What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation?

Eisenberger, Robert; Karpman, Michael; Trattner, James

doi:10.1037/h0024719

Cited by 53 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, the results of this experiment suggest the sufficiency of the state of response deprivation to produce reinforcement effects in an academic context, thereby systematically replicating basic laboratory research findings (Allison et al, 1979; , 1975Bernstein, 1974;Eisenberger et al, 1967;Heth & Warren, 1978;Timberlake, 1979;Timberlake & Wozny, 1979). However, because of the tentative nature of the effects of the MC conditions, it cannot be determined how much of the increases in the instrumental responding were due to the contingent relationship between the responses.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response Deprivation and Reinforcement in Applied Settings: A Preliminary Analysis

Konarski

Johnson

Crowell

et al. 1980

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First-grade children engaged in seatwork behaviors under reinforcement schedules established according to the Premack Principle and the Response Deprivation Hypothesis. Across two experiments, schedules were presented to the children in a counter-balanced fashion which fulfilled the conditions of one, both, or neither of the hypotheses. Duration of on-task math and coloring in Experiment 1 and on-task math and reading in Experiment 2 were the dependent variables. A modified ABA-type withdrawal design, including a condition to control for the noncontingent effects of a schedule, indicated an increase of on-task instrumental responding only in those schedules where the condition of response deprivation was present but not where it was absent, regardless of the probability differential between the instrumental and contingent responses. These results were consistent with laboratory findings supporting the necessity of response deprivation for producing the reinforcement effect in single response, instrumental schedules. However, the results of the control procedure were equivocal so the contribution of the contingent relationship between the responses to the increases in instrumental behavior could not be determined. Nevertheless, these results provided tentative support for the Response Deprivation Hypothesis as a new approach to establishing reinforcement schedules while indicating the need for further research in this area. The possible advantages of this technique for applied use were identified and discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…The importance of such suppression of contingent responding in reinforcement schedules was documented in the laboratory by Eisenberger, Karpman, and Trattner (1967). These researchers provided strong evidence that this variable was the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement.…”

Section: University Of Notre Damementioning

confidence: 96%

Response Deprivation and Reinforcement in Applied Settings: A Preliminary Analysis

Konarski

Johnson

Crowell

et al. 1980

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This baseline, according to Premack, could then be used to estimate changes in the probabilities or frequencies of various behavior patterns when schedule constraints were imposed. Eisenberger, Karpman, and Trattner (1967), as well as Timberlake and Allison (1974), have argued that Premack's analysis, although clearly in the right direction, was nevertheless flawed (see also Dunham, 1977). Rather than asserting that higher-probability behavior would invariably reinforce lower-probability behavior, they claimed that an organism must be deprived of a particular type of behavior, regardless of its baseline probability, if access to that activity is to be reinforcing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization Versus Response‐strength Accounts of Behavior

Vaughan

Miller

1984

J Exper Analysis Behavior

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were run in both single-key and concurrent-key experiments in which, over most of the range of response rates, an increase in response rate gave rise to a continuous decrease in reinforcement rate. In spite of the fact that a low response rate would have produced a high reinforcement rate, all birds responded at relatively high rates, thus keeping reinforcement rates substantially below the maximum possible. In the concurrent-key experiment, in addition to responding at relatively high rates, the birds' ratios of responses approximately matched the corresponding ratios of obtained reinforcers. The results are inconsistent with most theories of optimal performance, which assume that organisms behave in ways that either maximize reinforcement value or minimize deviations from a free-behavior point. On the other hand, the results are consistent with the assumption that reinforcement strengthens the tendency to respond.

show abstract

“…One would be to limit the repertoire to activities with brief typical durations, possibly by creating an arbitrary set of operanda like those used by or Eisenberger, Karpman, and Trattner (1967) to study the same topic in brief sessions. We also considered using puzzles or toys that would be initially engaging but not consuming; this was in the distant past, before VCR or Nintendo were meaningful utterances.…”

Section: Stability Of Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%