A motivational state resulting from non-reward.

Abstract

One of the most pervasive assumptions made by clinical psychologists is that to block or interfere with the Rs leading to the satisfaction of a drive [i.e., the operation, frustration] gives rise to a motivating condition [i.e., Frustration Drive, FD] which when reduced by R's other than the blocked R, leads to the development of habitual reactions to frustration [RFs] such as aggression, withdrawal, etc. The importance of this assumption to clinical practice suggests that its tenability needs experimental verification.

Resistance to extinction as a function of the type of response elicited by frustration.

“…The theoretical orientation of the present study is similar to Rohrer's (7) in that it holds that the new interfering responses that appear during extinction are elicited by frustration stimulation (s f ) (5). Frustration stimulation occurs as a result of the disruption of a learned sequence, e.g., the omission of food where 1 The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor M. Ray Denny for making the present study possible and for assistance in preparation of the manuscript.…”

Response strength as a function of delay of reward in a runway.

“…A number of studies have demonstrated, in varied situations, that increased vigor of response follows interruption of, delay of, or failure to reward. For example, Marzocco (14), Rohrer (16), and Sheffield (18) present data in which the effect of failure or delay of reward is presumed to manifest itself immediately. On the other hand, Geier and Tolman (8), who obtained measures of activity during delay, showed an increasing effect (on activity) over trials, while Logan (13) showed a gradual decline of response strength over trials as the result of the introduction of an increased delay.…”

Extinction as a function of the spacing of extinction trials.

“…2 A preliminary report of this research was presented at the 19SQ meetings of the APA. ignore studies based on only one S (4,12), five studies (1,2,16,17,18) show the expected faster extinction with massed trials, while two (13,14) show trends in the opposite direction. The present research represents an attempt to reconcile the divergent findings on this important topic.…”