Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons

DiGian, Kelly A.; Friedrich, Andrea; Zentall, Thomas R.

doi:10.3758/bf03196717

Cited by 44 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have examined the relation between the delay of reinforcement in prior events and the following stimuli (Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, & Zentall, 2008;DiGian et al, 2004). These studies reported that when participants were given a choice between the S+ that followed a delay and the S+ that followed no delay, they showed a significant preference for the delayed as compared to the not-delayed S+.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The within-trial contrast hypothesis (WTC) provides a more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon that humans and animals prefer outcomes that follow more effortful events to outcomes that follow less effortful events (Zentall, 2013). We conducted two WTC experiments with human adults. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the difficulty of a preceding event by varying the interresponse time and the limited-hold interval during differential reinforcement with a low response rate schedule, to examine the effect of effort on the preference for the subsequent stimuli. In Experiment 2, we attempted to identify the variables that had affected the results of Experiment 1, by manipulating time as the delay of reinforcement. The results showed preferences based on WTC only when participants made a high rate of incorrect responses in the preceding event, which was used as an index of the strength of individual effort. These results extend the findings of previous human WTC studies and suggest that the difficulty of a task could serve as an aversive event that affects the WTC effect. It is possible that an index based on performance in the preceding event would provide useful information for predicting the contrast effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies investigated the validity of the WTC to measure the influences of response frequency (e.g., Clement et al, 2000), delay of reinforcement (DiGian, Friedrich, & Zentall, 2004), and other efforts. Furthermore, the experimental paradigm of Clement et al (2000) has been used with humans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clement et al described their results as a "work ethic" effect, because the pigeons preferred stimuli that were associated with increased response effort. Subsequent research has found evidence for similar value enhancement by within-trial contrast effects for stimuli that follow a delay versus those that do not follow a delay (DiGian, Friedrich, & Zentall, 2004), for stimuli that are associated with a low probability of alternative reinforcement versus those that are associated with a high probability of alternative reinforcement (Clement & Zentall, 2002), and for stimuli that follow nonreinforcement versus those that follow reinforcement (Friedrich, Clement, & Zentall, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations

Arantes

Grace

2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common view among researchers in learning and conditioning is that the associative strength or value of a stimulus varies inversely with respect to the context of reinforcement in which it occurs. This view provides an intuitively appealing account of a wide range of phenomena known collectively as contrast effects (Flaherty, 1996;Williams, 2002). For example, a stimulus that is correlated with a given rate of reinforcement will maintain a higher response rate when the reinforcement rate correlated with an alternative stimulus is relatively low than when it is relatively high (Reynolds, 1961;Williams, 1983). The elevation in response rate presumably reflects the increased value of the stimulus due to its occurrence in an overall lean context of reinforcement. Yet results of studies in which preference tests have been used to assess value independently of response rate have sometimes obtained paradoxical results (e.g., that positive contrast can be accompanied by decreased stimulus value in preference tests; Williams, 1991Williams, , 1992, and unraveling the complexities of these findings has proven to be a complex undertaking (Williams & McDevitt, 2001; see Williams, 2002, for review).The focus of the present research is a particular type of contrast effect, defined as within-trial contrast by Zentall (2005). The initial demonstration of this effect was a report by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In their experiment, pigeons were trained on two simultaneous discriminations that differed in terms of the effort required. One discrimination required relatively little effort-a single response (FR1) to a center key-before the S and S stimuli appeared (red and yellow illumination of the side keys), whereas the other discrimination required relatively high effort (20 center-key responses; FR20) before the S and S stimuli appeared (green and blue illumination of the side keys). After pigeons were performing both discriminations to a high degree of accuracy, Clement et al. arranged a transfer test in which both S or both S stimuli appeared (i.e., S FR1 vs. S FR20 or S FR1 vs. S FR20 ). They found that the pigeons preferred both the S and the S stimuli from the FR20 discrimination, and moreover, that this preference did not depend on the event that initiated the test trial (FR1 or FR20 response requirements on the center key, or no response requirement).To explain these results, Clement et al. (2000) suggested that the value of a stimulus depended on the relative change in the animal's hedonic state. Because the FR20 was a more effortful requirement, the appearance of the S FR20 signaled University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New ZealandThe present research tested the generality of the "work ethic" effect described by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiment 1, we trained 10 pigeons on a pair of either simultaneous or successive discriminations. One discrimination followed a high-effort requirement (20 pecks to the center key) and the other followed a low-effort requirement (1 peck). Con...

show abstract

“…In particular, avians show a preference for discriminative stimuli that follow ostensibly more aversive events over those that follow less aversive events. For example, avians have been shown to prefer discriminative stimuli that follow high effort (Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, & Zentall, 2000;Kacelnik & Marsh, 2002), long delays to reinforcement (DiGian, Friedrich, & Zentall, 2004), and the absence of food (Friedrich, Clement, & Zentall, 2005) over stimuli that follow low effort, short delays, and presence of food, respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast

Vasconcelos

Urcuioli

2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within-trial contrast has been proposed as a mechanism underlying preferences for stimuli that follow relatively more aversive events over stimuli that follow less aversive events. In this study, we manipulated deprivation level to test within-trial contrast predictions. In Experiment 1, pigeons encountered two discriminative stimuli, one presented when they were deprived and the other when they were prefed. When later given a choice between the two stimuli, pigeons strongly preferred the stimulus encountered when deprived, independently of their deprivation level at test. In Experiment 2, pigeons learned two simultaneous discriminations, one when deprived and the other when prefed. Here, subsequent tests between the two S or the two S stimuli revealed no consistent preferences. These contrasting findings suggest that differential aversiveness is necessary but not sufficient to induce preferences via within-trial contrast.

show abstract

Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons

Cited by 44 publications

References 8 publications

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast

Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations

Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About