Role of nonreinforcement-reinforcement sequences in the partial-reinforcement effect.

Conditioned reinforcement strength as a function of the pattern of reward and nonreward

“…These results suggest that N•length is the factor responsible for the greater strength of conditioned reinforcement acquired by a stimulus paired with a partial reinforcement schedule, and they extend Capaldi's (1966Capaldi's ( , 1967 sequential effects hypothesis to conditioned reinforcement. The results of the present study, taken in conjunction with those of McCausland (1969), also support Koteskey & Stettner's (1968) contention that a discrirnination of the reinforcement pattern can attenuate the effects of the pattern on resistance to extinction.…”

Influence of order of occurrence of non-reward and large and small reward on acquisition and extinction.

“…Other massed-trial studies (e.g., Tyler, Wortz, & Bitterman, 1953) reported that resistance to extinction increased as N-length increased (e.g., NNR vs. NRR, N-length = 2 and 1, respectively). Recently, Koteskey and Stettner (1968), in two spaced-trial studies (ITI = 20 min. and 15 min.…”

The effect of unreinforced-reinforced sequences on resistance to extinction following partial reinforcement

“…A eomparison of the control group with all other groups yielded F(I,45) = 23.39, p< .01, so the experimental groups were more resistant to extinction than the control group. DISCUSSION This experiment was eonducted und er the same conditions as the Koteskey & Stettner (1968) experiments, so the results differences between either the start or run speed means for Groups E and C. However, Group C speeds were significantly faster than Group D speeds in both start and run measures (p< .05). Group E speeds were significantly faster than Group D speeds in the start measure (p < .05) and differed only slightly less significantly in the run measure (p < .075).…”

“…Grosslight & Radlow (1957) had found that for the increased resistance to extinction to be found the nonreinforcements must be followed by a reinforcement within a day's block of trials. Koteskey & Stettner (1968) reasoned that in increasing the number of nonreinforcements, the number of unreinforcedreinforced (UR) sequences would also be increased and this may be the variable which is responsible for the magnitude of the PRE. They concluded, by elimination, that the crocial variable was the number of UR sequences.…”