The experimental design was a modification of Hull's reasoning paradigm. Ss were given one forced trial per day in each of four runway segments. The trials to food, routes A-C and B-C, always preceded those to water, routes A-B and A-D. After 20 days of training under 22-hr. food and water deprivation Ss were placed under a “pure” hunger drive and given free choices between the A-B and A-D segments. The results required acceptance of the null hypothesis and thus failed to support the experimental hypothesis that rats are capable of the problem-solving assembly of separately acquired behavior segments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BollesR., & PetrinovichL.A technique for obtaining rapid drive discrimination in the rat. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1954, 47, 378–380.
2.
DyalJ. A., & JonesC. A.Jr.Experimental tests of Hull's reasoning paradigm. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 13, 583–590.
3.
HulickaI. M., & JohnsonB. G.Insight vs conditioning. J. genet. Psychol., 1958, 92, 127–131.
4.
HullC. L.The mechanism of the assembly of behavior segments in novel combinations suitable for problem solution. Psychol. Rev., 1935, 42, 219–245.
5.
JonesC. A.Jr.A test of Hull's mechanism of the assembly of behavior segments in novel combinations suitable for problem solution. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Southern Methodist Univer., 1959.
6.
KoronakosC.Inferential learning in rats: the problem-solving assembly of behavior segments. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1959, 52, 231–235.
7.
MaierN. R. F.Reasoning in white rats. Comp. Psychol. Monogr., 1929, 6, 1–93.
8.
VerplanckW. S., & HayesJ. R.Eating and drinking as a function of maintenance schedule. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1953, 46, 327–333.
9.
WolfeJ. B., & SpraggS. D. S.Some experimental tests of reasoning in white rats. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1934, 18, 255–269.
