Partial reinforcement effects and type of reward

Macdonald, Glenn E.; Toledo, Leyla De

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(74)90012-5

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Groups by Days interaction was not Significant, F < 1. The present results, demonstrating a PREE in the third motivation/water reinforcement paradigm, are thus in sharp disagreement with those of Macdonald and De Toledo (1974) and confirm the findings of Seybert et al (in press, a) and Shanab et al (197S).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Recently, some controversy has arisen in regard to the effects of PRF in situations involving water reinforcement for thirstmotivated animals. While some authors (e.g., Seybert, Gerard, Lawrence, Nash, & Williams, in press, a;Shanab, Melrose, & Young, 1975) have observed traditional partial reinforcement extinction effects (pREE-animals receiving partial food reinforcement show greater resistance to extinction than animals receiving continuous food reinforcement) using thirst motivation/water reinforcement procedures, others, notably Macdonald and De Toledo (1974), have failed to do so. Macdonald and De Toledo postulated, on the basis of their results, the existence of differential mechanisms underlying the effects of partial reinforcement as a function of type of appetitive motivation and relevant reward.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acquisition and extinction effects of partial reinforcement under conditions of thirst motivation

Seybert

Gerard

1976

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition and extinction effects of partial reinforcement under conditions of thirst motivation

Seybert

Gerard

1976

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Campbell and Cicala (1962) and Hall (1955) found that water deprivation produced little or no increase in general activity. McDonald and de Toledo (1974) showed that there was no active frustration reaction to the absence of a water reward (as opposed to food) in two partial reinforcement paradigms. Reberg, Mann, and Innis (1977), using a 6O-sec interreward interval and choices of food or water, reported that rats showed much less gross locomotor activity in interwater intervals than in interfood intervals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Periodic water, interwater interval, and adjunctive behavior in a 24-hour multiresponse environment

Timberlake

Lucas

1991

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the generality of the interreward response effects shown by rats under periodic food delivery, we presented .10 ml of water at minimum interwater intervals that ranged from 8 to 512 sec. Use of a 24-h multiresponse environment allowed evaluation of interdrink responses with respect to their excessiveness, patterning, and functional relationship to the interwater interval. In contrast to the extensive activity-inducing effects of periodic food, the only major excitatory effect of periodic water was increased attention to the water source. Although there were a few bitonic and direct relationships between interwater interval and changes in responding, the great majority of functions were inverse or inconsistent. Further, unlike the increase in drinking under periodic food, total eating decreased under periodic water. The major similarity with food reward was the apparent separation of interreward behavior into three general classes of reward-appropriate foraging responses: area-restricted search after reward, more general search (and waiting), and focal search preceding the next reward delivery.Thirty years after Falk (1961) called attention to interreward adjunctive behavior in the form of excessive postpellet drinking under periodic food delivery, the characteristics and causation of such behavior remain controversial (Reid & Staddon, 1986;Riley & Wetherington, 1989;Roper, 1981;Wetherington, 1982). Among the points of contention are the following: to what extent adjunctive responses are excessive, whether the relationship between adjunctive responding and reward frequency is direct or bitonic (Reid, Vazquez, & Rico, 1985), the number and nature of classes of adjunctive behavior, and whether adjunctive responding is similar under both food and water rewards (Rachlin & Krasnoff, 1983;Reid et al., 1985;Wetherington & Riley, 1985). This paper examines how these issues apply to a wide variety of interreward responses in a 24-h environment.A major difficulty with the assessment of adjunctive behavior has been the lack of a precise definition of excessiveness. Despite extensive debate, there is continued disagreement over the proper comparison condition (see Falk, 1971;Roper, 1981;Staddon, 1977;Timberlake, 1982). Another difficulty is the nature of the relationship between reward frequency and adjunctive responding. Although a bitonic relationship between reward frequency and total adjunctive responding is well supported (e.g, Falk, 1969Falk, , 1971Falk, ,1977Wetherington, 1982), recent investigators have focused on a direct relationship between reThis research was supported by NIMH Grant MH37892. The authors wish to thankHillary Case for her extensive help with data analysis and Andy Delamater for his comments. Correspondence should be addressed to William Timberlake, Psychology Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. ward frequency and the interreward rate of responding (i.e., response rate is highest at the shortest interreward intervals-see Killeen, Hanson, & Osborne, 1978;Staddon, 1977...

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported different behavioral outcomes with food vs. water reinforcement (Boakes, Poli, Lockwood, & Goodall, 1978;Bolles & Petrinovich, 1956;Petrinovich & Bolles, 1954;Shettleworth, 1972), often in situations which involve withdrawal of reinforcers (e.g., delay of reward, Logan & Spanier, 1970; the frustration effect, Levy & Seward, 1969; the partial reinforcement extinction effect, MacDonald & de Toledo, 1974). The present study adds positive behavioral contrast to the list.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…An account of the present data based on frustration or motivational arousal meets with similar difficulty in explaining the overall food-water discrepancy. The present experiment suggests that further study of determinants of the form, direction, and variety of species-specific behavior which develops under different stimulus and reinforcement conditions may reveal the basis for this general phenomenon of behavioral differences in learning situations with food vs. water reinforcement (for further discussions see MacDonald & de Toledo, 1974;Reberg, Innis, Mann, & Eizenga, 1978;Shettleworth, 1972 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Behavioral contrast and type of reward: Role of elicited response topography

Woodruff

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval variable-interval and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of either food or water reinforcement for keypecking. Discriminative stimuli associated with component schedules were located either on the operant key or on a second "signal" key. When the stimuli were projected on the operant key, positive contrast appeared during discrimination conditions with either food or water as the reinforcer. When the stimuli were projected on the signal key, overall responding to the operant and signal keys showed contrast with food, but negative induction with water as the reinforcer. In the latter condition, the signal for the variable-interval shcedule of water reinforcement elicited a variety of water-related behavior, only some of which was directed at the signal. Thus, the type of reward and location of discriminative stimuli interacted to determine the presence or absence of behavioral contrast effects. In large part, these results support and extend the autoshaping view of contrast.A good deal of research suggests that the phenomenon of positive behavioral contrast (Reynolds, 1961) may result from a combination of operant and respondent (or autoshaping, Brown & Jenkins, 1968) factors. Positive contrast appears during multipleschedule procedures when, for example, a multiple variable-interval variable-interval (mult VI VI) schedule is changed to multiple variable-interval extinction (mult VI EXT). As response rate declines in the EXT component, response rate often increases in the unchanged VI component, and this divergence of response rates is labeled positive contrast. According to the autoshaping view of contrast, a change from mult VI VI to mult VI EXT introduces a stimulusreinforcer contingency into the discrimination situation. The stimulus correlated with VI may engender elicited, or autoshaped responses, which sum with ongoing operant responses to increase response rate

show abstract

Partial reinforcement effects and type of reward

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Acquisition and extinction effects of partial reinforcement under conditions of thirst motivation

Acquisition and extinction effects of partial reinforcement under conditions of thirst motivation

Periodic water, interwater interval, and adjunctive behavior in a 24-hour multiresponse environment

Behavioral contrast and type of reward: Role of elicited response topography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About