Arts, Faculty of
Psychology, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Young, Brian Jeffrey
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Both Frustration Theory and Sequential Effects Theory appear to account with some plausibility for the Partial Reinforcement Effect (PRE) and accompanying phenomena. On the basis of Frustration Theory, however, a PRE should not occur after only minimal acquisition training. On this point, the experimental evidence is conflicting. On the basis of analogous studies employing extended acquisition, trial distribution may be suggested as a factor, among others, which might affect the occurrence of the PRE. All previous studies showing evidence for a PRE after minimal acquisition employed intertrial intervals (ITI's) in acquisition and extinction of no more than 15 minutes. The problem which this study was concerned with was therefore whether a PRE could be obtained after only minimal acquisition when trials were distributed. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that a PRE would occur after a sequence of only five trials under a partial reinforcement (PRF) schedule in an 'RNRNR' sequence, compared with performance following continuous reinforcement (CRF), irrespective of whether trials were highly distributed or highly massed. A factorial 2x2 design was used in which four groups of Ss were trained under two conditions of reward schedule (PRF or CRF), and two conditions of ITI both in acquisition and extinction. The method, apparatus and procedure of a previous study (McCain, 1969) which showed evidence for a PRE after only minimal acquisition were replicated as far as possible, except for changes required by the design or on theoretical grounds. Evidence was found for a PRE under both conditions of ITI in terms of differences in extinction trends, confirming the hypothesis tested. Trial distribution was found to effect the mean running speeds shown by PRF and CRF groups such that greater resistance to extinction was shown by the PRF group in comparison to the CRF group when the ITI was 30 sec., while running measures did not show this effect when the ITI was 24 hours. This latter lack of a significant difference appeared to be mainly due to a reduction in PRF running speeds when the ITI was 24 hours rather than an increase in CRF running speeds.
DISTRIBUTION OF TRIALS AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT AFTER MINIMAL ACQUISITION by BRIAN JEFFREY YOUNG B.A., University of London, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE' UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1970 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . However, F i g u r e s 1 - 5 a r e c o p y r i g h t m a t e r i a l and p e r m i s s i o n f o r c o p y i n g s h o u l d , o f c o u r s e , be o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r s . D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a Date August 17th, 1970 i ABSTRACT Both Frustration Theory and Sequential Effects Theory appear to account with some p l a u s i b i l i t y for the P a r t i a l Reinfor-cement Effect (PRE) and accompanying phenomena. On the basis of Frustration Theory, however, a PRE should not occur after only minimal acquisition t r a i n i n g . On this point, the experimental evidence i s c o n f l i c t i n g . On the basis of analogous studies employing extended acquisition, t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n may be suggested as a factor, among others, which might affect the occurrence of the PRE. A l l previous studies showing evidence for a PRE after minimal acquisition employed i n t e r t r i a l i ntervals (ITI's) i n acquisition and extinction of no more than 15 minutes. The problem which this t h i s study was concerned with was therefore whether a PRE could be obtained after only minimal acquisition when t r i a l s were distributed. Accordingly, i t was hypothesized that a PRE would occur after a sequence of only f i v e t r i a l s under a p a r t i a l reinforcement (PRF) schedule i n an 'RNRNR' sequence, compared with performance follow-ing continuous reinforcement (CRF), irrespective of whether t r i a l s were highly distributed or highly massed. A f a c t o r i a l 2 x 2 design was used i n which four groups of Ss were trained under two conditions cf reward schedule (PRF or CRF), and two conditions of ITI both i n acquisition and extinction. The method, apparatus and procedure cf a previous study (McCain, 1969) which showed evidence for a PRE after only minimal acqu i s i t i o n were replicated as far as possible, except for changes required by i i the design or on theoretical grounds. Evidence was found for a PRE under both conditions of ITI i n terms of differences i n extinction trends„ confirming the hypothesis tested. T r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n was found to effect the mean running speeds shown by PRF and CRF groups such that greater resistance to extinction was shown by the FRF group i n comparison to the CRF group when the ITI .was 30 s e c , while running measures did not show this effect when the ITI was 24 hours. This l a t t e r lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t difference appeared to be mainly due to a reduction i n PRF running speeds when the ITI was 24 hours rather than an increase i n CRF running speeds. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction * Method 4 6 Results 6 1 Discussion 79 Conclusions 95 Appendix • • 105 i v LIST OF TABLES Table I Analysis of Variance o f i A e r u i s i t i c n Data ( L o p Transformation) . . . . Table II Analysis of Variance of E x t i n c t i o n Data (Log Transformation) Table I I I Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Condition of Reward Schedule and each Measure Table IV Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Condition of ITI and each Measure . . . . 112 Table V Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Treatment Group 113 Table VI Mean Ac q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds on each T r i a l . . 114 Table VII Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Condition of Reward Schedule on each T r i a l 115 Table VIII Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Condition of ITI on each T r i a l 117 Table IX Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds for each Treatment Group on each T r i a l 119 Table X Sign i f i c a n c e Levels Attained i n Scheffe Comparisons of Ov e r a l l A c q u i s i t i o n Means of Treatment Groups when IxR was S i g n i f i c a n t 122 Table XI Sign i f i c a n c e Levels Attained i n Scheffe Comparisons of Within Group-Means on Acquisitions T r i a l s Following Mean Reward . . 123 Table XII Mean E x t i n c t i o n Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of Reward Schedule 124 Table XUI Mean E x t i n c t i o n Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of ITI 125 Table XEV Mean Ex t i n c t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r each Treatment Group 126 Table XV Mean Ex t i n c t i o n Latencies i n Seconds on each T r i a l Block 127 Page 62 68 111 V Page Table XVI Mean Extinction Latencies in Seconds for each Condition of Reward Schedule cn each T r i a l Block 128 Table XVII Mean Extinction Latencies in Seconds for each Condition of ITI on each T r i a l Block . 129 Table XVIII Mean Extinction Latencies in Seconds for each Treatment Group on each T r i a l Block . 130 Table XIX Significance Levels Attained in Scheffe Comparisons of Overall Extinction Means of Treatment Groups when IxR was Significant 133 Table XX Significance Levels Attained by F Max. Tests of Heterogeneity of Variance of Extinction Data 134 Table XXI Significance Levels Attained by Linear and Quadratic Components of Trends in Extinction 135 Table XXII Summary of Significance Levels Attained by the Interaction of Treatment Groups and Extinction T r i a l Blocks 137 Table XXIII Summary of Probabilities Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Extinction Data without the Use of T r i a l Blocks 138 Table XXIV Sums of Squares for S_'s Within each Group ( SS(S's W.Gi.j.)) and for the Inter-action of Trials & S_'s within each Group . 139 Table XXV Summary of Probabilities Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Acquisition Data 140 Table XXVI Summary of Probabilities Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Extinction Data in Terms of T r i a l Blocks 141 Table XXVII Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Acquisition Data 142 Table XXVTII Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Extinction Data Employing T r i a l Blocks 144 Table XXIV Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Extinction Data without the Use of T r i a l Blocks 147 v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Schema of Pavlovian and Thorndikian learning showing how conditioning processes are assumed to be involved i n instrumental learning ( a f t e r Spence, 1956, p. 60) . Page Figure 2. Schematic representation of the condition-ing of ant i c i p a t o r y reward (r^) and the involvement of r ^ and nonreward ( S n o n p) i n the conditioning of an t i c i p a t o r y f r u s t r a t i o n ( r p ). From Amsel and Ward (1965) 5 Figure 3. Diagrammed sequence of hypotheses r e l a t i n g f r u s t r a t i v e nonreward to stapes of p a r t i a l reward and discrimination learning. From Amsel and Ward (1965) 6 Figue 4. Hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s of gradients of r ^ and rp early and l a t e i n t r a i n i n g as an explanation of within-S response, vigor e f f e c t s i n a c q u i s i t i o n . From Amsel (1967) . . . . 14 Figure 5. The e f f e c t s of d e l i v e r i n g three reinforcements at SN-*- versus one reinforcement at S^3 when F equals .25. From Capaldi, 3.967 . . . . 21 Figure 6. Diagram of apparatus used. (After McCain, 1963, 9) 47 Figure 7. Mean running latencies i n a c q u i s i t i o n f o r each treatment group on each t r i a l (Total Run measure, Log data) 65 Figure 8. Mean running lat e n c i e s i n e x t i n c t i o n f o r each condition of reward schedule on each ex t i n c t i o n t r i a l block. (Total Run measure, Log data) 69 Figure 9. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n a c q u i s i t i o n and ex t i n c t i o n f o r each treatment group (Total Run Measure, Log data) 71 Figure 10. Mean running lat e n c i e s on each t r i a l (block) i n a c q u i s i t i o n and ex t i n c t i o n for each treatment group (Start measure, Log data) 106 v i i Page Figure 11. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group.(Run 1 measure, Log data) 107 Figure 12. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group.(Run 2 measure, Log data) 108 Figure 13. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group.(Goal measure, Log data) 10S Figure 14. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group. ( F u l l Alley measure, Log data) 110 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The advice and cr i t i c i s m s of Professor Fred P. Valle and those of Professors George A. Raymond and Dale Atrens are gratefully acknowledged. INTRODUCTION Two main accounts of the effects of non-reinforcement (NRF) upon instrumental responses may currently be distinguished. These are the concepts of "frustrative" NRF advanced by Amsel (1958, 1967; Amsel and Ward, 1965) and Capaldi's (1966, 1967) account of "sequential effects" due to the patterning of rewarded and non-rewarded t r i a l s . In terms of Amsel?s (1962) dist inction between "active" and "passive" conceptions of NRF, both of these accounts would seem to be "active" in that they attribute direct inhibitory and motivational properties to NRF. Consequently, both are able to account for effects due to "complex goal events" )Amsel, 1962) such as effects due to NRF following prior reward of a response. These accounts thus saand i n contrast to the "passive" accounts of NRF (Amsel, 1962) such as Hul l ' s earl ier (1943) two factor inhibi t ion theory account of NRF. I t i s not, therefore, surprising to note that both Frustration Theory and Sequential Effects Theory have attempted to account for a number of effects due to complex goal events other than NRF following prior reward (e.g. variation i n reward magnitude, delay of reward). Although the following discussion w i l l be concerned mainly with NRF effects i t i s , therefore, important to note that the application of Frustration Theory and Sequential Effects Theory i s considerably wider. 2 Amsel's Theory of Frustrative Nonreward Amsel's theory of frustrative NRF (e.g. Amsel, 1958; Amsel and Ward, 1965; Amsel, 1967) is neobehavioristic and combines elements of both Pavlovian classical conditioning and Thorndike's instrumental conditioning. This type of approach, used extensively by Spence (e.g., 1956) suggests that classically conditioned (implicit) responses are important in instrumental learning, having the capacity to provide feedback stimulation and incentive motivation and to serve as major mediational mechanisms. The basic paradigm of the role of classical conditioning is illustrated in Figure 1. If the top l e f t paradigm represents classical conditioning and the top right instrumental conditioning, then the role of classical condition-ing in instrumental learning f a l l s into two stages illustrated at the bottom of Figure 1. In stage 1, i s formed as part of the instrumental sequence, as the conditioned response to S^, the conditioned stimulus. In Stage 2, r^ moves forward in time and through i t s feedback stimulation s_ becomes part of the mechanism for the evocation of the Instrumental response. This then i s a general conception of the role of classical conditioning in instrumental learning, and R_is to be understood as "goal events". Amsel (1958) originally proposed that these goal events were rewards (R^), punishments (Rp) and frustrations (Rp). Relief has been suggested as a fourth kind of goal event. Amsel (1967) claics that the general r c r'cl outlined above may be applied to a l l four types of goal events. However, he himself has Only applied i t to rewards and frustrations. On rewarded t r i a l s , Amsel (1967) suggests anticipatory reward (r R) develops via classical conditioning to the stimuli of the experimental situation, S. (e.g. 3 C L A S S I C A L (PAVLOV IAN ) INSTR UM ENTAL" (THORNDIKI AN ) F i g . 1. Schema of Pavlovian and Thorndikian learning showing how conditioning processes are assumed to be involved i n instrumental learning (after Spence, 1956, p. 60). In this figure and i n Figure 2, dashed li n e s represent strengthened instrumental connections; s o l i d l i n e s represent unlearned connections; and wiggly l i n e s represent a contingency relationship between the instrumental response and the appearance of the goal stimulus i n instrumental learning. From Amsel & Ward (1965). 