Abstract
The effect of quantity and quality of reinforcement on performance change following a shift to uniform high reward was studied in four groups of rats. Twenty or 200 licks of a 5% or 20% sucrose solution constituted the four incentive conditions. Two additional subject groups were run in the high (20%–200 licks) and low (5%-20 licks) reward conditions to determine how amobarbital sodium, an emotional depressant, influences incentive shift performance. All six groups received 60 preshift runway trials (6/day), followed by 30 high reward trials. Twenty-four extinction trials contrasted drugged and normal performance relating to high and low reward Postshift positive contrast appeared in all nondrugged groups. An emotional base for positive contrast is considered.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amsel, A. The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuoua reward situations. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 102–118.
Barry, J., III, Wagner, A. R., & Miller, N. E. Effects of alcohol and amobarbital on performance inhibited by experimental extinction. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 464–468.
Benefield, R., Oscós, A., & Ehrenfreund, D. The role of frustration in successive positive contrast. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1974, 86, 648–651.
Calef, R. S. The effect of large and small magnitude of intertriai reinforcement on successive contrast effects. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 29, 309–312.
Capaldi, E. J., & Lynch, A. D. Magnitude of partial reward and resistance to extinction: Effect of N-R transitions. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 65, 179–181.
Caul, W. F. Effects of amobarbital on discrimination acquisition and reversal. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 1967, 11, 414–421.
Collier, G., & Marx, M. H. Changes in performance as a function of shifts in the magnitude of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 57, 305–309.
Crespi, L. P. Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. American Journal of Psychology, 1942, 55, 467–517.
Crespi, L. P. Amount of reinforcement and level of performance. Psychological Review, 1944, 51, 341–357.
DiLollo, V., & Lumsden, J. The Crespi effect: a replication. Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 25–26.
Dunham, P. J., & Kilps, B. Shifts in magnitude of reinforcement: Confounded factors or contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 373–374.
Goodman, L. S., & Gilman, A.The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Goodrich, K. P. Running speed and drinking rate as a function of sucrose concentration and amount of consummatory activity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 245–250.
Gray, J. A. Sodium amobarbital and effects of frustrative nonreward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969, 69, 55–64.
Guttman, N. Operant conditioning, extinction, and periodic reinforcement in relation to concentration of sucrose used as reinforcing agent. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 213–224.
Ison, J. R., & Glass, D. H. Long term consequences of differential reinforcement magnitudes. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 65, 524–525.
Ison, J. R., & Rosen, A. J. The effects of amobarbital sodium on differential instrumental conditioning and subsequent extinction. Psychopharmacologia, 1967, 10, 417–425.
Kraeling, D. Analysis of amount of reward as a variable in learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961, 54, 560–565.
Miller, N. E. The analysis of motivational effects illustrated by experiments on amylobarbitone sodium. In H. Steinberg, A. V. S. de Reuck, and J. Knight (Eds.),Ciba Foundation Symposium, Jointly with the Co-Ordinating Committee for Symposia on Animal Behavior and Drug Action. London: Churchill, 1964, 1–18.
Padilla, A. M. Analysis of incentive and behavioral contrast in the rat. Journal of Comparative And Physiological Psychology, 1971, 75, 464–470.
Pfaffman, C. The pleasures of sensation. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 253–268.
Rosen, A. J. Incentive-shift performance as a function of magnitude and number of sucrose rewards. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966, 62, 487–490.
Schrier, A. M. Effects of an upward shift in amount of retoforcer on runway performance in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967, 64, 490–492.
Spence, K. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956.
Wagner, A. R., & Thomas, E. Reward magnitude shifts: a savings effect. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 13–14.
Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
Zeaman, D. Response latency as a function of the amount of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39, 466–483.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper is based upon a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rabin, J.S. Effects of varying sucrose reinforcers and amobarbital sodium on positive contrast in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior 3, 290–294 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213447
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213447