Secondary Reinforcement Effects Research Articles

SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT VALUE OF STIMULI ASSOCIATED WITH SHOCK REDUCTION.

An experiment is described in which 32 rats were tested to determine if an escape box which had been previously associated with shock reduction had secondary reinforcement value. Subjects were tested in both a fear and a neutral situation. Significant secondary reinforcement effects were found in both situations. However, contary to expectations, greater secondary reinforcement effects were obtained in the neutral than in the fear situation.

CUE AND SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS WITH CHILDREN.

CUE AND SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS WITH CHILDREN.

Secondary Reinforcement Effects as a Function of Reward Magnitude Training Methods

5 groups of 10 albino rats were trained by direct goalbox placement to either a black or striped goalbox. Two groups were trained under absolute conditions with either large (A-L) or small reward (A-S), and 2 groups were discrimination trained to the goalboxes with either large (D-L) or small (D-S) reward. A fifth group received differential training with large reward to one goalbox and small reward to the other (Df). The test period, consisting of free and forced-choice T-maze trials extended over 10 days. It was found that only the A-S mean failed to exceed chance, the Df mean significantly exceeded the A-L mean but not the D-L or D-S means, and even under highly controlled discrete-trial test conditions, differential training produces a stronger reward magnitude effect than absolute training.

Influence of Conditions at the Time of Reinforcement upon the Strength of a Secondary Reinforcement Effect

Animals were trained to run through a guillotine door into an adjacent compartment for water reinforcement. They were then given access to the compartment as a consequence of bar-pressing, but no water. At the time of testing for bar-pressing various changes were made in the type of response required. For other groups of animals variations were made in the relative sizes of the two compartments during both training and testing. It was found that “getting into the starting box” was as reinforcing as “getting out of the starting box,” that learning in the testing situation did not occur unless previous water reinforcement had been given in one of the compartments, and that changes in the type of response required at the time of testing did not diminish the learning effect.

Influence of Three Stimulus Conditions upon the Strength of a Secondary Reinforcement Effect

Animals were trained to approach a water dipper at the onset of a light and a tone, water being received following approach on an intermittent schedule. For three groups of animals bar-pressing was then reinforced on an intermittent schedule, using three stimulus conditions: light and tone only; light, tone, and dry dipper; and light, tone, and interrupted presentation of dry dipper. The interrupted presentation proved to be the most effective reinforcer. Ss in other groups which did not at first show a strong effect did so when switched to this condition.

Maze Learning by Secondary Reinforcement without Discrimination Training

An experiment was conducted to determine whether discrimination training is necessary to establish a neutral stimulus as a secondary reinforcer. Twenty rats were discrimination trained with 65 reward trials and 25 nonreward trials (black end-box positive, white end-box negative, and vice versa); 20 rats were single-stimulus trained to either a black or white end-box for 65 reward trials. T-maze test trials were given at a rate of 1 free choice and 3 forced-choice trials per day for 11 days. One-half of the Ss in each training group were given standard nonreward test trials; one-half of the Ss from each training condition were rewarded for both maze choices. The results showed that all 4 experimental groups performed significantly better than chance in the T maze. The successful test effects were attributed, in part, to the control of such factors as frustration and stimulus novelty. The data further suggest that discrimination training is not necessary for the production of secondary reinforcement effects.

Secondary reinforcement effects as a function of method of testing.

Secondary reinforcement effects as a function of method of testing.