4 being i n a runway). Reward t r i a l s cause r D to develop more strongly and also to move forward i n time (or back along the instrumental sequence) to become part of the mechanism a f f e c t i n g the instrumental response. When r R and i t s feedback stimulation s R a f f e c t the instrumental response, the behavior can be sai d to involve incentive motivation (see Figure 2). When reward-incentive motivation i s operating and the goal i s nonrewarding ( S j ^ ^ ) , rather than a r e -warding event, primary f r u s t r a t i o n (Rp) r e s u l t s . F r u s t r a t i o n i s thus defined as NRF i n the presence of r„, so that both a n t i c i p a t o r y reward and NRF are both necessary, but not s u f f i c i e n t , conditions f o r f r u s t r a t i o n ; incentive motivation must also be operating. Since Rp i s a UCR to S.Trt„ „, NRF w i l l cause r_, to be conditioned to the cues of NON R F the experimental s i t u a t i o n (S^). This conditioned response of a n t i -cipatory f r u s t r a t i o n moves forward i n time (or back along the instrumental sequence) to a f f e c t the instrumental response. Amsel (1967) assumes that r p and r R a f f e c t the instrumental response i n some manner antagonistic to one another. Ansel and Ward (1965) have applied the concept of an t i c i p a t o r y f r u s t r a t i o n to a c q u i s i t i o n t r a i n i n g under p a r t i a l reinforcement (PRF) schedules (Figure 3). In Stage 1 of PRF t r a i n i n g , r R develops on reward t r i a l s , while on NRF t r i a l s r_, cannot yet develop. In Stage 2 r a n t i c i p a t o r y reward (r^) has moved back i n time and, by i t s feedback, s_., i t a f f e c t s the instrumental response, and so i s the mechanism of incentive motivation. On NRF t r i a l s , since both a n t i c i p a t o r y reward and incentive motivation operate, r ^ develops, conditioned on the basis of primary f r u s t r a t i o n (R p) as the UCR. In t h i s stage, r F , once strong, moves back i n time and v i a i t s stimulus feedback s p a f f e c t s the instrumental response. In Stage 3, r„ acts a n t a g o n i s t i c a l l y to 5 R E W A R D F i g . 2 . S c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g o f a n t i c i p a t o r y r e w a r d ( r R ) a n d t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f r R a n d n o n r e w a r d ( S n Q R ) i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g o f a n t i c i p a t o r y f r u s t r a t i o n ( r ° ? . F r o m A m s e l a n d W a r d ( 1 9 6 5 ) . F i g . 3. Diagrammed sequence of hypotheses r e l a t i n g f r u s t r a t i v e nonreward to stages of p a r t i a l reward and discrimination learning. From Amsel and Ward (1965). 7 T J J , because anticipatory reward mediates approach and anticipatory f r u s t r a t i o n mediates avoidance. F i n a l l y i n Stage 4, which i s only reached i f PRF trai n i n g i s carried on long enough, anticipatory f r u s t r a t i o n produced cues ( s p ) also become c l a s s i c a l l y conditioned on reward t r i a l s to approach, and hence both s and s_ mediate approach. Consequently s^ may evoke avoidance responses at Stage 3 and should hasten ext i n c t i o n , but at Stage 4 since s„ as well as s_ mediates approach, extinction should be retarded. Also, at Stage 3 behavior should be more variable than at Stages 2 or 4. Thus Amsel suggests that extinction i n an instrumental s i t u a t i o n i s , at least i n part, a fr u s t r a t i o n phenomenon, and that the p a r t i a l reinforcement effect (PRE) i s due to the learning of the mediation of approach to cues of s_ under a PRF schedule. F A considerable body of evidence has been amassed which i s relevant to an account of the PRE and other PRF effects i n terms of f r u s t r a t i v e NRF. While no attempt w i l l be made to assess evidence that i s only marginally relevant, such as evidence concerning the characteristics of f r u s t r a t i v e NRF and persistence e f f e c t s a r i s i n g from schedules of reward other than PRF, considerable evidence remains. In assessing t h i s evidence two major distinctions must be made. F i r s t l y , i t i s necessary to distinguish acquisition effects from extinction e f f e c t s , both because these d i f f e r and because s i g n i f i c a n t effects may be obtained i n one phase but not i n the other. Secondly, i t i s necessary to distinguish 'within-S' designs, involving comparisons of data from the same S_ under different experimental treatments, from 'between-S_' designs, involving the comparison of data from dif f e r e n t groups of Ss used for each experimental treatment. 8 The s i m i l a r i t y of within-S PRF- CRF tra i n i n g to d i s c r i m i -nation learning, at least of the single successive type, has been emphasized (e.g. Amsel and Ward, 1965; Amsel, 1967). Amsel and Ward (1965) suggested that discrimination learning involves v i r t u -a l l y i d e n t i c a l stages as those involved i n learning under a (within-S) PRF schedule (Fig.3). In discrimination learning, the stimulus associated with reward (S+) and the stimulus associated with nonreward (S-) are not differentiated and are equivalent to the s t i m u l i of the experimental si t u a t i o n (S^) u n t i l Stage 4, where one (S+) begins to e l i c i t anticipatory reward, and one (S-) anticipatory f r u s t r a t i o n . Amsel (1967) argued that while j[ i s trained under a PRF schedule to make the same response on every t r i a l (S±) , i n discrimination learning S_ learns to respond (or not to respond) s e l e c t i v e l y (S^_, S£ +), but usually only after f i r s t learning to respond nonselectively on the basis of PRF. This i s due to the fact that the within-S_ PRF experiment t y p i c a l l y involves two s t i m u l i , one rewarded perhaps 50% (S^ +) and the other rewarded 100% of the time (S^*). The successive discrimination procedure again involves 100% reward to one stimulus (S2+), hut 0% 0% reward to the other ( S ^ ) . The occurrence of the PRE after between-^ PRF/CRF tr a i n i n g i s of course w e l l established (e.g. Humphreys, 1939a, b, 1943; Jenkins and Stanley, 1950). However a number of studies employing within-S PRF-CRF tr a i n i n g have f a i l e d to obtain a PRE even when acquisition was extensive. The same results were obtained equating either the t r i a l s or rewards associated with S^ and S£ {Amsel et a l . , 1966) , or when extinction training was either to both S. and S_ 9 consecutively or to one stimulus alone (Amsel, 1964). A general account of the PRE i n terms of f r u s t r a t i v e NRF c l e a r l y needs to account f o r these d i f f e r i n g e f f e cts. Brown and Logan (1965) proposed that f a i l u r e to find a PRE after within-S_ acquisition i s due to generalization of the PRE from to S£ so that a "generalized PRE" (GPRE) occurs. More e x p l i c i t l y , Amsel et a l . (1966) proposed that the GPRE occurs due to transfer of learned persistence from to perhaps v i a a mechanism of mediated (secondary) stimulus generalization from to S2. A number of studies have been carried out which lend some support to the GPRE account of f a i l u r e to f i n d a PRE after within-S_ PRF-CRF acquisition. On the assumption that i t i s weak stimulus control exerted by external s t i m u l i during extinction after within-S_ acquisition that results i n greater persistence during extinction to both and S2, a number of studies have attempted to increase the stimulus control of external s t i m u l i . While several early f a i l u r e s were reported (Amsel, 1967; Rashote and Amsel, 1968), Rashotte (1966) and Spear and Spitzner (1967) found evidence for a PRE after within-S_ acquisition with considerable brightness d i f ferences and differences i n the topography of responses. Amsel et a l . (1969) preceded within-S PRF-CRF acquisition and extinction i n white and black runways with simple (100% versus 0%) d i s c r i m i -n a t i o n t r a i n i n g to S^ and S2. Evidence was found for a PRE when the previous S+ became the CRF stimulus (S2) i n the second phase, whereas no s i g n i f i c a n t PRE was obtained when S2 had previously been S_-. The GPRE hypothesis requires the transfer of learned 10 persistence. Considerable evidence indicates that persistence acquired under one source of f r u s t r a t i o n w i l l transfer to another. For example, transfer between persistence derived from punishment and PRF tra i n i n g has been demonstrated (e.g. Brown and Wagner, 1964; Banks, 1967; Fallon, 1968) and transfer between persistence derived from PRF t r a i n i n g and " p a r t i a l blocking" schedules where unconsumable food p e l l e t s are given on a proportion of t r i a l s has also been demonstrated (Glazer and Amsel, 1970). While Rashotte and Amsel (1967) found evidence for trans-fer of behavior acquired under a discontinuous negatively corre-lated (DNC) schedule (under which ;S i s required to take a minimum specified i n t e r v a l before completing a response) to extinction behavior, a more di r e c t test of the p o s s i b i l i t y of transfer bet-ween persistence due to PRF tra i n i n g and that due to continuous NRF (extinction t r a i n i n g ) i s found i n a study by Ross (1964). Six groups were trained either to run, jump or climb for food reward under either a PRF (experimental groups) or CRF (control groups) schedule i n a short black box (Phase 1). In phase 2, a l l groups were treated i d e n t i c a l l y and were trained to run a long white run-way under t h i r s t deprivation and water reward for CRF and then ex-tinguished. Ross argued that persistence i n the behavior learned i n Phase 1 for experimental groups should transfer to extinction to Phase 2 and that, since ill u m i n a t i o n , reward and schedules differed from Phase 1 to 2, the basis for t h i s gransfer was evo* cation of r p - s p i n the PRF tra i n i n g and extinction training of Phases 1 and 2. Ross therefore predicted and found a PRE for the experimental groups trained to run or jump but not for the exper-11 imental group trained to climb, since persistence i n climbing would not be expected to assist greatly i n traversing of the run-way during Phase 2 extinction. Banks (1969) replicated Phases 1 and 2 of the Ross study for the two groups trained to climb except that two runways were used i n Phase 2, half of each group being trained and also ex t i n -guished i n one of the two. No s i g n i f i c a n t PRE was found i n Phase 2 confirming Ross's re s u l t s . However, a t h i r d phase was introduced i n which a l l Ss were returned to food deprivation,trained i n the alternate (novel) runway under a CRF schedule for food reward and then extinguished. A PRE was found i n Phase 3 extinction. Banks then attempted to see i f a PRE could be obtained i n Phase 2. In a second study, Phases 1 and 2 were again replicated except that i l l u m i n a t i o n , deprivation and reward conditions remained the same from Phase 1 to Phase 2, but no PRE was obtained. However, i n a t h i r d experiment i d e n t i c a l to Experiment I I except that 24 extra runway (Phase 2) acquisition t r i a l s were given, on the grounds that Phases 2 and 3 i n Experiment 1 differed i n the amount of prior run-way trai n i n g by that amount, evidence for a PRE i n Phase 2 was found. Banks argued that the occurrence of a PRE for running after PRF training of climbing responses presents a problem for the f r u s t r a t i v e NRF account of the PRE and that this account at least required modification. Perhaps the most obvious way to account for these results i s to argue that a rather more general form of response of approach-ing the goal i s conditioned to Sp under PRF schedules, or conversely, that the responses conditioned under Ross's three experimental 1 2 c o n d i t i o n s a r e n o t s o d i f f e r e n t a s h e s u p p o s e d . A l t h o u g h s u c h a v i e w i s s u p p o r t e d t o s o m e e x t e n t b y a s t u d y b y D a l y ( 1 9 6 9 ) w h o f o u n d t h a t i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s p o n s e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e o c c u r r i n g i n t h e GB w e r e u n n e c e s s a r y f o r N R F t o a c q u i r e c e r t a i n a p p a r e n t f r u s t r a t i v e p r o p e r t i e s , t h e p r o b l e m o f a c c o u n t i n g i n R o s s ' s ( 1 9 6 4 ) e x p e r i m e n t f o r t h e n o n o c c u r r e n c e f o r a P R E f o r t h e e x p e r -i m e n t a l g r o u p t r a i n e d t o c l i m b r e m a i n s . F i n a l l y , i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t , a s e v i d e n c e f o r t h e t y p e o f t r a n s f e r o f p e r s i s t e n c e r e q u i r e d b y t h e G P R E , R o s s ' s s t u d y m a y b e m i s l e a d i n g i n t h a t P R E s w e r e o b t a i n e d b y b e t w e e n - S _ c o m p a r i s o n s , e v e n t h o u g h e x p e r i m e n t a l Ss e x p e r i e n c e d b o t h P R F a n d C R F s c h e d u l e s . R e p l i c a t i o n w i t h w i t h i n - S e x t i n c t i o n i s c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d . W h i l e t h e f r u s t r a t i v e N R F a c c o u n t o f t h e P R E m a y d e r i v e s o m e s u p p o r t f r o m e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e G P R E a c c o u n t o f t h e n o n o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e P R E a f t e r w i t h i n - S a c q u i s i t i o n , p e r h a p s b e t t e r s u p p o r t i s t o b e f o u n d i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e c t i o n a l e f f e c t s i n t h e r u n w a y d u r i n g b o t h w i t h i n a n d b e t w e e n - S _ a c q u i s i t i o n u n d e r P R F s c h e d u l e s . Bewween-S_ s t u d i e s h a v e g e n e r a l l y s h o w n f a s t e r r u n n i n g b y P R F g r o u p s i n S t a r t a n d R u n m e a s u r e s e a r l y i n t r a i n i n g a n d t h e r e -v e r s e e f f e c t i n t h e g o a l m e a s u r e , w h i l e l a t e r i n t r a i n i n g a l l m e a s u r e s s h o w f a s t e r r u n n i n g b y C R F g r o u p s ( G o o d r i c h , 1 9 5 9 ; H a g g a r d , 1 9 5 9 ; W a g n e r , 1 9 6 1 ) . W i t h i n - S s t u d i e s , h o w e v e r , h a v e s h o w n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s i n t h a t f a s t e r r u n n i n g t o t h e C R F s t i m u l u s a p p e a r e d o n l y l a t e in t r a i n i n g i n t h e g o a l m e a s u r e a n d P R F s u p e r i o r i t y t h r o u g h o u t t r a i n i n g w a s s h o w n i n S t a r t a n d R u n ( o r R u n 1 ) m e a s u r e s ( A m s e l e t a l . , 1 9 6 1 ) ; A m s e l , 1 9 6 7 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , H e n d e r s o n ( u n p u b . v . A m s e l 1 9 6 7 ) f o u n d , i n a w i t h i n - S _ s t u d y i n 13 which percentage of reward associated with was var ied as a bet -ween groups fac to r , that the aversiveness of lower percentages of reward (associated with S^) appeared to show up most c lea r l y i n the Goal measure. Accordingly Amsel (1964, 1967) proposed that during the condit ioning of r and s_, both reach a stage where they serve only as a source of generalized dr ive ( 'K ' ) and have to become substan-t i a l l y stronger before they give r i se to s or s_ (and stop producing ' K ' ) . Since r- grows from the f i r s t rewarded t r i a l , i t reaches i t s K K and s., thresholds before r_ s ta r ts to grow (see F i g . 4 ) . Thus, at some stage i n t ra in ing (between t r i a l s 10 and 12 in F i g . 4 ) , r^ , exceeds i t s K threshold, but i s less than i t s s^, thresholds and, so potentiates any response i t accompanies. By assuming that the genera l izat ion gradient of r p i s f a i r l y steep, th is potent ia t ion would be expected to occur only or mainly in the goal region. Ear ly i n t ra in ing therefore, the PRF stimulus should e l i c i t greater in tens i ty of response than the CRF stimulus espec ia l l y i n the goal region, whi le l a te r i n t ra in ing r „ exceeds i t s s threshold and r r con f l i c t resu l ts (Stage 3 i n F i g . 2). However, when r „ gives r i se to Sp i n the goal region i t should-also give r i s e to K i n the e a r l i e r sect ion measures and potent iate the PRF respqhse. At a l l stages l i t t l e potent ia t ion of the CRF response occurs because of the steep genera l izat ion gradient of r^. v This expansion of Frust rat ion Theory would thus seem to ' account for within-S acqu is i t ion e f f ec t s , pa r t i cu l a r l y the cross-over ef fect shown i n the goal measure. During between-S_ acqu i s i t i on , there;1« of course no basis for genera l izat ion from one group to START RUN NI NG GOAL F i g . 4. Hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s of gradients of r ^ and r p early and l a t e i n t r a i n i n g as an explanation of within-S response vigor e f f e c t s i n a c q u i s i t i o n . (From Amsel, 1967) 15 another as there i s for generalization between and S2 during within-S acquisition. Therefore, CRF groups should show superior performance early i n training i n a l l measures, since p o s s i b i l i t y of potentiation by K i n the goal region should be s l i g h t , according to Amsel, at least when t r i a l s are equated (and thus the CRF group receives twice as many reinforcements). Later i n t r a i n i n g , Amsel argues that PRF performance should be depressed by strong MSp • avoidance" tendencies, while r„ generalized from the goal i s weak r tnd below i t s K threshold i n e a r l i e r sections of the runway and thus potentiates the PRF group's response i n start and run measures. One problem for t h i s account i s that between-S_ acquisition effects of the type noted have been found to develop very rapidly (Goodrich, 1959). Goodrich reported faster running by PRF groups i n s t a r t and run measures as early as the t h i r d block of four t r i a l s . Whether i t i s reasonable to expect such rapid development of r ^ , rp and K i n these sections i s c l e a r l y questionable. However, i t should be noted that Ss received nine rewarded goal box placements i n a separate goal box during pretraining. Although this goal box was a di f f e r e n t colour from that used i n experimental t r a i n i n g , i t seems possible that r„ may have gained i n strength v i a generalization bet-ter ween pretraining goal box and experimental goal box. More systematic investigations of acquisition section effects i s c l e a r l y required. From the foregoing discussion i t would seem that Frus-t r a t i o n Theory can account with some p l a u s i b i l i t y for the c l a s s i c PRE obtained after between-S_ acquisition, for nonoccurrence of the PRE after within-S acquisition and for the acquisition effects accom-panying them. However, a number of studies have reported a 16 'reverse PRE' after extensive within-S_ acquisition. Greater R to E af t e r extensive training for response to the stimulus associated previously with CRF (S 2) i s c l e a r l y d i f f i c u l t for Frustration Theory to plausibly account f o r . Pavlik et a l . (1965a) using a T-maze and running speed from choice point to goal as the dependent variable, found faster running to S 2 i n extinction after within-S acquisition while a conventional PRE was obtained after between-S-^acquisition. Similar effects have been reported from operant situations (Pavlik and Born, 1962; Pavlik and Reynolds, 1964). These results were interpreted by Pavlik as indicating the influence of contrast effects (Reynolds, 1961, 1963). Rashotte et a l . (1968) found evidence indicating that R to E after within-S-PRF trai n i n g ( i n t h i s case varied versus constant magnitude of reward) depended on the magnitude of reward associated with as wel l as S^. Although interpreted by Rashotte et a l . as indicating that "generali-zation from the CRF stimulus" took place, as well as "generalization of the PRE", this i s also interpretable i n terms of a contrast effects account, whether some modified version of the f r u s t r a t i v e NRF account, perhaps based on assumptions concerning generalization of r ^ as w e l l as r p , can account for the occurrence of the "reverse PRE" i s thus not yet clear. However, a number of studies have shown conventional PREs for T-maze choice behavior after within-S_ acquisition even when experience with the two alternatives was equated by forcing (Kendler and Lachman, 1958; Pennes and Ison, 1967; Lehr, 1970). Furthermore, i t now seems that most of the reverse PREs reported for T-maze choice behavior were a r t i f a c t u a l . Lehr (1970 pointed out that a l l of these 17 studies (Pavlik and Born, 1962; Pavlik and Lehr; Pavlik and Reynolds, 1964; Pennes and Ison, 1967) except that of Spear and Pavlik (1966), were erroneous i n that no allowance was made for CRF superiority at the end of acqu i s i t i o n , while mean correct extinction t r i a l s were compared over various blocks rather than Cocparing trends. Furthermore, the one study that did carry out a correct analysis (Spear and P a v l i k , 1966) may have been mislead-ing i n that one of the groups performed d i f f e r e n t l y from approx-imately i d e n t i c a l groups i n other studies (Spear and H a l l , 1965; Spear and Spitzner, 1966). Lehi- (1970) reports that a re-exami-nation of the raw data from two of the studies that have reported reverse PREs i n choice behavior (Pavlik and Reynolds, 1964; Pavlik and Lehr, 1967) using trend analysis showed conventional PREs. Whether the reverse PREs obtained for speed measures i n a T-maze can also be accounted for i n t h i s way i s not yet clear, a l -though Lehr (1967) suggests that T-maze running speed i s strongly influenced by the extent of discrimination tra i n i n g as wel l as the number of t r i a l s . F i n a l l y , conventional PREs have also been reported for operant situations after within-S acquisition (Young, 1969). Further investigation i s c l e a r l y needed before any con-clusions can be drawn regarding occurrence of the reverse PRE after within-S_ acquisition. In conclusion, therefore, i t would seem that an account of PRF train i n g i n terms of fr u s t r a t i v e NRF has led to the demon-str a t i o n of some apparently powerful e f f e c t s , such as the transfer of persistence from one situ a t i o n to another. While various minor additions are obviously required, such as allowance for contrast 18 e f f e c t s and c l a r i f i c a t i o n concerning the precise r o l e of the instrumental response i n the conditioning of to approach, the f r u s t r a t i v e NRF account of PRF t r a i n i n g i s generally, but not e n t i r e l y supported by investigations of within-S^ and between-S_ PRF e f f e c t s i n a c q u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n . However, studies show-ing a reverse PRE ( i f genuine) do seem to pose a serious problem f o r Fr u s t r a t i o n Theory, although the r e l i a b i l i t y with which t h i s e f f e c t can be demonstrated i s perhaps questionable. Nevertheless, evidence shor t l y to be reviewed i n support of Capaldi's (1966, 1967) Sequential E f f e c t Theory indicates that the f r u s t r a t i v e NRF account of PRF t r a i n i n g i s indeed a p a r t i a l one. Capaldi's Theory of Sequential Effects and the PRE Capaldi (1966) proposed that each condition of immediate reward, delayed reward and nonreward gives r i s e to a s p e c i f i c i n t e r n a l stimulus; "S R," , !S D" and " S K " respectively. In addition' to these basic in t e r n a l s t i m u l i , successive reward events, such as successive nonrewards, also produce s p e c i f i c i n t e r n a l s t i m u l i (Capaldi, 1964). A l l of these internal stimulus "a f t e r - e f f e c t s " are postulated not to be fast dissipating stimulus traces, but to be slow to dissipate. Such stimulus after-effects may, however, be modified by subsequent stimulus after-effects a r i s i n g from subsequent t r i a l s . For example, i n PRF t r a i n i n g , the number of successive N t r i a l s ('N length') produces char a c t e r i s t i c s t i m u l i . Thus an N length N3 of three produces S . Each successive N t r i a l modifies the stim-N2 NI ulus af t e r - e f f e c t of the previous t r i a l , so S d i f f e r s from S , although a l i m i t to stimulus modification i s eventually reached. However, on (immediate) reward t r i a l s , a l l s t i m u l i are conditioned to the instrumental response and v i a stimulus generalization may provide varying generalized habit strength (H) to the instrumental response i n the presence of other s t i m u l i . Thus a long period of delay w i l l provide greater (H) to the instrumental response i n the presence of the stimulus after-effects of NRF, because gPM^G. i s N R assumed to be more l i k e S than S. . The l i m i t to which H may grow i s assumed to be an increasing function of reward magnitude (RM). In addition, NRF i s assumed to occasion i n h i b i t i o n ("I") and the l i m i t to which I may grow i s assumed to be a function of reward magnitude and nonreward confinement (NC) duration. However, I i s 20 considered to occur r e l a t i v e l y rarely and to grow only with repeated presentation of the same stimulus. In PRF training, therefore, Capaldi argues that a number of sequential variables are important i n the development of resistance to extinction (R to E) as well as the usual non-sequential variables. Important sequential variables are N length, frequency of occurrence of each N length, and the number of d i f f e r -ent N lengths occurring i n a part i c u l a r schedule and more generally, the patterning of N and R t r i a l s p a r t i c u l a r l y N-R transitions where R t r i a l s follow an N t r i a l and R-N tr a n s i t i o n s , where the reverse order holds. Important nonsequential variables are the percentage of reward, number of R and N t r i a l s and. the t o t a l number of t r i a l s . In addition, the rate of learning i s considered a c r i t i c a l l y important factor i n the development of R to E. Similar sequential variables are, of course, suggested by Capaldi to operate i n t r a i n -ing employing other reward events, such as delayed versus immediate reward and d i f f e r i n g magnitudes of reward, although no attempt w i l l be made here to review evidence for these l a t t e r claims. On the basis of such a view of PRF tr a i n i n g , somewhat d i f -ferent predictions can be made concerning R. to E and the occurrence of the PRE according to the extent of tra i n i n g . Capaldi (1967) claims that the major sequential variable determining R to E after minimal acquisition training i s the number of occurrences of N length. Two i l l u s t r a t i v e "schedules" are considered: (1) NRNRNR and (2) RNNNRR. Under the f i r s t schedule, there are three con-Nl ditionings of S to the instrumental response and under the N3 second schedule, only one. conditioning of S to the response. 21 F i g . 5. The^effect of delivering three r e i n -forcements at S versus one reinforcement at S N^ when F equals.25. (From Capaldi, 1967) 22 Employing Hull's (1943) equation for habit strength, assuming F, the growth parameter for H equal .25, and. other assumptions (v. NI Capaldi, 1967), Capaldi argues that S has more habit strength N3 associated with I t than S due to the number of conditionings of NI N3 S and S i n the two schedules. Consequently, more generalized habit strength (H) i s supplied to higher values of i n extinction by S N 1 i n schedule (1) than by S N 3 i n schedule (2) (See Fig. 4) and so more R to E should be produced under the f i r s t than under the second schedule. C r i t i c a l l y important, however, i n the development of R to E with only minimal acquisition i s the rate of learning parameter, F. I f F equals 1.0, N length w i l l exclusively determine R to E. For intermediate values of F, a shorter N length occurring more frequently than a longer N length w i l l produce more R to E and i f F i s very small, R to E may be greater after CRF rather than PRF trai n i n g . For clear predictions concerning R to E with minimal acquisition, an estimate of F i s thus s t r i c t l y required. After extended acquisition t r a i n i n g , when the H values of N the S s conditioned to the instrumental response are nearly or completely asymptotic, Capaldi predicts R to E w i l l increase as N length increases. Studies involving percentage of reinforcement va r i a t i o n and extended t r i a l patterning studies both provide support for Capaldi's predictions. When N length increased, R to E was found to increase i n a number of studies employing simple a l t e r -nating (SA) or patterned schedules (e.g. Capaldi, 1964; Bloom and Capaldi, 1961; Tyler et a l . , 1953). Capaldi and Stanley (1965) showed that a higher percentage of PRF containing longer N lengths 22 produced more R to E than a lower percentage PRF schedule containing shorter N lengths. Confirmation of the predicted differences between minimal and extended acquisition i s provided by several studies that show lower percentages of reward with longer N lengths produce less R to E early i n training (Bacon, 1962; Spivey, 1964), but greater R to E l a t e r i n tr a i n i n g (e.g. Gonzalez and Bitterman, 1964). SA schedules (where the N length i s always one) produce greater R to E than i r r e g u l a r schedules (with N lengths greater than one) early i n training (Capaldi and Hart, 1962), but the reverse i s true after extended tra i n i n g (Capaldi, 1958; Tyler et a l . , 1953). The importance of N-R transitions under both extended and lesser t r a i n i n g conditions i s shown by a number of studies. For minimal training conditions a number of studies indicate the import-ance of N-R transitions (Capaldi and Hart, 1962; Capaldi et a l . , 1963; Capaldi and Spivey, 1963; Capaldi and Wargo, 1963; Spivey, 1967; Spivey and Hess, 1968, Spivey et a l . , 1968). For extended a c q u i s i t i o n , several studies have found superior R to E using schedules with one N-R t r a n s i t i o n compared with n i l (Koteskey and Stettner, 1968; Spivey, 1968). Recently, however, Tombaugh (1969) compared the effect of schedules employing one or two N-P transitions on R to E, finding greater R to E i n the l a t t e r case. Further support for Capaldi's account of PRF training comes from the use of i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement (ITR.) . The ITR procedure involves baited goal box placement during the ITI. After r e s t r i c t e d acquisition (approximately 30 t r i a l s or less) i t appears that the superior R to E obtained under PRF training can be eliminated by the u use of ITR (Capaldi et a l . , 1963; Capaldi and Spivey, 1963; McCain, 1964; Spence et a l . , 1965). According to Capaldi (Capaldi et a l . , 1963), placing S_ i n the baited goal box during the ITI after a non-R N rewarded t r i a l causes S to replace S and since the instrumental response (of approaching the goal box) does not take place on that N t r i a l , S f a i l s to be conditioned to the instrumental response. Studies involving extensive acquisition (approximately 70 t r i a l s or more) have not, however, shown evidence for a reduction i n R to E after the use of ITR (Black and Spence, 1965; Spence et a l . , 1965). Black and Spence suggested that this indicates that N early i n t r a i n i n g sequential factors such as S exert considerable influence over R to E early i n t r a i n i n g ; while l a t e r i n tr a i n i n g , other factors, for example frustrations, are more important. A l t e r -n a t i v e l y , i t might be the case that as ITI i s used increasingly more often with longer t r a i n i n g , discrimination of the two classes of S may occur so that the ITR procedure becomes ine f f e c t i v e i n replacing N R S with S . Capaldi and O l i v i e r (1967) carried out a study to test these accounts i n which three groups f i r s t received 96 CRF t r i a l s , followed by either 30 CRF t r i a l s (Group C), 30 PRF t r i a l s with ITR during each ITI following an N and preceding an R t r i a l (Group PN), or 30 PRF t r i a l s with ITR following each R t r i a l (Group PR). Increased R to E was not found for Group PN, but i t was found for Group PR. Since a t o t a l of only seven ITRs were required by the PRF schedule for Groups FR and PN, these results appear to suggest that i t i s not the number of rewarded t r i a l s but rather the number of ITRs received that governs the efficacy of ITR i n reducing subsequent R to E. 26 Pratt and Halpern (1969) attempted to further test the "discrimination hypothesis" by a modified extinction procedure i n which alternative extinction t r i a l s were followed by ITR. Ss received extensive acquisition t r a i n i n g , two groups receiving ITR after R t r i a l s (Groups A2E1, A2E2) and two groups no ITR t r i a l s during acquisition (Groups A1E1 and A1E2). A l l groups were then extinguished, two under the modified extinction procedure (Groups A1E2 and A2E2). Pratt and Halpern hypothesized that i f ITR loses i t s replacement capacity due only to repeated presentation, Group A2E2 should be no more resistant to extinction than the other groups. Although no clear judgment can be made of the r e s u l t s , due to anomolous behavior by Group A1E2, the results suggest that the effect of ITR during extinction upon Group A2E2 did increase R to E. The c r i t i c a l point as regards the discrimination hypothesis i s whether ITR following an R t r i a l i s not discriminated and i s treated as part of the R t r i a l , or whether some other process occurs. I f the former i s the case, the results of t h i s study would appear to be irrelevant to the hypothesis. Evidence from the use of ITR during extended acquisition would therefore appear to be inconclusive, while studies employing ITR during r e s t r i c t e d acquisition would appear to support Sequential Effects Theory. A f i n a l and p a r t i c u l a r l y important area of research for evaluation of Capaldi's account of PRF training concerns the role of reward magnitude (RM) i n PRF t r a i n i n g . Capaldi's (1967) treatment of RM i s noncontextual, unlike his treatment of percentage of reward. Only the absolute size of the RM i s considered important i n giving r i s e to d i s t i n c t i v e s t i m u l i and influencing associative strength.. 