Acquisition of a bar-press response to escape frustrative nonreward and reduced reward.

Daly, Helen B.; McCroskery, James H.

doi:10.1037/h0034322

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although substance use engendered by frustration stress generally has been studied in the context of unexpected loss of alternative reinforcement (Ginsburg & Lamb, 2018) or resurgence (Podlesnik et al, 2006;Quick et al, 2011), frustration can also be conceptualized as an abrupt reduction in reinforcer magnitude (Crespi, 1942;Daly, 1969Daly, , 1974Daly & McCroskery, 1973). Naturalistically, these abrupt reductions are typically experienced as transitions from more-to-less favorable conditions of reinforcement, termed negative incentive shifts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

Sawyer

Galuska

Cutright

et al. 2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frustration stress, typically operationalized as the unexpected loss of reinforcement, has been shown to engender substance use. Abrupt reductions in reinforcer magnitude likely also function as frustration stressors. These negative incentive shifts were previously shown to produce tap-and sweetened-water drinking in rats. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether these shifts in food reward would occasion oral ethanol self-administration. Nine male Long-Evans rats operated on a two-component multiple fixed-ratio schedule with signaled components producing either a large (4 pellets) or small (1pellet) reinforcer. Components were pseudorandomly arranged to present 4 transitions between past and upcoming reinforcer magnitudes: small-to-large, small-to-small, large-to-large, and large-to-small (negative incentive shift). Experiment 1 investigated the effects of negative incentive shifts on consumption of concurrent, freely available 10% sucrose, 10% sucrose plus 10% ethanol, and following sucrose fading, 10% ethanol. Experiment 2 entailed continuation of schedule contingencies with a dose manipulation of 4 ethanol concentrations (0, 5, 10, and 20%) to assess dose-dependent differences in transition-type control and consumption. A lever-press extinction condition was then conducted with 10% ethanol availability. In this novel model of frustration stress, negative incentive shifts prompted ethanol self-administration at each dose investigated, whereas the other transitions did not.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

Sawyer

Galuska

Cutright

et al. 2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously shocked rats do, however, show higher levels of aggression. These observations, in conjunction with the conditioned aversion reported here, suggest that the affective state associated with the shock-induced sensitization of stimulus processing might be akin to the consequences of partial reinforcement and extinction regimens, a state sometimes referred to as 'frustration' (Amsel 1962;Azrin et al 1966;Daly 1969;Daly and McCroskery 1973). Paralleling the effects of moderate shock, frustration can function as an US to condition a place aversion (Daly 1969) and produces aggression (Azrin et al 1966).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Brief exposure to a mild stressor enhances morphine-conditioned place preference in male rats

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, if it is assumed that an anticipatory frustration reaction, rf-sf, is conditioned when a stimulus is partially rewarded, it might be predicted that an S± would produce greater response facilitation in the test phase than an S:J:. In the test phase in the present experiment and in previous experiments, a barpress turned off the test stimulus; thus, responding in the presence of an S± could be reinforced by frustration reduction (e.g., Daly & McCroskery, 1973).In the present study all experimental groups received two different stimuli during noncontingent pairings. For Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations (Sl i), while the other stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (Sz :J:).…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward: A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect

Capaldi

Hovancik

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100% of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S, *, S2 *), for Group PP 50% of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S, ±, S2±)' and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (S, ±, S2*). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S, and S2 performed better in the presence of S, and S2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC's performance in the presence of S2 *was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S, ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S2' Group PC's performance to S, ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S,.Recently interest has developed in the effects of pairing the offset of stimuli with reward noncontingently, i.e., regardless of the animal's behavior. Customarily, during the noncontingent phase the animal is prevented from making the test response, e.g., in a Skinner box the bar may be immobilized during the noncontingent phase. One question of concern has been whether presentation of a stimulus that has been paired noncontingently with reward on 100% of its presentations (S:J:) will affect the vigor of the test response when presented before the response. It has been shown that performance of a previously learned response (Hyde, Trapold, & Gross, 1969), as well as acquisition of a new response (Trapold & Winokur, 1967), is more vigorous if an S:J: is presented rather than a stimulus that has not been paired with reward.The present experiment compared the facilitative effects of a stimulus that has been paired noncontingently with reward on 50% of its presentations (S±) with the facilitative effects of a stimulus that has been paired with reward on 100% of its presentations (S:J:). It might be expected on a number of grounds that responding in the test phase would differ in the presence of an S± and an S:J:, although which stimulus will produce greater response facilitation is not clear. For example, within anticipatory response theory, which has often been applied to data from noncontingent pairing studies, it is possible to predict greater response 39is assumed that the anticipatory goal response, rg-Sg, is less strongly conditioned when a stimulus is partially rewarded rather than consistently rewarded, it would be predicted that an S± would produce less response facilitation than an S:J...

show abstract

Acquisition of a bar-press response to escape frustrative nonreward and reduced reward.

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

Effects of negative incentive shifts in food reward on rats' consumption of concurrent ethanol solutions

Brief exposure to a mild stressor enhances morphine-conditioned place preference in male rats

Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward: A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About