Motivational properties of frustration: I. Effect on a running response of the addition of frustration to the motivational complex.

Amsel, Abram; Roussel, Jacqueline

doi:10.1037/h0059393

Cited by 427 publications

(279 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

251

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These group data are representative of indiv~duaJ Ss ' in that all four Ss exhibited the FE in nearly every session that is portrayed in the figure, but they conceal a substantial divergence among Ss in its extent. Figure 1 emphasizes the regularity with which the FE appeared, the fact that it was more clearly seen with the starting than with the ratio speed measure, and (phase 3) that its primary form was a speed-up on F trials, as obtained by Amsel & Roussel (1952) and Wagner (1959), rather than a slowing-down on R trials. We interpret the temporary reduction in the FE at session 26 as reflecting "pellet-hunting" behavior elicited by the empty feeder click presented on F trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Amsel frustration effect in monkeys

Davenport

Thompson

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ab8traetFour adolescent stumptail macaques were tested in a discrete-trials retractable-lever analogue of the double runway commonly used to study frustration effects in rats. Each trial consisted of fixed-ratio responding on a left lever followed by an identical contingency on a right lever. In agreement with runway data in rats, right-lever responses were faster following nonreinforcement than following reinforcement of left-lever responses . ProblemAlthough the instrumental learning research of Amsel (1962) and others on frustration has developed into one of the major lines of inquiry in learning research, nearly all of this work has been conducted with rats trained in a double runway. In the present study, we attempted to demonstrate the frustration effect (FE) in monkeys using procedures similar to those in the double-runway studies by Amsel & Roussel (1952) and Wagner (1959). Since the use of an actual runway for monkeys presented practical difficulties, an operant analogue of the double runway was employed.Using a standard monkey test chamber equipped with two retractable levers, we devised a schedule which may be designated "discrete-trials fixed-ratio (left) fixedratio (right)," or DT-FRLFRR' In this schedule trials were given in which Ss completed a fixed number of responses on the left lever followed by an equal number of responses on the right lever. The first half of each trial ended with either reward (R trial) or non reward (F trial), and the left and right "halves" of a trial were separated by a mid-trial interval (MTI) during which both levers were retracted. With appropriate cues added, the period of responding on the left lever was considered analogous to the "Alley 1" portion of double-runway trials, the right-lever responding to "Alley 2" responding, and the MTI to "mid-box confinement time". This schedule is a simple extension of the discrete-trials single-FR runway analogue used by Karsh (1964) and Porter and Hug (1965). Me.hod Subjects .The Ss were four adolescent females of the species Macaca speciosa which had previous training on various intermittent reinforcement schedules in free-operant conditioning and in discrimination reversal learning in a Y-maze. Apparatus .The apparatus was a Lehigh Valley 1317 operant test chamber equipped with left and right retractable levers, 3-color cue lights above each lever, a set of house lights, and a Davis pellet feeder. ThePsychon . Sci. , 1965, Vol. 3 feeder dispensed 45-or 97-mg sucrose pellets into a food cup located 3 in below a point midway between the levers, which were 14 in apart. All functions of the test chamber were automatically programmed and recorded. Trial Procedure.Training began with the basic schedule used throughout the experiment-discrete trials in which S completed a fixed number of responses on the left lever followed by an equal number on the right lever. The left lever was inserted into the chamber coincident with the onset of the house lights and a green flashing (10/sec.) left cue light. The latter signal remained on throu...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, we attempted to demonstrate the frustration effect (FE) in monkeys using procedures similar to those in the double-runway studies by Amsel & Roussel (1952) and Wagner (1959). Since the use of an actual runway for monkeys presented practical difficulties, an operant analogue of the double runway was employed.…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Amsel frustration effect in monkeys

Davenport

Thompson

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Testing for these discriminative properties is an extinction operation, however (like any generalization test), and if prolonged will naturally result in the stimulus in question becoming aversive, in exactly the same way that any stimulus in the presence of which responding has been extinguished becomes aversive (Terrace, 1966). The effects observed on the first few reinforcement omissions reflect the discriminative rather than the aversive properties, however, since the latter develop only gradually; thus the frustration effect appears at once (Amsel & Roussel, 1952), but behavioral contrast, one indicator of aversiveness due to extinction, takes some time to develop (Reynolds, 1961).…”

Section: Runway Results and Frustration Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If food is occasionally omitted in the mid-goalbox of a double runway apparatus, hungry rats will run faster down the second alley on those trials than on trials when they are fed in the mid-goalbox (the frustration effect, Amsel & Roussel, 1952). This effect has been attributed to an active, motivational effect of nonreward (fiustrutive nonreward, Amsel, 1958).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal effects of reinforcement: A negative “frustration” effect

Staddon

1970

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforcement omission in situations that show positive goal-gradients elevates subsequent responding (positive "frustration" effect). In this experiment, in a situation showing a negative goal-gradient, reinforcement omission depressed subsequent responding (negative "frustration" effect). A simple hypothesis in terms of discriminative after-effects of reinforcement accounts for both effects. The same interpretation is adequate to describe frustration effects in runways and avoids problems faced by frustration theory. Some further tests of the hypothesis are proposed.

show abstract

“…The frustration effect (FE) refers to the increase of response speed following nonreinforcement of a previously reinforced response (Amsel & Roussel, 1952). Wagner (1959) devised a technique to allow comparison of the response facilitation produced by frustrative nonreinforcement with facilitation produced by chronic nonreinforcement, i.e., that facilitation commonly called contrast effects (e.g., Nevin & Shettleworth, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%