The relationship between the conditioned response and conventional learning experiments.

Hilgard, Ernest R.

doi:10.1037/h0052972

Cited by 30 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 197 publications

(199 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…My point is only that the massing of experiments, when many of them differ in their conceptual presuppositions, is likely to conceal as much as it reveals. (Hilgard 1937). The point was that many of their differences lay in what the experimenters chose to measure, rather than in any essential differences in underlying processes.…”

Section: Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research area of interpersonal expectancy effects originally derived from a general consideration of the effects of experimenters on the results of their research. One of these is the expectancy effect, the tendency for experimenters to obtain results they expect, not simply because they have correctly anticipated nature's response but rather because they have helped to shape that response through their expectations. When behavioral researchers expect certain results from their human (or animal) subjects they appear unwittingly to treat them in such a way as to increase the probability that they will respond as expected.In the first few years of research on this problem of the interpersonal (or interorganism) self-fulfilling prophecy, the “prophet” was always an experimenter and the affected phenomenon was always the behavior of an experimental subject. In more recent years, however, the research has been extended from experimenters to teachers, employers, and therapists whose expectations for their pupils, employees, and patients might also come to serve as interpersonal self-fulfilling prophecies.Our general purpose is to summarize the results of 345 experiments investigating interpersonal expectancy effects. These studies fall into eight broad categories of research: reaction time, inkblot tests, animal learning, laboratory interviews, psychophysical judgments, learning and ability, person perception, and everyday life situations. For the entire sample of studies, as well as for each specific research area, we (1) determine the overall probability that interpersonal expectancy effects do in fact occur, (2) estimate their average magnitude so as to evaluate their substantive and methodological importance, and (3) illustrate some methods that may be useful to others wishing to summarize quantitatively entire bodies of research (a practice that is, happily, on the increase).

show abstract

Section: Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What I have done, as you will see, is to insert one of Hull's own diagrams (48,44) in the middle and to call it his set of intervening variables. You are all familiar with such diagrams.…”

Section: For a Resume Of This Work See Kofflca (56 Ch 6)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The determiners of behavior at a choice point.

Tolman¹

1938

Psychological Review

489

245

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T h e question I am going to discuss is the very straightforward and specific one of "why rats turn the way they do, at a given choice-point in a given maze at a given stage of learning." The first item in the answer is fairly obvious. They turn the way they do because they have on the preceding trials met this same choicepoint together with such and such further objects or situations, down the one path and down the other, for such and such a number of preceding trials. Let me, however, analyze this further, with the aid of a couple of diagrams. First, consider a diagram of a single choice point (Figure 1). In this figure the point of choice itself is designated as 0,; the complex of stimulus-objects met going down the left alley, as O,, that met going down the right alley, as OR; the goal at the left, as 0,; and that at the right, as OcR. The behavior of turning to the left is represented by the arrow B,; and that of turning to the right, by the arrow B E .

show abstract

“…As yet, however, very little work has been directed specifically to the relation between the amount of reinforcement and resistance to extinction. 2 Skinner (8) simply reports a ratio of 20 extinction responses to one reinforcement, with immediate extinction; and Youtz (11), using a modified form of the Skinner apparatus, has tested the effect on extinction of two different amounts of reinforcement. In the latter study the results were indicative of a negatively accelerated gradient, although two points on a curve are hardly sufficient to indicate its true nature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to extinction as a function of the number of reinforcements.

Williams¹

1938

Journal of Experimental Psychology

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper is an attempt to give a quantitative description of one of the important relationships postulated by conditioned-response theories of learning. An extensive experimental literature, comprehensively reviewed by Hilgard (2), points to the essential similarity between 'reward' learning and 'reinforcement' learning, suggesting the possibility of deriving both types from a single set of postulates. Hull (5, 6) has attempted the theoretical derivation of a large number of the mechanisms of adaptive behavior, notably those of trial-and-error learning, from postulates based on a number of the phenomena found in conditioning. The predictive value of such a theoretical system depends in large part on a knowledge of the quantitative nature of the phenomena in question, particularly reinforcement, extinction, and spontaneous recovery.The strength of a response tendency as some function of the amount of reinforcement given it, is a relationship whose determination is dependent on the method used for testing the strength of the tendency. The most commonly used indicators are: magnitude of response, frequency of appearance of response, latency of response, and the resistance of the response to experimental extinction. The last mentioned measure was suggested by the following statement of Pavlov (7): "... The greater the intensity of the excitatory process, the more intense must be the inhibitory process to overcome it, and therefore the greater number of unreinforced repetitions necessary to bring about complete extinction" (p. 61).1 This investigation is a part of a coordinated research program of the Institute of Human Relations, Yale University. It was carried out under the direction of Professor Clark L. Hull, to whom the writer is greatly indebted for interest and assistance in the problem.

show abstract

The relationship between the conditioned response and conventional learning experiments.

Cited by 30 publications

References 197 publications

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

The determiners of behavior at a choice point.

Resistance to extinction as a function of the number of reinforcements.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About