Abstract
Subjects chose between signaled and unsignaled shock conditions while signal length was varied between .5 and 2.0 seconds in steps of .5 seconds in both ascending and descending series. Preference for the signaled condition failed to develop initially for five of six subjects when signals were .5 or 1.0 seconds but became strong for all subjects when signals were 2.0 seconds (ascending series). Preference declined when signals were shortened, but for most subjects this decline was small (descending series). Since discriminable shock-free periods were present in the signaled condition at all signal lengths, these results suggest that safety may not be a sufficient condition for preference to develop for signaled shock.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Badia P., Coker C., Harsh J. Choice of higher density signalled shock over lower density unsignalled shock. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):47–55. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Badia P., Culbertson S., Harsh J. Choice of longer or stronger signalled shock over shorter or weaker unsignalled shock. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):25–32. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Badia P., Culbertson S., Lewis P. The relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled avoidance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):113–121. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Badia P., Harsh J., Coker C. C., Abbott B. Choice and the dependability of stimuli that predict shock and safety. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):95–111. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blough D. S. Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Nov;18(3):345–367. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grice G. R. Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation. Psychol Bull. 1966 Dec;66(6):488–498. doi: 10.1037/h0023914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harsh J., Badia P. A temporal parameter influencing choice between signalled and unsignalled shock schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 May;25(3):327–333. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harsh J., Badia P. Choice for signalled over unsignalled shock as a function of shock intensity. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):349–355. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- LAWRENCE D. H. The transfer of a discrimination along a continuum. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1952 Dec;45(6):511–516. doi: 10.1037/h0057135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- LOCKARD J. S. Choice of a warning signal or no warning signal in an unavoidable shock situation. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1963 Jun;56:526–530. doi: 10.1037/h0041552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MIGLER B. Bar holding during escape conditioning. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jan;6:65–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- PERKINS C. C., Jr The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses. Psychol Rev. 1955 Sep;62(5):341–348. doi: 10.1037/h0040520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Perkins C. C., Jr An analysis of the concept of reinforcement. Psychol Rev. 1968 Mar;75(2):155–172. doi: 10.1037/h0025509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Perkins C. C., Jr, Seymann R. G., Levis D. J., Spencer R., Jr Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal. J Exp Psychol. 1966 Aug;72(2):190–196. doi: 10.1037/h0023491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]