2S S i n c e t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s d o n o t d e p e n d o n o t h e r r e w a r d s t h e y a r e t e r m e d " n o n c o n t e x t u a l " . I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e l a r g e r i s R M , t h e g r e a t e r i s i t s c a p a c i t y t o r e i n f o r c e r e s p o n s e s . I n a d d i t i o n , e x p e r i e n c e o f a n e w RM r e s u l t s i n t h e r e w a r d - p r o d u c e d s t i m u l u s a f t e r - e f f e c t s o f t h e n e w RM r a p i d l y r e p l a c i n g t h e s t i m u l u s a f t e r -e f f e c t s o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y e x p e r i e n c e d R M . P r e d i c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e r o l e o f RM i n P R F t r a i n i n g a r e p o s s i b l e o n t h e b a s i s o f s e q u e n t i a l e f f e c t s t h e o r y . S i n c e a s s o c i a t i v e s t r e n g t h i s a s s u m e d t o b e a n i n c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n o f R M , l a r g e r RMs s h o u l d l e a d t o g r e a t e r R t o E a t l e a s t a f t e r i r r e g u l a r P R F s c h e d u l e s a s h a s b e e n f o u n d ( e . g . H u l s e , 1 9 6 8 ; W a g n e r , 1 9 6 1 ) . A n i n c r e a s e i n RM a c c o m p a n i e d b y a d e c r e a s e i n R t o E h a s a l s o b e e n f o u n d ( L e o n a r d , 1 9 6 6 ; B l o o m , 1 9 6 6 ) a n d t h i s i s a l s o p r e d i c t a b l e o n t h e b a s i s o f C a p a l d i ' s a c c o u n t v i a h i s a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g I . A n u m b e r o f o t h e r s t u d i e s h a v e a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s e q u e n t i a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i n f l u e n c e o f RM i n P R F t r a i n i n g . C a p a l d i a n d M i n k o f f ( 1 9 6 9 ) f o u n d t h a t R t o E i n c r e a s e d a s N l e n g t h i n c r e a s e d a n d t h a t R t o E i n c r e a s e d w h e n a l a r g e r e w a r d f o l l o w e d r a t h e r t h a n p r e c e d e d a n N t r i a l , c o m p a r i n g s c h e d u l e s i n v o l v i n g b o t h d i f f e r e n t N l e n g t h s a n d v a r y i n g R M . S i m i l a r l y , C a p a l d i a n d Z i f f ( 1 9 6 9 ) f o u n d t h a t t h e n e g a t i v e c o n t r a s t e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g f r o m RM r e d u c t i o n w a s r e d u c e d b y P R F t r a i n i n g w i t h l a r g e RM r e w a r d s m o r e e f f e c t i v e l y i f t r a n s i t i o n s f r o m N t o l a r g e RM t r i a l s o c c u r r e d t h a n i f s u c h t r a n s i t i o n s d i d n o t o c c u r w i t h i n d a y s i n a P R F s c h e d u l e . E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s e q u e n t i a l v a r i a b l e s o n P R F t r a i n i n g i s t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r a b l e . T h i s d o e s n o t , o f c o u r s e ; i m p l y n e c e s s a r i l y t h a t f r u s t r a t i o n h a s n o r o l e i n P R F t r a i n i n g , It rather i t suggests the inadequacy of the fr u s t r a t i v e NRF account. The p o s s i b i l i t y that Frustration Theory with appropriate additions (e.g. some form of contrast effects theory) might occount for more of the data should not be overlooked. In addition, i t does not seem clear how Sequential Effects Theory may account for some of the evidence found supporting Frustration Theory, such as the complex runway section effects during acquisition. Clearly what i s needed i s to turn to an area for which the predictions on the basis of the two theories are reasonably clear and also contradictory, so that evaluation of the two accounts may be made. 28 Minimal Acquisition and the PRE One area of research has provided a direct means of comparing the predictions of Sequential Effects Theory and Frus-t r a t i o n Theory concerning PRF train i n g . This area concerns the occurrence of the PRE after only minimal acquisition t r a i n i n g . Defining minimal acquisition training as training not exceeding approximately s i x acquisition t r i a l s , i t i s clear on the basis of the current f r u s t r a t i v e NRF account of the PRE (Amsel, 1958, 1967; Amsel and Ward, 1965) that a PRE should not occur after only minimal acquisition. Since "nonreward t r i a l s cannot effect any s i g n i f i c a n t amount of fru s t r a t i o n u n t i l r D develops i n strength" (Amsel and Ward, 1965), r^ - s^ must be conditioned to the instrumental response before r„ develops and r_ - s i s counterconditioned to r F r the instrumental response. Consequently, i t seems unreasonable, to expect occurrence of the PRE after only minimal acquisition t r a i n -ing on the basis of Amsel's account. Predictions concerning the occurrence of the PRE after minimal acquisition training are somewhat more complex cn the basis of Sequential Effects Theory, but, under certain circumstances, a PRE may be predicted. The value of F , the rate of learning para-meter, i s of c r i t i c a l importance for minimal acquisition (Capaldi, 1967). I f F i s equal to 1.0, Longer N lengths w i l l produce greater R to E; for intermediate values of F, shorter N lengths, frequently conditioned, w i l l lead to greater R to E, i f F i s very small, R to E may be greater after CRF training i f N lengths are very long. In general Capaldi has assumed (at least t a c i t l y , e.g. Capaldi and Deutsch, 1967) that intermediate values of F are usually 2% encountered at least i n the straight runway during PRF tr a i n i n g . Consequently, a PRE i s predicted i n such experimental situations after minimal acquisition, provided N lengths are very snort. F i n a l l y other factors (such as RM and I ) might also be expected to be of some importance i n the prediction of a PRE after minimal acquisition, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of the influence of such factors should be noted even though Capaldi emphasizes that the value of F i s of c r i t i c a l importance. A number of early studies employing minimal acquisition reported PREs after as few as three t r i a l s under an 'RNR' schedule (McCain et a l . , 1962) or four t r i a l s under an 'RNRN' schedule (McCain, 1965a, c) . McCain (1966) systematically investigated a number of factors that might have accounted for these results and also tested some predictions from Sequential Effects Theory. Generally, i n McCain's studies including those described i n McCain (1966), acquisition t r a i n i n g was preceded by pretraining consisting of handling and taming followed by runway exploration. Food reward was given during i n i t i a l handling and taming (except i n Experiment 5), but no food reward was given during runway explorations. Acquisition tr a i n i n g consisted of trai n i n g of two or more groups, each under a par t i c u l a r PRF or CRF reward schedule. T r i a l s were always equated between schedules within any one experiment, as i n other minimal acquisition studies of the PRE. In addition, i t should be noted that between group comparisons are involved i n these and subsequent minimal acquisition studies. Extinction training followed acquisition tr a i n i n g . McCain's data analysis i n th i s and other studies consisted of trend analyses, although i t 30 appears that differences i n group means i n ex t i n c t i o n were a c t u a l l y used as evidence of a PRE. Previous studies of the PRE invol v i n g minimal a c q u i s i t i o n had used highly massed t r i a l s , but McCain (1966, Expt. 1) using an 'NRNRNR' schedule and a s l i g h t l y larger ITI of 5 minutes predicted, and found, a PRE. In a second experiment, McCain investigated whether i t was possible to obtain a PRE a f t e r only two a c q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s using an 'NR'schedule. Again a PRE was found. A further p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the PREs obtained may have been due to some kind of s a t i a t i o n e f f e c t . Therefore, i n a t h i r d experiment McCain equated the amount of reinforcement given to PRF and CRF groups, while a t h i r d CRF group received c o n s i s t e n t l y h a l f the RM that the other CRF group was given. No s i g n i f i c a n t difference was found bet-ween CRF groups i n ex t i n c t i o n while the PRF group showed s i g n i f -i c a n t l y greater R to E. McCain (1966) also examined the e f f e c t of ITR upon minimal PRF t r a i n i n g . Group PRI^ received f i v e PRF t r i a l s i n an 'RNRNR' sequence, and ITR following two R t r i a l s (1 and 3). Group PNI^. received the same reward schedule and ITR a f t e r two N t r i a l s (2 and 4). A t h i r d group (C^) was s p l i t into two subgroups, each receiving f i v e R t r i a l s , but while Subgroup RIR^ received ITR a f t e r t r i a l s 1 and 2, ITR was given to Subgroup RRI^ af t e r t r i a l s 2 and 4. As would be predicted on the basis of Sequential E f f e c t s Theory (e.g. see Capaldi et a l . , 1963), Group PRI^ showed greater R to E than Group PNI^ or C^, which did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . In addition, the two subgroups of Group C^ also d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n mean e x t i n c t i o n running speeds. 31 Finally, McCain (1966, Expt. 5) examined the effect of interpolating rewarded t r i a l s in a second goal box differing in brightness from the acquisition goal box between extinction tr. in the original box. A PRF group received six PRF t r i a l s in an 'NRNRNR' sequence and a CRF group received six R t r i a l s in success-ion. This was followed after a 24 hour ITI by six extinction t r i a l s using the original goal box. A PRE was again obtained. In Phase 3 "extinction" with interpolated R t r i a l s followed, and a reverse PRE was obtained. McCain argues that while Sequential Effects Theory would not predict a reverse PRE, i t would predict the disappearance of the conventional PRE in Phase 3 acquisition. This study also provides evidence against the view that slower CRF running may be due to satiation, since a 24 hour break separated acquisition and Phase 2 extinction, yet a PRE was s t i l l obtained. Evidence against the possibility that r^ had received prior build up by generalization from various types of reinforcement during pretraining is also provided by the results of Experiment 5, in that no food reward was given during handling (unlike the other experiments reported by McCain, 1966), or anywhere except in the home cage at least fifteen minutes after jS was returned to the cage following each day's pretraining. Further evidence is provided by Expt. 2, in which Ss explored a different runway during pretraining from that used i n the acquisition and extinction training. In another study (McCain, 1965c) Ss were given four acquisition t r i a l s with no prior runway exploration. A PRE was obtained in a l l cf these cases i n spite of the changes i n pretraining procedure. Acquisition data was also examined both in McCain's (1966) 32 experiments and i n a number of others. McCain (1966) compared two sets of a c q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s ; t r i a l s following an R t r i a l preceded by an N t r i a l ( i . e . following an N-R t r a n s i t i o n ) designated "TRF" t r i a l s , and t r i a l s following an N t r i a l , designated "TFN" t r i a l s . McCain et a l . (1962) found PRF groups ran f a s t e r on TFR t r i a l s than CRF Ss. A s i m i l a r influence of the preceding t r i a l upon performance on the subsequent t r i a l by PRF groups has been reported i n a number of other studies early i n t r a i n i n g (McCain, 1960; McCain et a l . , 1962a, b; Tyler et a l . , 1953). Reversal of t h i s e f f e c t i s known as "patterning behavior", although apparently f a i r l y extensive t r a i n i n g i s required (Tyler et a l . , 1953; Capaldi, 1957, 1958). In the studies reported by McCain (1966) evidence was found f o r f a s t e r running on TRF than cn TFN t r i a l s by PEF groups. While such within group patterning i s predictable on the basis of F r u s t r a t i o n Theory, ( v i a e f f e c t of R_ and R_,) , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see why PRF groups should run faster on TFR t r i a l s than CRF groups a f t e r only a few a c q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s , unless some kind of contrast e f f e c t i s involved. This e f f e c t of f a s t e r running on TRF compared with TFN t r i a l s w i l l be termed 'pre reversal patterning (PRP) behavior' f o r b r e v i t y i n t h i s paper. P a d i l l a (1967) followed up McCain's (1966) studies by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t of RM upon R to E a f t e r 4 CRF (100%) or PRF (50%) t r i a l s . While the e f f e c t of RM upon rate of e x t i n c t i o n was i n s i g n i f i c a n t , two PRF groups receiving e i t h e r a large or a small reward c o n s i s t e n t l y on R t r i a l s showed greater PREs i n comparison with appropriate control groups rewarded con s i s t e n t l y with large or small p e l l e t s on a l l t r i a l s . Comparison of mean 33 running speeds i n extinction indicated that the 50% large reward and the 100% large reward groups differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y , while a l l other comparisons were i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Acquisition data, however, indicated that magnitude of reward differences occurred with j u s t four training t r i a l s as w e l l as differences due to reward schedule. P a d i l l a argued that this suggests that 'r ' develops very rapidly and therefore that the occurrence of a PRE after a few training t r i a l s i s not contradictory to Frustration Theory. Unfortunately, this argument appears weak l o g i c a l l y (since ' r ' must also be counterconditioned) and experimentally, i n that t h i s study involved extensive preliminary handling with food reward and runway explor-ation coupled with immediately subsequent food reward. Further evidence that pretraining may have led to the development of ' r _ ' i s provided by the extinction l i k e curve i n acquisition shown by a control group that received no rewards thrcughout training but the same pretraining as other groups. Replication of t h i s study with-out extensive reward i n pretraining i s c l e a r l y