Preacquisition exploration of the runway in the determination of contrast effects in the rat.

Weinstock, Roy B.

doi:10.1037/h0030688

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The failure to obtain contrast effects in the nondelay condition is consistent with sucrose studies in which initial shifts in magnitude of reward did not result in a PCE (Shanab et al, 1976) or a NCE (Flaherty et al, 1973;Shanab et al, 1976). Although a NCE is usually readily obtained in food studies under nondelay conditions (Dunham , 1968), some studies have reported negative results for NCE (Weinstock, 1971), as well as for PCE (McCain, Lobb, & Newberry, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…The failure to obtain a NCE in the delay condition and the absence of a PCE or NCE in the nondelay condition are obviously inconsistent with this prediction. The present results receive support from other studies in which a second shift in magnitude of food reward produced neither a significant PCEnor a significant NCE (McCain,Lobb, & Newberry, 1976 ;Weinstock, 1971). These findings , however, are to be contrasted with those of other studies that obtained contrast effects during a second shift with both food reward (Benefield et al, 1974) and sucrose reward (Shanab et al, 1976).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contrast effects as a function of delay and shifts in magnitude of water reward in thirsty rats

Spencer

Shanab

1979

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Contrast effects as a function of delay and shifts in magnitude of water reward in thirsty rats

Spencer

Shanab

1979

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Capaldi & Lynch, 1967;Maxwell et al, 1976;Weinstock, 1971) indicate that prior large-reward experience is not a sufficient condition for production of a SucPCE. Given the number of studies that have obtained SucPCEs without exposing the animals to prior large-reward experience, it appears that such experience is not a necessary condition for the occurrence of contrast.…”

Section: Positive Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for the effects of stable deprivation conditions on SucPCEs, the evidence is not clear. There are studies that have obtained SucPCEs when animals were not extremely deprived (e.g., Benefield et al, 1974;Marx, 1969;Shanab&Ferrell, 1970;Weinstock, 1971), and there are also studies that have obtained SucPCEs when animals were under more severe deprivation conditions (Crespi, 1942; Mellgren, 1971aMellgren, , 1972Mellgren et al, 1973;Shanab & Biller, 1972;Shanab & Cavallaro, 1975;Shanab & Ferrell, 1970). Ehrenfreund and Badia (1962) compared upward reward shifts directly at 85% and 95% ad-lib weight and obtained SucPC only in the 85% group (but recall that this study did not have unshifted control groups; the preshift baseline was used as the control condition).…”

mentioning

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

“…Crespi (1942) reasoned that in order to obtain a PCE the subject must first experience a frustratingly small reward before being shifted to large reward. Using food reward, Weinstock (1971) failed to replicate the double-shift PCE obtained by Crespi. However, several studies (Benefield, Oscos, & Ehrenfreund, 1974;Calef, 1972;Shanab & Ferrell, 1975) obtained significant PCE using food reward based on a double-shift procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative contrast effects obtained following shifts in liquid sucrose reward in thirsty rats

Shanab

Young

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a repeated shifts experiment four independent groups of thirsty rats received the following treatments: LSLS, LLLS, SSLS, and SSSS, with each letter denoting the magnitude (large or small) of sucrose reward received in each of the four phases of the experiment. While no negative contrast effect (NCE) was obtained in Phase 2, a very reliable positive contrast effect (PCE) was found in Phase 3. Moreover, a significant NCE was obtained in Phase 4. The results were explained in terms of the relative rather than absolute effects of reinforcement. Crespi (1942) was probably the first investigator to popularize the phenomenon of incentive contrast. He reported obtaining both a positive PCE) and a negative (NCE) contrast effect. Subjects shifted from small to larger rewards were observed to run at a faster rate than would be expected from a control group kept on large reward all the time (elation effect or PCE). Conversely, when subjects were shifted from large to a smaller reward, they undershot the level of the subjects receiving small reward all the time (depression effect or NeE). Attempts to replicate Crespi's findings of PCE have failed repeatedly. When appropriate controls for the ceiling effects were introduced, PCE was consistently obtained (Shanab, Birnbaum, & Cavallaro,' 1974). Recently, however, some studies have obtained PCE without such controls (cf. Weinstock, 1971).Crespi's findings of NCE in the runway based on shifts in food reward have been successfully replicated in many laboratories (Dunham, 1968). However, when either magnitude or concentration of liquid sucrose (Goodrich, 1962;Homzie & Ross, 1962;Ison & Rosen, 1968;Rosen, 1966;Rosen & Ison, 1965), or both magnitude and concentration of liquid sucrose were simultaneously downshifted (Barnes & Tombaugh, 1973;Flaherty, Riley, & Spear, 1973;Ison & Rosen, 1968), no NCE was obtained. The dependent variable in the previous studies was response speed. It should be noted that a NCE was reported with liquid sucrose when the dependent variable was either the frequency of the licking response (Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968), or the barpress response (CoIlier & Marx, 1959; Weinstein, 1970a, b).A closer examination of Crespi's design for positive contrast reveals that he used a double-shift in that his peE subjects originally recieved large reward followed by a shift first to small reward and then back to large reward. Crespi (1942) reasoned that in order to obtain a Reprint requests should be sent to Mitri E. Shanab,

show abstract

Preacquisition exploration of the runway in the determination of contrast effects in the rat.

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Contrast effects as a function of delay and shifts in magnitude of water reward in thirsty rats

Contrast effects as a function of delay and shifts in magnitude of water reward in thirsty rats

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

Positive and negative contrast effects obtained following shifts in liquid sucrose reward in thirsty rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About