Change in the stimulus produced by nonreward as a function of time

Capaldi, E. J.; Minkoff, Robert

doi:10.3758/bf03330915

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One inconsistency with the present data and previous work using massed trials is the absence of an alley-change effect in the present data. Of course, finding some differences between short-and long-ITI phenomena should be expected since it has been argued from the sequential standpoint that the internal S N characteristic of massed trials and spaced trials may differ in some important respects (Capaldi, Berg, & Sparling, 1971;Capaldi & Minkoff, 1966).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is clear from previous research (Capaldi et al, 1971;Capaldi & Minkoff, 1966) that acquisition training at one ITI followed by extinction at a different ITI produces a decrement in extinction performance. These authors assumed that the decrement in extinction was produced because of differences between internal S N at the different ITIs, and that the mechanisms involved at both short and long ITIs were sequential in nature (e.g., N-R transitions).…”

Section: Experiments IImentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Resistance to extinction at spaced trials using the within-subject procedure.

Mellgren¹,

Seybert²

1973

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments IImentioning

confidence: 93%

Resistance to extinction at spaced trials using the within-subject procedure.

Mellgren¹,

Seybert²

1973

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the operant situation, rate of response might be thought of as analogous to intertrial interval in the discrete-trials procedure. It has been shown that extinction performance is affected by the combination of intertrial interval in acquisition and extinction (shifts from acquisition to extinction resulting in a decrement in resistance to extinction, Capaldi & Minkoff, 1966). Thus, in a procedure like the free operant where the interval between successive responses is not controlled by the E, it is difficult to attribute the extinction effects to the occurrence of preceding CRF trials vs some other explanation such as intertrial interval (or "interresponse interval").…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Mellgren

Lombardo

Wrather

et al. 1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to determine the importance of the developmen t of expectancy of reward prior to partial reward trials; rats were given 20 continuously reinforced trials prior to 20 partially reinforced trials (CRF-PRF) and compared to Ss given only 20 partially reinforced trials (PRF). Control groups received 20 or 40 continuously reinforced trials to determine the effect of differing numbers of acquisition trials. Results showed that terminal acquisition differences were minimal in the run segment of the alley and that Group CRF-PRF was more resistant to extinction than Group PRF, and both were more resistant to extinction than the CRF-20 and CRF-40 groups, which did not differ from each other. These results were interpreted as supporting the notion that the expectancy of reward on nomeward trials during partial reinforcement acquisition is a determiner of the magnitude of the partial reinforcement extinction effect.The frustration explanation of the partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) requires that the expectancy of reward (rr) be developed first so that later primary frustration (R F ) will occur on nonreward trials and subsequently the anticipation of frustration (rf) and its stimulus consequence (Sf) will be conditioned to approach (Amsel, 1967). If Sf has not been conditioned to approach at the start of extinction, then the PREE will not occur.Capaldi's sequential hypothesis requires only that nonreinforced trials be followed by a reinforced running trial in order to produce a PREE (Capaldi, 1966(Capaldi, , 1967. No mention is made of the necessity of establishing an expectancy of reward prior to partial reinforcement in order for PREE to occur, although recently Waters (1970) andCapaldi, Berg, andSparling (1971) have considered the possible importance of some form of frustration during PRF acquisition in governing resistance to extinction. Sutherland and Mackintosh (1971) claim that continuous reinforcement (establishing rr) prior to partial reinforcement training will reduce the PREE relative to a condition where only partial reinforcement training is given. This prediction is based on the notion that a determiner of the PREE is the number of stimulus analyzers which are switched in and that continuous reinforcement will strengthen only one analyzer and produce less resistance to extinction because only responses to this analyzer need to be weakened for

show abstract

“…For example, increasing the number of acquisition trials or exposures to the positive S-S* or R-S* contingency prior to extinction is likely to strengthen expectations of contingency and is generally found to increase resistance to extinction (e.g., Harris & Nygaard, 1961;Hull, 1943;Perin, 1942;Uhl & Young, 1967;but see Tombaugh, 1967). On the other hand, when experimental conditions involving intertrial interval (e.g., Capaldi & Minkoff, 1966;Sheffield, 1950), the stimulus context (e.g., Azrin & Holz, 1966), and trial duration (e.g., Capaldi, 1966;Hulse, 1958) are changed between acquisition and extinction, expectations of a positive contingency are likely to be weaker and resistance to extinction is usually decreased.…”

Section: The Joint Influence Of Expectation-and Data-based Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.

Alloy¹,

Tabachnik²

1984

Psychological Review

578

410

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we propose a theoretical framework for understanding and integrating people's and animals' covariation assessment. We argue that covariation perception is determined by the interaction between two sources of information: (a) the organism's prior expectations about the covariation between two events and (b) current situational information provided by the environment about the objective contingency between the events. Both accuracies and errors in people's and animals' covariation assessments are analyzed within this interactional theoretical framework. We then review four lines of research in support of this analysis. Finally, we consider the issue of accuracy versus rationality in covariation assessment.A consensus has been forming among learning, clinical, and social psychologists: The ability to detect the relationships or covariations among stimuli, behaviors, and outcomes in one's environment is an important component of adaptive behavior. The covariation between two events may be defined in terms of their co-occurrence (i.e., the degree to which one event occurs more often in the presence than in the absence of the other event). Information about the relationships or covariations between events in the world provides people and animals with a means of explaining the past, controlling the present, and predicting the future, thereby maximizing the likelihood that they can obtain desired outcomes and avoid aversive ones.The concept of covariation provides a cornerstone for a number of substantive areas within psychology. For example, contemporary learning theorists point to the role of ob-

show abstract

Change in the stimulus produced by nonreward as a function of time

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Resistance to extinction at spaced trials using the within-subject procedure.

Resistance to extinction at spaced trials using the within-subject procedure.

Partial reinforcement effect: The expectancy of reward on nonreward trials

Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About