Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
T5- IVLVb s
LD3907 T
sg
*ffZ Levine, Seymour, 1925-
An experimental analysis of the
selective principle of association
of drive stim uli.
70p. tables, diagrs.
Thesis (Ph.D.) - N.Y.U., Graduate
School, 1952. C91510
Bibliography :p. 62- 6I4..
1 .Behaviorism (Psychology) 2.
D issertations, Academic - N.Y.U. -
1952. I.T itle:D t' ve stim uli. II.
T itlejA ssociati of drive stim uli
Shall I ict
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
LIBRARY OF
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE
SELECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF ASSOCIATION OF
DRIVE STIMULI
By
Seymour Levine
A dissertation in the Department of Psychology
submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the requir
ment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
New York U niversity
Dooember? ■M&k
f* , i *1 S "7—
Acknowledgement s
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to
Professor Howard H. Kendler for his invaluable
assistance, without which, th i3 work coulc. not
have been carried to a successful conclusion.
To my w ife, Barbara McWilliams Levine, I
wish to extend my thanks for her patience and
encouragement throughout the course of th is
work.
I wish also to express my appreciation
to Mrs. Shirley White for the typing and as
sistance in proofreading of th is manuscript.
Finally, I would lik e to thank all the
people, too numerous to mention, whose sug
gestions and encouragement aided immensely
in the successful completion of this work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction 1
II Statement of Problem 25
III Experiment I
A. Procedure 28
B. Results 33
C. Discussion 35
D. Summary 43
IV Experiment II
A. Introouction 44
B. Procedure 47
C. Results rand Liscussion 53
D. Summary 60
V Bibliography 63
Appenuix I — A Note Concerning Heron* s Tech- 65
nique of Pumping Animals
Appendix II - The E ffects of an Irrelevant 67
Drive Upon Learning in a T-maze
Appendix III- The effects of a Change of Drive 69
on T-maze Performance
Among the problems of psychological theory that have
been receiving considerable attention recently are those
concerned with the manner in which m otivational and learning
variables combine to determine behavior. Recently a contro
versy has arisen concerning one of the m otivational variables,
the drive stimulus. The concept of drive stimulus ( Sp) is a
key concept in H ull's theory of behavior. Hull states that,
”. .. associated with every drive (D) is a characteristic
drive stimulus ( Sp) whose intensity is an increasing mono
tonic function of the drive in question." (12, p .235) Drive
stimulus is defined as the stimulation arising from a condi
tion of need or m otivation. This concept im plies that moti
vational conditions can act as a stimulus and therefore can
become associated with a response. The concept of the drive
stimulus should be clearly distinguished from the concept of
drive (D) which as postulated by Hull (12) is an intervening
variable defined as a function of a ll specific needs of the
moment. Specifically drive (D) acts in a m ultiplicative
manner with habit (gHj^) to determine behavior ( qEr), whereas
the drive stimulus is a component of the total stimulus com
plex of a particular habit (gHR), and as such has the capa
city to acquire habit loading lik e other stim uli.
In 1933, Hull (11) reported results of a study which
indicated that rats respond d ifferen tially to a constant en
vironmental situation on the basis of different drives. In
this experiment albino rats were trained in a rectangular
maze. On some days a given animal would be run in the maze
when satiated with water, but deprived of food, whereas on
-2-
other days the same rat would be run when satiated with food
but with water deprivation. On the food privation days the
reinforcement chamber always contained food and the le ft en
trance to the chamber was blocked so that access could be
had only by traversing the right side of the rectangle. On
the water deprivation days the situation was reversed. The
results showed that the animals gradually attained the ability
of responding appropriately to the drive dominant at the time.
In 1935, Leeper (22) reported corroborative rem its. In both
of these studies the animals were motivated during some runs
by the deprivation of water and on others by the deprivation
of food. Hull (12) explained the animals' behavior in these
studies by assuming that the stim uli at the choice point so
interacted with the drive stimulus that the stimulus pattern
of the choice point and the th irst drive stimulus became as
sociated with one spatial response (e .g ., turning le ft) while
the pattern of the choice point and hunger drive stimulus be
came associated with the other spatial response (right turn).
