Rats were trained to bar press for 1 of 2 different sucrose reinforcements under a particular deprivation condition, then were extinguished under the same or a different condition. Independent groups of Ss were trained thirsty and extinguished thirsty or satiated, were trained hungry and extinguished hungry or thirsty, were trained thirsty and extinguished hungry or thirsty. Differential reinforcement effects were found only for those Ss trained under food deprivation; Ss trained while water deprived showed no reinforcement differences in training or extinction. There did appear to be drive stimulus generalization effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckR. C.Effect of variations in water need and incentive concentration on bar pressing. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 13, 31–37.
2.
BeckR. C.EllisV. T.Sucrose reinforcement thresholds for hungry, thirsty and non-deprived rats. Psychon. Sci., 1966, 4, 199–200.
3.
BrownJ.Motivation of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
4.
CollierG.KnarrF.Defense of water balance in the rat. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1966, 61, 5–10.
5.
CollierG.MyersL.The loci of reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 57–66.
6.
EstesW. K.Stimulus-response theory of drive. In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1958. Lincoln: Univer. Nebraska Press, 1958. Pp. 35–69.
7.
GuttmanN.Operant conditioning, extinction, and periodic reinforcement in relation to concentration of sucrose used as reinforcing agent. J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 46, 213–224.
8.
McLeanJ. F.BeckR. C.Bar-pressing by thirsty rats as a function of amount of predrinking and incentive concentration. Psychol. Rep., 1963, 13, 501–502.
9.
OakleyB.Impaired operant behavior following lesions of the thalamic taste nucleus. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1965, 59, 202–210.
