Explanation of rewards that do not reduce tissue needs.

Abstract

Some of the conceptual, empirical, and methodological issues, which seem most basic at this time for testing and extending these theories, are discussed.

Effects of maze geometry and experience on exploratory behavior in the rat

“…This trend may be seen to reflect a shift of the behavior toward a more detailed investigation of "special" parts of the mazes. The balance between the two competing tendencies of exploring more sections per unit time versus more details per section as proposed by Eisenberger (1972) might therefore depend upon experience, among other possible factors. Whether this balance might further depend upon the stimulus content of an exploratory situation and its daily change or not can be answered only tentatively on the basis of the present results.…”

“…Usually the sole dependent variable measured is rate of maze unit traversal. Quoting Eisenberger (1972), "Exploratory behavior in the maze might be reflected in two competing exploratory tendencies: (1) to explore more maze sections per unit time and (2) to examine individual maze sections in more detail." In the present study the application of a photocell method for continuous recording of locomotion (Battig & Rhiner, 1966) made it possible to include behavioral variables besides activity and intrasession activity decrease.…”

Effects of Food Deprivation upon Cue Utilization as Measured by Novelty-Incentive

“…The total amount of information utilized concerning that environment was measured in a later test situation by comparing its noveltyincentive value with the incentive value of food (placed in a small, plain box) for the now equally hungry rats. Following the conclusions reached by Eisenberger (1972) in his review of the reward value of curiosity and exploration, it was assumed that the incentive value of the complex stimulus goal would be proportional to its relative novelty to the animal. Incentive-choice was used to test for the driveinduced disruption of cue utilization because it was felt that complex, driveirrelevant information would be the most likely to be disrupted by the relatively weak arousal that could be induced by the food deprivation conditions used (see Malmo and Belanger, 1965, for physiological evidence of the degree of arousal produced by food deprivation interacting with environmental stimulation).…”

Some effects of short-term immediate prior exposure to light change on responding for light change

“…Attempts to explain the shift across sessions of the effects of immediate prior exposure can only be speculative. However, it seems reasonable to argue that the experience of novelty and change (especially in those treatments receiving both directions of light change) could have increased across sessions the organisms' preferred level of change and novelty or their capacity to readily accommodate increased amounts of stimulus change (Dember & Earl, 1957;Glanzer, 1958;Munsinger & Kessen, 1964;Thomas, 1969a, b;Eisenberger, 1972). The light changes would also have become more familiar to the animals with repeated experience of them.…”

“…The conclusion to be drawn is that different sensory changes, even within the one modality, can have independent reinforcing effects but that further research is needed on the conditions under which this effect will emerge. The evidence is increasing that sensory reinforcement is motivated by more than a general need for sensory variation (e.g., Kavanau, 1967;Eisenberger, 1972;Glow & Russell, 1972).…”