Moderately (18 hr.) water-deprived rats were able to utilize an incidental cue of floor-texture following learning of brightness of a goal door better than highly water-deprived (23.5 hr.) animals only when water and sucrose liquids were paired with attributes of the new cue. These findings along with results from three subsidiary experiments indicate that drive level influences utilization of incidental cues by determining the differential incentive value of rewards predicted by attributes of those cues. This formulation is contrary to the drive level-focus of attention model of Tolman (1948) and Easter-brook (1959).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckR. C.BidwellL. D.Incentive properties of sucrose and saccharine under different deprivation conditions. Learning and Motivation, 1974, 5, 328–335.
2.
BrunerJ. S.MatterJ.PapanekM. L.Breadth of learning as a function of drive level and mechanization. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 1–10.
3.
CohenJ. S.HacheyG.Utilization and dominance of spatially separated cues as a function of water deprivation. Animal Learning and Behavior, 1977, 5, 103–109.
4.
CohenJ. S.OostendorpA.RossW.Incentive preference as a function of water deprivation and locus of discriminative stimuli. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1977, 9, 387–390.
5.
CohenJ. S.RossW.HacheyG.BurttB.Sucrose preference in highly water deprived rats. Paper presented at American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1978.
6.
CohenJ. S.TelegdyG. A.Effect of drive level on habit strength in a discrimination task. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 27–29.
7.
EasterbrookJ. A.The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 183–201.
8.
FeldmanJ. M.Added cue control as a function of reinforcement predictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 91, 318–325.
9.
MackintoshN. J.A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 276–298.
10.
NeelyJ. H.WagnerA. R.Attenuation of blocking with shifts in reward: The involvement of schedule-generated contextual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 751–763.
11.
RoyM. A.Effects of drive level on degree of cue control by squirrel monkeys. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 1155–1162. (a)
12.
RoyM. A.Effects of drive level on the type and degree of cue control in rats. Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 515–523. (b)
13.
TelegdyG. A.CohenJ. S.Cue utilization and drive level in albino rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971, 75, 248–253.
14.
WagnerA. R.Stimulus validity and stimulus selection in associative learning. In MackintoshN. J.HonigW. K. (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning. Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie Univer. Press, 1969. Pp. 90–122.
15.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