required. Contrary to the conclusions of McCain and P a d i l l a , Surridge and Amsel (1967) f a i l e d to find evidence for a PRE after minimal acquisition. Two studies were carried out, i n both of which no food reward was given i n r e l a t i o n to handling or taming and no p r i o r runway exploration was allowed. In the f i r s t exper-iment three groups of S5s received four acquisition t r i a l s and ten extinction t r i a l s with an ITI of 20 to 25 sec. and nonreward con-finement (NC) duration was 90 sec. Group C received an 'RRRR' sequence of acquisition t r i a l s , Group P an 'NRNR' sequence and Group N an 'NNNN' sequence. In a second study, two groups of Ss 34 both received s i x days of CRF training at four t r i a l s a day with a within day ITI of 25-30 min. followed on the seventh day by four PRF t r i a l s (an 'NRNR' sequence) or four CRF t r i a l s . On Days 8-15, both groups were extinguished. No evidence for a PRE was obtained i n either study, although there was a tendency i n Group P i n Expt. 1 to show faster running on T r i a l 3 (TFR) than on T r i a l 4 (TFN). However, a number of serious c r i t i c i s m s may be made con-cerning Surridge and Amsel's study. F i r s t l y , Bowen and McCain (1967) point out that the use of a 25-30 min. ITI ( i n Expt. II) and a NC duration of 90 sec. may have impeded the occurrence of a PRE. Secondly, lack of any p r i o r runway exploration, especially i f the timing c i r c u i t r y used was noisy, may have s i m i l a r l y impeded occurrence of the PRE. Furthermore, extinction data analysis i n -cluded the f i r s t extinction t r i a l , at which there were no great differences between PRF and CRF groups, a procedure that might be expected to reduce the significance of any main effect of reward schedule. F i n a l l y , the tendency to ppj> behavior would, on the grounds of the argument presented by Goodrich (1959), seem to suggest rapid growth of xn. However, an excellent methodological point-made by Surridge et a l . i s that Group N which was never rewarded showed the greatest R to E i n terms of mean extinction speeds. On the other hand, Padi l l a ' s (1967) data indicates quite the reverse effect f o r a si m i l a r group. I t would therefore seem wise not to rely solely upon differences i n mean ov e r a l l extinction speed as evidence for a PRE. Subsequent to Surridge et al.'s (1967) study, two studies investigated whether a PRE would be obtained a f t e r minimal 35 acquisition without food reward during handling and runway explor-ation. A factorial design was used by Capaldi and Deutsch (1967), in which Ss either received or did not receive runway exploration and goalbox placements, prior to receiving one reward t r i a l (2 min in goal box) followed by four PRF trials in an 'NRNR' schedule (Group P) or four CRF trials (Group C), NC being 30 sec. on both 'R' and 'N' trials with an ITI of 30 sec. Ten extinction trials followed on the next day. While acquisition speeds (including the first extinction trial) did not differ significantly, extinction data indicated that R to E was increaseo" by partial reward and rewarded placements in pretraining but that the interaction of reward and reward placement effects was insignificant. However, i t should be noted that extinction means rather than trends appeared to have been solely used as evidence for a PRE in this study. Bowen and McCain (1967) also attacked the problem of food reward during pretraining. Pretraining similar to that In McCain's earlier studies except that no food reward was given in relation to handling (or runway exploration) preceded two rewarded goal box placements and acquisition training at four trials a day for nine days. On Days 1 to 8 a l l £3s received CRF, but on Day 9 Group P received an 'NRNR' sequence and Group C an 'RRRR' sequence (cf. Surridge et al., Expt. II). The ITI was 15 sec. within days and NC duration was also 15 sec, All Ss received 13 extinction trials on Day IQ. Mean runway speeds over extinction trials 2-13 indi-catedthat Group P ran faster than Group C. While the prior CRF trials might be expected to give rise to 'r ' i t seems unreasonable that 'r ' should develop and be conditioned to the running, response I I 36 with j u s t four PRF t r i a l s . In addition, i t suggests that Surridge et al.'s (1967) f a i l u r e to find a PRE i n Expt. 2 was not due to lack of food reward during pretraining, but rather to some other d i f f e r -ence between the study of Bowen and McCain (1967) and Surridge et a l . (1967), perhaps NC duration (15 sec. v. 90 s e c ) , ITI (15 sec. v. 25-30 min.) or lack-of runway exploration. Amsel et a l (1968) suggested that the actual difference between studies showing a PRE and those that do not was the type of reward used. While Surridge et a l . (1967). used two large p e l l e t s as food reward, a l l of the other studies discussed above showing a PRE used either multiple small p e l l e t s or wet mash reward. On the basis of observations indicating that PRE l i k e effects may occur after CRF tr a i n i n g i f Sjs are not rewarded for short approach runs to the food cup on GB placement t r i a l s (Trapold and Doren, 1966; Trapold and Holden, 1966) or i f the rat merely inserted i t s head into a l i q u i d dispensing magazine (Wilton, 1967), Amsel et a l . argued that multiple p e l l e t s or wet mash require multiple approaches to the food cup which leads to the development of r_. Possibly r_ might also develop i f Ss are not immediately removed from the GB on consumption of the reward. Amsel et a l . (1968) report two studies to support such a view. In Expt. I , four groups of Ss were arranged f a c t o r i a l l y for CRF or PRF reward, rewards being two 500 mg or twenty-four 45 mg p e l l e t s . In Expt. I I s i x groups likewise received CRF or PRF reward, and one 1000, ten 97 or twenty-four 45 mg p e l l e t s . Brief handling and runway exploration preceded fiv e acquisition t r i a l s under a 'RNRNR' or 'RRRRR' schedule. The ITI was 24 hours. NC 37 was 20 sec. and Se were removed immediately food was consumed on R t r i a l s . Eleven extinction t r i a l s , also separated by a 24 hour ITI with a 20 sec. confinement duration followed. Acquisition data i n both studies indicated s i g n i f i c a n t l y faster running by CRF groups at the end of acquisition compared with PRF groups. Comparisons of o v e r a l l extinction means indicated faster running by PRF groups i n Expt. 1 with 24 p e l l e t s but not 2 p e l l e t s reward and i n Expt. I I , faster running by PRF groups with 10 and 24 p e l l e t s reward but not with 1 p e l l e t reward. A "reverse" PRE was reporter! with 1 p e l l e t reward i n Expt. I I and a si m i l a r tendency with 2 p e l l e t s reward i n Expt. I. However, trend analysis showed that only the trends for PRF and CRF groups receiving 10 or 24 p e l l e t s reward differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n Expt. I I and that the t r i p l e interaction of number of p e l l e t s by reward schedule by t r i a l s was i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n Expt. I. This implies that Amsel et al.'s hypothesis i s supported only by the data of Expt. I I . In addition, i n view of CRF superiority i n terminal acquisition l e v e l s , and lack of differences i n trends for 1 or 2 p e l l e t conditions, the tendency for faster running by CRF groups i n extinction i n Expt. I and a s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n t effect i n Expt. I I cannot be accepted as e v i -dence for a "reverse PRE" i n either case. Whether or not the use of multiple p e l l e t s or wet mash as food reward does i n fact involve "multiple t r i a l s " as Amsel et a l . suggest, i t now seems this w i l l not account for occurrence of a PRE after minimal acquisition. McCain (1968) obtained a PRE using only single 500 mg p e l l e t reward. Pretraining consisting of placing Ss on a 23 hr deprivation schedule (Day 1), handling for 1 hour 38 d a i l y with lab p e l l e t s f r e e l y a vailable (Days 2-6) and runway ex-p l o r a t i o n f o r 15 min d a i l y (Days 7-12) was common to a l l Ss. A l l Ss were also fed one 500 mg p e l l e t approximately 15 min before exploration on Days 9-12. On Day 13, Group P received s i x a c q u i s i -t i o n t r i a l s i n an 'NRNRNR' sequence and Group C s i x rewarded t r i a l s followed i n each case by 10 e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s . A c q u i s i t i o n and ex t i n c t i o n t r i a l s took place on the same day, and the ITI was 15 s e c , as was NC duration. A st r a i g h t runway approximately 6' long with four section measures (Run 1, Run 2, Goal and F u l l A l l e y ) was used. Subjects were allowed 40 sec. to reach the goal box on any t r i a l before being guided and assigned a score of 10 sec. i n each section of the runway unless they had registered a shorter time. After a 'log x + 1' transformation, a c q u i s i t i o n data indicated that Group C tended to run fas t e r i n measures Run 1, Run 2, and F u l l A l l e y measures and this e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Goal measure. On the f i r s t e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l , Group P ran fa s t e r i n the Goal measure but the reverse was true i n the other measures. E x t i n c t i o n T r i a l s 2-10 were then grouped in t o blocks of three and Group P was found to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y shorter e x t i n c t i o n l a t e n c i e s i n a l l measures. In a second study, McCain (1969) investigated whether these r e s u l t s could be r e p l i c a t e d when t r i a l s x-?ere not so highly massed. Using a 15 min. ITI, s i n g l e p e l l e t reward and the same reward schedule as that used by Amsel et a l . (1968) evidence f o r a PRE was again obtained. P r e t r a i n i n g was the same as that used i n his previous (1968) study except that Ss were given accesss to one 500 mg p e l l e t i n t h e i r home cages on Days 9-12. On Day 13, Group P 39 received f i v e PRF t r i a l s i n an 'RNRNR' sequence and Group C f i v e CRF t r i a l s i n each case followed by 10 e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s . NC duration was 30 sec* during a c q u i s i t i o n and 20 sec. during ex t i n c t i o n * In both a c q u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n , Ss were run i n squads of s i x with each S_ i n the squad given a single t r i a l i n rot a t i o n , g i v i n g an approximate 15 min ITI. Again, f a s t e r running i n e x t i n c t i o n by Group P compared with Group C was found i n a l l measures. F i n a l l y , McCain (1970) attempted to approach the problem of multiple food cup approaches more d i r e c t l y . Two groups .of S's were given f i v e GB placements such that t h e i r heads were placed d i r e c t l y over the food cup. Since only one 1000 mg p e l l e t was used as reward, McCain argued that "multiple approaches" should be minimized. Group P received rewarded placements on T r i a l s 1, 3, and 5 (an 'RNRNR' sequence) and Group C f i v e rewarded placements. "Extinction" (running) t r i a l s then followed and using the same type of data analysis as that noted above, McCain found Group P ran faste r than Group C i n a l l measures although t h i s was s i g n i f i c a n t at (the '05 le v e l ) only i n the "R2" and "Goal" measures. Re-analysis of the data dropping the slowest and fast e s t 20% of jSs i n each group showed a fast e r running tendency for Ss i n Group P which was s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l measures. However, i t should be noted that as a test of Amsel et a l . ' s "multiple goal approaches" hypothesis t h i s may be misleading, since .extensive handling with food reward as i n McCain's (1968,1969) studies preceded experimental t r a i n i n g . Nevertheless, the r e s u l t s of those studies f a i l i n g to show a PRE (Amsel et a l . , 1968; Surridge et a l . , 1967) are c l e a r l y i n AO contradiction to those of studies showing a PRE and i t does not seem that the reasons suggested by Amsel et a l . (1968) for t h i s discrepancy are adequate. However, these studies d i f f e r i n a large number of ways other than the type of reward used or the extent of food reward given during pr e t r a i n i n g , not only i n apparatus and procedure but also i n data transformations and methods of a n a l y s i s . In any attempt to test c e r t a i n hypotheses to account f o r such d i s -crepancies, i t i s c l e a r l y important not to randomly vary elements i n accord with E's preferences, but rather to attempt to approximate conditions found i n other studies save the f a c t o r to be investigated, at l e a s t as f a r as factors that E considers may be p o t e n t i a l l y important i n accounting for discrepancies. Should t h i s seem too demanding, i t i s c l e a r l y quite the reverse to attempt to investigate discrepancies between studies d i f f e r i n g i n many ways by means of a t h i r d study differing: i n numerous other ways. Examination of the Amsel et a l . study and those of McCain (1968, 1969) reveals a number of differences i n procedure which might be considered important. F i r s t l y , p r e t r a i n i n g i n the study of Amsel et a l . (1968) appears to have been very minimal indeed compared with McCain's and t h i s e s p e c i a l l y minimal handling and runway exploration might be expected not to be favorable to the attainment of behavior during t r a i n i n g free from fear and nervous-ness. Secondly, McCain's study involved food reward during handling, a procedure which Amsel et a l . avoided. T h i r d l y , while McCain's (1969) study did obtain a PRE a f t e r PRF t r a i n i n g using a 15 min. I T I , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n I T I of 15 min. versus 24 hours (Amsel et a l . , 1968) might also lead to as d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s as the use of 41 ITIs of 15 sec. (McCain, 1968) versus 24 hours. The e f f e c t of d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t r i a l s upon the PPE has been investigated i n a number of studies employing extended ac-q u i s i t i o n . While S h e f f i e l d (1949) found evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the spacing of t r i a l s a f f e c t s the PRE, two other l a t e r studies found no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n of ITI w i t h reward schedule (Wilson et a l . , 1955; Lewis, 1960). However, i n a l l of these studies the differences i n ITIs used were s m a l l ; 15 sec. v. 15 min. In the studies o f S h e f f i e l d and Wilson e t a l . and 15 sec. v. 2 min. i n Lewis's study. Gonzalez and Bitterman (1969) found a s i g n i f i c a n t PRE with massed t r i a l s i r r e s p e c t i v e of RM (although the magnitude of the PRE increased with RM), but w i t h an ITI of 1 hour a PRE was only obtained with the large PM. Mackintosh (1970, i n press) there-fore argued t h a t differences i n ITI greater than 15 min. v. 15 sec. should be used t o investigate whether spacing of t r i a l s attenuates the PRE. Three experiments were c a r r i e d out by Mackintosh (1970) to investigate the e f f e c t of the spacing of t r i a l s upon the PPE. The f i r s t experiment compared the performance of four groups of food deprived Ss i n a f a c t o r i a l design, with two conditions of reward schedule (50% versus 100%) and two conditions of within day ITI (30 sec. versus 40-50 min.). B r i e f p r e t r a i n i n g was followed by 9 days of a c q u i s i t i o n t r a i n i n g at 10 t r i a l s per day. PRF groups received e i t h e r 4 or 6 N t r i a l s oh alternate days and the l a s t t r i a l each day was rewarded. During the within day ITI, Ss were placed i n detention cages containing water b o t t l e s . Ten 42 extinction t