Personality, Reinforcement and Learning

Abstract

Conflict in predictions resulting from Eysenck's (1957) and Gray's (1970) theoretical formulations on personality and conditioning were tested at the behavioral level. Given conditions which do not produce over-arousal, it would be predicted from Eysenck's position that Introverts would condition better than Extraverts. From Gray's formulation it would follow that Introverts condition better if negative reinforcement is used and Extraverts condition better if positive reinforcement is used. The two opposing predictions were tested in pursuit rotor learning by either positively or negatively reinforcing the hit/miss dimension of performance by 166 males aged 14 to 15 yr. The results gave support to Gray's position but if over-arousal is assumed Eysenck's position is tenable.

Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition.

“…Similarly, Derryberry (1987) demonstrated that extraverts respond impulsively to reward stimuli. Studies cited earlier demonstrated that extraverts learn better than introverts under appetitive conditions (e.g., Boddy et al, 1986;Gupta &Shukla, 1989;Seunath, 1975), whereas the converse has been demonstrated with introverts under aversive conditions (e.g., Gupta & Nagpal, 1978).…”

“…Related to this view, Mayo (1983) demonstrated superior retrieval of positive versus negative memories in extraverts. Gray (1981) predicted that extraverts are more sensitive to appetitive stimuli and that introverts are more sensitive to aversive stimuli; evidence indicates that extraverts learn better than introverts with appetitive stimuli, whereas the converse obtains under aversive conditions (Boddy, Carver, & Rowley, 1986;Gupta &Nagpal, 1978;Gupta &Shukla, 1989;Kantorowitz, 1978aKantorowitz, , 1978bSeunath, 1975). It follows that introverts are more cautious than extraverts.…”

Distinguishing Between Learning and Motivation in Behavioral Tests of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality

“…The clear relevance of behavioral methods to RST was recognized at the outset, as indicated by numerous landmark studies in conditioning (e.g., H. J. Eysenck & Levey, 1972;Nicholson & Gray, 1972;Seunath, 1975). However, these experiments were possibly more suited to examination of the learning component of RST than the motivation component.…”

Individual differences in the acquisition of affectively valenced associations.

“…The bulk of the evidence from both classical conditioning paradigms (e.g., Kantorowitz, 1978; Mangan, 1978) and instrumental conditioning paradigms (e.g., Corr, Pickering, & Gray, 1995; Gupta, 1976; Hagopian & Ollendick, 1994; McCord & Wakefield, 1981; Seunath, 1975; Zinbarg & Revelle, 1989) that have pitted arousal theory and BAS–BIS theory against each other provides more support for BAS–BIS theory.…”