Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Second‐order autoshaping

Is a pairing hypothesis sufficient

Bibliographic Data

ID9620122
AuthorsJ H Wearden (0000-0001-6589-4613, University of Manchester), I Tocilovac (University of Manchester), D W Harwood (University of Manchester)
Year1981
Volume72
Issue1
Pages89-92
Publication date1981-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0007-1269 • E-ISSN: 2044-8295
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb02165.x
OpenAlexW2057144313
LanguageEN

Autoshaping or omission stimuli, which have both been repeatedly paired with food, were used as first‐order conditioned stimuli in an attempt to produce second‐order autoshaping in Barbary doves. Pecks to the second‐order stimulus occurred when the autoshaping stimulus served as the first‐order stimulus, but not when the omission stimulus did. This suggests that a simple pairing of a first‐order stimulus and food is not sufficient to produce second‐order keypecking when pairings of that stimulus and a second‐order stimulus are given, contrary to some theories of second‐order autoshaping

Cognitive psychology · Developmental psychology · Neutral stimulus · Shaping · Stimulus (psychology) · Stimulus control · Multisensory perception and integration · Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research · Neuroscience · Psychology · Visual perception and processing mechanisms

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae