Second‐order autoshaping
Is a pairing hypothesis sufficient
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9620122 |
|---|---|
| Authors | J H Wearden (0000-0001-6589-4613, University of Manchester), I Tocilovac (University of Manchester), D W Harwood (University of Manchester) |
| Year | 1981 |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 89-92 |
| Publication date | 1981-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Journal of Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-1269 • E-ISSN: 2044-8295 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1981.tb02165.x |
| OpenAlex | W2057144313 |
| Language | EN |
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 velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |