The aim of this experiment was to replicate the phenomenon reported by Still that the spontaneous alternation of non-rewarded rats declines faster over repeated testing than that of rewarded rats. The present experiment failed to find such an effect. It is suggested that on the basis of these experiments, it would be unwise to attribute any effect on spontaneous alternation behaviour with repeated testing to the rewarding or non-rewarding of rats.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De ValoisR. C. (1954). The relation of different levels and kinds of motivation to variability of behaviour. J. exp. Psychol.47, 392–8.
2.
DouglasR. J. (1966). Cues for spontaneous alternation. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.62, 171–83.
3.
O'ConnellR. H. (1964). Comparison of alternation and response to stimulus change. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.57, 362–6.
4.
SiegelS. (1956). Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural SciencesNew York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
StillA. W. (1965). Studies of Memory and Spontaneous Alternation in the Rat.University of Cambridge Ph.D. thesis.
6.
StillA. W. (1966). Spontaneous alternation and pattern of reinforcement. Quart. J. exp. Psychol.18, 109–18.
7.
StillA. W. (1966a). Coercion and spontaneous repetition in rats. Anim. Behav.14, 163–5.
8.
ThompsonW. R.HigginsW. H. (1958). Emotion and organised behaviour: Experimental data bearing on the Leeper-Young controversy. Canad. J. Psychol.12, 61–7.
9.
WalkerE. L. (1956). The duration and course of the reaction decrement and the influence of reward. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.47, 167–76.
