Cited by 338Behavioral and Psychological StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The effect of the instrumental training contingency on susceptibility to reinforcer devaluation

Dickinson, Anthony, Nicholas, D. J., Adams, Christopher D.·1983·The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B

Abstract

Two experiments investigated performance of instrumental lever pressing by rats following post-conditioning devaluation of the sucrose reinforcer produced by establishing an aversion to it. In Experiment I rats responded less in an extinction test after being averted from the sucrose following training on a ratio schedule, but not following an equivalent amount of training on an interval schedule. This was true even though the devalued sucrose would not act as an effective reinforcer on either the ratio or interval schedule. Experiment II provided a further investigation of the insensitivity of interval responding to reinforcer devaluation by comparing test performance under simple extinction with responding when the devalued reinforcer was presented on either a response-contingent or non-contingent schedule during the test. Once again simple extinction performance was unaffected by prior reinforcer devaluation. Furthermore, neither non-contingent nor contingent presentations of the devalued reinforcer significantly depressed responding below the level seen in the extinction condition. Ratio, but not interval performance appears to be controlled by knowledge about the instrumental contingency that encodes specific properties of the training reinforcer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14640748308400912

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Extended training on interval schedules of reinforcement involving single actions and single outcomes promotes habitual responding.

    “Various circumstances promote habitual responding, notably extended training on interval schedules of reinforcement involving single actions and single outcomes (Dickinson and Charnock, 1985; Dickinson and Balleine, 2002; Dickinson et al., 1983).”

    From Goals and Habits in the Brain (2013) · cites this paper as Dickinson et al., 1983

  • Habits develop more rapidly with behaviors reinforced on interval as opposed to ratio schedules.

    “habits develop more rapidly with behaviors reinforced on interval as opposed to ratio schedules”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Dickinson et al., 1983

  • Habits appear to develop more readily when responding is reinforced on interval than on ratio reinforcement schedules.

    “Habits appear to develop more readily when responding is reinforced on interval than on ratio reinforcement schedules (e.g., Dickinson et al., 1983).”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Dickinson et al., 1983

  • The tight press-reward relationship of the random-ratio schedule encourages action-outcome learning and use of such knowledge to support agency and goal-directed decision making.

    “The tight press-reward relationship of this regime encourages action-outcome learning and, together with the short training duration, the use of such knowledge to support agency and goal-directed decision making38.”
  • The looser action-outcome relationship of a random-interval schedule is more permissive for habits than a ratio reinforcement schedule.

    “However, the looser action-outcome relationship is more permissive for habits than a ratio reinforcement schedule38,42”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dickinson, A., Nicholas, D. J., & Adams, C. D.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B
Published
1983-02
Volume
35
Issue
1b
Pages
35-51
ISSN
  • 0272-4995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-1321
OpenAlex
W2274685343
Cited by
338
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
reinforcer devaluation, operant conditioning, aversive conditioning, sucrose, extinction, interval schedules, lever pressing, rats

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