This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 18 November 2014, At: 12:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of General PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

The Effects of Differential GoalboxReward and Reward Shifts on theFrustration EffectJames C. Gutmann a & Joseph A. Sgro aa Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , USAPublished online: 06 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: James C. Gutmann & Joseph A. Sgro (1979) The Effects of DifferentialGoalbox Reward and Reward Shifts on the Frustration Effect, The Journal of GeneralPsychology, 100:2, 259-269, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.1979.9710957

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1979.9710957

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Journal of General Psychology, 1979, 100, 259-269

T H E EFFECTS O F DIFFERENTIAL GOALBOX REWARD AND REWARD SHIFTS ON

T H E FRUSTRATION EFFECT*’

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

JAMES c. GUTMANN AND JOSEPH A. SGRO

SUMMARY

To determine whether incomplete reward reduction and reward incre- ment would influence the “frustration effect” (FE) in the double alleyway, female hooded rats (N = 103) were given 105 trials with 50% partial reward in Goalbox 1, with four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 and four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 . On trials 106-153, the postshift phase, half of the rats in each group were shifted to a reward magnitude opposite to that previously re- ceived in Goalbox 1. During preshift, the magnitude of the FE was directly related to Goalbox 1 and Goalbox 2 reward magnitudes. During postshift, the magnitude of the FE was directly related to Goalbox 1 and Goalbox 2 reward magnitudes and was not significantly related to either increase or decrease of Goalbox 1 reward. The results were discussed in terms of a frustratiodcompeting response framework.

A. INTRODUCTION The traditional method which has been used to demonstrate the frustra-

tive properties of nonreward has been to train rats with 100% reinforcement in Goalbox 1 of a double alleyway and then to shift to 50% reinforcement. The postshift finding which has been termed the “frustration effect” (FE) is faster Alley 2 speeds following nonreward than following reward (1, 12).

Based upon the premise that frustration is dependent upon a disconfirma- tion of a reward expectancy, several investigators (2, 4, 7, 9) have attempted to demonstrate that reduction of Goalbox 1 reward to a nonzero level would

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on June 8, 1978. Copyright, 1979, by The Journal Press.

’ The present paper was based on a Master’s thesis b y the first author under the direction of the second author at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Reprint requests should be sent to the second author at the address shown at the end of this article.

259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

2 6 0 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

result in an effect comparable to the FE; i.e., Alley 2 speeds should be faster following incomplete reward reduction than following no reduction in re- ward. The general finding has been that Alley 2 speeds following incomplete reward reduction are not significantly faster than a control condition in which rats are maintained at the reduced level throughout the experiment.

None of the above studies has attempted to examine whether the FE might be affected by incomplete reduction of reward. The present study allowed such an examination by shifting the reward magnitude on rewarded trials of a 50% partial reinforcement schedule on Goalbox 1 of a double alleyway. In addition, inclusion of groups which received increment shifts on rewarded trials in Goalbox 1 permitted an examination of whether re- ward increase might affect the FE.

A second purpose of the present study was to determine the extent to which the F E would be affected by the contrast between the reward mag- nitude experienced on rewarded trials in Goalbox 1 and the reward mag- nitude experienced in Goalbox 2 . While it has been reported (8) that the Goalbox 2 reward magnitude does not affect the magnitude of the FE, the present study sought to replicate this finding and also to determine whether the effect of Goalbox 2 reward magnitude on the F E is dependent upon the magnitude of reward experienced in Goalbox 1.

During preshift, four groups received either four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 on rewarded trials of a 50% partial reinforcement schedule and either four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 on a continuous schedule. After 105 trials, half of the rats in each preshift group were shifted to the opposite reward magnitude on the rewarded trials of the partial reinforcement schedule in Goalbox 1 . Dur- ing the 48 postshift trials all groups continued to receive the same Goalbox 2 reward magnitude as experienced during preshift trials.