The Effects of Secondary and Partial Reinforcement Trainings on Reactivity in the White Rat

In discussing various types of training procedure in learning experiments, stress is usually placed on the acquisition and extinction of the responses which are directly relevant to reinforcement, with little regard to the change of general activity level under different experimental situations. Recently, however, it has been suggested, with some experimental evidence, that the response vigor in “frustrative” situation has a tendency to increase (1, 2, 10, 12). Present study was designed to investigate the alleged facilitating effect of the general activity level on the relevant responses (bar-pressing, in this case) during the testing or extinction process in secondary and partial reinforcement trainings.In Exp. I, procedure used was essentially similar to Bersh's experiment on secondary reinforcer (3), except that an activity wheel, which has a response bar, a flickering light source, and a feeding device, was used to record the general activity level together with the learning course. Ss were 28 male albino rats. Prior to the training, adaptation session was given in which each bar-pressing by the animal produced 3-sec. light, and the operant level of bar-pressing was recorded for each animal for 30 min. In training, the bar was withdrawn, and Ss were divided into two groups, F (forward conditioning) group and B (backward conditioning) group. F group was given 30 presentations of 3-sec. light followed by two pellets (100 mg) of food for each day and for six consecutive days. B group was given the same pairing of light and food, but in reversed order. Then in testing the bar was re-inserted, and each group was subdivided into two groups, Lc (light contingent) group and NLc (not light contingent) group. The procedure for Lc group was the same as in the adaptation session, whereas in NLc group lights were presented by E, independently of S's bar-pressing, with the restriction that the number of light presentations as well as the distribution of their intervals were for F-NLc group the same as in F-Lc group, and for B-NLc group the same as in B-Lc group. Training procedure of Exp. II was shown in table II. Apparatus used was the same as Exp. I except for the omission of the light source. Ss were 21 male albino rats. The criterion for extinction was the nonoccurrence of bar-pressing for 10min. Records were taken, however, at least for 60 min. after extinction had begun.Main findings were as follows.1. In Exp. I, the effect of secondary reinforcement on bar press responses was insignificant, while the light contingent effect was significant at the 5 % level.2. Amount of activity recorded by the activity wheel was significantly larger in F-groups than in B-groups.3. In Exp. II, resistance to extinction was not significantly different between C-64 and P-64 groups.4. Difference in bar press responses for 60min. among three groups in Exp. II was not significant, but difference in activity level was highly significant.From these results, it was suggested that bar press responses might be facilitated by the enhanced activity level in a situation which is “frustrative” but has no “outlet” of enhanced activity such as the activity wheel in this experiment.

Secondary reinforcement in a discrimination problem with children.

There have been relatively few studies of the role of secondary reinforcers in motivating the performance of children. Nor are many data available on the effectiveness of secondary reinforcers in maintaining discrimination learning. The present study was designed to contribute information on both of these points, by investigating the effectiveness of secondary reinforcers in discrimination learning in children. Two relevant studies have been carried out with adults. Hubbard (4) trained adults with a red light as a reinforcer and an accompanying tone as a secondary reinforcer for correct discriminative responses. He obtained a highly significant secondary reinforcement effect; the experimental group made more correct responses during extinction trials than did either of two control groups. Fort, Myers, and Myers (3) also investigated discrimination problem performance, with a more clearly defined than that used by Hubbard. Hubbard's primary reward was a red light used to indicate correct responses; Fort and Meyers gave Ss a poker chip, exchangeable for five cents at the end of the session. The results of the two studies were highly similar.

Secondary Reinforcement Effects in a T-Maze Test following Direct Placement Training

Secondary Reinforcement Effects in a T-Maze Test following Direct Placement Training

Enhanced Learning of a Position-Habit with Secondary Reinforcement for the Wrong Response

It has recently been suggested that while the concept of secondary reinforcement is very frequently used, direct supporting evidence is surprisingly sparse and equivocal.l Much of the relevant evidence is concerned with the observation that a response which is followed by a secondary reinforcing stimulus extinguishes more slowly than a response with no such reinforcement, but this phenomenon can be explained at least as effectively in terms of discrimination.2 Direct evidence of the effect of secondary reinforcement on acquisition is less common, and such effects as have been demonstrated are rarely as marked as the theory would predict.3 Once again the results are open to an interpretation in terms of discrimination. The present study aims to examine a situation in which the sight of food would be expected to strengthen the wrong R if it acts as a simple secondary reinforcement, while aiding the correct R if it acts as a cue to the location of rewzd.