Literature DB >> 18318421

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

Joana Arantes1, Randolph C Grace.   

Abstract

The present research tested the generality of the "work ethic" effect described by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiment 1, we trained 10 pigeons on a pair of either simultaneous or successive discriminations. One discrimination followed a high-effort requirement (20 pecks to the center key) and the other followed a low-effort requirement (1 peck). Contrary to Clement et al.'s results, we found that preferences between the S+ and S- stimuli in transfer tests depended on the event that initiated the trial: Pigeons preferred the stimulus from the baseline discrimination whose initiating event was most dissimilar from that preceding the test trial. Preferences were similar but less extreme in the successive condition. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether test preferences depended on the amount of training. A total of 12 pigeons were trained on a pair of simultaneous discriminations, except that test sessions were scheduled after every three baseline sessions. Preferences increased across test sessions but were similar to those in Experiment 1. Together with Vasconcelos, Urcuioli, and Lionello-DeNolf (2007a), our study represents a second failure to replicate Clement et al.'s work ethic effect. The finding that preference depends on the event that initiates the test trial suggests that choice probes may not provide unambiguous assessments of stimulus value.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18318421     DOI: 10.3758/lb.36.1.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  28 in total

1.  Temporal context and conditioned reinforcement value.

Authors:  R C Grace; H I Savastano
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-12

Review 2.  Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Influence of temporal context on value in the multiple-chains and successive-encounters procedures.

Authors:  Matthew O'Daly; Samuel Angulo; Cassandra Gipson; Edmund Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Another look at contrast in multiple schedules.

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

5.  On the law of effect.

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

6.  Inverse relations between preference and contrast.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement.

Authors:  Andrea M Friedrich; Tricia S Clement; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  When is a failure to replicate not a type II error?

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli; Karen M Lionello-DeNolf
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Failure to replicate the 'work ethic" effect in pigeons.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli; Karen M Lionello-DeNolf
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?

Authors:  Rebecca A Singer; Laura M Berry; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  13 in total

1.  Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Meagan K Gregory; Michelle A Frank-Crawford; Melissa J Allman; Arthur E Wilke; Abbey B Carreau-Webster; Mandy M Triggs
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2011

2.  The interaction of temporal generalization gradients predicts the context effect.

Authors:  Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro; Armando Machado
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Within-trial contrast: when you see it and when you don't.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  Extensive training is insufficient to produce the work-ethic effect in pigeons.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Understanding preference shifts: a review and alternate explanation of within-trial contrast and state-dependent valuation.

Authors:  James N Meindl
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2012

7.  Contingency Enhances Sensitivity to Loss in a Gambling Task with Diminishing Returns.

Authors:  Jonathan R Miller; Iser G DeLeon; Lisa M Toole; Gregory A Lieving; Melissa J Allman
Journal:  Psychol Rec       Date:  2016-02-24

8.  Preference for the Outcome That Follows a Relatively Aversive Event: Contrast or Delay Reduction?

Authors:  Rebecca A Singer; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2011-08-01

9.  Within-trial contrast: The effect of probability of reinforcement in training.

Authors:  Cassandra D Gipson; Holly C Miller; Jérôme J D Alessandri; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast.

Authors:  Masashi Tsukamoto; Kenichiro Kohara; Koji Takeuchi
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.