B. METHOD 1. Subjects

The Ss were 103 female hooded rats obtained from the Laboratory colony maintained by the Department of Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute and State University. The rats were between 68 and 75 days old at the beginning of the experiment, and were individually housed throughout the experiment.

2 . Apparatus

The apparatus was an L-shaped double alleyway which was 7.6 cm wide and 1 2 . 7 cm high throughout. The first startbox and Alley 1 were 2 5 . 4 and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JAMES C. GUTMANN AND JOSEPH A. SGRO 26 1

91.4 cm in length, respectively. Goalbox 1 , which also served as the Alley 2 startbox, was L shaped and was 33.0 cm long with the short arm of the L being 2 2 . 9 cm long. Alley 2 and Goalbox 2 were 182.9 and 35.6 cm in length, respectively. Goalbox 2 was L shaped and was 27.9 cm in length at the short arm of the L. Guillotine doors separated the first startbox from Alley 1 , Alley 1 from Goalbox 1 , Goalbox 1 from Alley 2 , and Alley 2 from Goalbox 2 .

The entire apparatus was covered with .32 cm clear Plexiglas and was constructed from 1 . 9 cm thick plywood. The first startbox, Alley 1 , Goalbox 1, and the guillotine doors in Alley 1 and Goalbox 1 were painted flat black. Alley 2 , Goalbox 2 , and the guillotine doors in Alley 2 and Goalbox 2 were painted flat white. The floor of Alley 1 and Goalbox 1 was covered with a black rubber mat. The entire apparatus was illuminated by 7 W bulbs suspended 129.5 cm above the top of the alleyway. Food pellet dishes were located 13.9 cm from the guillotine door of the Goalbox 1 opening into Alley 2 and against the endwall of Goalbox 2. Each dish was 2.5 cm in diameter and . 9 cm deep.

Running times for Alley 1 were measured from the interruption of a first photobeam 6 . 0 cm distant from the startbox door to the interruption of a second photobeam 91.4 cm distant. Running times for Alley 2 were mea- sured from the interruption of a photobeam 6 . 0 cm distant from the Goalbox 1 door leading into Alley 2 to the interruption of a second photobeam 182.3 cm distant.

3. Procedure Over the first 36 days prior to the first preshift trial the rats were handled

for approximately 4 min daily. During Days 1-10 rats were allowed access to food and water ad lib in the home cages. On Day 11 rats were placed on a 23 hr food deprivation schedule. On Days 16-20 all rats were given access to 45 mg Noyes food pellets scattered in a neutral holding cage. On Day 2 1 rats were allowed to explore the entire apparatus with pellets available in Goal- box 1 and Goalbox 2 . On Day 22 rats were allowed to explore Alley 2 and Goalbox 2 with pellets available in Goalbox 2 . On Day 23 rats were allowed to explore the entire apparatus with pellets available in both goalboxes. During this training all guillotine doors were raised and lowered as they would be during the course of the experiment, and the photo-electric system was operating continuously. For the next 13 days all rats received continu- ous reinforcement in Goalbox 1 and Goalbox 2 according to the reward magnitude to be encountered during the preshift phase of the experiment. On Days 24-26 rats were given one trial per day; on Days 27-33 two trials

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

262 JOURNAL O F GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

per day; on Days 34-36 three trials per day. On preshift Day 1 and through- out the remainder of the experiments rats received three trials per day with an intertrial interval of approximately 30-40 sec.

A trial was initiated with the placing of a rat into the first startbox. As soon as the rat faced the Alley 1 guillotine door, the door was raised to allow the rat to traverse Alley 1. Upon entering Goalbox 1 the guillotine doors were lowered to prevent retracing. During reward trials the rat was allowed 20 sec access to the number of food pellets appropriate to its reward condi- tion. On nonrewarded trials the rat was given 20 sec of confinement. After 20 seconds had elapsed and upon facing the guillotine door leading to Alley 2 the door was raised and the rat was allowed to traverse Alley 2 . Upon entering Goalbox 2 the guillotine door was closed behind the rat. All rats were allowed 20 sec to consume the Goalbox 2 reward. After the 20 sec in Goalbox 2 had elapsed the rat was placed in a holding cage for an interval of 30-40 sec.

