Contrast and Reallocation of Extraneous Reinforcers as a Function of Component Duration and Baseline Rate of Reinforcement

McLean, Anthony P.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.63-203

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with this idea, contrast is produced by changes in reinforcement, not by changes in other factors (e.g., rate of responding; Williams, 1983). Larger changes in the rate of reinforcement between the baseline and contrast phases also produce larger contrast when baseline rate of reinforcement is constant (e.g., McLean, 1995;Reynolds, 1963; for potentially related findings see Bloomfield, 1967;Harper & McLean, 1992, Experiment 1;Nevin, 1974;Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983).…”

Section: Changes In Reinforcement Produce Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When pigeons peck keys and the components are of equal duration, contrast is usually larger for shorter components than for longer components (e.g., McLean, 1995;McSweeney, 1982a;Spealman, 1976;Williams, 1979;. When pigeons press treadles (McSweeney et al, resent local contrast are averages.…”

Section: Component Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McLean and colleagues (e.g., McLean, 1992McLean, , 1995McLean & White, 1983) distinguished between reinforcers that are programmed by the experimenter and those that the subject obtains independent of the schedule arranged by the experimenter (extraneous reinforcers). They argued that the reallocation of extraneous reinforcers produces contrast.…”

Section: Reallocation Of Extraneous Reinforcersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The increase in extraneous reinforcers in the constant component reduces behavior for the programmed reinforcers, producing negative contrast. McLean reported the predicted reallocation of extraneous reinforcers when a multiple schedule was provided on one operandum and extraneous reinforcers were available on a second operandum (e.g., McLean, 1992McLean, , 1995.…”

Section: Reallocation Of Extraneous Reinforcersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

McSweeney

Weatherly

1998

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple-schedule behavioral contrast. According to this argument, reducing reinforcers in one component of a multiple schedule reduces habituation to the reinforcer. Reducing habituation enhances the value, or effectiveness, of the remaining reinforcers, producing positive contrast. Enriching the reinforcers in one component increases habituation to that reinforcer. Increasing habituation decreases the effectiveness of the reinforcer, producing negative contrast. Such an idea is simple and parsimonious. It is not contradicted by any well-established finding in the contrast literature. It makes several tested and untested predictions that are unusual. However, habituation cannot explain all contrast. A complete explanation requires postulating that at least one additional mechanism, controlled by the conditions of reinforcement in the following component, also contributes to contrast.

show abstract

Section: Changes In Reinforcement Produce Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Component Durationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reallocation Of Extraneous Reinforcersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reallocation Of Extraneous Reinforcersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

McSweeney

Weatherly

1998

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite some striking evidence supporting the behavioral reallocationhypothesis (Hinson & Staddon, 1978) and the development of quantitative models that seem to have some degree of predictive power (McLean, 1995), its potential to provide a general explanation of contrast is limited by its dependence on behavioral competition as its underlying causal mechanism. That is, the reinforcement value of the extraneous behavior is assumed to be an inverse function of its rate of occurrence, which is limited by competition from the operant behavior.…”

Section: The Behavioral Reallocation Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral contrast redux

Williams

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrastis a ubiquitousconceptin experimental psychology. Most well known are contrast effects with respect to sensory systems, exemplified by color and brightness contrast. In other areas of psychology, the concept of adaptation level has wide applicability. In all of these domains, the effect of a given stimulus value seemingly involves a comparison process such that the psychological impact of a stimulus is due not solely to its absolute value, but also to its value relative to that of other stimuli presented either in the same context or in the past. Although the empirical phenomenon of contrast is pervasive, whether it is regarded as a basic psychological process or, instead, is to be explained in terms of more fundamental mechanisms varies widely across different areas of psychology. REINFORCEMENT CONTRAST:A BRIEF HISTORYThe concept of contrast has played a major role in reinforcement theory, both in generating voluminous research and in posing theoretical challenges. There are two major classes of contrast, with relatively separate experimental literatures. Successivecontrast is said to occur when the level of behavior maintained by a given reward outcome varies with the nature of the reward outcome previouslypresented. The most well known example was reported by Crespi (1942). The running speeds in a straight alley of rats maintained on a constant level of reward amount were compared with those of other rats for which the same amount of reward was presented either after experience with a smaller reward or after experience with a larger reward. Subjects shifted from a smaller amount ran faster than subjects with the constant amount throughout, which Crespi labeled an elation effect, whereas rats shifted from a larger amount ran slower than those with the constant amount throughout, which was labeled a depression effect. As a result of these and similar findings, Hullian learning theory modified the concept of incentive(the K parameter) to become a performance variable, which ultimately made it difficult to distinguish the Hullian account from other competing accounts explicitly cognitive in nature. Successive contrast effects have continued to be investigated widely even with the decline in influence of Hullian learning theory, often in the context of physiological manipulations to assess their underlying basis. Because Flaherty (1996) has provided a comprehensive review of this literature, no further account will be provided here.The second type of contrast procedure is when the behavior produced by a constant reward payoff is affected by the reward conditionsthat are alternately presented for the same response under different stimulus conditions. This procedure is sometimes labeled simultaneouscontrast, a misnomer because the different reward conditions are not simultaneously present. However, the different conditions do occur in close temporal proximity, whereas in the successive contrast procedure the different reward conditions are often experienced with significant temporal separations. Although sim...

show abstract

Conditioning and Learning

Miller

Grace

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The empirical laws of Pavlovian conditioning are summarized for situations with two stimuli and for situations with more than two stimuli. Factors considered include stimulus salience, genetic and experiential predispositions, contiguity, stimulus similarity, contingency, mimetic and compensatory responding, and stimulus generalization. Also reviewed are the consequences of introducing a third stimulus, which include stimulus competition, interference, facilitation, and summation, as well as positive and negative mediation. At the theoretical level, the critical assumptions and variables of acquisition‐focused and performance‐focused models are examined with special attention to retrospective revaluation. Additionally, the basic laws of instrumental responding are summarized with attention to the law of effect, the three‐term contingency, and schedules of reinforcement. Associative structures underlying instrumental responding are also considered, as are hierarchical associations and incentive learning. Finally, a functional analysis of instrumental conditioning is provided with special attention to choice behavior and the matching law, as well as ecological and economic considerations.

show abstract

Contrast and Reallocation of Extraneous Reinforcers as a Function of Component Duration and Baseline Rate of Reinforcement

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

Behavioral contrast redux

Conditioning and Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About