On the proportionality between the probability of not-running and the punishment effect of being forced to run

Terhune, James G.; Premack, David

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(70)90080-9

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the simple linear or exponential relationship held for individual subjects, but the relationships took on different characteristics for different subjects. This is consistent with previous results (Langford, Benson, & Weisman, 1969;Terhune & Premack, 1970, and suggests differential sensitivity to reinforcement; the degree to which one subject's instrumental responding is affected by change in the probability of the contingent event differs from the degree to which another subject's response rate is affected by the same change.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Considerable evidence for the hypothesis has been obtained when response probabilities were estimated by the ratio of actual time spent in a response state to the time that could possibly be spent in the state (see Premack, 1971, for a review). Later, the hypothesis was extended to the punishment contingency (premack, 1971), and it was shown to hold in both the reinforcement and punishment situations when the probability estimate was the cumulative relative frequency of durations of the response (Terhune & Premack, 1970.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

Terhune

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prernack's probability hypothesis provides a simple empirical rule for predicting reinforcement effects, but has always been applied to response probabilities estimated by averaging over entire sessions. If the rule is robust, it should also predict momentary (e.g., withinsessions) changes in reinforcement from parallel momentary probability changes. It seems to do so. Six rats received noncontingent water (base), then leverpressed for water (contingency), each for 15 sessions. All sessions were divided into six subsessions. Average leverpressing for individual rats was a simple monotonic, usually linear, function of the probability of drinking-estimated from that subsession's counterpart during base. Similar results were obtained from a second study even though different instrumental and contingent events were used. With some generality, then, it is possible to apply the probability hypothesis to momentary reinforcement effects.A simple rule for predicting reinforcement has been proposed: if one response (A) is more probable than another response (B), A will reinforce B when made contingent upon B (premack, 1959, 1965). It has also been suggested that the magnitude of the reinforcement effect tends to be proportional to the magnitude of the probability difference between A and B (Premack, 1971 ;Terhune & Premack, 1974). Probability is a mathernatical idealization, but the rule or "probability hypothesis" was made operational by assuming that relative response durations would serve as reasonable estimates of response probabilities. Considerable evidence for the hypothesis has been obtained when response probabilities were estimated by the ratio of actual time spent in a response state to the time that could possibly be spent in the state (see Premack, 1971, for a review). Later, the hypothesis was extended to the punishment contingency (premack, 1971), and it was shown to hold in both the reinforcement and punishment situations when the probability estimate was the cumulative relative frequency of durations of the response (Terhune & Premack, 1970.In all previous investigations of the hypothesis, estimates of noncontingent response probabilities were obtained by averaging data over a block of base sessions during which the responses to be used in the contingency were not restricted and either one or both could

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

Terhune

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Equation 2 is consistent both with verbal statements of the relational principle of reinforcement (Premack, 1965(Premack, , 1971) and with recent empirical work. Specifically, asymptotic probability of the noncontingent response has been shown to vary linearly with the operant level of the noncontingent response (Bauermeister, 1975;Schaeffer, 1965) and with the probability of the contingent response (Langford, Benson, and Weissman, 1969;Premack, 1963;Terhune and Premack, 1970). That reinforcement and punishment may be subsumed under the same law is in accord with other recent observations (Premack, 1971; Rachlin and Herrnstein, 1969;Premack, 1970, 1974).…”

Section: Relational Principle Of Reinforcementsupporting

confidence: 67%

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF A RELATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Donahoe

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If Q increases above its optimal, Q 0 , responding swings around the apogee of the ellipse and decreases, as further increases in Q are punishing (Premack, 1971;Terhune & Premack, 1970).…”

Section: Implications For Delay Discounting Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidding for delayed rewards: Accumulation as delay discounting, delay discounting as regulation, demand functions as corollary

Killeen

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the accumulation paradigm animals press one manipulandum to accumulate pellets or seconds of access to food, and then press another manipulandum, or run some distance, to collect it. The accumulation may be interpreted as delay discounting, with the animals adjusting the distal amount to compensate for its distance or delay. The amount accumulated before being collected is a linear function of the distance or time that the experimental paradigm stipulates for collecting it. That linear function follows from the Unit‐Price/Unit‐Amount axiom. The inverse of the linear compensation functions gives a delay‐discount hyperbola. The advantages of the accumulation paradigm and analytic framework for delay discounting studies are noted. Compensation functions are then derived from a behavioral regulation model, which generalizes them to contexts where the individual's budget for response cost becomes over‐taxed. In turn, such compensation/regulation models lead directly to representative demand functions. In sum, regulation models provide a theoretical grounding for demand functions, compensation functions, and delay discounting hyperbolas. The parameter that links them is the unit amount k, the slope of the compensation function and of the discount function, the setpoint for consumption in a regulation model, and the ideal quantity consumed at minimal price in a demand analysis.

show abstract

On the proportionality between the probability of not-running and the punishment effect of being forced to run

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF A RELATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Bidding for delayed rewards: Accumulation as delay discounting, delay discounting as regulation, demand functions as corollary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

On the proportionality between the probability of not-running and the punishment effect of being forced to run

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF A RELATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF REINFORCEMENT1

Bidding for delayed rewards: Accumulation as delay discounting, delay discounting as regulation, demand functions as corollary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF A RELATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF REINFORCEMENT¹