4. Experimental Design

The rats were randomly assigned to four preshift groups and received either four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 and either four or 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 . The four groups were designated 4:4 (n = 25), 4:12 (n = 26), 12:4 (n = 26), and 12:12 ( n = 26) where the first number represents the Goalbox 1 reward magnitude arid the second number represents the Goalbox 2 reward mag- nitude.

During preshift and postshift all rats received 50% partial reinforcement in Goalbox 1 and continuous reinforcement in Goalbox 2. The daily se- quence of reward (R) and nonreward (N) trials in Goalbox 1 was as follows: NRN, RNR, NNR, RRN, NRR, and RNN. This pattern was repeated throughout the entire experiment. Preshift consisted of 105 such trials.

Postshift consisted of 48 trials with 50% partial reinforcement in Goalbox 1 and with half of the rats in each group shifted to the magnitude opposite that previously received in Goalbox 1. The other half of the rats in each group remained on the same reward magnitude as encountered during pre- shift. The groups were designated 4-4:4 ( n = 12), 4-12:4 ( n = 13), 4-4:12 ( n = 13), 12-4:4 ( n = 13), 4-12:12 ( n = 13), 12-12:4 ( n = 13), 12-4:12 ( n = 13), 12-12:12 ( n = 13), where the first number represents the preshift Goalbox 1 reward magnitude, the second number represents the postshift Goalbox 1 reward magnitude, and the third number represents the Goalbox 2 reward, which remained constant from preshift to postshift.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JAMES C . GUTMANN A N D JOSEPH A. SGRO 263

137 r

n w

z z z 3 65 u

-

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TRIAL BLOCKS FIGURE 1

Trial Block 1 represents a block of nine trials, whereas all other trial blocks are plotted in MEAN -SHIFT ALLEY 1 RUNNING SPEED AS A FUNCTION OF TRIAL BLOCKS

blocks of 12 trials.

C. RESULTS 1. Preshift Session

Alley 1. Mean preshift Alley 1 running speeds (cdsec) as a function of trial blocks are presented in Figure 1. A 2 x 2 X 9 analysis of variance was performed on the mean Alley 1 running speeds over Trial Blocks 1 through 9. The variables included in the analysis were Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (four vs. 12 pellets), Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude (four vs. 12 pellets), and Trial Blocks. The statistically reliable results of this analysis were a significant inverse relationship between Goalbox 2 reward magnitude and Alley 1 speeds [ F (1 ,99) = 1 2 . 1 0 , p < .001] and a significant Trial Blocks effect [F (8 ,792) = 5.40,p < .0011.

Alley 2 . Mean preshift Alley 2 running speeds (cdsec) as a function of trial blocks are given in Figure 2 . A 2 x 2 X 2 x 9 analysis of variance was performed on mean Alley 2 running speeds over Trial Blocks 1 through 9. The variables included in this analysis were the between-group variables of Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (four vs. 12 pellets) and Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude (four us. 12 pellets) and the within-subject variables of Goalbox 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY 264

I37 I

V

u) \

5 I13 - n w w a v) 89 c3 z 2 2 3 65 a

NON -RE WARD REWARD

M 4 1 2 &-a 12 4 M 12 12

I I I I I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TRIAL BLOCKS

FIGURE 2 MEAN PRESHIFT ALLEY 2 RUNNING SPEED AS A FUNCTION OF TRIAL BLOCKS

Trial Block 1 represents a block of five nonreward and a block of four reward trials, whereas all other trial blocks for the within3 conditions are plotted in blocks of six reward and six nonreward trials.

