Effect of continued nonreinforcement on the frustration effect.

Abstract

A total of 72 preshift and 144 postshift trials in the double alley runway was given to 48 female hooded rats randomly assigned to the following 3 groups: Groups 100-50, 100-0, and 0-0, designated according to preshift and postshift percentage reinforcement in the 1st goal box (Gi). Following the introduction of nonreinforcement, 2nd alley starting speeds for both Group 100-0 and Group 100-50 on Gi nonreinforced trials were enhanced. The facilitative effects of nonreinforcement dissipated for Group 100-0, but persisted for Group 100-50. Group 100-50 1st alley starting speeds increased while Group 100-0 speeds decreased following the introduction of nonreinforcement. The results were interpreted as supportive of the frustration theory assumption that the parameters of frustration are dependent upon the strength of reward expectancy in the 1st alley.1 This experiment represents a portion of a dissertation submitted to the Psychology Department of the State University of Iowa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Kenneth W. Spence for advice and assistance throughout the course of the investigation. The experiment was conducted during the author's tenure as a National Science Foundation Cooperative Graduate Fellow.

The Effects of Nonreinforcement and Incentive Value on Response Speed

“…McHose (1963) has reported a similar finding for rats performing in the first alley of a double runway. In a single-lever study with preschool Ss (Cantor & Ryan 1964;Ryan & Cantor, 1962) Group 50 did not demonstrate significantly faster starting speeds; in fact, Group 100 was starting faster than Group 50 for a considerable number of trials.…”

Extinction of a Discrete-Trial Bar-Press as a Function of Percentage Reinforcement, Reinforcement Cue, and Manipulandum Condition

“…The superiority of the 50% reinforced Ss was due to significantly faster response speeds after nonreinforced ( N R ) trials than after reinfoiced ( R ) trials, a result similar to what had been obtained in double-runways by Amsel and Roussel ( 1952), Wagner ( 1959), and McHose ( 1963. The superiority of the 50% reinforced Ss was due to significantly faster response speeds after nonreinforced ( N R ) trials than after reinfoiced ( R ) trials, a result similar to what had been obtained in double-runways by Amsel and Roussel ( 1952), Wagner ( 1959), and McHose ( 1963.…”

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

“…The Peckham and Amsel experiment has to be interpreted cautiously because of a number of methodological difficulties (discussed in detail by Staddon, 1970b, pp. 235-236) Although discussions of "inhibitory" effects of reinforcement on second-alley performance in the double runway have occasionally appeared in the frustrative-nonreward literature (e.g., Hamm, 1967;McHose, 1963;McHose and and Gavelek, 1969;Seward, Pereboom, Butler, and Jones, 1957), on the whole, frustrative-nonreward theory has taken the strong view that reinforcement omission has a facilitative effect, and has minimized or ignored the possibility that reinforcement may have an inhibitory function. Collateral evidence from several sources (e.g., Terrace, 1966) has given this position a wide credibility.…”