Theoretical analyses, using Spence's (1958) theory, of two idealized discrimination situations show that the contiguity and reinforcement assumptions of habit strength development need not result in differential predictions for percent-choice performance of two drive-level groups when the numbers of occurrences of responses are equated. For actual situations approximating 100% generalization (all common cues), both assumptions effectively generate the prediction of no difference in performance. Review of the studies cited by Spence, Goodrich, and Ross (1959) as supporting the contiguity view suggests that situations of this type were employed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarltonP. L.The effect of time of food deprivation on selective learning. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, State Univer. of Iowa, 1955.
2.
KimbleG. A.Hilgard and Marquis' ‘Conditioning and learning.’New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.
3.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
4.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and selective learning. In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1958. Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1958. Pp. 80–82, 86–104.
5.
SpenceK. W.GoodrichK.RossL. E.Performance in differential conditioning and discrimination learning as a function of hunger. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 8–16.
6.
TeelK. S.Habit strength as a function of motivation during learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1952, 45, 188–191.
7.
TeelK. S.WebbW. B.Response evocation on satiated trials in the T-maze. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 41, 148–152.
8.
WikeE. L.BlocherO.KnowlesJ. M.Effects of drive level and turning preference on selective learning and habit reversal. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 696–699.
