Literature DB >> 22993453

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

Rebecca A Singer1, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

Pigeons prefer a positive discriminative (S+) stimulus that follows a less preferred event (a large number of required responses, a longer delay, or the absence of food) over a different S+ with a similar history of reinforcement that follows a more preferred event (a single required response, no delay, or food). We proposed that this phenomenon results from contrast (referred to as within-trial contrast) between the less preferred initial event and the signal for reinforcement. Delay reduction theory (Fantino, 1969) can account for these results by proposing that the less preferred initial event lengthens the duration of the trial, thereby allowing the S+ stimulus to occur later in the trial and thus become a better predictor of reinforcement. In the present experiments, we further explored this effect. In Experiment 1, we controlled for trial duration by using a fixed ratio response (30 pecks) as one initial event and the absence of pecking for the same duration as the other initial event (0 pecks). The pigeons showed a reliable preference for the positive stimulus that followed the least preferred initial event. In Experiment 2, we controlled for trial duration by using 30 pecks as one initial event and 1 peck followed by a delay that matched the duration of the preceding 30-peck trial. (Group Time Same). For Group Time Different, there was no delay following the 1-peck initial event. For Group Time Same, preference for the initial event negatively predicted the pigeons' preference for the S+ stimulus that followed, supporting the contrast account. A somewhat greater preference for the discriminative stimulus that followed the least preferred initial event was found for Group Time Different suggesting that in addition to contrast, delay reduction also may play a small role. However, the greater initial-event preference found for Group Time Different suggests that contrast can account for the group difference as well.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22993453      PMCID: PMC3444245          DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2011.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Motiv        ISSN: 0023-9690


  19 in total

Review 1.  Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice.

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

2.  Greater effort boosts the affective taste properties of food.

Authors:  Alexander W Johnson; Michela Gallagher
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain.

Authors:  Andrea M Friedrich; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2004-11-30       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Backward conditioning: a reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Authors:  M L Spetch; D M Wilkie; J P Pinel
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay.

Authors:  Jérôme Alessandri; Jean-Claude Darcheville; Yvonne Delevoye-Turrell; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.986

View more
  1 in total

1.  Sensitivity to Sunk Costs Depends on Attention to the Delay.

Authors:  Rebecca Kazinka; Angus W MacDonald; A David Redish
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-02-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.