The Role of Frustrative Nonreward in Instrumental Escape Conditioning

Frustrative nonrelief in instrumental escape conditioning

“…Selected comparisons between the FE group that received 48 trials in training and a control group indicated that total and midsection speeds in Waterway 2 during testing were a function of speed increments following nonreinforcernent rather than an artifact of speed decrements following reinforcement; thus, these data were consistent with the reports of Wagner (1959) and Graham and Longstreth (1970).…”

“…The differences in total and midsection speeds as a function of Goal Tank 1 condition following training with continuous reinforcement were consistent with reports of appetitive conditioning procedures described by Amsel and Roussel (1952). Additionally, these results are consistent with the shock-escape experiment described by Graham and Longstreth (1970) but inconsistent with the "reversed frustration effect" reported by Lambert (Lambert, 1970;Lambert & Hammond, 1970, Experiment I).…”

“…Whether these results are typical of all aversive stimuli or whether they are due to the peculiarities of electric shock remains an empirical question. Another report by Graham and Longstreth (1970) described a double-alley shock-escape procedure that differed in possibly important aspects. First of all, they used a within-subjects design, and secondly, distinctive cues in Goalbox 1 signaled relief or nonrelief conditions.…”

Effects of positive and negative force-contingent reinforcement on the frustration effect in humans.

“…With respect to negative reinforcement, a comparatively small amount of research has been reported. Although Lambert and Hammond (1970) were unable to obtain an FE in rats using escape from shock as a negative reinforcer in a double runway, Graham and Longstreth (1970) did obtain FEs in rats in a double-runway study in which shock escape served as the negative reinforcer. The primary purpose of the present study was to extend the investigation of the effects of termination of negative reinforcement (avoidance of monetary loss) on the FE to the realm of human behavior.…”

The Modification of Breathing Behavior

“…In subsequent research on a force-discrimination task with human subjects, Blixt and Ley (1969) demonstrated the frustration effect following positive reinforcement, and Ditkoff and Ley (1974) demonstrated the effect following negative reinforcement. Although the frustration effect has been studied extensively (e.g., Amsel, 1958;Daly, 1974;Graham & Longstreth, 1970;Lambert & Hammond, 1970;Levine & Loesch, 1967;Ryan & Watson, 1968), no physiological correlates of frustration were reported until Otis and Ley (1993) studied the time course of the frustration effect in a forcediscrimination task. Aside from discovering that the effect is shortlived in humans, Otis and Ley (1993) found a positive correlation (r = .74) between the magnitude of the frustration response (force on a reset lever) and the amplitude of the electrodermal response (i.e., increase in electrical conductivity of skin) only for that group which demonstrated the frustration effect (i.e., brief delay).…”