Response strength as a function of delay of reward in a runway.

Frustration effect: The length of blocking interval and magnitude of incentive

“…Although the frustration effect was observed for all blocking intervals, the 4-sec interval, as in Experiment I, seemed to produce the maximum running speed. These findings do not contradict those of Holder et al (1957) in which they used 1-, 15-, and 45-sec delay intervals and observed a direct relationship between running speed and length of delay interval (a l-sec training interval was used). The present experiment revealed a similar relationship between running speed and the 0-, 12-, and 45-sec delay intervals, even though Holder et al used a between groups and the present study used a within subjects design (see Figure 2).…”

“…frustration by delay appears to be confounded with nonreinforcement in the Arnsel and Roussel study and in subsequent studies using their paradigm. In short, is Amsel's "frustration effect" due to removal of an anticipated reward in G" to delaying the approach to the reward in G 2 , or to a combination of both factors?The first study specifically designed to investigate the effects of varied intervals of delay in G, on A 2 running speeds of rats which were never reinforced in G, was conducted by Holder, Marx, Holder, and Collier (1957). Both the IS-sec and the 45-sec delay groups ran faster in A 2 than the l-sec delay group.…”

“…The first study specifically designed to investigate the effects of varied intervals of delay in G, on A 2 running speeds of rats which were never reinforced in G, was conducted by Holder, Marx, Holder, and Collier (1957). Both the IS-sec and the 45-sec delay groups ran faster in A 2 than the l-sec delay group.…”

The relative effects of nonreward and response thwarting on the frustration effect

“…It has been reliably demonstrated in a double runway apparatus consisting of start box (SE), first runway (R1), first goal box (G1)' second runway (R2), and second goal box (G2)' Typically (e.g., Amsel, 1958), Ss receive continuous reinforcement in G2 but are given nonrewarded trials interspersed with, or following, rewarded trials in G1' The increased vigor of responding in R2 on nonrewarded trials has been attributed (Amsel, 1958) to an increment in drive level contributed by frustration resulting from nonreward inG1' Results similar to those described in the foregoing have been observed in several studies (e.g., Holder, Marx, Holder, & Collier, 1957) in which the running response in a single runway was blocked for a few seconds before the S reached the goal box. The increment in vigor of the postdelay performance has been attributed (Brown & Farber,1951) to frustration arising from the thwarting of the ongoing instrumental approach response.…”

Partial blocking and the frustration effect

“…The frustration effect consisted of faster running in Alley 2 when the rat was not reinforced in the first goalbox. Scull (1973) has summarized the results of much of the research involving frustrative nonreinforcement.The first study specifically designed to investigate the effects of varied intervals of delay in a delay box on Alley 2 running speeds of rats that were never reinforced in the delay box was conducted by Holder, Marx, Holder, and Collier (1957). They observed that following training with a I-sec delay both the 15-sec and the 45-sec delay groups ran faster in Alley 2 than the l-sec delay group.…”