. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Conditioned reinforcement. Homewood, III: Dorsey Press, 1969. Pp. 357–384.
Furedy, J. J., & Biederman, G. B. Development of the reinforcing effect of signaling modifiable shock. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 31–34.
Knapp, R. K., Kause, R. H., & Perkins, C. C., Jr. Immediate versus delayed shock in T-maze performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 357–362.
Lockard, J. S. Choice of a warning signal or no warning signal in an unavoidable shock situation. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 526–530.
Perkins, C. C., Jr., Levis, D. J., & Seymann, R. Preference for signal-shock vs shock-signal. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 735–738.
Perkins, C. C., Jr., Seymann, R. G., Levis, D. J., & Spencer, H. R., Jr. Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 190–196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is sponsored by A. A. Baumeister, who takes full editorial responsibility for its contents. We thank Drs. Baumeister and P. Weisberg for their support and Charlie A. Smith for assistance in preparation of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffin, P., Honaker, L.M., Jones, D.E. et al. Preference for signaled vs unsignaled shock in pigeons with implanted electrodes. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 4, 141–143 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334224
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334224