Reward Condition (reward vs. nonreward) and Trial Blocks. The results of this analysis indicated that the Goalbox 1 Reward Condition x Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Trial Blocks interaction was significant [ F (8,792) = 2.62, p < .05], as well as the Goalbox 1 Reward Condition X Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude interaction [ F (1,99) = 15.38, p < .0011. All other main effects or interactions were either not significant or, if significant, were con- tained in the above interactions.

Since major interest was specifically on terminal preshift performance, simple effects analyses were focused on Trial Blocks 8 and 9. As may be seen in Figure 2 , a greater F E was found for the groups which received 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 than the groups which received four pellets in Goalbox 1. Statistically, both groups showed significant FE’s (ps < .05). However, the greater FE for the 12 pellet groups was due to slower Alley 2 speeds follow- ing reward on Trial Blocks 8 and 9 by the 12 pellet groups than the four pellet groups. Furthermore, on Trial Block 9, the 12 pellet groups were also running slower than the four pellet groups following nonreward in Goalbox 1. All of these comparisons were found to be significant at the .05 level.

The simple effects analysis of the Goalbox 1 Reward Condition X Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude interaction revealed that the FE was significant (Ps < .001) for groups which received either four pellets in Goalbox 2 (4:4 and 12:4) or 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 (4:12 and 12:12) and, as evidenced in Figure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JAMES C. GUTMANN AND JOSEPH A. SGRO 265

- 1 3 7 r 0 u Y) \

5 - 113

w w n. c3 z z z

n

6 9 -

-

2 65

2, that the FE was greater for the 12 pellet groups than the four pellet groups.

2 . Postshift Session

Alley 1. The mean postshift Alley 1 running speeds over preshift Trial Block 9 and postshift Trial Blocks 10 through 13 are presented in Figure 3. A 2 X 2 x 2 x 5 analysis of variance was performed on mean Alley 1 running speeds, over preshift Trial Block 9 and postshift Trial Blocks 10 through 13. The between-group variables which were included in the analy- sis were Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (fourvs. 12 pellets), Postshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (four vs. 12 pellets), and Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude (four 'us. 12 pellets). The within-subject variable was Trial Blocks. The significant findings in this analysis were a Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude effect [F (1,95) = 5.64, p < .05] and a Trial Blocks effects [ F (4,380) = 3.34, p < .01]. Groups which received 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 during preshift ran significantly slower in Alley 1 during postshift than rats which received four pellets in Goalbox 1 during preshift.

Alley 2. The mean Postshift Alley 2 running speeds as a function of trial blocks are shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4, it is evident that each group displayed an F E and that the Alley 2 differences were most pronounced following reward in Goalbox 1. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 5 analysis of variance was performed on mean Alley 2 running speeds over preshift Trial Block 9 and

- -*----a - -0 ~ _ _ - -*- -- -

JL

- 0 - - -8:: - * - o----

*-4 4-4:4 &-a 4-4:12 e--O 4-12:4 0-Q 4-12:12 C. 12-4:4 CI 12-4:12 - W 12-12:4 D--o 12-12:12

L7

I I 1 I I I I I 1 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

266 JOURNAL O F GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

postshift Trial Blocks 10 through 13.’ The between-group variables in this analysis were Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (four DS. 12 pellets), Postshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude (four vs. 12 pellets) and Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude (four US. 12 pellets). The within-subject variables were Goalbox 1 Reward Condition (reward vs. nonreward) and Trial Blocks.

The results of the above analysis indicated that (a) the Goalbox 1 Reward Condition X Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Trial Blocks inter- action was significant [ F (4,380) = 4.66, p < .001]; ( b ) the Postshift Goal- box 1 Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Condition interaction was significant [ F (1,95) = 12.19, p < .001]; and (0 the Goalbox 2 Re- ward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward condition interaction was significant [ F (1,951 = 21.66, p < .001].

The lack of a significant Goalbox 1 Reward Condition x Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude X Postshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude X Trial Blocks indicates that the F E was not affected by an immediate shift in reward magnitude on rewarded trials.

