Abstract
The present research tested the generality of the “work ethic“ effect described by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiment 1, we trained 10 pigeons on a pair of either simultaneous or successive discriminations. One discrimination followed a high-effort requirement (20 pecks to the center key) and the other followed a low-effort requirement (1 peck). Contrary to Clement et al.’s results, we found that preferences between the S+ and S− stimuli in transfer tests depended on the event that initiated the trial: Pigeons preferred the stimulus from the baseline discrimination whose initiating event was most dissimilar from that preceding the test trial. Preferences were similar but less extreme in the successive condition. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether test preferences depended on the amount of training. A total of 12 pigeons were trained on a pair of simultaneous discriminations, except that test sessions were scheduled after every three baseline sessions. Preferences increased across test sessions but were similar to those in Experiment 1. Together with Vasconcelos, Urcuioli, and Lionello-DeNolf (2007a), our study represents a second failure to replicate Clement et al.’s work ethic effect. The finding that preference depends on the event that initiates the test trial suggests that choice probes may not provide unambiguous assessments of stimulus value.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Balsam, P. D. (1985). The functions of context in learning and performance. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.), Context and learning (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). “Work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 100–106.
Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2002). Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 64–74.
Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2003). Choice based on exclusion in pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 959–964.
DiGian, K. A., Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 889–895.
Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.
Fantino, E. (2001). Context: A central concept. Behavioural Processes, 54, 95–110.
Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.
Fantino, E., & Romanowich, P. (2007). The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice: A review. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 409–421.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Flaherty, C. F. (1996). Incentive relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedrich, A. M., Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement. Learning & Behavior, 33, 337–342.
Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behavioural Processes, 67, 405–415.
Garner, W. R., Hake, H. W., & Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63, 149–159.
Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.
Grace, R. C. (2001). On the failure of operationism. Theory & Psychology, 11, 5–33.
Grace, R. C. (2002). The value hypothesis and acquisition of preference in concurrent chains. Learning & Behavior, 30, 21–33.
Grace, R. C., & Savastano, H. I. (1997). Transfer tests of stimulus value in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 93–115.
Grace, R. C., & Savastano, H. I. (2000). Temporal context and conditioned reinforcement value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 427–443.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.
Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.
O’Daly, M., Angulo, S., Gipson, C., & Fantino, E. (2006). Influence of temporal context on value in the multiple-chains and successive-encounters procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 309–328.
O’Daly, M., Meyer, S., & Fantino, E. (2005). Value of conditioned reinforcers as a function of temporal context. Learning & Motivation, 36, 42–59.
Reynolds, G. S. (1961). Behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 57–71.
Ross, R. T., & Holland, P. C. (1981). Conditioning of simultaneous and serial feature-positive discriminations. Learning & Behavior, 9, 293–303.
Singer, R. A., Berry, L. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2007). Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 275–285.
Vasconcelos, M., Urcuioli, P. J., & Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2007a). Failure to replicate the “work ethic“ effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 383–399.
Vasconcelos, M., Urcuioli, P. J., & Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2007b). When is a failure to replicate not a Type II error? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 405–407.
von Fersen, L., Wynne, C. D. L., Delius, J. D., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1991). Transitive inference formation in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 334–341.
Williams, B. A. (1983). Another look at contrast in multiple schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 345–384.
Williams, B. A. (1991). Behavioral contrast and reinforcement value. Learning & Behavior, 19, 337–344.
Williams, B. A. (1992). Inverse relations between preference and contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 303–312.
Williams, B. A. (2002). Behavioral contrast redux. Learning & Behavior, 30, 1–20.
Williams, B. A., & McDevitt, M. A. (2001). Competing sources of stimulus value in anticipatory contrast. Learning & Behavior, 29, 302–310.
Zentall, T. R. (2005). A within-trial contrast effect and its implications for several social psychological phenomena. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 18, 273–297.
Zentall, T. R., & Sherburne, L. M. (1994). Transfer of value from S+ to S− in a simultaneous discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 176–183.
Zentall, T. R., & Singer, R. A. (2007). Within-trial contrast: When is a failure to replicate not a Type I error? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 401–404.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arantes, J., Grace, R.C. Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learning & Behavior 36, 1–11 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.1.1
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.1.1