Behavioral contrast and frustration effect in multiple and mixed fixed-interval schedules in the rat.

Scull, John; Davies, Kathryn; Amsel, Abram

doi:10.1037/h0029160

Cited by 82 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The frustration effect is customarily derived as a within-subjects measure by subtracting a performance value following a reinforced occasion from the corresponding value following an occasion on which reinforcement is omitted (Amsel, 1958 The present results have implications for the interpretation of behavioral contrast in terms of frustrative nonreward (e.g., Scull, et al, 1970;Terrace, 1968, p. 738). For example, frustrative-nonreward theory predicts the occurrence of behavioral contrast when there are shifts in reinforcement magnitude that produce response-rate changes.…”

Section: Sutmmaiy Of Performance With Each Flmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Performance following reinforcement omission has been studied with a variety of species in a number of different situations (e.g., Amsel and Roussel, 1952;Davenport, Flaherty, and Dyrud, 1966;Gonzalez, 1970;Scull, Davies, and Amsel, 1970; Staddon and Innis, 1966;Zimmerman, 1971). Although different specific phenomena have been studied in this type of experiment, one general outcome has been universally obtained, i.e., after a history of reinforcement of a given response, response rates are higher following omission of reinforcement than following reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although different specific phenomena have been studied in this type of experiment, one general outcome has been universally obtained, i.e., after a history of reinforcement of a given response, response rates are higher following omission of reinforcement than following reinforcement. This basic finding of the reinforcement-omission procedure has been variously labelled frustration (Scull, et al, 1970), behavioral contrast (Staddon and Innis, 1966), or absence of an inhibitory effect of reinforcement (Kello, 1972;Staddon, 1967Staddon, , 1970b gation was designed to provide data bearing on the alternative interpretations implied by these different labels through an exploration of variations in reinforcement magnitude upon response rate following reinforcement and reinforcement omission.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

Jensen

Fallon

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Sutmmaiy Of Performance With Each Flmentioning

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

Jensen

Fallon

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and-respond pattern following reinforcement (e.g., Fl, FR) is higher than response rate following reinforcement on those schedules (the omission or "frustration" effect: Scull, Davies, and Amsel, 1970;Staddon and Innis, 1969;McMillan, 1971). Response rate following nonreinforcement on a schedule that produces a respond-and-pause pattern following reinforcement has recently been shown to be lower than the rate following reinforcement on that schedule (Staddon, 1970b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON TEMPORAL GO—NO‐GO SCHEDULES¹

Staddon

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Either a partial blackout, or the blackout plus a "feeder flash", occurred in lieu of reinforceiiment on two procedures that produced opposite patterns of responding after reinforcement. Response rate was elevated after reinforcement omission on the procedure that produced a "pause-and-respond" pattern following reinforcement, but depressed after reinforcement omission on the procedure that produced a "respond-and-pause" pattern. The effect of blackout plus feeder flash was generally intermediate between the effects of blackout and the effects of reinforcement. These results are consistent with an interpretation of reinforcement omission effects in terms of the discriminative temporal control exerted by reinforcement and stimuli similar to it.

show abstract

“…The most parsimonious explanation is, therefore, that at least in some cases (see Kello, 1972, for an exception), the reinforcement-omission effect results from a depression of operant performance immediately after receiving a reinforcer caused by a transient state of demotivation. A more complete test of the primary frustration hypothesis demands an assessment of performance following N cycles in which the nonreinforcement episode is either unexpected, and hence presumably frustrating, or expected, and hence not frustrating (see, e.g., Scull, Davies, & Amsel, 1970).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of nonreinforcement in the fixed-interval performance of pigeons

Papini

Hollingsworth

1998

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fixed-interval (F1) schedules have been used extensively to study timing abilities. In F1 schedules, animals typically show higher response rates immediately after nonreinforced (N) cycles rather than reinforced (R) cycles (the reinforcement-omission effect), and they exhibit the highest rate approximately at the time when the reinforcer is scheduled to occur (peak performance). The present experiments were designed to determine the extent to which factors other than timing contribute significantly to these two learning phenomena. Pigeons were trained in an F116-sec schedule in which half the cycles were R and half were N. When successive cycles were separated by a 2-sec interval, responding early in the F1 interval was higher after an N cycle than after an R cycle. This reinforcementomission effect was eliminated when the interval between cycles was increased to 12 sec, because of an increase in performance after R cycles. In addition, timing of the 16-sec interval was assessed by interpolating 32-sec test cycles (all N cycles) at two rate5-€ither 1 test cycle every other session, or 25 test cycles per session. Peak performance, presumably indexing the animal's ability to time the 16-sec interval, emerged only with 25 test cycles per day, but not with 1 test cycle every other day, despite extensive training with the target, 16-sec-Iong interval. These results suggest that transient demotivation and time-based discrimination contribute significantly to the reinforcement-omission effect and peak performance, respectively. 84Arranging a regular distribution of reinforcers in time, as in a fixed-interval (FI) schedule of reinforcement, is a procedure that has been used extensively to study the timing abilities of organisms (Lejeune & Wearden, 1991). It has long been recognized that unexpected nonreinforced (N) cycles are followed by higher response rates than reinforced (R) cycles are (Staddon & Innis, 1966). This phenomenon, referred to as the reinforcementomission effect, has been linked to a variety of mechanisms, including the role of reinforcement in resetting the internal clock used to estimate the duration of the interval (Mellon, Leak, Fairhurst, & Gibbon, 1995). However, as Mellon et al. noted, when the reinforcement and other associated cues are omitted, animals face what is essentially a longer FI cycle. This situation approaches the conditions of the peak procedure, in which an unusually long test cycle is interpolated with shorter training cycles to assess the animal's ability to estimate the duration of the short interval. Animals exhibit peak performance-that is, a maximum response rate in the long test cycle at approximately the time within the interval when reinforcement is usually scheduled to occur (S. Roberts, 1981). In the present experiments, we examined the contribution of factors other than timing to these learning phenomena.The research reported in this paper was partially supported by TCU/RF Grant 5-23832 to M.R.P. Requests for reprints may be sent to M. R. Papini, Department of Psychology...

show abstract

Behavioral contrast and frustration effect in multiple and mixed fixed-interval schedules in the rat.

Cited by 82 publications

References 19 publications

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON TEMPORAL GO—NO‐GO SCHEDULES¹

Role of nonreinforcement in the fixed-interval performance of pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Behavioral contrast and frustration effect in multiple and mixed fixed-interval schedules in the rat.

Cited by 82 publications

References 19 publications

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE1

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE1

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON TEMPORAL GO—NO‐GO SCHEDULES1

Role of nonreinforcement in the fixed-interval performance of pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

BEHAVIORAL AFTEREFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ITS OMISSION AS A FUNCTION OF REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE¹

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON TEMPORAL GO—NO‐GO SCHEDULES¹