Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Abstract

Rhesus, stumptail, and squirrel monkeys and rats were tested in various retractable-lever analogues of the double runway commonly used to study the Amsel frustration effect in rats. Variation of the midtrial interval (MIl) In a previous report (Davenport & Thompson, 1965) the Amsel frustration effect (FE) was demonstrated in stumptail monkeys in a dual-retractable-lever analogue of the double runway in which S 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 nonreward (F trial), and the left and right halves of a trial were separated by a midtrial interval (MTI) during which both levers were retracted . The FE, defined as faster right-hand responding on F than on R trials, appeared consistently in all Ss whenever the MTI was 5 sec.In this report we present data from subsequent research bearing on the temporal persistence of frustration as revealed by experimental manipulation of the MTI. In the course of this work further generality of the FE, to other species and other automated 2-lever procedures, was demonstrated. MetllodSs were two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), two stumptail monkeys (Macaca speciosa), two squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciurea), and two albino rats. All were adults having previous experience in leverpressing situations involving intermittent reinforcement.Three Lehigh Valley 1317 monkey test chambers and a Lehigh 1316 rat chamber were used. Each chamber was equipped as in the previous study (Davenport & Thompson, 1965), with 97-mg sucrose pellets for the macaques, 75-mg Ciba banana pellets for the squirrel monkeys, and 45-mg Noyes rat pellets for the rats. The basic trial procedure was the same as in the previous study except for the MTI and reinforcement schedule manipulations and the use of a longer intertrial interval averaging 2 min.The Ss received 100 sessions involving a total of 2,080 trials. In the first 84 sessions, the MTI was held constant at 5 sec. while the Ss were given baseline Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. 6 (9) training and frustration test sessions on three different 2-lever schedules, designated DT-FR1LFR1R (single response on each lever), DT-FR1 L DRL3 R (single response on the left lever, reward for a single right-lever response having a latency of 3 sec. or longer), and DT-FR1LDRL6R (right-lever latency requirement increased to 6 sec.).The MTI was manipulated in a series of four 4-day cycles in sessions 85-100 with the last of these three schedules continued. In each cycle the MTI was varied within Ss among the values of 5, 10, 20, and 40 sec. in counterbalanced orders across Ss, with values for a given S changing from day to day. In each session there were five F trials randomly interspersed among five R trials, and the assigned MTI value for a given session was the same for both types of trial. ResultsAt least one member of each species pair, and usually both members, showed consistent FE's at MTI = 5 sec. under each of the three schedule...

The “frustration effect” in operant studies: A necessary control procedure

“…Finally, only in the case of one bird (17) is the initial rate following F trials higher than the initial rate following N. These data indicate that the facilitation obtained from frustrative nonreinforcement (F) is not greater than that produced by chronic nonreinforcement (N), i.e., the facilitation observed as contrast effects. The increase in initial rates obtained on F trials above those rates observed following R trials is in agreement with previous operant studies investigating the FE (Davenport & Thompson, 1965;Davenport, Flaherty, & Dyrud, 1966;8taddon & Innis, 1966). However, interpreting the present differences as resulting from frustrative nonreinforcement as has been done in previous operant studies is not warranted, since the rate increases following frustrative nonreinforcement may be accounted for by contrast effects.…”

“…The need for including procedures than can distinguish between these effects is well documented (Ludvigson & McHose, 1967). Unfortunately, some recent operant studies directed to the FE have not included control conditions which would allow comparison of the obtained frustration produced response facilitation with response facilitation that results from chronic nonreinforcement, i.e., contrast effects (Davenport & Thompson, 1965;Davenport, Flaherty, & Dyrud, 1966;staddon & Innis, 1966). These studies compared responding following frustrative nonreinforcement with responding following reinforcement.…”

Effects of within-chain response delay upon post-delay operant performance

“…From these results it may be concluded, ftrst, that mid-<:hain response delay facilitated post-delay operant performance in terms of both latency and ongoing response rate. This effect is like that obtained in the runway by some investigators, and it supports a suggestion made by Davenport, Flaherty, & Dyrud (1966) that delay of operant responding may have contributed to the effects of frustrative nonreinforcement in their study. Also, the similarity between the effects of response delay in the present experiment and the nonreinforcement effect obtained under comparable conditions (Carlson, 1968) lends some support to theories which treat both response delay and nonreinforcement as frustration variables.…”

“…Holder et al (1957) obtained parallel results in a runway with delays of I, 15, and 45 sec. These results point up the importance of this parameter and have relevance for Brown and Farber's hypothesis that the strength of frustration drive is a function of the degree of response interference (Brown, 1961, p. 204).…”

Temporal Effects of Reinforcement: A Negative "Frustration" Effect

“…The present paper outlines a unified approach and tests one implication of it. "Frustration" effects have been demonstrated in a number of situations: runways, fixed-interval schedules, and fixed-ratio and spaced-responding (DRL) schedules (Davenport, Flaherty, & Dyrud, 1966;Davenport & Thompson, 1965). In all these situations the dependent variable is positively accelerated for a time following the delivery of reward.…”