Effects of daily reward sequence on simultaneous and successive negative contrast in rats.

Abstract

Previous work has suggested that the sequence of reward magnitude experience influences successive negative contrast effects (NCEs). The present study investigated the role of sequence in simultaneous NCEs. Two groups of rats (n = 10) were differentially conditioned for 84 trials in a blackwhite runway for large (L) and small (S) reward. Group SL received no daily L-S transitions; Group LS received no daily S-L transitions. Subsequently, subjects received 15 S trials in their former L runway. Only Group LS evidenced both simultaneous and successive NCEs relative to a smallreward control group (Group SS). The results were interpreted as suggesting the importance of sequential variables in NCEs involving differential conditioning. The implications for both the sequential hypothesis and frustration theory were discussed.

Performance in differential instrumental conditioning as a function of the pattern of partial S+ reward

“…Finally, Group R-N ran more slowly on the second S-trial of the day than on the first daily S-trial. Analysis of obtained are not attributable to sequential variables elsewhere shown to influence S-responding (Campbell & Meyer, 1971;Meyer & Campbell, 1973).…”

“…There would appear to be no evidence directly relevant to this assumption, though there are data implicating the sequence in which S+ and S-trials are administered as an important determinant of S-behavior (Campbell & Meyer, 1971;Meyer & Campbell, 1973). The present paper reports two experiments, each of which replicates in substance the *This research was supported in part by research grant GB30510 from the National Science Foundation.…”

Serial learning, interitem associations, phrasing cues, interference, overshadowing, chunking, memory, and extinction

“…The shift to an extinction series employed here, however, has a marked advantage: N-R transitions have been examined in a wide variety of more orthodox instrumental learning situations and with effects similar to those obtained here. Thus, N-R transitions have been shown to reduce discriminative responding (e.g., Capaldi et al, 1975;Capaldi et al, 1984;Haggbloom, 1980bHaggbloom, , 1982, to retard reversal learning in discrimination tasks (e.g., Grosslight & Radlow, 1956;Haggbloom & Tillman, 1980), to reduce the simultaneous and successive negative contrast effects (Campbell & Meyer, 1971;Capaldi & Ziff, 1969), and to elevate resistance to extinction: in punishment situations (Capaldi & Levy, 1972), in escape situations (Seybert, lobe, & Eckert, 1974), in the S+ alternative of discrimination tasks (e.g., Capaldi et aI., 1975;Haggbloom, 1980b), and in reward schedule situations in animals (e.g., Capaldi, 1964Capaldi, , 1967Leonard, 1969) and people (e.g., Grosslight, Hall, & Murin, 1953). Similarities of the sort noted above support the view that serial learning, whatever its unique characteristics, may be viewed as continuous with various more orthodox instrumental learning situations.…”

Observation of the behavior of rats running to reward and nonreward in an alleyway ...

“…There is some informal evidence that downshifts in amount of reward may indeed engender competing behavior in the alleyway and that upshifts may reduce or eliminate it (Crespi, 1942 (Hammer, 1971 (Bindra, 1963;Marx & Brownstein, 1963;Miller & Miles, 1935), and incidental observations throughout the literature support this suggestion (Bruce, 1937;Campbell & Meyer, 1971;Crespi, 1942;Hammer, 1971;Hicks, 1911;Kello, unpublished observation).…”

“…Presumably, when overall run time is longer, e.g., early in training, the rats are simply running more slowly (King, 1959;Logan, 1959;Marx &: Brownstein, 1963;Spence, 1956 Bruce, 1935Bruce, , 1937Campbell & Meyer, 1971;Crespi, 1942;Graham & Gagne, 1940;Hammer, 1971;Hicks, 1911;Miller & Miles, 1936;Miller & Stevenson, 1936). When time-consuming "competing" behavior is occurring, the overall run time measure would obviously not directly reflect the rate of running.…”