Abstract
Rats were conditioned to prevent shock in a standard discriminated barpress avoidance situation and then were extinguished by either of two procedures: (1) classical extinction (CE), or (2) a nondifferential punishment procedure (OE). Results indicated faster extinction and lower terminal response levels with the CE procedure. An interpretation was offered implicating, as an important factor, the number of discriminative cues present during the extinction series.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
BOLLES, R. O., MOOT, S. A., & GROSSEN, N. E. The extinction of shuttlebox avoidance. Learning & Motivation, 1971, 2, 324–333.
DAVENPORT, D. G., & OLSEN, R. D. A reinterpretation of extinction in discriminated avoidance. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 5–6.
DAVENPORT, D. G., COGER, R. W., & SPECTOR, N. J. The redefinition of extinction applied to Sidman free-operant avoidance responding. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 181–182.
MacDONALD, G. E., LEVINE, G. J., & AMSEL, A. The effects of CR-contingent UCS presentations in eyelid conditioning. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 225–226.
MOWRER, O. H., & JONES, H. M. Habit strength as a function of the pattern of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1945, 35, 293–311.
RESCORLA, R. A., & SKUCY, J. C. Effect of response-independent reinforcers during extinction. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1969, 67, 381–389.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research is a portion of a master’s thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology at Florida Atlantic University by the senior author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jackson, M.C., Scheuer, C. A comparison of two procedures for breaking the response-reinforcement contingency in discriminated barpress avoidance. Psychon Sci 29, 14–16 (1972). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336551
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336551