Effect of interpolated extinction and level of training on the "depression effect."

Vogel, John R.; Mikulka, Peter J.; Spear, Norman E.

doi:10.1037/h0023356

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is in aecord with most studies w ith infrahuman organisms (e.g., Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1966, 1968.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 72%

“…While it is not readily apparent which variables controI the occurrence of incentive contrast effects, age of the Ss and amount of preshift training are two variables whieh have been demonstrated to affect the magnitude or occurrenee of negative contrast effects in animals. Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear (1966, 1968 have reported that larger downward contrast effects in rats accompany increased preshift t r a i n i n g . Roberts (1966) has demonstrated that negative contrast effects which result from a reduction in incentive magnitude in 180-day-old mature rats ar e eliminated in 25-day-old immature animals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Magnitude of human incentive contrast as a function of amount of training and age

Weinstein

1972

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This result is in aecord with most studies w ith infrahuman organisms (e.g., Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1966, 1968.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnitude of human incentive contrast as a function of amount of training and age

Weinstein

1972

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There has been no work con-ducted to determine the relationship of these "elation" effects to the contrast effects that occur with concentration shifts discussed in the previous sections. However, it seems possible that these elation effects may be related to the SucPCEs that occur in instrumental behavior when a period of nonreinforcement is interpolated between periods of reinforcement (Harris et al, 1962;Shanab et al, 1974;Vogel, Mikulka, &Spear, 1966).…”

Section: Saccharin Elation Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Flaherty

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

313

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature relevant to incentive contrast effects is reviewed, with emphasis on the data published since the reviews by Black (1968) and Dunham (1968). Contrary to the evidence available for the earlier reviews, the current literature indicates that positive contrast is a reliable phenomenon. Its occurrence is facilitated by use of a constant delay of reward, use of a long runway, or possibly by a shift while a negative contrast effect, resulting from a previous shift, is still present in the animals' behavior. Positive contrast also occurs in consummatory behavior when sucrose or saccharin solutions are shifted. Conditions that are ineffective in producing positive contrast are reviewed, as are the effects of numerous variables on both successive and simultaneous contrast. In addition, positive and negative contrast effects resulting from shifts in delay or percentage of reward, contrast resulting from shifts in sucrose, saccharin, or ethanol solutions, contrast in choice behavior, and transsituational contrast are reviewed. The relationship of the data to several theoretical interpretations of contrast is also considered.Interpretation of the behavior changes that occur when a familiar reward is replaced by a novel, usually less preferred, reward has played an important role in the theoretical analysis of animal learning. For example, Tolman (1932) cited the behavior of a monkey when the familiar reward of a banana was replaced by a piece of lettuce as evidence favoring his view that animals learn expectancies of particular rewards in a learning situation. The behavioral description was obtained in a delayed-response experiment by Tinklepaugh (1928): "She [the monkey] extends her hand to seize the food. But her hand drops to the floor without touching it. She looks at the lettuce but (unless very hungry) does not touch it. She looks under and around her. She picks the cup up and examines it thoroughly inside and out. She has on occasion turned toward observers present in the room and shrieked at them in apparent anger. After several seconds spent searching, she gives a glance toward the other cup, which she has been taught not to look into, and then walks off to a nearby window. The lettuce is left untouched on the floor" (p. 224).In addition to supporting Tolman's expectancy interpretation of animal learning, this description contains elements that continue to be relevant as possible explanations of the behavioral changes that Appreciation is due Alexandra Avdzej for assistance in library research and to HowardBecker, SusanChecke, and MaryFlaherty for their comments on the manuscript. Preparation for this article was aided by grants from the Rutgers Research Council. The author's mailing addressis: Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey08903. occur subsequent to reward shifts, that is, the apparent presence of an emotional response elicited by the shift and the possibility that the animals search for the missing reward, given the opportunity.A rat study by Elli...

show abstract

“…Incentive motivational interpretations attribute this negative incentive-contrast effect to the occurrence of a reinforcing event that is of lesser magnitude than anticipated (Black, 1965;Bower, 1961). Failures to find contrast following downshifts of deprivation fail to support a simple analogy between shifts of reward quantity and shifts of the level of deprivation during instrumental performance.Mollenauer (1971) pointed out that most deprivationshift experiments included relatively few preshift trials, although the magnitude of contrast produced by the downshift of reward quantity increases with the number of preshift trials (Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1966). Mollenauer gave rats a large number of preshift runway trials (N = 75), with half the rats trained prior to l-h daily feeding sessions and the remaining rats trained following feeding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mollenauer (1971) pointed out that most deprivationshift experiments included relatively few preshift trials, although the magnitude of contrast produced by the downshift of reward quantity increases with the number of preshift trials (Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1966). Mollenauer gave rats a large number of preshift runway trials (N = 75), with half the rats trained prior to l-h daily feeding sessions and the remaining rats trained following feeding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive contrast produced by deprivation shifts

Eisenberger

Mirsky

Frank

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deprivation shifts, using conditions analogous to those which produce strong incentive contrast when reward quantity is changed (extended preshift training, short interval from the last preshift trial to the first postshift trial, large preshift differences in deprivation) resulted in contrast of runway speed and choice behavior, In the first experiment, a downshift of hunger during rats' runway training produced a slow lessening of speed below that of a group trained continually at low hunger. In the second experiment, rats were trained to traverse a runway to one food-containing goalbox when very hungry and to another, distinctively different food-containing goalbox when not very hungry. The rats were next given a series of choice trials between the two goalboxes. There was a brief preference for the high-hunger goalbox, followed by a preference for the low-hunger goalbox. The results of the second experiment suggest that deprivation affects the strength of conditioning of a cue-reinforcer expectancy, while the slow development of contrast in the first experiment indicates that deprivation also affects the development of either habit strength or a response-reinforcer expectancy.Rats switched from high to low hunger following a small number of rewarded runway trials run faster on initial rewarded postshift trials than do animals trained all along in the state of less hunger (Brush, Goodrich, Teghtsoonian, & Eisman, 1963 Mollenauer, 1971). Associative and incentive-motivational interpretations of this result have been offered. One associative explanation assumes that the level of deprivation at which a stimulus-response sequence is followed by consumatory stimulation affects the asymptotic value of the stimulus' tendency to evoke the response (Capaldi, 1972; Eisenberger et aI., 1973;Hovancik, 1978). Incentive-motivational interpretations hold that the level of deprivation at which consumatory stimulation occurs affects the strength of conditioning of reward expectancy to the exteroceptive and proprioceptive stimuli that precede the reward (Black, 1965; Bolles, 1958Bolles, , 1975 magnitude is decreased than when the lesser reward magnitude is employed all along. As with the downshift of deprivation level, the initial performance of animals receiving a reduction in reward during runway training is better than that of a group consistently receiving small reward. However, speed soon falls to a level less than that of the constant-smallreward group. Incentive motivational interpretations attribute this negative incentive-contrast effect to the occurrence of a reinforcing event that is of lesser magnitude than anticipated (Black, 1965;Bower, 1961). Failures to find contrast following downshifts of deprivation fail to support a simple analogy between shifts of reward quantity and shifts of the level of deprivation during instrumental performance.Mollenauer (1971) pointed out that most deprivationshift experiments included relatively few preshift trials, although the magnitude of contrast produced by the downshift of r...

show abstract

Effect of interpolated extinction and level of training on the "depression effect."

Cited by 38 publications

References 6 publications

Magnitude of human incentive contrast as a function of amount of training and age

Magnitude of human incentive contrast as a function of amount of training and age

Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward

Incentive contrast produced by deprivation shifts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About