Inescapable, unavoidable, 5-sec. shocks were preceded by 5-sec. white-noise signals contingent on previously food-trained (FR 40) bar pressing of 20 rats. Twenty yoked-control subjects receiving the same, but non-contingent, series of signals indicated that the signal was reliably reinforcing only if the shocks were delivered through an alternate, rather than scrambled, floor-grid system. Implications are discussed for previous reports of the preference for signalled shock phenomenon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FuredyJ. J. (1970). A test of the preparatory-adaptive-response interpretation of aversive classical autonomic conditioning.J. exp. Psychol. in press.
2.
LockhardJ. S. (1963). Choice of a warning signal or no warning signal in an unavoidable shock situation.J. comp. physiol. Psychol.56, 526–30.
3.
PerkinsC. C.Jr. (1968). An analysis of the concept of reinforcement.Psychol. Rev.75, 155–72.
4.
PerkinsC. C.Jr.SeymannR. G.LevisD. J.SpenceH.Jr. (1966). Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal.J. exp. Psychol.72, 190–6.
