Frustration and the quality of performance: I. A critique of the Barker, Dembo, and Lewin experiment.

Child, Irvin L.; Waterhouse, Ian K.

doi:10.1037/h0053541

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, simultaneous exposure to two reinforcing activities (reward and intrinsically motivated activity) may arouse attentional approachapproach conflicts that are aversive. The competing response hypothesis proposes that the greater the extent to which such competing responses are aroused during training, the greater is the subsequent decrement in intrinsic motivation in the experimental activity (Reiss & Sushinsky,197S; see also, Child & Waterhouse, 1952;Staats, 1975; for theoretical background, see Brown & Farber, 1968;Farber, 1955;Miller, 1944).…”

Section: The Competing Response Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene.

Reiss

Sushinsky²

1976

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In revising their overjustification hypothesis, Lepper and Greene have stated so many qualifications without specifying antecedent empirical conditions that it is unclear whether their hypothesis can be falsified. They implicitly proposed that tests for persistence should evaluate intrinsic motivation either completely or not at all, and based on this "all-or-none" position they claimed that our studies are completely irrelevant to theirs. An examination of their specific use of the concept of intrinsic motivation, however, suggests that studies failing to meet several of their operational criteria of intrinsic motivation are considered tests of intrinsic motivation when the results of the study seem either to confirm their theory or to disconfirm our theory. They dismiss our competing response hypothesis as "moot" by citing data that do not show what they claim it does. Moreover, they virtually ignore our hypothesis' major predictions concerning differences between single-trial and multiple-trial reward studies. Thus far, "overjustification" (decreased play) effects look very much like stimulus novelty effects.

show abstract

Section: The Competing Response Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene.

Reiss

Sushinsky²

1976

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lawson's second category of theories, the "integrated" ones, are identified as the Child and Waterhouse (1952) revision ofthe frustration-regression hypothesis; Brown and Farber's (1951) treatment of frustration as emotion conceptualized as an intervening variable; and my own (Amsel, 1958) "frustrative nonreward theory." A very important point Lawson makes, and one I have made for my own case, is that the distinguishing characteristics of such theories include their closer alliance to more formal (and more general) behavior theory; the related recognition that these frustration theories involved many independent variables already familiar from theories oflearning; and a growing recognition that "there was no unique overt behavior characteristic of frustration situations" (Lawson, 1965, p. 27).…”

Section: The Concept Of Frustration In Psychological Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Précis ofFrustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory

Amsel

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a precis of a book on frustration theory, whose explanatory domain includes a family of phenom~na that have been summarized by the terms dispositional learning and memory-systems that ordmarily have a long-term historical etiology, and in which the learning is relatively reflexive and the memo~implicit and not strongly episodic. The book is an attempt, in the context of stimulusre~ponse l~a~mng theOI'~' to present in some detail an animal-based model of frustration as it is appIled to a Ilmlted-but stIll large-number of these experimentally established phenomena (perhaps the largest number organized by anyone such theory). These bear some resemblance to equivalent phen~mena in humans, to which the descriptive terms arousal, suppression, persistence, and regre~sIOn have been applied. An explicit caveat is that this is a book on one particular theory of frustratIOn and not a book on frustration theories. Whereas it does address other theories of frustration its main purpose is to review a line of theorizing and experimental research that has evolved ove; some 40 years: an analysis of the status of the concept of frustration in learning theory.In the history of the scientific study of learning and memory, a number of terms have been used to describe abstract experimental paradigms that purport to represent different mechanisms of learning. In the book discussed here, I refer to several of these, the most fundamental being classical (Pavlovian) conditioning and instrumental (Thorndikian) learning. These two are central to understanding the phenomena I will call the rewardschedule effects. These phenomena depend on a variety of interactions between reward and nonreward, and they are the basis for a family of generalizations known as frustration theory.My major thesis, in general terms, is that there is inherent in such reward schedules the buildup of primary frustration, defined simply as a temporary state that results when a response is nonreinforced (or nonrewarded, in more neutral language, in the appetitive case) in the presence of a reward expectancy; that a learned or anticipatory form of this temporally labile state, based on classical conditioning, can be elicited by an originally indifferent or neutral cue; that this conditional form of frustration, like other learned states, is permanent, at least for a given situation; and that, together, the primary (unlearned) and the secondary (learned) forms can account for a number of important processes in the dynamics of instrumental behavior, summarized by four familiar behavioral concepts: arousal, suppression, persistence, and regression. These four concepts define I am greatly indebted to Elizabeth Capaldi and Michael Rashotte for their valuable suggestions for revision of an earlier draft of this precis.

show abstract

“…Because of their theoretical interests, Barker et al interpreted the decreased play effect as a result of frustration. Child and Waterhouse (1952) reinterpreted the Barker et al study in terms of a competing response hypothesis. More recently, McCullers and Martin (1971), Miller andEstes (1961), andSpence (1971) have all demonstrated and commented upon the distracting effects of tangible rewards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest.

Reiss

Sushinsky²

1975

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The overjustification hypothesis proposes that expectation of reward for an inherently interesting activity produces less interest in the activity when reward is subsequently unavailable. Two experiments designed to test this hypothesis are reported. Experiment 1 replicated previous findings that a single trial of noncontingent, promised reward undermines young children's interest in the rewarded play activity. Experiment 2 discontinued the overjustification hypothesis by demonstrating that a multiple-trial, contingent reinforcement procedure did not produce an overjustification effect. Both of these findings are understandable in terms of a competing response hypothesis but not in terms of overjustification. Accordingly, previous findings of an overjustification effect are reinterpreted as having demonstrated that curiosity in a novel play activity can be undermined by presentation of distracting stimuli. The following additional conclusions are drawn: (a) The overjustification hypothesis is conceptually vague, (b) self-perception theory seems to have been concerned with variables relatively unimportant for understanding effects of tangible reward procedures on overt behavior, and (c) recent criticisms that token economies undermine intrinsic interest were based on a failure to appreciate differences between single-trial, noncontingent reward and multiple-trial, contingent reinforcement procedures.Several theorists have proposed that tangible reward procedures undermine intrinsic interest in rewarded activities (e.g., Calder

show abstract

Frustration and the quality of performance: I. A critique of the Barker, Dembo, and Lewin experiment.

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene.

The competing response hypothesis of decreased play effects: A reply to Lepper and Greene.

Précis ofFrustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory

Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About