Abstract
Within-trial contrast occurs when a discriminative stimulus that is preceded by a relatively aversive event is preferred over another that is preceded by a less aversive event. Recent failures to replicate (Arantes & Grace, 2008; Vasconcelos, Urcuioli, á Lionello-DeNolf, 2007) may allow us to identify factors that may be responsible. In the case of Vasconcelos et al., it is likely that insufficient training was provided (often 35–65 sessions are required). In the case of Arantes and Grace (Experiment 2), these pigeons had been involved in prior experiments involving lean schedules of reinforcement, and we find that prior experience with lean (relatively aversive) schedules appears to reduce the presumed aversiveness of the many-peck requirement, thus obviating the contrast effect. Finally, in the case of Vasconcelos and Urcuioli (2008), although the contrast effect with a simultaneous discrimination was not reliable, it was not reliably smaller than with a successive discrimination that did show a reliable effect, and the contrast effect was also similar in magnitude to a reliable effect reported by Kacelnik and Marsh (2002). Thus, although there have been several failures to replicate the original effects reported by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000), insufficient training, prior history with lean schedules of reinforcement, and low statistical power may have been responsible for those failures.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alessandri, J., Darcheville, J.-C., & Zentall, T. R. (2007). Cognitive dissonance in children: Justification of effort or contrast? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Arantes, J., & Grace, R. C. (2008). Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learning & Behavior, 36, 1–11.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.
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.
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.
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.
Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour, 63, 245–250.
Klein, E. D., Bhatt, R. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 335–339.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1965). Selective attention in animal discrimination learning. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 124–150.
Marsh, B., Schuck-Paim, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2004). Energetic state during learning affects foraging choices in starlings. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 396–399.
Pompilio, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2005). State-dependent learning and suboptimal choice: When starlings prefer long over short delays to food. Animal Behaviour, 70, 571–578.
Pompilio, L., Kacelnik, A., & Behmer, S. T. (2006). State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science, 311, 1613–1615.
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.
Singer, R. A., & Zentall, T. R. (2007). Within-trial contrast cannot be attributed to differential delay reduction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vasconcelos, M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2008). Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast. Learning & Behavior, 36, 12–18.
Vasconcelos, M., Urcuioli, P. J., & Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2007). Failure to replicate the “work ethic” effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 383–399.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this comment was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-59194. I thank Rebecca Singer and Jérôme Alessandri for their comments on an earlier version of this commentary.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zentall, T.R. Within-trial contrast: When you see it and when you don’t. Learning & Behavior 36, 19–22 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.1.19
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.1.19