Negative contrast as a function of reinforcement location and consistent vs. varied reward magnitude

Calef, Richard S.; Calef, Ruth A.; Prochaska, Andrew D.; Geller, E. Scott

doi:10.3758/bf03329740

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Capaldi, 1972;Spencer & Shanab, 1979). A similar result has also been found in the SimCE procedure-prior experience with the S-reward reduces the degree of SimNCE (Platt & Gay, 1968;Spear & Spitzner, 1969a).There are, however, studies that have shown a SucNCE in animals that have had prior experience with the small reward, and even in animals that have had several shifts (Calef, Calef, Prochaska, & Geller, 1978;Maxwell et al, 1976;McCain & Cooney, 1975;Shanab & Spencer, 1978). Thus, the effects of prior small-reward experience are most likely parameter-dependent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 67%

“…However, there are several studies that have shown that contrast occurs after the animals have had prior experience with the postshift reward, and even after they have experienced more than one shift (Calef et al, 1978;Maxwell et al, 1976;McCain & Cooney, 1975;Shanab & Spencer, 1978). Furthermore, in several repeated-shift studies measuring consummatory behavior for sucrose, it has been shown that SucNCEs occur readily on the second and third shifts.…”

Section: Generalization Decrementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He found that either shift led to a NCE in runway behavior. However, Calef et al (1978) found that only changes in goalbox reward led to NCEs.The little research that is available on this topic indicates that animals may compare rewards across quite different contexts (indeed, there is some data indicating that home cage feeding conditions may influence behavior in an experimental apparatusBacotti, 1976), but the topic needs systematic research. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Logan, 1960), and therefore one might expect similar effects on contrast. And, in fact, two studies have found that preshift exposure to varied reward magnitude eliminated a SucNCE when reward was shifted to constant small reward (Calef et al, 1978;Davis & North, 1967). In a systematic study by Peters and McHose (1974), it was shown that rats given 20 and 4 pellets on a 50% schedule preshift and 1 pellet postshift showed a SucNCE roughly equivalent to that of animals receiving a constant 7-pellet reward preshift.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Flaherty

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

313

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature relevant to incentive contrast effects is reviewed, with emphasis on the data published since the reviews by Black (1968) and Dunham (1968). Contrary to the evidence available for the earlier reviews, the current literature indicates that positive contrast is a reliable phenomenon. Its occurrence is facilitated by use of a constant delay of reward, use of a long runway, or possibly by a shift while a negative contrast effect, resulting from a previous shift, is still present in the animals' behavior. Positive contrast also occurs in consummatory behavior when sucrose or saccharin solutions are shifted. Conditions that are ineffective in producing positive contrast are reviewed, as are the effects of numerous variables on both successive and simultaneous contrast. In addition, positive and negative contrast effects resulting from shifts in delay or percentage of reward, contrast resulting from shifts in sucrose, saccharin, or ethanol solutions, contrast in choice behavior, and transsituational contrast are reviewed. The relationship of the data to several theoretical interpretations of contrast is also considered.Interpretation of the behavior changes that occur when a familiar reward is replaced by a novel, usually less preferred, reward has played an important role in the theoretical analysis of animal learning. For example, Tolman (1932) cited the behavior of a monkey when the familiar reward of a banana was replaced by a piece of lettuce as evidence favoring his view that animals learn expectancies of particular rewards in a learning situation. The behavioral description was obtained in a delayed-response experiment by Tinklepaugh (1928): "She [the monkey] extends her hand to seize the food. But her hand drops to the floor without touching it. She looks at the lettuce but (unless very hungry) does not touch it. She looks under and around her. She picks the cup up and examines it thoroughly inside and out. She has on occasion turned toward observers present in the room and shrieked at them in apparent anger. After several seconds spent searching, she gives a glance toward the other cup, which she has been taught not to look into, and then walks off to a nearby window. The lettuce is left untouched on the floor" (p. 224).In addition to supporting Tolman's expectancy interpretation of animal learning, this description contains elements that continue to be relevant as possible explanations of the behavioral changes that Appreciation is due Alexandra Avdzej for assistance in library research and to HowardBecker, SusanChecke, and MaryFlaherty for their comments on the manuscript. Preparation for this article was aided by grants from the Rutgers Research Council. The author's mailing addressis: Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey08903. occur subsequent to reward shifts, that is, the apparent presence of an emotional response elicited by the shift and the possibility that the animals search for the missing reward, given the opportunity.A rat study by Elli...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Generalization Decrementmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Flaherty

