Abstract
Animals exposed to schedules of partial reinforcement are typically more resistant to extinction than are animals trained with continuous reinforcement. This is the partial reinforcement effect (PRE). Animals experienced with both partial and continuous schedules are often more persistent on the continuous schedule, yielding a reversed PRE. Both conventional and reversed PREs have been elusive with classical conditioning paradigms. The present experiment attempted to demonstrate between- and within-subject PREs using 50% and 100% autoshaping schedules. Presence or absence of a PRE depended on the behavioral measures used. Marked terminal group differences in acquisition produced a between-subjects PRE with absolute response levels but not with rate-of-change measures. Within subjects, only choice trial comparisons were sensitive enough to differentiate the two schedules. Acquisition data were inconsistent with most of the classical conditioning PRE literature, but consistent with results reported in the autoshaping literature. These discrepancies may reflect the operant-classical interaction in autoshaping.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amsel, A. (1958). The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations.Psychological Bulletin,55, 102–119.
Amsel, A. (1967). Partial reinforcement effects on vigor and persistence. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1963). Comparison of different populations: Resistance to extinction and transfer.Psychological Review,70, 162–179.
Behrend, E. R., &Bitterman, M. E. (1968). Partial reinforcement and classical conditioning in two species of fish.Psychonomic Science,11, 167–168.
Berger, B. D., Yarczower, M., &Bitterman, M. E. (1965). Effect of partial reinforcement on the extinction of a classically conditioned response in the goldfish.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,59, 399–405.
Brown, P. L., &Jenkins, H. M. (1968). Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,11, 1–8.
Gamzu, E., &Williams, D. R. (1973). Associative factors underlying the pigeon’s keypecking in auto-shaping procedures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,19, 225–232.
Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., Locurto, C. M., Duncan, H. J., &Terrace, H. S. (1980). Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 45–59.
Gonzalez, F. A. (1973). Effects of partial reinforcement (25%) in an autoshaping procedure.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,2, 299–301.
Gonzalez, F. A. (1974). Effects of varying the percentage of key illuminations paired with food in a positive automamtenance procedure.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,22, 483–489.
Hearst, E., &Jenkins, H. M. (1974).Sign-tracking: The stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society.
Kimble, G. A. (1961).Hilgard and Marquis’ conditioning and learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
Nevin, J. A. (1979). Reinforcement schedules and response strength. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzern (Eds.),Reinforcement and the organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
Pavlik, W. B., &Carlton, P. L. (1965). A reversed partial reinforcement effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 417–423.
Pavlik, W. B., &Collier, A. C. (1977). Magnitude and schedule of reinforcement in rats’ resistance to extinction: Within subjects.American Journal of Psychology,90, 195–205.
Pavlik, W. B., & Domato, G. (1977, May).Partial reinforcement effects in Pavlovian (CER) conditioning: Between and within subjects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Peden, V R., & Hearst, E. (1977, May).Autoshaping: The effects of partial reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of keypecking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Perkins, C. C., Beaver, W. O., Hancock, R. A., Jr.,Hemmen-dinoer, P. C., Hemmendinger, D., &Ricci, J. A. (1975) Some variables affecting rate of key pecking during response-independent procedures (autoshaping).Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,24, 59–72
Picker, M., &Poling, A. (1982) Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: Sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentaion.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,37, 393–406
Schwartz, B., &Williams, D. R. (1972). The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,17, 351–357.
Slivka, R. M., &Bitterman, M. E. (1966). Classical appetitive conditioning in the pigeon: Partial reinforcement.Psychonomic Science 4, 181–182.
Wagner, A. R., Siegel, S., Thomas, E., &Ellision, G. D. (1964) Reinforcement history and the extinction of a conditioned salivary response.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 54 354–358
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Crawford, L.L., Steirn, J.N. & Pavlik, W.B. Within- and between-subjects partial reinforcement effects with an autoshaped response using Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Animal Learning & Behavior 13, 85–92 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213369
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213369