r i a l s per day followed acquisition t r a i n i n g , with the same ITI, and continued to a c r i t e r i o n of three successive t r i a l s with latencies i n excess of 60 sec. Terminal acquisition section data did not conform to the between-S_ effects reported above, (e.g. Goodrich, 1959). Instead, there was a tendency for FRF Ss to run faster than CRF Ss with massed t r i a l s and slower than CP.F Ss when t r i a l s were spaced, and although this effect was i n s i g -n i f i c a n t i n other section measures, i t was s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Goal measure. Extinction data i n terms of speeds over the f i r s t three days of extinction t r a i n i n g or i n terms of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n showed a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency for R to E to decrease with spaced t r i a l s for PRF groups, while a s l i g h t reverse e f f e c t occurred for CRF trained Ss. This of course implies that a PRE i s less l i k e l y to be obtained when acquisition and extinction t r i a l s are spaced rather than massed, at least for extended acquisition. In two other experiments, Mackintosh (1970) attempted to id e n t i f y the locus of the effect exerted by ITI upon PRF perform-ance. On the basis of the assumption that the stimulus a f t e r -effects of 'N' t r i a l s are conditioned to the instrumental response on the next R t r i a l , he attempted to see i f the attenuation of the PRE with spaced t r i a l s obtained i n Expt. I would occur i f only the ITI between N-R transitions was spaced. During acq u i s i t i o n Ss received three or four t r i a l s on alternate days for 8 days. PRF groups received the sequence RNR on odd days and RNNR on even days. For half the Ss i n each group the ITI between the l a s t N and the following R t r i a l was 40-50 min., and a l l other ITIs for 43. a l l Ss i n a c q u i s i t i o n were 30 sec. Twenty e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s at 10 per day followed and the ITI i n e x t i n c t i o n was 30 sec. for massed groups and 40-50 min. for spaced groups. L i t t l e or no PRE was obtained i n th i s case for spaced groups, while the other r e s u l t s confirmed Experiment I. Unfortunately, i t does not appear that t h i s e f f e c t can be at t r i b u t e d n e c e s s a r i l y to the length of the ITI between the l a s t N and R t r i a l s each day, since the ITIs i n ex-t i n c t i o n for massed and spaced group also d i f f e r e d . As a test of sequential e f f e c t s theory i t would therefore seem poor. C l e a r l y there are a number of ways i n which attenuation of the PRE with spaced t r i a l s might be accounted f o r . One p o s s i b i l i t y , suggested by Mackintosh, i s that the a f t e r - e f f e c t s of R t r i a l s preceding N t r i a l s may cause proactive interference (PI) which i n t e r -feres with the memories or stimulus a f t e r - e f f e c t s of 'N' t r i a l s and N the subsequent conditioning of S to the instrumental response. In Expt. 3, four groups of Ss received a sing l e day of a c q u i s i t i o n followed by a singl e day of ex t i n c t i o n . Two 'NR' groups received 6 a c q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s i n an 'NNNRRR1 sequence, and the two 'RNR' groups received 8 a c q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s i n the sequence 'RRNNNRRR'. One group under each condition (massed group') was run with a constant 30 sec. ITI i n a c q u i s i t i o n , and the two other ( ' d i s t r i b -uted') groups received an ITI of 40-50 min. between the l a s t N and the following R t r i a l s , a l l other ITIs being 30 sec. i n ac q u i s i t i o n . In ex t i n c t i o n , massed groups were run with a 30 sec. ITI while the ITI for d i s t r i b u t e d groups was 40-50 min. While spacing decreased R to E for Ss i n RNR groups, i t increased R to E 44 fcr Ss i n NR groups. However, i t should be again noted that the effect of ITI i n acquisition i s again confounded with the effect of ITI i n extinction and therefore this study does not provide very clear support for a sequential effects account. Furthermore, other data (Mackintosh and L i t t l e , unpub., see below) suggests that when small groups of t r i a l s are spaced, the c r i t i c a l factor i n determining R to E i s not the sequence of t r i a l s within each group, but rather the nature of the i n i t i a l t r i a l (R or N). In view of Mackintosh's (1970, Expt. 1) demonstration that the use of a s u f f i c i e n t l y long ITI may result i n s i g n i f i c a n t atten-uation of the PRE, i t seems that the results of the McCain's (1969) study cannot be considered to decisively eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y that the PRE after minimal acquisition may be attenuated i f the ITI i s s u f f i c i e n t l y large. Indeed the results of at least one study employing extended acquisition and an ITI of 15 min. (Lewis, 1960) appear to suggest that such an ITI, as used by McCain (1969), may not necessarily be large enough to result i n s i g n i f i c a n t attenuation of the PRE, although Sheffield et al.(1949) did find that such an ITI influenced the PRE. Thus, further investigation of possible atten-uation of the PRE after minimal acquisition when the ITI i s very long, for example 24 hours as used by Amsel et a l . (1968), would appear to be required. PREs have been obtained with a 24 hour ITI and extended acquisition (e.g. Weinstock, 1954). Amsel (e.g. 1967) has argued that stimulus after-effects cannot persist for more than a few minutes which, of course, implies that Sequential Effect Theory 45 cannot account for effects (e.g. the PRE) obtained with long ITIs. However, th i s i s c l e a r l y an erroneous assumption since Capaldi (1967)has e x p l i c i t l y distinguished stimulus after-effect from stimulus traces, the former being r e l a t i v e l y slow to dissipate while the l a t t e r are generally assumed to decay within a few minutes. Consequently, Sequential Effects Theory should be quite as able to account for the occurrence of a PRE after distributed as after mass t r i a l s . Accordingly, the problem with v/hich this study concerned i t s e l f was to attempt to replicate the findings of McCain (1968, 1969) both with highly massed and highly distributed t r i a l s . In attempting to replicate McCain's studies i t would seem important to try to approximate the general conditions of these studies (appa-ratus, method, procedure and data analysis) as closely as possible, so that at least some basis for comparison may ex i s t . Since, how-ever, the p o s s i b i l i t y of prior growth of r does not seem to have been eliminated i n McCain's (1968, 1969) studies, omission of food reward during handling would seem to make any such r e p l i c a t i o n a f a i r e r test of Frustration Theory. Hypothesis The hypothesis tested, contrary to the predictions of Frustration Theory, was that a PRE would be obtained i n a between-groups comparison after only f i v e PRE compared with f i v e CRF acquisition t r i a l s irrespective of whether t r i a l s were highly massed or highly distributed. 46 Method Design Eour groups of Ss were arranged i n a 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l design. Two groups of Ss were continuously rewarded on f i v e acquisition t r i a l s and two groups of Ss were p a r t i a l l y rewarded over f i v e acquisition t r i a l s . Within each condition of p a r t i a l (P) or continuous (C) reward, there were two conditions of ITI. For two groups of Ss the ITI i n acquisition and extinction was 30 seconds and for the remaining two groups the ITI was 24 hours. Subjects Forty-four naive female albino ra t s , approximately 60 to 65 days old at the start of pretraining, were used as Ss. Four naive female albino rats, 71 days old at the start of pretraining were also employed as "dummy" Ss durinp, pretraining to equate group sizes. (These Ss were not run i n the experiment proper.) A l l Ss were separated and placed i n single cages ten days p r i o r to the start of pretraining. During this same period a l l Ss were main-tained on a non-deprivation diet of 18 gm of wet mash per r day. Ss were handled da i l y i n groups of s i x for f i v e minutes per day and fed t h e i r d a i l y food ration approximately one hour l a t e r at about the same time each day. Ss were inspected d a i l y for any signs of sickness. One j> (net included i n the total) was eliminated at this stage due to sickness. Apparatus The apparatus used by McCain (1968, 1969) was replicated as closely as possible. This apparatus consisted of a straight S I D E V I E W S T A R T B O X D O O R G O A L B O X D O O R P H O T O C E L L I A P H O T O C E L L B v P H O T O C E L L C F O O D C U P P H O T O C E L L S T A R T B O X v <-- S TA R T — -» ©< - - RUN 1 V >©< R U N 2 G O A L - - © < 12"- »<- 12' -><- 12"- X - 1 8'- -O v e r a l l a l l e y l e n g t h i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 f t . C R O S S S E C T I O N - K. - - - - 1 2 " ><-4'-> S e a le 3 c m . : 1 f t . _ S e a l e 0 . 2 5 : 1 f t F i g . 6. Diagram of apparatus used. (After McCain, 1968,9) 48 runway painted f l a t grey throughout, approximately 6' long, 4" deep and 3.25" wide (see Fig. 6). This runway included a s t a r t box (SB) about 12" long at one end and a goal box (GB) also about 12" long at the other, and each was separated from the central section of the a l l e y by a g u i l l o t i n e door of opaque white p l a s t i c . The top of the runway consisted of three-hinged l i d s of transparent p l a s t i c covering the SB, the GB and the central section of the runway between SB and GB. Four photoelectric c e l l s were located so that four measures could be taken. Tiese measures consisted of measures of latency from the raising of the SB door u n t i l JS passed photo-c e l l A located 12" from the SB door, from photocell B u n t i l j[ passed photocell C located 18" from photocell B, and from photocell C u n t i l _S passed photocell D located 12" from C and approximately 6" from the end of the runway within the GB. Stop clocks recorded the four section measures of latencies, but a stop watch was used for a l l other measures. Due to the use of electronic relays, a l l clocks suffered from a s l i g h t delay In st a r t i n g and stopping, but this was estimated to be approximately equal for a l l relays and of very small magnitude (less than .01 s e c ) . A 1" deep food cup was located against the rear w a l l of the GB which ensured that Ss could not see into the cup u n t i l after they had passed photocell D. The food cup was located 6" from photocell D, not 4" as i n McCain's study, since i t seemed possible that with a food cup of the size used here located only 4" from D, 49 the p o s s i b i l i t y that Ss might be able to see into the cup before passing D could not be eliminated. The SB door was raised manually v i a a pulley system ar-ranged so that the movements of E's hand required to raise the door were not v i s i b l e to an S^ i n the SB. The f i r s t timer was started by release of a relay automatically when the door was half raised ( i . e . when the door had been raised about 2"). The GB door was closed automatically when S_ passed photocell D v i a an electromagne-t i c relay. Care was taken to arrange that an appropriate counter-weight and pulley system caused the GB door to close quietly and smoothly. Since p i l o t data indicated the importance of minimizing dist r a c t i n g movement, noise and other types of int e r f e r i n g s t i m u l i , a f l a t grey screen was introduced which concealed E from S^, except when JS was i n the SB or the section of the GB beyond photocell D. This screen was approximately 11" high and 3' 10" long, extending from the end of the SB to about 4" inside the GB and was located about 4.5" from the side of the runway and p a r a l l e l to i t . P i l o t data also indicated that any large open gap i n the. j o i n t i n g of transparent l i d s and g u i l l o t i n e door runners tended to disrupt running by attracting S_'s attention and consequently a l l such gaps were reduced to a maximum size of 0.25". A carrying box, with a t o t a l of s i x c e l l s , was used to carry animals to and from the experimental s i t u a t i o n . A l l c e l l s were approximately 4.25" deep, 8.25" long, and approximately 6.0" wide, and each v/as covered by a s l i d i n g l i d . Holes i n the top and sides permitted an adequate supply of a i r and l i g h t , but inte r n a l 50 ( c e l l ) p a r t i t i o n s were s o l i d and without a i r holes. A handling table, with two separate trays, approximately 4" deep and 2' by 2' (internal dimensions) was also used. The two trays were s u f f i c i e n t l y elevated to prevent escape, and s u f f i c i e n t l y far apart to prevent S_s from jumping from one to another. Approximately s i x hundred 500 mg p e l l e t s were made from a mixture of ground Purina rat p e l l e t s , water and very small quantities of egg, sugar and flo u r . These pel l e t s were of uniform diameter, length and mass. Uniformity was achieved b y squeezing a standard mixture cf ingredients through a c i r c u l a r hole (a cake decorator). The resulting sticks of pel l e t s were then g u i l l o t i n e d to the correct length. A random sampling procedure indicated that the weight of the pe l l e t s varied by a maximum cf 5 mg each way and size varied by a maximum cf 1-2 mm on any dimension, which was judged acceptable. Procedure Ss were maintained on a deprivation diet of 9 gm of wet mash for day from Day 1 throughout pretraining, acquisition and extinction. On Days 2-8 Ss were handled and tamed i n groups of s i x for one hour da i l y . Four extra Ss, similar i n age, weight, and other characteristics to the. other Ss were added to make up eight groups of s i x . Ss were always handled i n the same groups, but the order i n which groups were handled varied systematically from day to day. To avoid any extremes cf deprivation (since feeding time was contingent upon handling time) r e s t r i c t i o n s were imposed upon changes i n handling order from day to day such that the feeding time of each group changed by nc mere than two hours between any two days. 51 Ss were fed the i r daily food ration of wet mash 15 to 20 minutes after being returned to their home cages following handling. This mash consisted of one part by volume of ground Purina rat p e l l e t s to two parts water, care being taken to prepare i t i n approximately the same manner each day. On no occasion was any food given i n r e l a t i o n to handling or taming. Handling table trays, overalls and hands were cleaned to remove any food p a r t i c l e s before handling commenced so that Ss received food only i n their home cages. Handling was continued for seven days (two days more than i n McCain's 1968, 1969 studies) since _E was not s a t i s f i e d with the tameness cf a l l Ss after only f i v e days. A record was kept of the order and manner i n which Ss were handled so that a l l _Ss i n a l l groups were handled for approximately the amount of time i n any part i c u l a r manner. Pa r t i c u l a r attention was paid to accustoming Ss to being picked up repeatedly at short i n t e r v a l s , since p i l o t studies indicated that experience with this type of handling was pa r t i c u l a r l y necessary. The order i n v/hich Ss were handled within any one group was also systematically varied from day to day. On Days 9-14, Ss were allowed to explore the runway i n the same groups of s i x In which they had been handled for f i f t e e n minutes d a i l y . The order i n which groups explored the runway was systematically varied. Since feeding time, depended on the time of runway exploration, between-day changes i n the order of