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

313

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, many studies have shown that rats shifted from large to small magnitude of reward run more slowly than rats maintained on small magnitude of reward, a phenomenon designated as the negative contrast effect (NCE) (e.g., Capaldi & Lynch, 1967;Crespi, 1942;Ehrenfreund, 1971; Gonzales, Gleitman, & Bitterman, 1962). Studies by Calef and his associates (Calef, 1972;Calef, Calef, Prochaska, & Geller, 1978; Calef, Hopkins, McHewitt, & Maxwell, 1973;Maxwell, Calef, Murray, Shepard, & Norville, 1976) have shown the frustration theory account of the NCE (Amsel, 1958(Amsel, , 1962 to be the most reliable. Frustration theory suggests that alley cues are particularly important in producing the NCE.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative contrast as a function of the location of small reinforced placements

Calef

McHewitt

Murray

et al. 1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After receiving large rewards in a straight gray runway during Phase I, rats were given small rewards during placement trials (Phase 2) in a gray housing cage or in a gray goalbox. During Phase 3, only animals receiving small reward in housing cage placement trials showed a successive negative contrast effect (NCE). The results suggest that alley cues other than brightness mediate the NCE and are supportive of frustration theory.Animal research in instrumental conditioning is replete with data showing the effects of a shift in reward magnitude (Black, 1968) in the runway . Specifically, many studies have shown that rats shifted from large to small magnitude of reward run more slowly than rats maintained on small magnitude of reward, a phenomenon designated as the negative contrast effect (NCE) (e.g., Capaldi & Lynch, 1967;Crespi, 1942;Ehrenfreund, 1971; Gonzales, Gleitman, & Bitterman, 1962). Studies by Calef and his associates (Calef, 1972;Calef, Calef, Prochaska, & Geller, 1978; Calef, Hopkins, McHewitt, & Maxwell, 1973;Maxwell, Calef, Murray, Shepard, & Norville, 1976) have shown the frustration theory account of the NCE (Amsel, 1958(Amsel, , 1962 to be the most reliable. Frustration theory suggests that alley cues are particularly important in producing the NCE. According to Amsel (1958Amsel ( , 1962, alley cues such as brightness should elicit the "expectancy" (rg-sg) for large reward during the initial postshift period. After receiving less than "expected," the subjects should experience frustration and produce depressed speeds.Recently, Capaldi (1978) presented results that appear to conflict with a frustration interpretation of the NCE ("depression" effect). In the Capaldi study, animals that received a simultaneous shift in reward and alley brightness (large black to small white) produced approximately as much of a NCE as animals that received only a shift in reward (large white to small white). These results imply that alley cues (brightness) were not instrumental in mediating a NCE. In other words, if alley cues were praying a major role in mediating the "depression" effect, changing the brightness from one phase to another should have resulted in less rg-sg to large reward being elicited by the alley, which in turn Reprint requests should be sent to Richard S. Calef, West Virginia Wesleyan College, Buckhannon, West Virginia 26201.should have produced less frustration and depressed speeds.However, Capaldi's (1978) findings may be supportive of a frustration account of the "depression" effect in that brightness may not be the main alley cue playing a significant role in mediating a NCE. Other cues such as texture, size, shape, or the cover of the apparatus may have been the relevant cues associated with large reward expectancy, since these cues did not change from preshift to postshift periods. To eliminate the latter cues would necessitate presenting the postshift phase in an apparatus other than the runway. This, of course, would make the findings less applicable to previous NCE research produced in...

show abstract

Effects of Preshift Small Magnitude of Reward Received during Goalbox Placements on the Negative Contrast Effect

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During preshift, one experimental group of rats was given a large magnitude of food reward following a traversal of a straight alley and during a goalbox placement, while the other experimental group was given a small reward during goalbox placement and a large reward following a run. During postshift, all experimental groups were given a small reward of food following a traversal down the runway and during a goalbox placement. A control group was maintained on small reward during placements and following a traversal throughout the study. Only the group who received preshift large reward during placement and following a runway response ran slower to small reward during postshift than the control group maintained on small reward (negative contrast effect).

show abstract

Negative contrast as a function of reinforcement location and consistent vs. varied reward magnitude

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Negative contrast as a function of the location of small reinforced placements

Effects of Preshift Small Magnitude of Reward Received during Goalbox Placements on the Negative Contrast Effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About