The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Variations in the Sensitivity of Instrumental Responding to Reinforcer Devaluation
Abstract
In five experiments hungry rats were trained to make a lever press response for a sucrose reinforcer. That sucrose was subsequently devalued by conditioning a food-aversion to it, and the ability of the rats to integrate knowledge about the instrumental contingency with that gained from aversion training was assessed in an extinction test. Experiment I showed successful integration following limited but not extended instrumental training. Experiment II suggested that the crucial factor was the spacing of training; successful integration was seen after massed but not distributed training. The third experiment implicated distributed experience with the reinforcer, rather than distributed response practice, in failures of integration. Experiment IV showed that if the distribution of food-aversion learning was dissimilar to that of instrumental training then a failure of integration could result; this finding was able to account for the distribution of training effects seen in previous studies, but not the effect of extended training. Experiment V replicated the extended training effect seen in Experiment I, and provided evidence that this may reflect the degree of exposure to the reinforcer rather than the extent of response practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mowrer, O. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10802-000 · Cited by 1,670
Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.
Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024475 · Cited by 1,487
Cited by
Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1560 · Cited by 2,533
The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation
Yin, H. H., & Knowlton, B. J. (2006) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1919 · Cited by 2,402
Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00007-6 · Cited by 2,129
Balleine, B. W., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2009.131 · Cited by 1,775
Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors
Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027 · Cited by 1,779
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, C. D.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1982-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2b
- Pages
- 77-98
- ISSN
- 0272-4995 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-1321
- OpenAlex
- W2068550370
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variations in the Sensitivity of Instrumental Responding to Reinforcer Devaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14640748208400878
- The paper
- Adams, C. D. (1982). Variations in the Sensitivity of Instrumental Responding to Reinforcer Devaluation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748208400878
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.