exploration were r e s t r i c t e d so that changes i n feeding time did not exceed two hours i n either dire c t i o n . No food reward was given i n r e l a t i o n to 52 runway exploration. During runway exploration, the e l e c t r i c a l c i r c u i t r y was operative, but the SB and GB doors were kept f u l l y raised throughout exploration and S_s received no prior f a m i l i a r -i z a t i o n with the lowering of these doors. A l l Ss were familiarized with the noises produced by resetting the photocells and relays. Since p i l o t studies indicated the a d v i s a b i l i t y of some indivi d u a l runway exploration, Ss explored the runway i n d i v i d u a l l y for 5 minutes daily on Days 15 and 16. A l l the Ss i n any one group explored the runway consecutively, but within-group and between-group orders were varied from Day 15 to 16. To accustom Ss to the weak soap solution used to clean the runway during acquisition and extinction t r a i n i n g , the runway was thoroughly cleaned between groups on Days 9-14 and between Ss on Days 15-16. S_s were carried to and from the runway i n a carrying box with s i x compartments i n groups of s i x on Days 9-14, or i n d i v i d u a l l y on Days 15-16. Each compartment of the carrying box was cleaned and the sawdust replaced between use by different Ss. A l l Ss were fed one 500 mg p e l l e t 15-20 min. after being returned to their home cages following runway exploration on Days 11-16. Ss received their d a i l y food ration of 9 mg of wet mash approximately 5-10 min. after receiving the 500 mg p e l l e t . Care was taken to see that the 500 mg p e l l e t had been consumed before presenting the da i l y food ration. I f an S_ f a i l e d to consume the pel l e t within 5 min., usually due to dropping i t through the bottom of the. cage, the p e l l e t was removed and again placed i n S_'s foodcup. On the f i r s t few occasions on which they received p e l l e t s , 53 two £!s required a th i r d presentation of the p e l l e t , but otherwise a l l Ss consumed thei r p e l l e t s either immediately or after a second presentation. After the f i r s t two days of receiving p e l l e t s , a l l Ss consumed their p e l l e t s immediately, with the occasional except-ion due to dropping of p e l l e t s . Throughout the runway exploration phase (Days 9-16), no change i n exploration order between any two days was allowed that would have resulted i n a change of feeding time i n excess of two hours. Since i t was estimated from p i l o t studies that the t o t a l running time for a l l J5s on the f i r s t day of acquisition t r a i n i n g (Day 17) would be 13-15 hours, the t o t a l time for a l l groups to explore the runway was increased to 11 hours by Day 16. Acquisition Acquisition t r a i n i n g commenced on Day 17. A l l Ss were f i r s t randomly assigned, subject to certain r e s t r i c t i o n s , to one of four groups formed by continuation of two levels of each of two con-ditions of reward and ITI. Under the p a r t i a l reward condition (Cond. P), a l l Ss received three rewarded and two nonrewarded t r i a l s i n an 'RNRNR' sequence ('R' indicating a rewarded t r i a l and 'N' a nonrewarded t r i a l ) , while under the continuous reward condition (Cond. C), a l l Ss received f i v e consecutive rewarded t r i a l s i n an 'RRRRR' sequence. Half of the Ss assigned to the p a r t i a l reward condition received a l l t r i a l s with a short ITI of 30 seconds (Group P-S) while the remainder received a l l t r i a l s with a long ITI of 24 hours (Group P-L). S i m i l a r l y , half the Ss assigned to the continuous reward group received a l l t r i a l s with a short ITI 56 of 30 seconds (Group C-S) and h a l f received a l l t r i a l s with a long ITI (Group C-L). To avoid running Ss that were excessively deprived, due to a long i n t e r v a l between feeding time on Day 16 and running on Day 17, groups of s i x Ss adjacent i n Day 16 exploration order were paired and three Ss from each of these paired groups randomly assigned to each of the four experimental groups. Running order within each experimental group was then determined t y the order i n which groups explored the runway on Day 16. In addition running was commenced two hours e a r l i e r than exploration on Day 16, and continued f o r about two hours l a t e r . In t h i s way, excessive deprivation of Ss was avoided between Days 16 and 17. On rewarded 'R' t r i a l s , Ss found a 500 mg p e l l e t i n the food cup and were allowed to consume the p e l l e t before removal from the GB. A time l i m i t of 10 min. for p e l l e t consumption on the f i r s t two rewarded t r i a l s and 5 minutes thereafter was imposed, and any S_ that refused to consume the p e l l e t within those l i m i t s was dropped. However, only one S_ i n Group P-L was dropped for t h i s reason. On nonrewarded ('N') t r i a l s , Ss were confined to the GB for 30 sec. while the food cup was empty. P a r t i c u l a r attention was paid to the removal of any p a r t i c l e s of p e l l e t on the runway between t r i a l s , and expe c i a l l y before 'N' t r i a l s . An 'ABBA' running order was followed with respect to the two conditions c f reward, and within these conditions Ss were a l t e r -n a t i v e l y run under the two conditions of ITI on the f i r s t day of a c q u i s i t i o n t r a i n i n g (Day 17). This i n f a c t constituted two nested 55 sequences cf 'ABBA' running orders with respect to both ITI and reward conditions. On Day 18, the second clay of acquisition t r a i n - , ing, only Ss receiving t r i a l s with an ITI of 24 hours (Cond. L) remained. Accordingly, Ss were grouped into fours on the basis of their running order on Day 17, and two j>s adjacent i n the running order were re-ordered so that an 'ABBA' running order was re-estab-lished for the two reward conditions on Day 18. Schematically t h i s procedure may be represented as constructing the orders 'ABBA' and 'BAAB' from each group of four Ss constituting an 'ABAB' ordering, by interchanging either the l a s t two Ss or the f i r s t two Ss respectively. The t o t a l time required to run a l l S_s on Day 17, the f i r s t day of acquisition t r a i n i n g , approximately 14 hours, of which a l l but two hours were due to the short ITI groups. Since this might be expected to be a source of fatigue and experimental error for one E over any period of time, a procedure was adopted to system-a t i c a l l y reduce t h i s t o t a l time, while ensuring that the ITI remained constant for any one S_, and that the mean ITIs for both Groups P-L and C-L remained equal to 24 hours. This was achieved by running the f i r s t S_ i n the running order 25 minutes l a t e r each day, starting on Day 18, and the l a s t J5 25 min. e a r l i e r each day. Proportional changes were made for Ss between these extremes. This resulted i n a reduction of 50 min. i n t o t a l running time per day, while the ITI for any one Sis remained constant. Thus the mean ITI for both Groups.C-L and P-L was equal to 24 hours, a l -though within each group ITIs ranged from approximately 23.5 to 24.5 hours. 56 D u r i n g t h e I T I s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e s w e r e f o l -l o w e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e I T I d u r a t i o n . U n d e r C o n d . S , S s w e r e p l a c e d i n a c o m p a r t m e n t o f t h e c a r r y i n g b o x w i t h t h e l i d c l o s e d d u r i n g t h e I T I . C a r e w a s t a k e n t o a v o i d a n y c u e s d u r i n g t h e I T I t h a t m i g h t e n a b l e S s t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e ' N ' f r o m ' R ' t r i a l s . O n b o t h 'N' a n d ' R ' t r i a l s t h e s a m e p r o c e d u r e w a s f o l l o w e d t o t h e p o i n t o f s i m u l a t i n g t h e p l a c i n g o f a p e l l e t i n t h r ; f o o d c u p o n 'N' t r i a l s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c a r r y i n g b o x w a s l o c a t e d i n a p o s i t i o n f r o m w h i c h n o p a r t o f t h e r u n w a y c o u l d b e o b s e r v e d . A f e l t l i n e d f o o d c u p r e d u c e d a n y a u d i t o r y c u e s . U n d e r C o n d . L , h o w e v e r , S s w e r e b r o u g h t t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n a f t e r t h e a p p a r a t u s h a d b e e n r e s e t a n d a f t e r a n y p e l l e t h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e f o o d c u p , a l t h o u g h t h e c a r r y i n g b o x w a s p l a c e d i n t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n i n w h i c h i t w a s l o c a t e d u n d e r C o n d . S . P i l o t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d t h e i m p o r t -a n c e o f a l l o w i n g S s t o r u n u n d e r l o n g I T I c o n d i t i o n s a b r i e f p e r i o d o f a d j u s t m e n t t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n a f t e r r e m o v a l f r o m t h e c a r r y i n g b o x b e f o r e p l a c i n g t h e m i n t h e a p p a r a t u s . A c c o r d i n g l y , a l l S s r u n u n d e r C o n d , L w e r e r e m o v e d f r o m t h e c a r r y i n g b o x a n d h e l d b y E f o r 30 s e c . b e f o r e b e i n g p l a c e d i n t h e S B . T h e s e S s w e r e n o t , h o w e v e r , a l l o w e d t o o b s e r v e t h e r u n w a y d u r i n g t h e i n t e r i m p e r i o d . A f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d d u r i n g t h e I T I u n d e r C o n d . S a n d C o n d . L w a s t h a t t h e r u n w a y w a s t h o r o u g h l y w a s h e d u s i n g a w e a k s o a p s o l u t i o n a n d d r i e d b e t w e e n e v e r y t r i a l u n d e r C o n d . L b u t o n l y b e t w e e n S s u n d e r C o n d . S . S i n c e t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s w a s t o e l i m i n a t e g r o s s o d o u r e f f e c t s b e t w e e n Ss 57 ( p a r t i c u l a r l y fear responses) such a procedure seemed adequate. In addition, however, i t was necessary to remove any pa r t i c l e s of pel l e t from the runway or food cup after 'R' t r i a l s and this was done using a small brush after a l l 'R' t r i a l s under both conditions of ITI. A further possible source of inter-S contamination was the carrying box and therefore each was assigned to only one compartment throughout acquisition and extinction and th i s compartment was cleaned and the sawdust changed before use by another S_. Extinction Following the f i v e acquisition t r i a l s , a l l Ss received ten successive extinction t r i a l s . On each extinction t r i a l Ss were confined to the GB for 2 0 sec. with an empty food cup present. A l l Ss were run i n extinction under the same condition of ITI v/hich they had experienced i n acquisition t r a i n i n g . The i n t e r v a l betv-ween the l a s t acquisition t r i a l and the f i r s t extinction t r i a l was also equal to the ITI i n acquisition. Consequently, a l l jSs run under Cond. S completed a l l acquisition and extinction t r a i n -ing on Day 17. Since the home cages of these Ss were randomly interspersed among the cages of the Ss s t i l l being run (under Cond. L) on Day 18 and subsequent days, Ss under Cond. S were maintained on a deprivation schedule (12 mg per day) and fed approximately according to Day 17 running order u n t i l Ss run under Cond. L also completed a l l acquisition and extinction t r i a l s . On Day 17, a l l Ss run under Cond. S were fed thei r d a i l y ration 2 0 - 3 0 min. after being returned to their home cages l i k e Ss run 58 under Cond. L. I t was feared that a return to normal diet by half the S_s might i n some way infleence running by neighbouring £[s p a r t i c u l a r l y since the normal diet of pel l e t s was t y p i c a l l y consumed rather n o i s i l y . P a r t i c u l a r care was taken to ensure that extinction t r i a l s were not discriminable ( u n t i l reached the GB) i n any way from 'R' t r i a l s i n acquisition. This was, of course, p a r t i c u l a r l y important under Cond. S, and procedures i d e n t i c a l to those taken during ac-q u i s i t i o n training to ensure ?N' t r i a l s were not discriminable from 'R' t r i a l s for p a r t i a l l y rewarded groups was followed. In general the procedure followed during the ITI under both Cond. S and L i n extinction was i d e n t i c a l to that followed under Cond. S and Cond. L respectively, i n acquisition t r a i n i n g prior to 'N' t r i a l s . Since these l a t t e r procedures were i d e n t i c a l to those adopted prior to 'R' t r i a l s , save for the omission of placing a p e l l e t i n the food cup, the procedure followed i n extinction during the ITI under Cond. S and L was i d e n t i c a l to that followed i n acquisition t r a i n i n g generally, with the exception that no p e l l e t was placed i n the food cup p r i o r to an extinction t r i a l . Thus the same procedure with regard to the resetting of apparatus, b a i t i n g the food cup, cleaning the runway and carrying box, carrying Ss to the experimental sit u a t i o n and feeding of the daily ration was followed i n extinction as i n acquisition training for Conditions L and S respectively. General In both acquisition and extinction t r a i n i n g , Ss were placed i n the SB and the SB door raised when they faced i t . E was positioned behind the screen sc that the whole of the SB and the l a s t 6" of the GB beyond the la s t photocell were c l e a r l y v i s i b l e . Orientation of Ss i n the SB and consumption of pel l e t s i n the GB could thus be observed. Such a position concealed E from Ss i n any portion of the runway except the SB and the end of the GB. Par t i c u l a r attention was also paid to minimizing any auditory cues that might disturb Ss. Accordingly E sat quite s t i l l u n t i l S_ entered the GB or the time l i m i t was exceeded. A maximum time l i m i t of 40 sec. was allowed for S_s to reach the l a s t photocell after the rai s i n g cf the SB door on both acquisition and extinction t r i a l s (after McCain, 1968, 1969). Ss not reaching the l a s t photocell by that time were guided to the GB and assigned a score of 10 sec. i n each section of runway unless they had registered a shorter time. This time l i m i t of 40 sec. was neasured v i a a stop watch, as were nonreward confinement durations. Any S_ f a i l i n g to reach the. GB within t h i s time l i m i t on any two acquisition t r i a l s was dropped (after McCain, 1968, 1969). Two S_s were dropped on these grounds, one from Group P-S and one from Group C-S. On extinction t r i a l s , however, no l i m i t was placed upon the occurrence of guided t r i a l s . A s t r i c t c r i t e -rion for experimental error was also adopted (again, after McCain, 1968, 1969). Any one serious experimental error ( i . e . an error d i r e c t l y affecting the actual running of an acquisition or extinction t r i a l ) led to the dropping of the S_ involved. Four j>s, one from each experimental group,were dropped on these grounds. 6 0 In addition, one S_ was dropped from Group C-L due to apparatus f a i l u r e , and one S_ (as previously noted) was dropped from Group P-L due to refusal to eat the reward p e l l e t s . A t o t a l of eight S_s two from each treatment group, were thus dropped altogether. 