Effects of amount and percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition trials on conditioning and extinction.

Wagner, Allan R.

doi:10.1037/h0042251

Cited by 300 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

214

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…DlSCUSSION The major indieation here was that differential-magnitude diserimination of the instrumental (suecessive) type generates differential response tende.ncies to large-and small-reward cues that are at least equal in terms of relative resistance to extinction and opposite to what has usually been found in extinetion following between-groups variations of reward magnitude (e.g., Hulse, 1958;Wagner, 1961) in terms of unconverted extinction measures. This paradoxical "reversed 30 magnitude-extinetion effect" may be compared with the frequently-reported (see Amsel, 1967) failure to obtain the partial reinforeement extinction effeet in within-Ss manipulations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…With the exception of MacKinnon (1967), previous studies of this type of discrimination (Bower, 1961;Goldstein & Spence, 1963;Ludvigson & Gay, 1966 have not provided information on extinction fol\owing differentialmagnitude discrimination; this is of particular interest in view of the fact that a number of experiments (e.g., Hulse, 1958;Wagner, 1961) have shown more rapid extinction following large than smal\ reward in between-groups manipulations of reward magnitude. In MacKinnon's case, al\ groups were extinguished in the presence of only one of the two stimuli constituting their original discrimination conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extinction of differential reward magnitude discrimination in a discrete bar-pressing situation

Davenport

Flaherty

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this report we present further data on the within-Ss effects of amount of reinforcement in a study of the acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition of an instrumental discrimination based on differential magnitude of rein forcement. With the exception of MacKinnon (1967), previous studies of this type of discrimination (Bower, 1961;Goldstein & Spence, 1963;Ludvigson & Gay, 1966 have not provided information on extinction fol\owing differentialmagnitude discrimination; this is of particular interest in view of the fact that a number of experiments (e.g., Hulse, 1958;Wagner, 1961) have shown more rapid extinction following large than smal\ reward in between-groups manipulations of reward magnitude. In MacKinnon's case, al\ groups were extinguished in the presence of only one of the two stimuli constituting their original discrimination conditions. In the present study, extinction to both stimuli was examined within each S.Using a discrete-trials retractable lever situation, we have also studied the effects of different response requirements in the definition of a trial, in the manner investigated by Gonzalez, Bainbridge, & Bitterman (1966), as part of a continuing quest far adequate automated analogues of the manual black-white runway situation. Throughout acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition, a group of rats permitted only one bar-press per trial (FR I) was compared with a second group in which five presses per trial (FR 5) were required. SUBJECTSThe sub:jects (Ss) were 16 naive male albino rats of the Holtzman strain, approximately 120 days old at the beginning of pretraining. Throughout the experiment they were maintained at 80% of free·feedingweight. APPARATUS The apparatus consisted of two identical Gerbrands Model C test ehambers, details of whieh are described elsewhere (Flaherty & Davenport, in press). Each chamber was equipped with aLehigh Valley retractable lever, a white cue light over the lever, a house Iigh t, a recessed food cup, and a 45-mg pellet dispenser. PROCEDURE Pretraining consisted of magazine training (Day I, 60 pellets in 30 min), freeo()perant lever training (Day 2, 20 reinforeed responses), and discretetrial lever training (Days 3 and 4). On Day 3 the Ss were randomly divided into FR I and FR 5 groups and given 20 trials. Trial onset was signaled by insertion of the lever and onset of the house light. When S completed its response the lever was retracted and a single-peUet reward was delivered; the house light remained on for 10 sec after the reward delivery. The FR I group was permitted only one lever response per trial throughout the 20 Psychon. Sei., 1969, Vol. 14 (I) trials of Day 3 and an additional 20 trials on Day 4. The FR 5 group was given five trials on FR 2,five on FR 3,and 100n the fmal FR 5 scheduleon Day 3, and an additional 20 FR 5 trials on Day 4.Discrimination training began on Day S. Half of the 20 trials given each day were reinforced with frve pellets and halfwith onepellet. Thediscriminative stimuli were the click of a relay pulsed at 10 per sec and the fla...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extinction of differential reward magnitude discrimination in a discrete bar-pressing situation