Simple effects assessment of the Goalbox 1 Reward Condition x Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Trial Blocks interaction indicated that the groups which received 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 during preshift showed a significantly (p < .001) greater F E than the four pellet groups on Trial Block 9. However, the Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Preshift Goalbox 1 Re- ward Magnitude interaction failed to be statistically reliable over Trial Blocks 10 through 13.

The simple effects of the Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Condition interaction revealed significant FE’s (p < .001) for all groups. Groups with 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 showed a greater F E than groups with four pellets in Goalbox 2 (p < .001). This difference was due to significantly ( p < ,001) slower Alley 2 speeds following reward by the groups which received 12 pellets in Goalbox 2 .

Finally the analysis of the Goalbox 1 Postshift Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Condition interaction revealed that groups which re- ceived 12 pellets in Goalbox 1 during postshift showed a significantly ( p < ,001) greater F E than groups which received four pellets in Goalbox 1. Again, the difference was due to significantly (p < .001) slower Alley 2 speeds displayed by the 12 pellet groups following reward in Goalbox 1.

Main effects and interactions were deemed significant if they were at the p < ,001 significance level, this following the suggestion of Brownlee (3, 5 10-5 11) on controlling alpha error for analyses of variance with over 20 sources of variance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JAMES C. GUTMANN AND JOSEPH A. SGRO 267

I37

113

0 0 c 5 89 - 0 W W

$ 65

NON - REWARD

e-4 4-4 :4 M 4-12:4 &--A 4-4:12 Dd 4-12:12

9 10 1 1 12 13

REWARD

t 10 I t 12 13 9

TRIAL BLOCKS

FIGURE 4 MEAN POSTSHIFT ALLEY 2 RUNNING SPEED AS A FUNCTION OF TRIAL BLOCKS

Trial Block 9 represents the withind conditions at the end of preshift. Trial Blocks 10-13 represent the withind conditions of postshift and are plotted in blocks of six trials.

D. DISCUSSION The failure to obtain a significant Preshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude

x Postshift Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Condition interaction indicates that the incomplete reward reduction or reward in- crease on reward trials did not affect the magnitude of the FE.

It is clear from the Alley 2 findings that the magnitude of the FE varies directly as a function of the respective reward magnitude in Goalbox 1 and Goalbox 2. These findings may be incorporated within the theoretical no- tions underlying the use of postconsummatory delay. Since the major deter- minant for differential FE's were Alley 2 differences following rewurded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

268 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

trials in Goalbox 1, it is possible that the presence of postconsummatory delay for the four pellet condition in Goalbox 1 may have served to energize subsequent Alley 2 speeds. To this end, Holder, Marx, Holder, and Collier (6) have reported that postdelay alleyway speeds increase as a function of mid-alley delay.

The lack of a significant Goalbox 2 Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Magnitude x Goalbox 1 Reward Condition interaction indicates that Goalbox 1 and Goalbox 2 are independent in their effects on the mag- nitude of the FE. The findings that the magnitude of the F E varied directly as a function of Goalbox 2 reward magnitude may be attributed to the continual presence of competing behavior being conditioned for the 12 pellet condition in Goalbox 2. It is interesting to note that these data are in conflict with the findings of Krippner, Endsley, and Tacker (8). A close examination of Krippner et al.’s methodology reveals that rats were allowed immediate access to Alley 2 upon consummation of the pellets in Goalbox 1 and also immediate release from Goalbox 2 upon completion of eating.

The major Alley 1 findings were that preshift Alley 1 speeds were in- versely related to Goalbox 2 reward magnitude and that postshift Alley 1 speeds were inversely related to Goalbox 1 reward magnitude. In light of single straight alleyway findings in which reward magnitude is directly re- lated to alley speeds (13), the present double alleyway findings are striking. Unfortunately, previous investigators (5, 8) who have manipulated Goalbox 2 reward magnitude have failed to report Alley 1 data. It is interesting to note that in Daly’s (4) study, a slight but nonsignificant difference in favor of faster Alley 1 running speeds was observed for small (six pellet) than large (15 pellet) Goalbox 1 reward. Finally, Peckham and Amsel(11) report that in a double alleyway in which brightness discrimination is acquired on the basis of a large (eight pellet) vs. a small (two pellet) reward magnitude, significantly faster Alley 1 speeds were made to small reward magnitude than to large reward magnitude.

