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

Weinstein, Lawrence

doi:10.3758/bf03335443

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the consummatory response of partial rats would be relatively weaker than that of continuous rats and this would lead to a smaller cSNC eVect when magnitude is downshifted. There is some suggestion in the literature that increasing the amount of preshift training augments contrast size with human subjects (Weinstein, 1972); however, there is also evidence that rats minimally exposed to the 32% sucrose solution (e.g., one or two 5-min trials) still show evidence of cSNC (Flaherty, Becker, & Checke, 1983a). Whatever the case, the amount-of-training hypothesis cannot account for the small-but signiWcant-eVects of CDP reported in Experiment 2 because the number of reinforced and nonreinforced trials in Groups P/CDP and P/Sal was equal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successive negative contrast after partial reinforcement in the consummatory behavior of rats

Pellegrini

Muzio

Mustaca

et al. 2004

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successive negative contrast after partial reinforcement in the consummatory behavior of rats

Pellegrini

Muzio

Mustaca

et al. 2004

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Weinstein, 1972), a second experiment was conducted with children. The subjects (20 males and 24 females) who ranged in age from 6 to 13 years (mean = 9.39, SD = 1.79) were volunteers from the Teaneck Summer Arts and Crafts Program at the Teaneck Town House, Teaneck, New Jersey.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts in magnitude of reward with humans in the “straightaway”

Weitz

Lieberman

1975

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments, one with adults and one with children, were conducted to explore further the phenomenon of incentive contrast effects in a situation more analogous to the instrumental conditioning studies with rats than had previously been employed with humans. Subjects (44 adults and 44 children) rolled a marble along an inclined "straightaway" and into a goal cup at the end. The adult college students earned points toward their course grade for the completion of each trial, while the children were rewarded with tokens which were exchanged for candy. Both adults and children showed improvement in performance as training progressed, but no effect for reward magnitude was obtained, nor did changes in performance occur with shifts in magnitude of reward.Studies involving incentive shifts with animals have shown that subjects shifted from a larger to a smaller reward perform more poorly than subjects which have been trained consistently with the smaller value; conversely, the performance of subjects shifted from a smaller to a larger incentive is not superior to that of subjects which have always received the larger reward. That is, a "negative contrast effect" (NCE) in the absence of a "positive contrast effect" (PCE) has been the typical finding (cf. Black, 1968;Dunham, 1968).Several studies which are similar in conception to these incentive shift studies of simple instrumental conditioning with animal subjects have been conducted with humans. With a pursuit-rotor task, May and Black (1971), for example, obtained a NCE but no PCE in terms of subjects' persistence in responding following shifts in informative feedback with regard to the quality of their performance. The same results (a NCE, no PCE) were obtained by Calef, Calef, Bone, Thomas, and Fox (1971) with a star-tracing task in which subjects received points toward their course grade for each segment successfully completed in a given interval of time. In the case of human probability learning in which subjects guess which stimulus event will occur on each trial, shifts in the magnitude of reward received for a correct response have, however, produced conflicting results. In terms of the frequency with which the stimulus events are guessed, a NCE but no PCE; neither a NCE nor a PCE; and both a PCE and a NCE have all been reported

show abstract

“…That is to say, schedule, solidity of reinforcement, and magnitude of incentive change appear to be some of the variables which control incentive contrast effects in animals. At the human level, age, amount of pre shift training (e.g., Weinstein, 1972), and magnitude of reward change (e.g., Weinstein, 1970) are three of the very few factors that have been found to control the effects. No studies have examined the role that sex might play in producing contrast effects with animal or human organisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative and positive incentive contrast in humans with males vs females, monetary reinforcement, and reaction time

Weinstein

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative incentive contrast effects which were obtained for male human subjects by a reduction in the quantity of monetary incentives in a simple reaction time task failed to appear in female subjects. In a second experiment, male human subjects displayed positive contrast effects after an upshift in reward magnitude, while females failed to exhibit positive incentive contrast effects. While it appears that sex is a determiner of human incentive contrast effects, the present studies increased the generality of the observation of incentive contrast (1) from infrahumans to humans, and (2) from mental multiplication tasks with nonmonetary reinforcement to a reaction time task with monetary reinforcement.Negative incentive contrast is obtained when, consequent to a decrement in reward, quantity performance level falls significantly below the level of responding of a control group which continuously receives the smaller amount of reward; positive contrast effects occur when an increase in incentive magnitude produces a reliably higher level of performance than the performance level of control subjects. While it is somewhat less than realistic to suggest that the variables which control the occurrence of these phenomena in animals have been determined, it is even less clear what factors determine contrast effects at the human level. In general, in investigations involving infrahuman organisms, the further one departs from a paradigm of a continuous schedule of reinforcement, solid food reward, and large changes in reward magnitude, the less likely are contrast effects to occur. That is to say, schedule, solidity of reinforcement, and magnitude of incentive change appear to be some of the variables which control incentive contrast effects in animals. At the human level, age, amount of pre shift training (e.g., Weinstein, 1972), and magnitude of reward change (e.g., Weinstein, 1970) are three of the very few factors that have been found to control the effects. No studies have examined the role that sex might play in producing contrast effects with animal or human organisms. Experiment 1 attempted to ascertain how male and female human subjects respond to a reduction in the amount of monetary reward in a typical simple reaction time task. Experiment 2 attempted to determine how human subjects of both sexes react to an increase in quantity of monetary incentive in the characteristic reaction time situation.

show abstract

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

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Successive negative contrast after partial reinforcement in the consummatory behavior of rats

Successive negative contrast after partial reinforcement in the consummatory behavior of rats

Shifts in magnitude of reward with humans in the “straightaway”

Negative and positive incentive contrast in humans with males vs females, monetary reinforcement, and reaction time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About