Davenport

Flaherty

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grant & Schipper, 1952;Hartman & Grant, 1962) is presently not known. However, there is evidence in the instrumental literature that transforming to relative scores does not eliminate the partial-reinforcement extinction effect (e.g., Wagner, 1961). Also, interpolating continuous reinforcement prior to extinction eliminates the response level confound, yet the retardation of extinction for partial reinforcement subjects persists (Jenkins, 1962;Theios, 1962).…”

Section: Extinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rats run faster during the early portions of an alley under intermittent than under continuous reinforcement (Amsel, MacKinnon, Rashotte, & Surridge, 1964;Goodrich, 1959;Wagner, 1961;Weinstock, 1958). In the terminal section of the alley, running speeds tend to be lower for partial than for continuous groups.…”

Section: Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Gibbon

Farrell

Locurto

et al. 1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

144

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of autoshaped responding in pigeons were studied under partial and continuous reinforcement. Five values of probability of reinforcement, ranging from .1 to 1.0, were combined factorially with five values of intertrial interval ranging from 15 to 250 sec for different groups. The number of trials required before autoshaped responding emerged varied inversely with the duration of the intertrial interval and probability of reinforcment, but partial reinforcement did not increase the number of reinforcers before acquisition. During maintained training, partial reinforcement increased the overall rate of responding. A temporal gradient of accelerated responding over the trial duration emerged during maintenance training for partial reinforcement groups, and was evident for all groups in extinction. Partial reinforcement groups responded more than continuous reinforcement groups over an equivalent number of trials in extinction. However, this partialreinforcment extinction effect disappeared when examined in terms of the omission of "expected" reinforcers.

show abstract

“…Rats extinguish more rapidly after training with large as compared with small reward (Gonzalez & Bitterman 1969;Hulse 1958;Wagner 1961) -a special case of successive negative contrast -but resistance to extinction in goldfish increases with amount of reward (Gonzalez et al 1972); it was an early indication of this difference between rats and goldfish that prompted the Lowes experiment. Successive negative contrast is also a factor in the spacedtrials partial reinforcement effect found in rats trained with large reward (Gonzalez & Bitterman 1969;Hulse 1958;Wagner 1961). Goldfish (Schutz & Bitterman 1969) and African mouthbreeders (Longo & Bitterman 1960) fail to show the partial reinforcement effect in spaced trials.…”

Section: B6k6sy Laboratory Of Neurobiology University Of Hawaii Honmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Commentary

1987

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Recent decades have seen a number of influential attacks on the comparative psychology of learning and intelligence. Two specific charges have been that the use of distantly related species has prevented us from making valid evolutionary inferences and that learning mechanisms are species-specific adaptations to ecological niches and hence not properly comparable between species. It is argued here that work using distantly related species may yield valuable insights into the structure of intelligence and that the question of whether or not learning mechanisms are niche-specific is one which can only be answered by comparative work in "nonnatural" situations. The problems involved in defining and assessing intelligence are discussed. Experimental work has not succeeded in demonstrating differences in intellect among nonhuman vertebrates. Hence the null hypothesis -that there are no differences in intellect among nonhuman vertebrates -should be adopted; the superiority of human intelligence stems from our possessing a species-specific language-acquisition device. One implication of the null hypothesis is that general problem-solving capacity is independent of niche-specific adaptations. A second implication is that problem-solving may involve relatively simple mechanisms; association formation in particular may play a central role in nonhuman intelligence, allowing the successful detection of causal links between events. Causality is a constraint common to all ecological niches.

show abstract

Effects of amount and percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition trials on conditioning and extinction.

Cited by 300 publications

References 4 publications

Extinction of differential reward magnitude discrimination in a discrete bar-pressing situation

Extinction of differential reward magnitude discrimination in a discrete bar-pressing situation

Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons

Editorial Commentary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About