Adams, C. D., & Dickinson, A. (1981). Instrumental responding following Reinforcer Devaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 33(2b), 109-112. doi:10.1080/14640748108400816
[Abstract]In two experiments, hungry rats were given instrumental lever-press training for an appetitive reinforcer and, in addition, were exposed to another type of food which was not contingent on lever pressing. In the first experiment, exposure to each type of food was on separate days, whereas in the second experiment rats were exposed to each type of food in strict alternation within each session. Subsequently, a food aversion was conditioned to the reinforcer for the experimental group and to the non-contingent food for the control group. In both experiments, animals with an aversion to the reinforcer responded less in an extinction test than animals with an aversion to the non-contingent food. Subsequent reacquisition tests confirmed that the aversion to the non-contingent food in the control group was of comparable strength with that to the reinforcer in the experimental group. The results were discussed in terms of whether the reinforcer is encoded in the associative structure set up by exposure to an instrumental contingency.
[6 referring publications by Place]  

Chater, N. (1989). Learning to respond to structure in time. R.S.R.E. Malvern Technical Report, September 1989.
[1 referring publications by Place]  

Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on the mind and psychology. Bradford.
[11 referring publications by Place]  

Dickinson, A. (1988). Intentionality in animal conditioning. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.), Thought without Language. Oxford University Press.
[2 referring publications by Place]  

Grice, G. R. (1948). The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1-16.
[2 referring publications by Place]  

Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The Psychology of Learning Harper.
[2 referring publications by Place]  

Harzem, P., & Miles, T. R. (1978). Conceptual issues in operant psychology Wiley.
[20 referring publications by Place]  

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior Wiley.
[5 referring publications by Place]  

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of Behavior. Appleton Century.
[9 referring publications by Place]  

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology (2 Volumes). Holt.
[10 referring publications by Place]  

Lashley, K. S. (1930). Basic neural mechanisms in behavior. Psychological Review, 37, 1-24.
[2 referring publications by Place]  

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1988). Explorations in parallel distributed processing: A handbook of models, programs, and exercises MIT Press.
[7 referring publications by Place]  

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 149-155. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1333126/pdf/jeabehav00072-0149.pdf
[Abstract]A discriminative stimulus is a stimulus condition which (1) given the momentary effectiveness of some particular type of reinforcement (2) increases the frequency of a particular type of response (3) because that stimulus condition has been correlated with an increase in the frequency with which that type of response has been followed by that type of reinforcement. Operations such as deprivation have two different effects on behavior. One is to increase the effectiveness of some object or event as reinforcement, and the other is to evoke the behavior that has in the past been followed by that object or event. "Establishing operation" is suggested as a general term for operations having these two effects. A number of situations involve what is generally assumed to be a discriminative stimulus relation, but with the third defining characteristic of the discriminative stimulus absent. Here the stimulus change functions more like an establishing operation than a discriminative stimulus, and the new term,"establishing stimulus," is suggested. There are three other possible approaches to this terminological problem, but none are entirely satisfactory.
[11 referring publications by Place]  

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex (English translation by G. V. Anrep). Oxford University Press.
[12 referring publications by Place]  

Perin, C. T. (1943). A quantitative investigation of the delay-of-reinforcement gradient. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 37-51.
[2 referring publications by Place]  

Place, U. T. (1985c). Semicovert behavior and the concept of pain: a comment on H. Rachlin 'Pain and behavior'. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 70-71. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00019695
[References]  [1 citing publications]  [3 referring publications by Place]  
Download: 1985c Semicovert Behavior and the Concept of Pain.pdf

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis of behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[32 referring publications by Place]  

Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.) Problem Solving: Research, Method and Theory, Wiley. Reprinted as Chapter 6 of Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Reprinted as Skinner, B. F. (1984). An operant analysis of problem solving. Behavioral and brain sciences, 7(4), 583-591. Reprinted with peer comments and a reply in A. C. Catania & S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior. The operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner: Comments and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218-236.
[Abstract]Behavior that solves a problem is distinguished by the fact that it changes another part of the solver's behavior and is strengthened when it does so. Problem solving typically involves the construction of discriminative stimuli. Verbal responses produce especially useful stimuli, because they affect other people. As a culture formulates maxims, laws, grammar, and science, its members behave more effectively without direct or prolonged contact with the contingencies thus formulated. The culture solves problems for its members, and does so by transmitting the verbal discriminative stimuli called rules. Induction, deduction, and the construction of models are ways of producing rules. Behavior that solves a problem may result from direct shaping by contingencies or from rules constructed either by the problem solver or by others. Because different controlling variables are involved, contingency-shaped behavior is never exactly like rule-governed behavior. The distinction must take account of (1) a system which establishes certain contingencies of reinforcement, such as some part of the natural environment, a piece of equipment, or a verbal community; (2) the behavior shaped and maintained by these contingencies; (3) rules, derived from the contingencies, which specify discriminative stimuli, responses, and consequences, and (4) the behavior occasioned by the rules.
[23 referring publications by Place]  

Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[32 referring publications by Place]  

Spence, K. W. (1951). Theoretical interpretations of learning. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Wiley.
[1 referring publications by Place]  

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 2(8).
[10 referring publications by Place]  

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence Macmillan.
[15 referring publications by Place]  

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behaviour in Animals and Men. University of California Press.
[11 referring publications by Place]  

Watson, J. B. (1914). Behavior, an Introduction to Comparative Psychology. Holt.
[1 referring publications by Place]