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

McHose, James H.; Blackwell, David R.

doi:10.3758/bf03209100

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the incentive averaging view, Groups 16/0-0 and 2-0 performed alike in S-and ran faster than Group 8-0. Recently, differences in S-behavior have been obtained among groups given the same average incentive but different trial sequences (Haggbloom, 1978(Haggbloom, , 1979(Haggbloom, , 1980McHose & Blackwell, 1975). That fact is not in itself particularly damaging to the incentive averaging view; when there are no incentive differences among groups, sequential variables may assume greater importance in determining S-behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These schedule effects on resistance to discrimination parallel the effects of comparable schedules on resistance to extinction following partial reinforcement. The results are discussed in terms of sequential theory, reinforcement level theory, and their implications for various schedule manipulations that have previously shown S-behavior to be inversely related to average reward in S+.Two factors have been shown to be particularly important in regulating behavior to the negative (S-) stimulus during differential conditioning, trial sequence (Capaldi, Berg, & Morris, 1975;Haggbloom, 1978Haggbloom, , 1979Haggbloom, , 1980McHose & Blackwell, 1975) and the difference between the average incentive associated with the two discriminanda (McHose, 1970).The incentive averaging view is illustrated by an experiment reported by McHose, Maxwell, and McHewitt (1971, Experiment 4). In that experiment, all groups received nonreward (N) in S-; one group received eight and another two 45-mg food pellets on all S+ trials; and a third group, crucial to the incentive averaging view, received a 50% partial reinforcement (PRF) schedule in S+, obtaining 16 pellets on rewarded (R) trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent experiments indicate that sequential variables known to regulate resistance to extinction following PRF have a highly similar effect on extinction of behavior in S-during differential conditioning (Haggbloom, 1978(Haggbloom, , 1979(Haggbloom, , 1980McHose & Blackwell, 1975). Among the more powerful sequential effects in differential conditioning, as in PRF (Capaldi, 1966), is that of transitions from N to R trials (N-R transitions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two factors have been shown to be particularly important in regulating behavior to the negative (S-) stimulus during differential conditioning, trial sequence (Capaldi, Berg, & Morris, 1975;Haggbloom, 1978Haggbloom, , 1979Haggbloom, , 1980McHose & Blackwell, 1975) and the difference between the average incentive associated with the two discriminanda (McHose, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reward sequence and reinforcement level as determinants of S− behavior in differential conditioning

Haggbloom

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two differential conditioning experiments, groups of 10 rats each differed with respect to average reward and schedule of reward received in S+. Nonreward (N) occurred on all Strials. In both experiments, extinction of responding to S-(resistance to discrimination) was extensively regulated by reward sequence and was largely independent of average reward. In Experiment I, resistance to discrimination was a function of transitions from N to rewarded (R) trials (N-R transitions). In Experiment 2, resistance to discrimination was increased by large reward on the R trial of N-R transitions and decreased by large reward on the R trial of R-N transitions. These schedule effects on resistance to discrimination parallel the effects of comparable schedules on resistance to extinction following partial reinforcement. The results are discussed in terms of sequential theory, reinforcement level theory, and their implications for various schedule manipulations that have previously shown S-behavior to be inversely related to average reward in S+.Two factors have been shown to be particularly important in regulating behavior to the negative (S-) stimulus during differential conditioning, trial sequence (Capaldi, Berg, & Morris, 1975;Haggbloom, 1978Haggbloom, , 1979Haggbloom, , 1980McHose & Blackwell, 1975) and the difference between the average incentive associated with the two discriminanda (McHose, 1970).The incentive averaging view is illustrated by an experiment reported by McHose, Maxwell, and McHewitt (1971, Experiment 4). In that experiment, all groups received nonreward (N) in S-; one group received eight and another two 45-mg food pellets on all S+ trials; and a third group, crucial to the incentive averaging view, received a 50% partial reinforcement (PRF) schedule in S+, obtaining 16 pellets on rewarded (R) trials. Where the numerals indicate S+ and S-reward, these groups can be identified, respectively, as Groups 8-0, 2-0, and 16/0-0.Using formulas suggested by McHose (1970) for computing average incentive, McHose et al. (1971) showed that the average incentive disparity between S+ and S-was equal in Groups 16/0-0 and 2-0 and less than that in Group 8-0. Consistent with the incentive averaging view, Groups 16/0-0 and 2-0 performed alike in S-and ran faster than Group 8-0.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reward sequence and reinforcement level as determinants of S− behavior in differential conditioning

Haggbloom

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When rats are administered a fixed pattern of rewarded (R) and nonrewarded (N) trials on each of several preshift training days, the specific pattern of Rand N events influences the NCE despite the fact that, from thẽ esent viewpoint, the different patterns yield identical Ks (Capaldi & Ziff, 1969). An effect of R-N patterns on contrast effects in differential conditioning has also been obtained (McHose & Blackwell, 1975). The application of averaging theory to the effects of pattern or order of reward events can be accomplished by the ad-hoc assignment of different incentive-determining weights to the successive reward events within a training day.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%