Frustration considerations of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect: Experience with nonreward and intertrial reinforcement.

Brooks, Charles I.

doi:10.1037/h0031209

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data are consistent with the results of previous studies by Brooks (1969Brooks ( , 1971Brooks ( , 1975 in showing that greater frustration to nonreward occurs after a small number of continuously reinforced trials than after a small number of partially reinforced trials. In the present studies, rats given 5 continuous rewards consistently showed learning of a response to escape nonreward, whereas subjects given 5 rewards in a partial schedule did not show learning.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Again, Mackintosh (1974) notes that these data are inconsistent with frustration theory which requires the development of an association of frustration stimuli with the goalapproach response. It should be noted, however, that one application of the frustration theory to the small trials PRE (SMPRE) (e.g., Brooks, 1969Brooks, , 1971 avoids any assumptions about conditioned frustraThe author thanks Joseph Franchina for his constructive and critical comments on the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles I. Brooks, Department of Psychology, King's College, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702. tion, and concentrates instead on levels of primary frustration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of prior nonreward on subsequent incentive growth during brief acquisition

Brooks

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments compared runway extinction or hurdle-jumping from nonreward performance following brief (10 trials) continuous or partial reinforcement acquisition. Some of the partial groups received all nonrewarded trials prior to any rewards. The major findings were that (1) rats receiving all nonrewarded experiences prior to rewarded ones were more persistent during extinction than continuously rewarded subjects; (2) rats receiving nonrewarded placements prior to rewarded ones in one compartment of a two-compartment box, failed to learn a hurdle-jumping response to escape nonreward, whereas rats not receiving the initial nonrewards did learn the escape response; (3) increasing the number of rewarded placements following initial nonrewarded ones offset the effect noted in (2). The results, which are discussed in the context of a frustration analysis of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect, suggest that incentive growth over rewarded trials is retarded when the rewards have been preceded by nonrewards. The similarity of these results to those investigating the phenomenon of latent inhibition is apparent, and possible mechanisms responsible for the present results are suggested in current theoretical accounts of latent inhibition. Spear, Hill, and O'Sullivan (1965) and Spear and Spitzner (1967) found that rats showed greater resistance to extinction than a consistently reinforced control group when they were given 24 nonrewarded trials followed by 24 rewarded trials. Mackintosh (1974) notes that these results are incompatible with any frustration accounts of the partial reinforcement effect (PRE), since the partially reinforced subjects received no reward before the nonreinforced trials, and thus could not have been frustrated on those trials. The frustration account of the PRE, of course (e.g., Amsel, 1958), requires that frustration stimuli be present during partially reinforced acquisition, and acquire habit strength for the instrumental response.Capaldi and Waters (1970) obtained similar results, although their study involved a small number of acquisition trials. They found that rats given five reinforced trials in a runway preceded by five nonreinforced trials extinguished more slowly than rats given only five reinforced trials. Again, Mackintosh (1974) notes that these data are inconsistent with frustration theory which requires the development of an association of frustration stimuli with the goalapproach response. It should be noted, however, that one application of the frustration theory to the small trials PRE (SMPRE) (e.g., Brooks, 1969Brooks, , 1971 avoids any assumptions about conditioned frustraThe author thanks Joseph Franchina for his constructive and critical comments on the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles I. Brooks, Department of Psychology, King's College, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702. tion, and concentrates instead on levels of primary frustration. Specifically, this interpretation explains the SMPRE by assuming that, at the end of brief acquisiti...

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of prior nonreward on subsequent incentive growth during brief acquisition

Brooks

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brooks (1971) proposed that the PREE following minimal acquisition could be attributed to the greater primary frustration (Rr) experienced by the continuously rewarded group as compared to the partially rewarded group. Thus, the present results could be explained in terms of greater primary frustration (Rj. )…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer between nonreward and delay of reward following minimal acquisition training

Shanab

Cavallaro

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four groups of rats were given six acquisition trials under continuous reward, continuous delay of reward, partial reward, or partial delay of reward, following which all Ss received continuous delay. It was found that the partial reward and the partial delay of reward groups were significantly more persistent during the shift phase than the continuous reward group. No differences were found over trials between either the two partial groups or between each one and the continuous delay group.

show abstract

“…This small-trials PRE (SMPRE) was initially viewed as incompatible with Amsel's (1958) frustration theory, since acquisition was considered too brief for the conditioning of the instrumental response to frustrative stimuli to occur under partial reinforcement. Brooks (1969Brooks ( , 1971, however, has offered a frustration interpretation of the SMPRE which avoids this conditioning problem by focusing on primary frustration (R F) differences between continuously rewarded (CR) and partially rewarded (PR) groups following limited acquisition. Specifically, the R F analysis of the SMPRE assumes that the growth of incentive (r G) is faster under CR than under PR acquisition.…”

Section: Wilson College Chambersburg Pennsylvania 17201mentioning

confidence: 99%

Frustration considerations of the small-trials partial reinforcement effect: Experience with nonreward and intertrial reinforcement.

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Effect of prior nonreward on subsequent incentive growth during brief acquisition

Effect of prior nonreward on subsequent incentive growth during brief acquisition

Transfer between nonreward and delay of reward following minimal acquisition training

Primary frustration differences following brief partial-reinforcement acquisition under varying magnitudes of reward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About