Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward

A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect

Elizabeth D. Capaldi, John R. Hovancik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100% of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S 1 ±, S 2 ±), for Group PP 50% of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S 1, ±, S 2±), and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (S 1 ±, S 2 ±). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S 1, and S 2 performed better in the presence of S 1 and S 2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC's performance in the presence of S 2 ± was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S 1 ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S 2. Group PC's performance to S 1 ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S 1.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-42
Number of pages4
JournalAnimal Learning & Behavior
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1974
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reward
testing
rats
Appointments and Schedules

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)
  • Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Animal Science and Zoology

Cite this

Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward : A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect. / Capaldi, Elizabeth D.; Hovancik, John R.

In: Animal Learning & Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 1, 03.1974, p. 39-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{af9a9f834f5b4f9491000188b3484d97,
title = "Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward: A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect",
abstract = "Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100{\%} of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S 1 ±, S 2 ±), for Group PP 50{\%} of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S 1, ±, S 2±), and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50{\%} of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100{\%} of its presentations (S 1 ±, S 2 ±). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S 1, and S 2 performed better in the presence of S 1 and S 2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC's performance in the presence of S 2 ± was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S 1 ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S 2. Group PC's performance to S 1 ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S 1.",
author = "Capaldi, {Elizabeth D.} and Hovancik, {John R.}",
year = "1974",
month = "3",
doi = "10.3758/BF03199115",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "39--42",
journal = "Animal Learning and Behavior",
issn = "0090-4996",
publisher = "Psychonomic Society Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of partial vs consistent reward in noncontingent pairings of stimuli with reward

T2 - A noncontingently produced positive contrast effect

AU - Capaldi, Elizabeth D.

AU - Hovancik, John R.

PY - 1974/3

Y1 - 1974/3

N2 - Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100% of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S 1 ±, S 2 ±), for Group PP 50% of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S 1, ±, S 2±), and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (S 1 ±, S 2 ±). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S 1, and S 2 performed better in the presence of S 1 and S 2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC's performance in the presence of S 2 ± was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S 1 ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S 2. Group PC's performance to S 1 ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S 1.

AB - Rats received pairings of two stimuli with reward noncontingently in the Skinner box. During noncontingent pairings, the bar was immobilized. For Group CC 100% of the presentations of both stimuli were rewarded (S 1 ±, S 2 ±), for Group PP 50% of the presentations of each stimulus were rewarded (S 1, ±, S 2±), and for Group PC one stimulus was followed by reward on 50% of its presentations, while the second stimulus was followed by reward on 100% of its presentations (S 1 ±, S 2 ±). A fourth group received the stimuli and reward nonpaired. In a subsequent rewarded test phase, the response facilitating effects of the stimuli were evaluated. In the test phase all groups that received reward paired with S 1, and S 2 performed better in the presence of S 1 and S 2 than the group for which the stimuli were not paired with reward. For groups that received the stimuli paired with reward, a difference due to schedule of reward occurred when schedule of reward was varied within Ss (Group PC), but not when varied between Ss (Group PP vs Group CC). The specific form of this finding was that Group PC's performance in the presence of S 2 ± was more vigorous than its performance in the presence of S 1 ± and was more vigorous than the performance of Groups PP and CC to S 2. Group PC's performance to S 1 ± did not differ from that of Groups PP and CC to S 1.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0015984802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0015984802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/BF03199115

DO - 10.3758/BF03199115

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 39

EP - 42

JO - Animal Learning and Behavior

JF - Animal Learning and Behavior

SN - 0090-4996

IS - 1

ER -