Literature DB >> 512572

Choice for signaled over unsignaled shock as a function of signal length.

B Abbott, P Badia.   

Abstract

Subjects chose between signaled and unsignaled shock conditions while signal length was varied between .5 and 2.0 seconds in steps of .5 seconds in both ascending and descending series. Preference for the signaled condition failed to develop initially for five of six subjects when signals were .5 or 1.0 seconds but became strong for all subjects when signals were 2.0 seconds (ascending series). Preference declined when signals were shortened, but for most subjects this decline was small (descending series). Since discriminable shock-free periods were present in the signaled condition at all signal lengths, these results suggest that safety may not be a sufficient condition for preference to develop for signaled shock.

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 512572      PMCID: PMC1332981          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  15 in total

1.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  M FLESHLER; H S HOFFMAN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1962-10       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Bar holding during escape conditioning.

Authors:  B MIGLER
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-01       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Choice of a warning signal or no warning signal in an unavoidable shock situation.

Authors:  J S LOCKARD
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1963-06

4.  The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses.

Authors:  C C PERKINS
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1955-09       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  The transfer of a discrimination along a continuum.

Authors:  D H LAWRENCE
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1952-12

6.  The relative aversiveness of signalled vs unsignalled avoidance.

Authors:  P Badia; S Culbertson; P Lewis
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions.

Authors:  D S Blough
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-11       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 8.  An analysis of the concept of reinforcement.

Authors:  C C Perkins
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1968-03       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation.

Authors:  G R Grice
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1966-12       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Factors affecting preference for signal-shock over shock-signal.

Authors:  C C Perkins; R G Seymann; D J Levis; R Spencer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1966-08
View more
  5 in total

1.  Preference for signaled over unsignaled shock schedules: Ruling out asymmetry and response fixation as factors.

Authors:  B B Abbott; P Badia
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Choosing between predictable shock schedules: Long- versus short-duration signals.

Authors:  P Badia; B Abbott; L Schoen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Randomness increases self-reported anxiety and neurophysiological correlates of performance monitoring.

Authors:  Alexa M Tullett; Aaron C Kay; Michael Inzlicht
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Sensory reinforcement as a predictor of cocaine and water self-administration in rats.

Authors:  Amy M Gancarz; Mykel A Robble; Michael A Kausch; David R Lloyd; Jerry B Richards
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 5.  Models and mechanisms of anxiety: evidence from startle studies.

Authors:  Christian Grillon
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2007-12-06       Impact factor: 4.530

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.