Relative reinforcement effects: S1/S2 and S1/S1 paradigms in instrumental conditioning.

McHose, James H.

doi:10.1037/h0028725

Cited by 59 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These preshift data are inconsistent with previous reports of faster or of slower speeds for varied relative to continuous reward. being consistent only with the similar observation that the relative performance levels for percentage of reward, in simple instrumental conditioning, also presently defy description (McHose, 1970).Looking at the postshift period, the shift from continuous to varied reward (Group C-V) resulted in speeds slower than those for the condition maintained on varied reward (Group V-V). As may be seen in Fig.…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

Performance to varied reward following continuous reward training in the runway

Calef

Hopkins

McHewitt

et al. 1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depressed runway performance of rats to varied large and small reward following consistent high-incentive training was found . Ss shifted to var ied reward displayed a de pression effect following both large' and small-reward trials, a finding particularly nonsupportive of Capaldi's stimul us aftereffect theory and supportive of Amsel 's fru stration theory .Depressed performance to small reward following high-incentive training is a reliable finding, occurring with several parameters of preshift reward (cf. Black, 1968). More recently, postshift reward conditions have received attention in an attempt to relate the depression effect to other literature (e.g., extinction) employing reward shifts in simple instrumental conditioning (Gonzales & Bitterman, 1969). The present study provides further information on the generality of the depression effect with respect to postshift reward by employing a previously neglected postshift incentive value, varied large and small reward. Theoretically, depressed postshift performance following a shift from continuous to varied reward is expected by several interpretations of reward shift effects (e.g., Amsel , 1958: Capaldi, 1967.According to Amsel's (1958) conditioned frustration theory , Ss shifted from continuous large magnitude of reward to varied large and small magnitude of reward should run more slowly during postshift training than a control group maintained on varied large and small magnitude of reward. The experimental Ss should show depressed postshift speeds as a consequence of conditioned interfering responses elicited by frustration stimuli, which, in turn , result from the small magnitude of reward experienced following preshift training. Control Ss, however, should have learned to run in the presence of frustration cues (rf-sf) that result from repeated experience with large and small magnitude of reward during the preshift period.Capaldi's (1967) stimulus aftereffect theory would also predict a "depression" effect in the present study. According to Capaldi (1967). the reward magnitude received on any trial provides magnitude-specific stimuli present when the organism responds on the next trial. Ss shifted from consistent large magnitude of reward to 'This paper is sponsored by James H . McH os e. who takes full editorial responsibility for it.Bull. Psychon . Soc., 1973, Vol. 2 (2) varied large and small magnitude of reward should run more slowly than control Ss, because the novel aftereffect of the new reward for experimental Ss has not had as much habit strength accrued to it as has the small-reward aftereffect present for control Ss. METHODThe Ss were 20 experimentally naive male albino rats. approximately 90 days old at the beginning of the experiment and bred at West Virginia Wesleyan College.The runwa y apparatus was essentially the same as that employed by Ludvigson & Gay (1966) , except that only one of the multiple parallel alleys was used. The alley compri sed a 33.02-cm white startbox, a 66.04-cm white run section . and a 33.48-cm white goalbox . T...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 80%

Performance to varied reward following continuous reward training in the runway

Calef

Hopkins

McHewitt

et al. 1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the reliable observation that the S-performance of discrimination Ss is depressed relative to that of a condition which always receives the S-reward (cf. Black, 1968;McHose, 1970) does not appear to follow from any combination of stimulus-specificity assumptions as applied to the present data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…Thus, S--performance decreases as S+ reward increases (cf. Black, 1968;McHose, 1970) and extinction responding decreases as acquisition reward magnitude increases (e.g., Ison & Cook, 1964). Similarly, partial reward in acquisition elevates extinction responding and partial S+ reward elevates S-responding (McHose & Peters, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance in differential instrumental conditioning as a function of the pattern of partial S+ reward

McHose

Blackwell

1975

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It should be noted here that besides Capaldi other associationists (viz. Amsel, 1958;Black, 1968;McHose, 1970) also provided contextual interpretations of contrast.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Positive and negative contrast effects obtained following shifts in liquid sucrose reward in thirsty rats

Shanab

Young

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a repeated shifts experiment four independent groups of thirsty rats received the following treatments: LSLS, LLLS, SSLS, and SSSS, with each letter denoting the magnitude (large or small) of sucrose reward received in each of the four phases of the experiment. While no negative contrast effect (NCE) was obtained in Phase 2, a very reliable positive contrast effect (PCE) was found in Phase 3. Moreover, a significant NCE was obtained in Phase 4. The results were explained in terms of the relative rather than absolute effects of reinforcement. Crespi (1942) was probably the first investigator to popularize the phenomenon of incentive contrast. He reported obtaining both a positive PCE) and a negative (NCE) contrast effect. Subjects shifted from small to larger rewards were observed to run at a faster rate than would be expected from a control group kept on large reward all the time (elation effect or PCE). Conversely, when subjects were shifted from large to a smaller reward, they undershot the level of the subjects receiving small reward all the time (depression effect or NeE). Attempts to replicate Crespi's findings of PCE have failed repeatedly. When appropriate controls for the ceiling effects were introduced, PCE was consistently obtained (Shanab, Birnbaum, & Cavallaro,' 1974). Recently, however, some studies have obtained PCE without such controls (cf. Weinstock, 1971).Crespi's findings of NCE in the runway based on shifts in food reward have been successfully replicated in many laboratories (Dunham, 1968). However, when either magnitude or concentration of liquid sucrose (Goodrich, 1962;Homzie & Ross, 1962;Ison & Rosen, 1968;Rosen, 1966;Rosen & Ison, 1965), or both magnitude and concentration of liquid sucrose were simultaneously downshifted (Barnes & Tombaugh, 1973;Flaherty, Riley, & Spear, 1973;Ison & Rosen, 1968), no NCE was obtained. The dependent variable in the previous studies was response speed. It should be noted that a NCE was reported with liquid sucrose when the dependent variable was either the frequency of the licking response (Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968), or the barpress response (CoIlier & Marx, 1959; Weinstein, 1970a, b).A closer examination of Crespi's design for positive contrast reveals that he used a double-shift in that his peE subjects originally recieved large reward followed by a shift first to small reward and then back to large reward. Crespi (1942) reasoned that in order to obtain a Reprint requests should be sent to Mitri E. Shanab,

show abstract

Relative reinforcement effects: S1/S2 and S1/S1 paradigms in instrumental conditioning.

Cited by 59 publications

References 35 publications

Performance to varied reward following continuous reward training in the runway

Performance to varied reward following continuous reward training in the runway

Performance in differential instrumental conditioning as a function of the pattern of partial S+ reward

Positive and negative contrast effects obtained following shifts in liquid sucrose reward in thirsty rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About