An investigation of conditions determining contrast effects in differential reward conditioning.

Hw, Ludvigson

doi:10.1037/h0024917

Cited by 56 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dunham, 1968), but very often motivational processes are invoked to explain contrast obtained in these circumstances. The most frequent suggestion has been that a decrease in reward elicits an emotional response (frustration or anger) and components of this emotional response interfere with approach behavior, producing the measured contrast effect (Amsel, 1967;Bower, 1961;Cleland, Williams, & DiLollo, 1969;Crespi, 1942Crespi, , 1944Ludvigson & Gay, 1967). Positive contrast that occurs consequent to an increase in reward has also been interpreted in terms of the occurence of an emotional response, "elation" (Crespi, 1942).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional contrast, matching, and power functions obtained in sucrose consumption by rats

Flaherty

Sepanak

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were given alternating l-min access to two tubes containing sucrose solutions that varied in concentraton (32% vs. 2%, 32% vs. 4%. 32% vs. 8%, and 32% vs. 16%). Lick rate for 32% sucrose was higher when the alternative tube contained a lower concentration solution than when both tubes contained 32% (a positive-contrast effect), and lick rate for the lower concentration solution (2%, 4%, 8%, or 16%) was lower when the alternative tube contained 32% than when both tubes contained the lower concentration solution (negative contrast effect). Proportion of licks made for 32% under contrast conditions tended to match the proportion of concentration available from that tube. Regression analysis of the ratio of licks made to the two tubes under contrast conditions as a function of ratio of concentrations available indicated a good fit to a power function with an exponent of 1.13, within the range of those typically found in human magnitude estimation studies of relative sweetness.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional contrast, matching, and power functions obtained in sucrose consumption by rats

Flaherty

Sepanak

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present experiment the contrast effect was greatest in the runway and decreased to nonsignificance in the start region. This is the pattern of results obtained in the typical successive contrast paradigm (e.g., Cleland, Williams, & DiLollo, 1969;Flaherty & Kelly, 1973) and is contrary to the typical simultaneous contrast result in which the contrast is largest in the start region and decreases in size toward the goal region (e .g., Flaherty, Riley, & Spear, 1973;Ludvigson & Gay, 1967). Thus, the present transsituational paradigm has aspects similar to both successive and simultaneous contrasts, but is apparently not identical with either.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Transsituational negative contrast

Flaherty

Avdzej

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were shifted from 32% sucrose solution in one apparatus to a 4% sucrose solution in a different apparatus, and the performance of these animals was compared to rats that received the 4% solution in both situations. Transsituational negative contrast effects were found in both consummatory and instrumental measures of behavior and, in addition, these contrast effects were found to have some elements in common with both successive and simultaneous contrast effects, but were identical to neither.The performance of an animal shifted from a large to a small reward generally suffers in comparison to animals that have had no prior experience with the large reward. This decrement in performance, termed a negative contrast effect, has been found in a wide variety of experimental situations and with a variety of rewards. For example, contrast has been obtained in runways with shifts in amount of food (e.g., Crespi, 1942, DiLollo & Beez, 1966, in complex mazes with shifts to qualititatively different foods (e.g., Elliott, 1928), in free-operant paradigms with shifts in schedule of reinforcement (e.g., Reynolds & Limpo, 1968), and in simple consummatory response situations in" which the shift has been to a lower concentration of sucrose solution (e.g., Flaherty, Capobianco, & Hamilton, 1973;Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968).The occurrence of a contrast effect implies that the animal is, in some sense, comparing the new reward with the old, and the outcome of this comparison influences the animal's behavior. One question of interest that arises concerning contrast effects relates to the conditions under which this comparison will be made. Specifically, will a contrast effect occur if a shift in experimental situation is made concurrently with a shift in reward, or will reward comparisons be restricted to a given stimulus environment? Premack (l969) attempted to investigate this problem by comparing the performance of rats repeatedly shifted from a situation in which running in a wheel was reinforced by the opportunity to drink milk on a mult VI, VI schedule to a situation in which barpressing on an FR schedule was reinforced with milk. In two of the three rats tested, Premack found evidence that decreases in reinforcement frequency in the running wheel led to increased rates of responding on the FR schedule. In other words, 2 of the 3 animals showed a behavioral contrast effect that was transsituational. In the present experiment, we investigated the influence of stimulus context on reward contrast by varying reward quality (shifting rats from a high-to a low-eoncentrationsucrose solution)This research was supported by a grant from the Rutgers research council and by Grant MH-24612 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Portions of these data were presented at the 1975 meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association.Reprint requests should be sent to Charles Flaherty, Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903. 49concurrently with a shift from one experimental task to ...

show abstract

“…Lastly , the confinement of the results supportive of dietary influence to the start measure is consistent with data from the differential·conditioning literature (e .g., Davis, Gilbert , & Seaver, 1971 ;LudVigson & Gay , 1966, 1967. This data has shown that the maximal REWARD MAGNITUDE 119 occurrence of inhibition typically coincides with the initial presentation of cues in the startbox.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%