Literature DB >> 16812667

Inverse relations between preference and contrast.

B A Williams.   

Abstract

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which two target components with identical reinforcement schedules were followed by either the same-valued schedule or by extinction. Response rate increased in both target components but was higher in the target component followed by extinction, replicating previous findings of positive anticipatory contrast. A similar design was used to study negative contrast, in that the two target components were followed either by the same-valued schedule or by a higher valued schedule. Negative contrast occurred equally, on average, in both target components, thus failing to demonstrate negative contrast that is specifically anticipatory in nature. When the stimuli correlated with the two target components were paired in choice tests, the pattern of preference was in the opposite direction. For the positive contrast procedure, no significant preference between the two target stimuli was evident. But for the negative contrast procedure, preference favored the stimulus followed by the higher valued schedule. The results demonstrate a functional dissociation between positive and negative contrast in relation to stimulus value. More generally, the results demonstrate an inverse relation between response rate and preference and challenge existing accounts of contrast in terms of the concept of relative value.

Year:  1992        PMID: 16812667      PMCID: PMC1322062          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  10 in total

1.  Frustrative nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning: some recent history and a theoretical extension.

Authors:  A AMSEL
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1962-07       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Another look at contrast in multiple schedules.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  On the law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior?

Authors:  J A Nevin; L D Smith; J Roberts
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Stimulus-specific contrast effects during operant discrimination learning.

Authors:  J C Malone
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  An equation for behavioral contrast.

Authors:  B A Williams; J T Wixted
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Contrast, component duration, and the following schedule of reinforcement.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1979-10

9.  Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentation.

Authors:  M Picker; A Poling
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-05       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Conditioned acceleration and conditioned suppression in pigeons.

Authors:  H Leitenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1966-05       Impact factor: 2.468

  10 in total
  8 in total

1.  Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  Matthew C Bell; Ben A Williams
Journal:  Anim Learn Behav       Date:  2002-02

Review 2.  Behavioral contrast redux.

Authors:  Ben A Williams
Journal:  Anim Learn Behav       Date:  2002-02

3.  Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules.

Authors:  B A Williams; M C Bell
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations.

Authors:  Joana Arantes; Randolph C Grace
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  Within-trial contrast: pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than a less aversive event.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Rebecca A Singer
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons.

Authors:  Cassandra D Gipson; Jérôme J D Alessandri; Holly C Miller; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Procrastination in the pigeon: Can conditioned reinforcement increase the likelihood of human procrastination?

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Jacob P Case; Danielle M Andrews
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

8.  Effects of different accessibility of reinforcement schedules on choice in humans.

Authors:  U Stockhorst
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.468

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.