Effects of Response Effort on Discrimination Performance
- 3 Downloads
- 3 Citations
Abstract
Pigeons performed on a discrete-trial successive discrimination procedure. On each trial the key was either red or white. The red was associated with a reinforcement probability of .25, and the white with .50. In two experiments the effects of varying the effort required to complete a trial while keeping the effort requirements the same in the presence of both key colors were investigated. In the first experiment effort was varied by changing the force required to operate the key. In the second, effort was varied by changing the number of responses required to complete a trial. In both experiments, when the effort requirement was low, there was little or no difference in behavior in the presence of the two key colors. As the effort requirement was increased, the latency of response to the red key increased, and the probability of responding to the red key decreased. Little change was seen in behavior in the presence of the white key. The effects of manipulating the number of responses required to complete a trial were more consistent than those of manipulating the key force requirement.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- BLOUGH, D. S. 1966. The study of animal sensory processes by operant methods. In Honig, W. K. (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 345–379.Google Scholar
- CHUNG, S. H. 1965. Elfects of effort on response rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 8, 1–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- COLE, J. L. 1965. Force gradients in stimulus generalization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 8, 231–242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- ELSMORE, T. F., & BROWNSTEIN, A. J. 1968. Effort and response rate. Psychonomic Science., 10, 313–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GOLLUB, L. R., & LEE, R. M. 1966. Response force under fixed-interval reinforcement. Psychonomic Science., 4, 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- HEFFERLINE, R. F., BIRCH, J. D., & GENTRY, T. 1961. Simple transducers to detect or record operant amplitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 4, 257–261.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- HERRICK, R. M., & KARNOW, P. 1962. A displacement-seeking, constant-torque response lever. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 5, 461–462.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- HERRNSTEIN, R. J. 1966. Superstition: A corollary of the principles of operant conditioning. In Honig, W. K. (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
- NOTTERMAN, J. M., & MINTZ, D. E. 1965. Dynamics of respons. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- POWELL, R. W. 1969. The effect of reinforcement magnitude upon responding under fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 12, 605–608.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- RHOLES, F. H. 1961. The development of an instrumental skill sequence in the chimpanzee. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 4, 323–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- RILLING, M, KRAMER, T. J., & ASKEW, H. R. 1970. A preliminary analysis of the dynamics of the pecking response in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior., 13, 267–278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- SKINNER, B. F. 1950. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review., 57, 193–216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- SKINNER, B. F. 1966. Operant behavior. In Honig, W. K. (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pp. 12–32.Google Scholar