Literature DB >> 27619982

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

Masashi Tsukamoto1, Kenichiro Kohara2, Koji Takeuchi2.   

Abstract

The within-trial contrast hypothesis (WTC) provides a more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon that humans and animals prefer outcomes that follow more effortful events to outcomes that follow less effortful events (Zentall, 2013). We conducted two WTC experiments with human adults. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the difficulty of a preceding event by varying the interresponse time and the limited-hold interval during differential reinforcement with a low response rate schedule, to examine the effect of effort on the preference for the subsequent stimuli. In Experiment 2, we attempted to identify the variables that had affected the results of Experiment 1, by manipulating time as the delay of reinforcement. The results showed preferences based on WTC only when participants made a high rate of incorrect responses in the preceding event, which was used as an index of the strength of individual effort. These results extend the findings of previous human WTC studies and suggest that the difficulty of a task could serve as an aversive event that affects the WTC effect. It is possible that an index based on performance in the preceding event would provide useful information for predicting the contrast effect.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delay; Difficulty; Effort; Human; Preference

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27619982     DOI: 10.3758/s13420-016-0248-8

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


  18 in total

1.  OVERT "MEDIATING" BEHAVIOR DURING TEMPORALLY SPACED RESPONDING.

Authors:  V G LATIES; B WEISS; R L CLARK; M D REYNOLDS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1965-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  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

3.  Collateral responding during differential reinforcement of low rates.

Authors:  G E Zuriff
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Cognitive dissonance in children: justification of effort or contrast?

Authors:  Jérôme Alessandri; Jean-Claude Darcheville; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-06

9.  [The effects of response cost and time on choosing a stimulus].

Authors:  Masahiro Shibasaki; Nobuyuki Kawai
Journal:  Shinrigaku Kenkyu       Date:  2008-08

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
  2 in total

Review 1.  Cognitive and behavioral training interventions to promote self-control.

Authors:  Travis Smith; Kelsey Panfil; Carrie Bailey; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 2.478

2.  Effort reinforces learning.

Authors:  Huw Jarvis; Isabelle Stevenson; Amy Q Huynh; Emily Babbage; James Coxon; Trevor T-J Chong
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 6.709

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.