刺激般化勾配 : 接返反応における場合と回避反応における場合の比較
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
1. 問題の所在2. 刺激般化勾配に関する諸実験 (1) Miller, N. E. Kraeling, D.(1952)の実験 (2) Murray, E. J. Miller, N. E.(1952)の実験 (3) Brush, F. R. et al.(1952)の実験 (4) 高橋(1959)の実験 (5) Hearst, E.(1962)の実験 I. サルでの実験 II. 白ネズミでの実験 (6) Hoffman, H. S. Fleshler, M.(1963)の実験3. 刺激般化勾配に関する考察 (1) 被験動物 (2) 実験装置 (3) 刺激 (4) 試練試行数 (5) テスト試行数 (6) 動因水準 (7) 測度 (8) 単独にテストされるか,葛藤状況下でテストされるか. (9) 反応様式の数4. 結論 (1) 接近勾配の方が急な場合 (2) 両勾配のが等しい場合 (3) 接近勾配の方が大きくても,両勾配が交叉しない場合From a viewpoint of examining the displacement model of Miller N. E., a comparative study was done on the stimulus generalization gradients in approach responses and in avoidance responses. The molel holds the following assumptions. 1) Stimulus generalization gradients should exist in both approach responses and avoidance responses. 2) Avoidance gradient should be steeper than approach gradient. 3) Both gradients should intersect in the existing situation. 4) Displacement should occure the point at which net strength of approach is the largest. The eight experiments were examined to study these four ponints, especially the second and third ones. On 2): Incompatible results were obtained. Some confermed to the model-produced results (Miller Kraeling; Murray Miller; Takahashi; Hoffman Fleshler (Exp. II)), while others indicated contrariwise that approach gradient was steeper than avoidance gradient (Phase 1 by Fearst; Test sessions 5, 10 by Foffman Fleshier (Exp. 1)). And still in other cases the two gradients were of an identical degree (In the cases of advanced phases by Hearst.) On 3): The experimental results given by Miller Kraeling, Murray Miller, Hoffman, Fleshier (Exp. II) demonstrated the intersection between the two gradients, while the result given by Hearst never showed this intersection. Cause of the inconsistency among the experimental results was studied from nine angles. And lastly, the model itself was theoretically observed.