This formulation has been referred to as the non-selective
principle of association of drive stim uli (25) because i t does
not differentiate between classes of arive stim uli ( i.e .,
hunger drive stim lus, thirst drive stimulus) with respect to
their role in learning. No distinction is made as to vfaether
or not the drive with which the stimulus is associated is the
one which is rewarded in the learning situation. According
to th is non-selective principle a ll drive stim uli which are
present at the time of learning become associated with the
learned response.
-3-
In an attempt to test the adequacy of H ull’s analysis,
Kendler (18), In 1946, trained albino rats In a T-maze to
respond under a motivational dondition of simultaneous hun
ger and th irst drives. One of the animals’ turfting responses
was always rewarded with food whereas the other spatial res
ponse always led to water.
On the basis of the non-selective principle It would be
expected that animals trained under the above conditions
would fa il to make the discrim ination to either food or water
when motivated by either hunger or th irst. The reasoning be
hind this expectation stems from the fact that an important
element in H ull's explanation of h is results was that there
were two patterns of stim uli, one which became conditioned
to the le ft response and one to the response of turning right.
These patterns of stimulus had in common a ll the cues from
the external environment (e .g ., the choice point) and differ
from each other in terms of their drive components. In the
Kendler (18) experiment both hunger and th irst were present
during the training series, hence the drive stim uli of both
hunger and th irst should become associated with both spatial
responses. "Since the hunger drive stimulus was a component
In the stimulus compound (choice-point, hunger and th irst)
which became connected to both spatial responses through
need reduction, it should be just as strongly conditioned to
making the turn leading to water as to making the turn lead
ing to food. Thus, when either one or the other drives was
presented alone during the test series, the Ss should respond
to the le ft or right alley in a random manner, or, in other
words, they should not exhibit the appropriate discrimination
with respect to the goal." (19, p .382)
The resu lts of Kendler* s experiment were found to be con
trary to the expectation based on the assumption that both
the hunger and th irst drive stim uli became conditioned to
both spatial responses. The Ss curing the test tria ls (those
tr ia ls during which the animal was motivated for either food
or water) responded appropriately 73$ of the time when moti
vated by hunger, and 98$ of the time when motivated by th irst.
The inconsistency of the experimental results with the
non-selective principle led Kendler (18) to formulate the se
lectiv e principle of association of drive stim uli. This prin
ciple states " ...th a t only those drive stim uli which are them
selves reduced become connected to a rewarded response." The
Im plications of th is assumption would be that when an animal,
both hungry and th irsty, turned le ft to attain food in the
Kendler-type experimental situation, only the hunger drive
stimulus would become connected to the turning response, be
cause the th irst drive would fa il to be reduced following the
choice.
ULagramatically the differences between the selective
and non-selective principles of association of drive stim uli
would be as follows:
Sj2T"r- — -Ri ~\_^>Food
S— — — —----- Rr Water
Fig. la Selective Principle
-5 -
-R-. ^N^>-Kood
S J*
Water
Fig. lb Non-Selective Principle
Figures l.a and l.b Magramatic representation of non-
selective and selective principles: Sn-hunger
drive stimulus S ^ -th irst drive stimulus.
Rq_ and Rp - responses.
As is indicated by the diagram the selective principle
of association of drive stim uli would assume that only those
drive stim uli which are themselves reduced become associated
with a rewarded response, -while the non-selective principle
would imply that any drive stim uli present at the time of a
rewarded response would become connected to that response.
Kendler recognized that there was another explanation
for h is results within the framework of the non-selective
principle. This explanation was one suggested by Spence (26)
and it invoked the fractional anticipatory goal response me
chanism which Hull (8, 9, 10) fir s t postulated to explain
certain phenomena of complex maze learning. B riefly, the an
ticipatory goal response (in the case of a hunger drive) is
assumed to work as follows in Kendler*s experimental situation:
In itia lly , only the hunger drive stimulus and the food would
evoke anticipatory eating responses. However, as learning
