AmselA.The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations. Psychol. Bull., 1958, 55, 102–119.
2.
ArmusH. L.Effect of magnitude of reinforcement on acquisition and extinction of a running response. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58, 61–63.
3.
FingerF. W.Retention and subsequent extinction of a simple running response following varying conditions of reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol., 1942, 31, 120–133.
4.
GleitmanH.NachmiasJ.NeisserU.The S-R reinforcement theory of extinction. Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 23–33.
5.
HullC. L.Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1943.
6.
KendrickD. C.Inhibition with reinforcement (conditioned inhibition). J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 56, 313–318.
7.
LawrenceD. H.MillerN. E.A positive relationship between reinforcement and resistance to extinction produced by removing a source of confusion from a technique that had produced opposite results. J. exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 494–509.
8.
MoteF. A.The effects of different amounts of reinforcement upon the acquisition and extinction of a simple running response. J. exp. Psychol., 1944, 34, 216–226.
9.
PerinC. T.Behavior potentiality as a joint function of the amount of training and degree of hunger at the time of extinction. J. exp. Psychol., 1942, 30, 93–113.
10.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
11.
WilliamsS. B.Resistance to extinction as a function of the number of reinforcements. J. exp. Psychol., 1938, 23, 506–522.
