The Amsel frustration effect: Interpretations and research.

Scull, John

doi:10.1037/h0034430

Cited by 40 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Partial blocking and the frustration effect

Allen

Caven

Leonard

et al. 1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine Sprague-Dawley female rats were trained for 10 days in a straight alley with no obstruction of approach to the goal (four 45·mg pellets). During testing the rats received two nonblocked (O-sec delay) and four partially blocked trials (4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-sec delay with a clear Plexiglas door) per day for 12 days. The 4-sec delay produced significantly faster running than the 8-sec delay; however, contrary to previous research using an opaque blocking door, no significant frustration effect for running or ingestion was obtained. A competing response interpretation is offered as a possible explanation for this discrepancy.The frustration effect as originally reported by Amsel and Roussel (1952) was demonstrated with rats in a double-alley apparatus consisting of a startbox , Alley 1, first goalbox, Alley 2, and second goalbox. 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. Several investigators, on the other hand, have failed to find a frustration effect with a delay procedure (Ludvigson, 1968;Williams & Ellis, 1970;Wist, 1962). Uyeno (1965) found a frustration effect when each rat was trained with a O-see delay and tested with both O-sec and I-sec delays; however, he did not find a frustration effect when using a between-groups design. Allen (1976aAllen ( , 1976b) used a within-subjects design to investigate the effects of various delay intervals and incentive levels on running speeds and ingestion rates. His studies used an opaque Alley 2 blocking door and reliably produced a frustration effect .The present study is similar, in most respects, to Experiment 3 of Allen's (1976a) study , with the exception that a clear Plexiglas rather than an opaque Alley 2 door was used. This manipulation will be referred to as partial blocking, since it physically blocked the rat from entering Alley 2 but allowed it to see the conditioned reinforcer (white alley). METHOD SubjectsThe subjects were nine experimentally naive female SpragueDawley rats obtained from a local supplier. All subjects were approximately 90 days old at the start of the experiment, housed individually, and maintained with Allied Mills mouse breeder blocks on a 23-h food-deprivation schedule. ApparatusExcept for the length of the alleys, the apparatus was similar to one used by Wagner (1959). The flat black startbox was 1 ft (30.48 cm) long, and, like the remainder of the apparatus, it was 3 in. (7.62 em) wide and 5 .25 in. (13.34 em) deep. Separating the startbox from Alley 1 wasa guillotine-t...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Partial blocking and the frustration effect

Allen

Caven

Leonard

et al. 1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The frustration effect consisted of faster running in A 2 when the rat was not reinforced in G,. Scull (1973) has recently summarized the results of much of the research involving frustrative nonreinforcement.A manipulation to which Brown and Farber (1951) attributed frustration eliciting properties, namely, introduction of a delay between the initiation and completion of a response sequence, has received very little attention. This neglect is especially perplexing since.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Allen

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of three experiments, forty Sprague-Dawley females were randomly assigned to groups which differed in incentive magnitude in the goalbox, The subjects were then trained for 10 days in a straight alley with no obstruction of approach to the goal. During testing, the rats received two nonblocked and four blocked (delay) trials per day for 11 days. Groups receiving four or nine 45-mg pellets on each trial ran significantly faster following delays than following no delay and tended to be faster following a 4-sec delay than following longer delays. Delay had a similar effect on both running speeds and ingestion rates, with the 4-and 20-sec delays producing a significant frustration effect for running and ingestion in the third experiment.The frustration effect as originally reported by Arnsel and Roussel (1952) was demonstrated with rats in a double alley apparatus consisting of a startbox (SB), first alley (A,), first goalbox (G,), second alley (A 2 ) , and second goalbox (G 2 ) . The frustration effect consisted of faster running in A 2 when the rat was not reinforced in G,. Scull (1973) has recently summarized the results of much of the research involving frustrative nonreinforcement.A manipulation to which Brown and Farber (1951) attributed frustration eliciting properties, namely, introduction of a delay between the initiation and completion of a response sequence, has received very little attention. This neglect is especially perplexing since. 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. Other investigators, on the other hand, have generally failed to find a frustration effect with a delay procedure (Ludvigson, 1968;Williams & Ellis, 1970;Wist, 1962). However, Uyeno (1965), who criticized Wist for using a between groups design, found a frustration effect with a I-sec delay when using a within subjects but not when using a between groups design. It should be emphasized that This study was based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. The author would like to give special thanks to his dissertation director, M. Ray Denny, and to Mark Rilling, Stanley Ratner, and Lawrence O'Kelly for serving as committee members. Thanks also go to Mark Owen, Marcia Whiting, and Gloria Evert. Requests for reprints should be sent to John L. Allen, Spring Arbor College, Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283.The author recognizes that Experiments II and III are not ...

show abstract

“…runway performance). Scull (1973) has suggested that the double-alley runway may be a more complex situation than previously anticipated. The behavior of orienting to a startbox door, starting, and running is a relatively long instrumental chain, opportunity exists for the development of responses that compete with the dependent measure.…”

Section: U8mentioning

confidence: 91%

The relationship between Negative Contrast, Positive Contrast, and the Frustration Effect in a modified double-alley runway

Willis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Amsel frustration effect: Interpretations and research.

Cited by 40 publications

References 83 publications

Partial blocking and the frustration effect

Partial blocking and the frustration effect

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

The relationship between Negative Contrast, Positive Contrast, and the Frustration Effect in a modified double-alley runway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About