Abstract
When constant or variable irrelevant cues of a two-choice visual discrimination learning problem are otherwise associated with the reward context, preschool children solve the problems more slowly than when such an association has not been established. This effect is, in the case of constant irrelevant cues, inconsistent with several attentional theories of selective learning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Eimas, P. D., & Shepp, B. E. (1964). Retardate discrimination learning following differential conditioning of the choice-point stimuli. Child Development, 35, 685–693.
Estes, K. W. (1976). An information processing analysis of reinforcement in children’s discrimination learning. Child Development, 47, 639–647.
Fisher, M. A., & Catania, A. C. (1975). Autoshaping: Relation of feeder color to choice of key color. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 439–442.
Fisher, M. A., & Zeaman, D. (1973). An attention-retention theory of retardate discrimination learning. In N. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation, (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.
Jarvik, M. E. (1956). Simple color discrimination in chimpanzees: Effect of varying contiguity between cue and incentive. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 49, 492–495.
Lovejoy, E. (1975). Attention in Discrimination Learning.San Francisco: Holden-Day.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298. auMetzger, M. A. (in press). Reward context: Influence on hypotheses during learning set formation in preschool children. Psychological Reports.
Miller, G. A. (1983). Cognition and comparative psychology. The Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6, 152–153.
Premack, D. (1983). The codes of man and beasts. The Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6, 125–137.
Rescorla, R. A., & Agner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In H. Black & W. F. Prokasy(Eds.). Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shepp, B. E. (1964). Some cue properties of rewards in simultaneous object discriminations of retardates. Child Development, 35, 587–592.
Shepp, B. E., House, B., & Zeaman, D. (1967). Continuity and imbeddedness factors in the discriminative learning of retardates. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 5, 604–611.
Sutherland, N. S., & Ackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning.New York: Academic Press.
Wagner, A. R. (1969). Stimulus selection and a “modified continuity theory.” In Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (3rd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Zeaman, D., & Ouse, B. J. (1963). The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning. In R. Ellis(Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Thanks are due to Jim Truscio and Jesse Osborne of the Singer Learning Center of Columbia, Maryland, for their active cooperation in the conduct of this research. Computer facilities were provided by the UMBC computer center.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Metzger, M.A. Cue selection in discrimination learning by preschool children: Reward context effects. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 24, 135–137 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330526
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330526