A possible explanation for the Alley 1 preshift and postshift data may be found within a frustration/competing response framework. Since all groups were given 20 sec duration in both goalboxes on every trial, it is entirely possible that the availability of the four pellet condition could have resulted in a postconsummatory delay. Mikulka, Vogel, and Spear (10) have suggested the postconsummatory delay may very well involve the occurrence of nonreward cues. In this light, it may be expected that the four pellet condi- tion would be more frustrative and therefore more energizing to the ongoing instrumental response. The 12 pellet condition, on the other hand, would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

JAMES C. GUTMANN A N D JOSEPH A. SGRO 269

involve less postconsummatory delay and greater approaches to food pellets in the goalbox. In this manner, the 12 pellet condition would result in a greater number of competing responses which would become conditioned to stimuli in Goalbox 2 and eventually be elicited in Alley 1. The evocation of these responses in Alley 1 would thereby interfere with the instrumental running response. In Goalbox 1 the presence of postconsummatory delay exists on 50% of the trials. As a partial postconsummatory delay as opposed to continuous postconsummatory delay of Goalbox 2 , the effects of Goalbox 1 reward magnitude would necessitate a greater number of trials before its consequences in Alley 1 would be observed.

1.

2.

3. 4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

REFERENCES AMSEL, A., & ROUSSEL, J. Motivational properties of frustration. I. Effect on a running

response of the addition of frustration to the motivational complex. J . Exper. Psychol.,

BARRETT, R. J . , PEYSER, C. S., & MCHOSE, J. H . Effects of complete and incomplete

BROWNLEE, K. A., Statistical Theory and Methodology. New York: Wiley, 1965. DALY, H. B. Excitatory and inhibitory effects of complete and incomplete reward reduc-

HAMM, H. D. Perseveration and summation of the frustration effect. J . Exper. Psychol.,

HOLDER, W. , MARX, M., HOLDER, E., & COLLIER, G . Response strength as a function of delay of reward in a runway. J. Exper. Psychol., 1957, 53, 316-323.

KARABENICK, S. A. Effects of reward increase and reduction in the double runway. J . Exper. Psychol., 1969, 82, 79-87.

KRIPPNER, R. A, , ENDSLEY, R. C., & TACKER, R. S. Magnitude of Gt reward and the frustration effect in a between-subjects design. Psychon. Sci . , 1967, 9, 399-400.

MCHOSE, J. H., & LUDVIGSON, H. W. Role of reward magnitude and incomplete reduc- tion of reward in the frustration effect. J. Exper. Psyrhol., 1965, 70,490-495.

MIKULKA, P. J . , VOGEL, J. R., & SPEAR, N. W. Postconsummatory delay and goalbox confinement. Psychon. S c i . , 1967, 9(7A), 381-382.

PECKHAM, R. H., & AMSEL, A. Within-subject demonstration of a relationship between frustration and magnitude of reward in a differential magnitude of reward discrimina- tion. J. Exper. Psychol., 1967, 73, 187-195.

WAGNER, A. R. The role of reinforcement and nonreinforcement in an “apparent frustra- tion effect.” J. Exper. Psychol., 1959, 57, 130-136.

-. Effects of amount and percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition trials on conditioning and extinction. J . Erper . Psychol., 1961, 62, 234-242.

1952, 43, 363-368.

reward reduction on a subsequent response. Psychon. Sci . , 1965, 3, 277-278.

tion in the double runway. J . Exper. Psychol., 1968, 76, 430-438.

1967, 73, 196-203.

Department of Psychology Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

2:01

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14