Response potential as a function of effort.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test certain of the hypotheses arising out of the logic of the work-inhibition theory. In particular, the role of effort in the development of response potential and in the inhibitory resting response will be examined.Solomon (10), in his comprehensive review of the influence of work on behavior, cites the research of at least a dozen investigators who have supported experimentally, in part or in full, a law of least effort. The current theories of Hull ( 5) and his associates (cf. Miller and Dollard [7] and Mowrer [8]), following Pavlov's lead, state in effect that, whereas in any training sequence, the evocation of the response and its subsequent reinforcement leads to an increase in the probability of the occurrence of the response on the next occasion of the presentation of the stimulus, at the same time all responses of the organism give rise to proprioceptive or kinesthetic stimulation which acts as negative motivation and serves to weaken the response tendency.Response-produced stimulation, in addition to having drive value, has the cue value associated with any stimulus, and is thus conditionable. In other words, stimuli associated with the reduction of a need become cues for the response which occurred at the time the need was reduced. Thus response-produced stimuli, associated with a resting response (the response of not-responding), become conditioned to this negative response. A learning series, then, could be represented thus: I S v 15 . ct . D Cf v 3? *. O &. J? O 1 -r Kl -' O2 -' it/2 Ql -' ttl -r O2 -' Kt OJ, -• • • ,

SOME PUNISHING EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐FORCE1

“…One result of this continuing interest is a large number of studies examining the relationship between responding and effort. Most of these studies have found that a high response-force requirement is associated with reduced responding (e.g., Applezweig, 1951;Capehart, Viney, and Hulicka, 1958;Fitts, 1940;Lawson and Brownstein, 1957;Montgomery, 1951;Mowrer and Jones, 1943;Solomon, 1948;Weiss, 1961), although a few studies reported no effect (Quartermain, 1963;Maatsch, Adelman, and Denny, 1954). These findings have frequently been related to the Hullian conceptualization of effort as an "inhibitory stimulus" (e.g., Hull, 1943).…”

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

“…In a study by Applezweig (1951), for example, the effect of effort on resistance was less significant when these partial responses were included in the analysis. Other variables that may change when effort is manipulated include reinforcement number, reinforcement delay, and complexity of the target response (Maatsch et al, 1954).…”

“…The amount of physical exertion or effort required to complete a response has been shown to influence resistance to extinction in some studies with nonhumans (e.g., Applezweig, 1951;Mowrer & Jones, 1943). For example, Mowrer and Jones trained groups of rats to press a weighted lever with varying loads (0.5 g, 42.5 g, or 80 g) and then extinguished the response with just one load.…”

The Physical Properties of Bar-Pressing Behaviour and the Problem of Reactive Inhibition

“…Applezweig (1951), Montgomery (1951) and Thompson (1944) have investigated related problems using similar apparatus.…”