Secondary Motivational Systems

Js, Brown; Ie, Farber

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.19.020168.000531

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, their partially reinforced groups were much inferior to continuously reinforced groups at the end of acquisition. This result, especially after the extended training they used, is simply not in agreement with other findings (see Brown & Farber, 1968). Second, no correction for differing acquisition levels was made in comparing extinction performance.…”

contrasting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to determine the importance of the developmen t of expectancy of reward prior to partial reward trials; rats were given 20 continuously reinforced trials prior to 20 partially reinforced trials (CRF-PRF) and compared to Ss given only 20 partially reinforced trials (PRF). Control groups received 20 or 40 continuously reinforced trials to determine the effect of differing numbers of acquisition trials. Results showed that terminal acquisition differences were minimal in the run segment of the alley and that Group CRF-PRF was more resistant to extinction than Group PRF, and both were more resistant to extinction than the CRF-20 and CRF-40 groups, which did not differ from each other. These results were interpreted as supporting the notion that the expectancy of reward on nomeward trials during partial reinforcement acquisition is a determiner of the magnitude of the partial reinforcement extinction effect.The frustration explanation of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) requires that the expectancy of reward (rr) be developed first so that later primary frustration (R F ) will occur on nonreward trials and subsequently the anticipation of frustration (rf) and its stimulus consequence (Sf) will be conditioned to approach (Amsel, 1967). If Sf has not been conditioned to approach at the start of extinction, then the PREE will not occur.Capaldi's sequential hypothesis requires only that nonreinforced trials be followed by a reinforced running trial in order to produce a PREE (Capaldi, 1966(Capaldi, , 1967. No mention is made of the necessity of establishing an expectancy of reward prior to partial reinforcement in order for PREE to occur, although recently Waters (1970) andCapaldi, Berg, andSparling (1971) have considered the possible importance of some form of frustration during PRF acquisition in governing resistance to extinction. Sutherland and Mackintosh (1971) claim that continuous reinforcement (establishing rr) prior to partial reinforcement training will reduce the PREE relative to a condition where only partial reinforcement training is given. This prediction is based on the notion that a determiner of the PREE is the number of stimulus analyzers which are switched in and that continuous reinforcement will strengthen only one analyzer and produce less resistance to extinction because only responses to this analyzer need to be weakened for

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 56%

“…In general, the data indicate that the partial reinforcement acquisition effect (PRAE), where partially reinforced Ss run faster than continuously reinforced Ss (Brown & Farber, 1968), occurred in the start section of the runway and not in the run section or the goal section. Absolute number of acquisition trials influenced goal speed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, fear has been characterized as an intervening variable, inferred from stimulus conditions and response variables, that motivates an organism to escape or avoid a noxious event (el 3,24,42,75). A "motivational theory of emotion," especially the emotion of fear, is perhaps the most typical conceptualization of the emotions (el 9,31,42,53,55,56,71).…”

Section: B Fear As a Motivational Intervening Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1

Rogers

1975

The Journal of Psychology

4,866

120

3,676

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A protection motivation theory is proposed that postulates the three crucial components of a fear appeal to be (a) the magnitude of noxiousness of a depicted event; (b) the probability of that event's occurrence; and (c) the efficacy of a protective response. Each of these communication variables initiates corresponding cognitive appraisal processes that mediate attitude change. The proposed conceptualization is a special case of a more comprehensive theoretical schema: expectancy-value theories. Several suggestions are offered for reinterpreting existing data, designing new types of empirical research, and making future studies more comparable. Finally, the principal advantages of protection motivation theory over the rival formulations of Janis and Leventhal are discussed.

show abstract

“…These are arousal, incentive, and reinforcement. All three seem capa ble of dealing with the effects of conditions of bodily need (privation, depri vation ) on behavior, but none assigns the central importance to vegetative processes they held in drive theory (d. 32,38,103,104). At the same time, these alternative concepts seem more able than classical drive theory to ac count for behavior invigoration and persistence in the absence of readily identifiable deprivation operations (26,44), and thus to "explain" a much wider range of human motivating conditions without the addition of unten able assumptions.…”

Section: Alt�natives To Drivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Hull-Spence formulation, D, K, and SRR are presumably independent variables, D being a motivational fac tor determined by deprivation or noxious stimulation, K a learned motiva tional factor derived from anticipatory reactions, and SHR an associative factor with no motivational component. Yet, as Brown & Farber point out, K depends on the strength of habits underlying r g -s g connections, on the one hand, and on the other, since drive level affects response vigor, D also indirectly determines the magnitUde of K (27,31,38,104). (38) raise the more fundamental question of whether the rg-sg-K mechanism has motivational properties at all.…”

Section: Below]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Derived Motives

Appley¹

1970

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Secondary Motivational Systems

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1

Derived Motives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About