A small-trials PREE with adult humans: Resistance to extinction as a function of number of N-R transitions.

Abstract

Human 5s received 10 acquisition trials under conditions of partial reinforcement in a modified gambling task. Groups differed as a function of percentage of reinforcement and number of N-R transitions. In addition to the demonstration of a small-trials FREE, the results were in agreement with predictions made from sequential theory. Alternative theories developed from frustration models are also discussed.

Resistance to extinction in humans as a function of sequential variables and amount of acquisition training

“…There is a disturbing contrast between the results of the second study described above and the one conducted by Poon and Halpern (1971). The latter study was very similar to the present one but obtained superior resistance to extinction in the short N-Iength/many N-R group.…”

“…Thus, the second study was designed to be an essential replication of the first with the exception that fewer acquisition trials were administered. On the basis of Capaldi's (1967) assumption that short acquisition training (and preasymptotic habit strengths) would cause N-R transitions to be the main determiner of resistance to extinction, it was predicted that either (1) the short N-Iength/many N-R group would produce the greater resistance to extinction, as was the case in the Poon and Halpern (1971) study, or (2) the partial reinforcement effect of the short N-Iength/many N-R group would at least reach significance under these conditions.…”

“…The most distinctive difference between the procedures of the two studies is the fact that the present experiment clearly informed subjects of the eminent extinction phase (i.e ., they were supposed to determine when the "machine had broken down"). In the Poon and Halpern (1971) study, subjects did not know that the apparatus would ever cease to function. The importance of this procedural difference is pointed up by the fact that groups in the Poon and Halpern (1971) study were from four to six times more resistant to extinction than subjects in the present studies.…”

“…In the Poon and Halpern (1971) study, subjects did not know that the apparatus would ever cease to function. The importance of this procedural difference is pointed up by the fact that groups in the Poon and Halpern (1971) study were from four to six times more resistant to extinction than subjects in the present studies. · It may well be the case that when individuals are instructed to detect the termination of feedback (e.g., a quality-control task in industry) the number of successive no-feedback trials (rather than the number of times that feedback trials follow no-feedback trials) is the major determiner of when the observer will report a "breakdown" .…”

Why are Some Games More Addictive than Others: The Effects of Timing and Payoff on Perseverance in a Slot Machine Game

“… Lewis and Duncan (1956 , 1957 , 1958a , b ) conducted a series of experiments using simulated gambling to test theories of partial reinforcement, finding that lower reward probabilities were associated with greater perseverance. Poon and Halpern (1971) used a similar paradigm to test Capaldi’s (1966 ; Capaldi and Martins, 2010 ) partial reinforcement theories by manipulating trial order in a slot machine task with a small number of acquisition trials. Kassinove and Schare (2001) manipulated big wins and near-misses in perseverative behavior in extinction in a similar slot machine paradigm, finding that near-miss density affected the extent to which participants persisted gambling but not big wins.…”