Abstract
A failure to support Premack’s assertion that a rate reduction in the reinforcing response of a reinforcement contingency, relative to the precontingency baseline rate of that response, is necessary for the occurrence of reinforcement, is reported. The implications of this finding for reinforcement theory are discussed, and it is proposed that reinforcement contingencies have potential importance for evaluating animal intelligence.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Frazier, J. R. The effects of constant delay of reinforcement on extinction responding. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Florida State University, 1968.
Harrison, R. G. Investigations of Premackian reinforcement theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1970.
Harrison, R. G.. & Schaeffer, R. W. Temporal contiguity: Is it a sufficient condition for reinforcement? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975, 5, 230–232.
Premack, D. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1965. Lincoln, Nebr: University of Nebraska Press. 1965.
Schaeffer, R. W. A new device for programming contingencies between drinking, running, and lever-pressing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1966, 9. 529–533.
Schoenfeid, W. N., Cumming, W. W., & Hearst, E. On the classification of reinforcement schedules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 1956, 42, 563–570.
Thorndike, E. L. Animal intelligence. New York: Hafner, 1911.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Public Health Research Grants MH-08775 and MH-12025 from the National Institute of Mental Health, R. W. Schaeffer, principal investigator.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrison, R.G., Schaeffer, R.W. Another test of the Premack principle. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 6, 565–568 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337567
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337567