Contrasted conditions of reinforcement: A selective critique.

Dunham, Philip J.

doi:10.1037/h0025690

Cited by 176 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, animals may choose a usually preferred reward less frequently, or work less energetically for it, when other, even more preferred rewards have been encountered (Reynolds 1961;Black 1968;Dunham 1968;Cox 1975;Flaherty 1996). The reward contrast may occur even when a more valued reward is observed with another animal (Brosnan and de Waal 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative reward processing in primate striatum

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rewards are often not only valued according to their physical characteristics but also relative to other available rewards. The striatum (caudate nucleus, putamen, ventral striatum including nucleus accumbens) is involved in the organization of movement and the processing of reward information. We studied the activity of single striatal neurons in macaques that were presented with different combinations of two rewards. We found in nearly half of the investigated neurons that the processing for one reward shifted, relative to the other rewards that were available in a given trial block. The relative reward processing concerned all forms of striatal activity related to reward-predicting visual stimuli, arm movements and reception of rewards. The observed changes may provide a neural basis for the known shifts in valuation of rewarding outcomes relative to known references.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative reward processing in primate striatum

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the children then spend less time drawing than do children not previously rewarded for drawing, the result may be due to satiation (Bandura, 1986;Dickinson, 1989). Satiation would dissipate with a sufficiently long interval following reinforced performance.Another relevant effect that could be mistaken for a decrement in intrinsic interest involves "negative contrast" (Dunham, 1968;Williams, 1983). A sudden diminution in either the frequency or the quantity of reward from an expected level produces an aversive emotional reaction (Daly, 1969a(Daly, , 1969b and a temporary lower level of performance than before the reward was introduced.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

701

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of the decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest and creativity, the use of reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. An analysis of a quarter century of research on intrinsic task interest and creativity revealed, however, that (a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions," (b) mechanisms of instrumental and classical conditioning are basic for understanding incremental and decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and (c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable using procedures derived from behavior theory.O bservers of American culture have long noted a I strong emphasis on individualistic values, including taking responsibility for one's own actions, pursuing personal interests, and exploring one's creative potential (e.g., Badia, 1990;Huber, 1971; Tocqueville, 1840Tocqueville, /1990. Consistent with the common presumption that individuals function most effectively and happily when they are guiding their own behavior (see Geller, 1982;Hogan, 1975), an increasingly dominant view has developed over the past quarter century contending that the strengthening of performance by reward (reinforcement) causes the unpleasant experience of being controlled by others and reduces task interest and creativity. Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of such effects, the value of using reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. Conventional ViewThe following sentiments are characteristic of a diverse and growing literature claiming that reward inherently reduces task interest and creativity. According to an article published in the American Psychologist, "reinforcement has two effects. First, predictably, it gains control of [an] activity, increasing its frequency. Second .... when reinforcement is later withdrawn, people engage in the activity even less than they did before reinforcement was introduced" (Schwartz, 1990, p. 10). A widely cited literature review that appeared in the premier social psychology journal, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, concluded the following: Individuals who have been provided rewards "seem to work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems" (Condry, 1977, pp. 471-472).The categorical assertion that rewards lessen task interest and creativity has profound practical implications. Increasingly, one hears and reads about how the use of reward systems in educational settings, hospitals, the workplace, and other institutions may do more harm than good. Articles and books written for laypeople and practitioners in education and business warn of the danger of behavior modification programs and incentive systems when...

show abstract

“…That theory predicts a decrement in response strength in the S+ condition as a consequence of discrimination training. What is usually observed, however, is an increment in response strength (i.e., behavioral contrast) (Dunham, 1968;Reynolds, 1961). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental study of by-products of successive discrimination learning in the pigeon

Damron

Burstein

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experimental groups and a control group, of five pigeons each, were trained to successively discriminate a vertical amber line from one oriented either 30 or 60 deg to the right. Depending on group, pecks were intermittently reinforced by either 2.5 or 5.0 sec access to the food hopper. During discrimination, the subjects were provided a second response key, a peck upon which provided a 5-sec time-out (TO) from either the positive or the negative stimulus. Frequency of response on both the TO key and the discrimination key was monitored throughout. After the discrimination training, all subjects were given a postdiscrimination generalization test. Although peak shift was not obtained, the results support the hypothesis that byproducts of successive discrimination learning are functions of magnitude of S+ reinforcement and degree of S+/S-separation. It was concluded that the results are consistent with a conflict theory of by-products of discrimination learning.In successive discrimination training, a subject is alternately presented two stimuli: S+, which is correlated with reinforcement, and S-, which is correlated with nonreinforcement or extinction. Three well-known "by-products" usually accompany the development of differential stimulus control in this procedure. These are peak shift, positive behavioral contrast, and S-aversiveness. 1 According to Terrace, each of these by-products disappears with extended discrimination training (Terrace, 1966(Terrace, , 1971, and none develops if the discrimination is acquired without "errors," that is, responses to S- (Terrace, 1966).According to Terrace (1971, 1972), by-products of discrimination learning originate in the occurrence of frustration-producing responses in the S-condition. However, this view has not held up well to experimental test (see, e.g., Rilling, 1977, pp. 469-470). Moreover, Terrace's theory cannot readily account for by-products occurring in the context of aversive conditioning procedures wherein S-is correlated with the nonaversive condition (Hearst, 1969, p. 36).In noting the foregoing problems, Hearst (1969) has questioned the parsimony of the S-aversiveness concept and, in the same stroke, made the case for a more general gradient-interaction model of discrimination learning such as the one developed by Spence (1937). Such a model is not without convincing empirical support (see, e.g., Hearst, 1968Hearst, , 1969 Terrace, 1971), it would seem to be incumbent upon proponents of gradient-interaction theory to show how the theory might be expanded to account for the foregoing byproducts.In this spirit, the purpose of this study was to investigate aspects of a general gradient-interaction theory, wherein it is proposed that S-aversiveness and related by-products of discrimination learning are functions of dispositional conflict at S-between inhibitory and generalized excitatory tendencies accruing to that stimulus as a result of discrimination training.The experiment below specifically examines two conflict-affecting variables: degree of S...

show abstract

Contrasted conditions of reinforcement: A selective critique.

Cited by 176 publications

References 57 publications

Relative reward processing in primate striatum

Relative reward processing in primate striatum

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

An experimental study of by-products of successive discrimination learning in the pigeon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About