Abstract
In two experiments, effects of varying reward magnitude were compared with the effects of varying deprivation level. Resistance to extinction under low deprivation was found to be an increasing function of deprivation level during acquisition, whether partial or consistent reward was used, and an increasing function of reward magnitude if partial reward was used in acquisition. If consistent reward was used in acquisition, resistance to extinction was inversely related to acquisition reward magnitude. These experiments indicate that all of the effects of reward magnitude and deprivation level on performance cannot be explained by a single incentive mechanism. Two hypotheses that would account for the data are that reward-related stimuli have stronger control over responding than deprivation stimuli and/or that downshifts in reward size produce frustration, but deprivation shifts do not.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amsel, A. The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous situations. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 102–119.
Bolles, R. C. Theory of motivation (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Capaldi, E. D. Resistance to extinction in rats as a function of deprivation level and schedule of reward in acquisition. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972, 79, 90–98.
Capaldi, E. D., & Friedman, F. Deprivation and reward stimuli as compound stimuli. Learning & Motivation, 1976, 7, 17–30.
Capaldi, E. D., & Hovancik, J. R. Effects of previous body weight level on rats’ straight-alley performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 97, 93–97.
Capaldi, E. D., Smith, N. S., & White, L. Control of reward expectancies by drive stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1977, 3, 229–235.
Capaldi, E. J. A sequential hypothesis of instrumental learning. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1967.
Hulse, S. H. Amount and percentage of reinforcement and duration of confinement in conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 48–57.
Likely, D., Little, L., & Mackintosh, N. J. Extinction as a function of magnitude and percentage of food or sucrose reward. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1971, 25, 130–137.
Mackintosh, N. J. Psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press, 1974.
Mollenauer, S. O. Shift in deprivation level: Different effects depending on amount of preshift training. Learning and Motivation, 1971, 2, 58–66.
Pavlik, W. B., & Reynolds, W. F. Effects of deprivation schedule and reward magnitude on acquisition and extinction performance. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 452–455.
Renner, K. E., Cravens, R. W., & Wooley, O. W. Relative utility of food reward as a function of cyclic deprivation or body weight loss in albino rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 90, 102–112.
Wagner, A. R. Effects of amount and percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition trials on conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 62, 234–242.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant MH 23446-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Elizabeth D. Capaldi.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davidson, T.L., Capaldi, E.D. & Peterson, J.L. A comparison of the effects of reward magnitude and deprivation level on resistance to extinction. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 19, 119–122 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330058
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330058