61 RESULTS Acquisition Data In analysis of acquisition data, the f i r s t e xtinction t r i a l counted as a s i x t h acquisition t r i a l . Two t o t a l measures were computed from the four a l l e y section measures recorded during acquisition. A " F u l l A l l e y " latency measure consisted of the sum of the Start, RI, R2~ and Goal measures ( i . e . a l l section measures), while the "Total Run" measure consisted of the sum of measures RI, R2 and Goal ( i . e . the Start measure was excluded). Two data trans-formations were carried out on a l l s i x types of measures. These consisted of a reciprocal transformation (x' = ~) and a log trans-formation (x' = log (x+1.0)). Since a l l data was recorded i n seconds and some values of x were less than 1.0 1.0 was added to x so that l o g g x was always positive. (After McCain, 1968, 1969)) I. Analysis of Variance Raw, reciprocal and log transformed data for each of the six measures was separately analysed by analysis of variance (AOV). A fixed effects model with a f a c t o r i a l 2 x 2 x 6 design with re-peated measures on the factor with s i x levels was employed (v. Edwards, 1966, pp. 233-239). These factors consisted of reward schedule (PRF or CRF), ITI (30 sec. or 24 hours), and the s i x acquisition, t r i a l s . Only the results of analyses of log trans-formed data w i l l be reported i n d e t a i l here for a number of reasons (see below). A summary of the results of AOV of log data i s given i n Table I. A similar summary for raw and reciprocal data analyses i s given i n the Appendix (Table. XXV) . A l l other data, such as mean running latencies and o r i g i n a l AOV tables are also presented i n tabular form i n the Appendix. I t should be noted that a l l r e s u l t s , except i n AOV tables, are reported i n terms of the .05, 025, and .01 levels of significance. Main Effect of Reward Schedule. Although a general tendency to faster running under the p a r t i a l compared with TABLE 1 Analysis of Variance of Acquisition Data (Log Transformation) Effect Measure Prob. Effect Measure Prob. Start NS Start NS Reward RI NS Interaction RI NS Schedule R2 NS of P.eward R2 A Goal NS Schedule Goal NS Main Effect Total Sun NS & T r i a l s Total Run NS F u l l Alley NS F a l l A l ley NS Start * Start NS ITI RI NS Interaction RI NS R2 NS of ITI R2 NS Goal AA & T r i a l s Goal NS Main Total Run NS Total Run A Effect F u l l Alley- A F u l l A l ley NS Start NS Start NS Interaction RI A Interaction RI NS of Reward 112 NS of Reward R2 A Schedule Goal NS Schedule Goal NS & ITI Total Run NS ITI * Total Run NS F u l l Alley NS T r i a l s F u l l A l ley NS Start AAAA T r i a l s RI AAAA R2 AAAA Goal AAAA Main Total Run AAAA Effect F u l l Alley A AAA A A A * s i g n i f i e s P <.001 AAA <s p <.oi AA !•: p <,025 * " P <.05 NS ;' P >.05 63 the continuous reward condition appears to be present in a l l measures (Appendix, Table III),in no case did i t attain significance. 2. Main Effect of ITI. A tendency to faster running when the ITI was 24 hours rather than 30 sec. appears to be present in a l l measures except R2, where a slight reversal occurs, (Appendix, Table IV),but this effect was significant only in analyses of Start, Goal and Full Alley measures (P<.05, .025 and .05 respectively). 3. Interaction of Reward Schedule, and ITI. This effect was significant only for measure RI (P <.05). While this appears to reflect faster running by Group PL compared with Groups CL or PS (Table V), subsequent Scheffe tests did not reveal any s i g n i f i -cant differences between group means (Appendix, Table X). 4. Main Effect of Trials. This effect was highly signif-icant (P <.01) for analyses of a l l measures, and appears to reflect a general trend to faster running as acquisition training proceeds. 5. Interaction of Reward Schedule and Trials. This effect was significant only in measure R2 (P <.05). Log data analysis may, however, be unreliable for measure R2 (see below), and in view of the lack of significance for this effect in recip-rocal data analysis, this significance from log data analysis may be misleading. In any case, i t appears to reflect a greater de-crease in mean running latencies under the continuous rather than the partial reward condition (Appendix, Table VII). 6. Interaction of ITI and Tria l s . This effect was significant only in the Total Run measure (P <.05), where i t appears to reflect the occurence of PRP behavior mainly when the ITI was 30 sec. rather than 24 hours and perhaps also a greater 64 decrease in mean running latencies over the f i r s t few acquisition t r i a l s when the ITI was 30 sec. rather than 24 hours (Appendix, Table V I I I ) . Similar tendencies, which do not attain significance, appear to be suggested by inspection of Goal and F u l l Alley measures. 7. Interaction of Reward Schedule, ITI and Trials. This effect, like the R x T effect, was only significant in measure R2, (P <.05) and appears to be mainly due to the marked tendency of Group CS to show increased running latencies on Trials 5 and 6 (Appendix, Table IX). Again, however, this significance may be misleading since i t was not significant in analysis of reciprocal data. II. Analysis of Patterning Effects in Acquisition Inspection of graphs of mean group latencies on each acquisition t r i a l (e.g. Fig. 7. Other data i s shown in the Appendix, Figs. 10-15) would appear to suggest that patterning effects occurred for some groups in seme measures. A within group comparison of mean latencies on TRF and TFN t r i a l s was therefore carried out for partial groups, and means cn the same t r i a l s were also compared for continuous reward groups. In view of the sug-gestion of patterning, effects, i t was f e l t that such an analysis was preferable cither to a comparison of terminal acquisition levels for treatment groups, which might be misleading, or to a comparison cf trend components for treatment groups which could, at best, only be expected to show up gross differences between groups rather than specific differences in patterning. 65 o 3 I i 1 1 i — : 1 1_ 1 2 - 3 . 4 . 5 6 A C Q U I S I T I O N T R I A L S F i g . 7,. Mean running latencies i n acquisition for each treatment group on each t r i a l . (Total Run measure, Log data) 66 Accordingly, within each group, mean latencies on T r i a l s 3 and 5 were compared using Scheffe tests with those on T r i a l s 4 and 6 for measures which inspection indicated show some strong evidence for faster running on TPR than TFN t r i a l s (Goal, Total Run and F u l l A l ley measures). In spite of the s l i g h t tendency to PRF behavior when the ITI was 30 sec. suggested by significance of the I x T effect i n measure R2, inspection of ind i v i d u a l group means indicates that this effect i s very small. Significant differences were found only for Group PS, and only i n Goal and Total Run measures (P* <.025, .05 respectively). I l l . Summary of Major Acquisition Results In summary, i t would seem that while i t i s not clear that p a r t i a l and continuous reward groups within each condition of ITI were 'equated' at the end of acquisition t r a i n i n g , i t does seem that differences, so far as they may be estimated, were not large. The influence of ITI seems to have been somewhat clearer than the influence of reward schedule, i n that an ITI of 24 hours rather than 30 sec. appears to have led to smaller mean running latencies at least i n Start, Goal and F u l l Alley measures. A second effect of ITI appears to be to reduce the tendency to PRP behavior shown in some measures by p a r t i a l reward groups run under a short ITI to near zero when the ITI i s increased to 24 hours. F i n a l l y , i t i s quite clear from analysis of a l l measures that a s i g n i f i c a n t reduction i n mean running latencies occurs as acquisition training proceeds. 67 Extinction Data I. Analysis of Variance Total Run and F u l l Alley latencies were computed as for acquisition data. Means for t r i a l s blocks were then computed over blocks of three extinction t r i a l s ( 2 - 3 , 5-7, 8-10) for a l l s i x measures and the same transformations of the block means as used for acquisition data were carried out. Analyses of variance were then computed for a l l measures and for both rax? and trans-formed data of the same type used to analyze acquisition data, except that a 2 x 2 x 3 design with repeated measures on the factor with 3 levels was used. A summary of the p r o b a b i l i t i e s obtained from this analysis i s given i n Table I I . As a pre-caution, these analyses were recomputed using the same data and! type of analysis of variance except that t r i a l s were not grouped into blocks and hence a 2 x 2 x 9 design was used with repeated measures on the factor with nine levels. Analyses of "unblocked" extinction data w i l l not be reported i n d e t a i l here, but a summary of the p r o b a b i l i t i e s obtained i s given i n the Appendix (Table XXIII) , 1. Main Effect of Reward Schedule. S i g n i f i c a n t l y faster running under the PRF compared with the. CRF reward con-d i t i o n occurred i n measures RI (P <.05, R2 (P <.025), Goal (P <.01), Total Run (P <.01, see Fig. 8) and F u l l A l ley measures (P <.01), but this effect was not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Start measure, although a similar tendency i s apparent i n that measure. There i s also seme suggestion that the magnitude of this effect 68 TABLE I I Analysis of Variance of Extinction Data (Log Transformation) Effect -Measure Prob. Effect Measure Prob. Start NS Start NS Reward RI * Interaction RI A Schedule R2 * * of Reward R2 NS Goal AAAA Schedule Goal NS Main Total Run AAAA & Tr i a l s Total Run NS Effect F u l l Alley AAAA F u l l Alley NS Start NS Start NS ITI RI NS Interaction RI AAA R2 NS of ITI R2 NS Goal AAA & T r i a l s Goal NS Main Total Run * Total Run NS Effect F u l l Alley AA F u l l A l ley NS Startc NS Start NS Interaction R I NS Interaction RI NS of Reward R2 NS of Reward, R2 NS Schedule Goal AAA I T I Goal NS & ITI Total Run A & T r i a l s Total Run NS F u l l Alley NS F u l l Alley NS S t a r t s NS Tri a l e RI AAA R2 AAA* Goal A Main Total Run AAAA Effect F u l l Alley AAAA AAAA s i g n i f i e s P <.001 AAA 1! P <.01 AA 11 P <.025 -I. ir P <.05 NS 1! P >.05 69 Fig. 8. Mean running latencies i n extinction for each condition of reward schedule on each extinction t r i a l block. (Total Run measure,,Log data) 70 increases across running measures as the Goal i s approached in terms of the relative magnitude of the mean running latencies. In addition, computation of estimates of w?- (Hays 1963, pp. 406-7) for each running measure indicated that the. main effect of reward schedule accounted for increasingly more of the variance the nearer a measure was to the goal. A slight reversal, however, occurs from measure RI to R 2 in terms of the former criterion. (Appendix, Table XII). 2 . Main Effect of ITI. A general tendency towards faster running when the ITI was 24 hours i s suggested by inspection of the mean running latencies for a l l measures (Appendix, Table XIII), but this effect attained significance only in Goal, Total R.un and Full Alley measures (P <.01,.05 and .025 respectively). There is also some suggestion that the difference between the ITI condition increases across running measures as the Gcal is approached both in terms of relative magnitudes of mean running speeds and the probabilities associated with this effect. 3. Interaction of Reward Schedule and ITI. This effect was significant only in Goal, and Total Run Measures (P <.01, .05 respectively). Subsequent Scheffe tests (Appendix, Table XIX) indicated that Group FS ran significantly faster than Group CS (P <.01) and that Group Cl ran significantly faster than Group CS (P <.05), while the means for Grcups PL and CL and for Groups PS and PL did not differ significantly. 4. Main Effect of T r i a l Blocks. A l l measures exhibited a tendency for mean running latencies to increase as extinction 71 -Fig. 9. Mean running latencies i n extinction for each treatment group on each extinction t r i a l block. (Total Run measure, Log data). 72 t r a i n i n g proceeded (Appendix, Table XV). This e f f e c t was s i g n i f -icant at the .01 l e v e l f o r RI, R2, Tot a l Run and F u l l A l l e y measures, at the .05 l e v e l f o r the Goal measure, but was not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the the Start measure. 5. Interaction of Reward Schedule and T r i a l Blocks. A tendency to a slower increase i n mean running la t e n c i e s following PRF rather than CRF t r a i n i n g i s generally present, although the Goal measure exhibits a s l i g h t reverse tendency (Appendix, Table XVI). This e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t only i n measures RI and Tot a l Run (P <.05 i n both cases). 6. Interaction of ITI and T r i a l Blocks. A l l measures appear to exhibit a tendency for running latencies to increase across t r i a l blocks slower when the ITI was 30 sec. rather than 24 hours (Appendix, Table XVII), but t h i s e f f e c t attained s i g n i f -icance only i n measure RI (P <.01), although i t was near s i g n i f -icance i n T o t a l Run and F u l l A l l e y measures (P = .07, .08 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 7. Interaction of Reward Schedule, ITI and T r i a l Blocks. This e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t i n any analysis and no p r o b a b i l i t i e s were less than .10. I I . Linear and Quadratic Components of Ex t i n c t i o n Trends The l i n e a r and quadratic components were computed f or a l l e x t i n c t i o n trends (Edwards, I960, pp. 239-247). While these analyses were c a r r i e d out for a l l data (see Appendix, Table XXI), only the r e s u l t s of log data analyses w i l l be discussed here, a l -though any d i s p a r i t i e s between log and r e c i p r o c a l data analyses 73 for measure R2 w i l l be noted. I t should also be noted that i t was assumed that i t might be the case that the li n e a r and quadratic components of trends did not necessarily represent the influence of the same factors or the same type of performance. Consequently, analyses of trend components were carried out irrespective of whether either the unpartitioned trend effect,, or the interaction of treatment groups and t r i a l blocks was s i g n i f i c a n t or not i n any p a r t i c u l a r analysis, i n case any systematic effects associated with one component were concealed within the overall trends. Interaction of Groups and T r i a l M o c k s As preliminary to analysis of components of trends, the interaction of groups and t r i a l blocks, Indicative of differences i n o v e r a l l trends between treatment groups, was computed for each AOV. This effect was s i g n i f i c a n t only for measures P.l and Total Run (p < .01, .05 respectively). A summary of significance levels attained by this effect i n analyses of raw and reciprocal data i s given i n the Appendix (Table XXIII). 1. Components of Overall Extinction Trends. The li n a a r component of these trends attained a significance l e v e l of .01 i n a l l measures. Analyses o f the quadratic component were s i m i l a r l y associated with a significance, l e v e l of .01 f o r Start, Total Run and F u l l A l ley measures. However, this component was less s i g n i f -icant i n RI and R2 measures (P <.05) and not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the Goal measure. Inspection of the mean extinction latencies on each t r i a l block f o r log data suggests, as noted before, that latencies 74 increase as extinction training proceeds. This, however, i s not true for the Goal measure where a s l i g h t decrease i n latencies occurs. Therefore, while the l i n e a r component appears to r e f l e c t an increase i n latencies over t r i a l blocks for most measures, i t appears to r e f l e c t the reverse trend for the Goal measure. A further tendency notable for measures other than the Goal, i s a tendency for latencies to increase more l a t e r i n training (bet-ween Blocks I I and III) compared with early i n training (between Blocks I and II) and i t i s the magnitude of this tendency that i s presumably reflected by the significance of the quadratic component. 2. Components of Reward Schedule x T r i a l Blocks Trends. Analyses of l i n e a r components showed evidence for s i g n i f i c a n t effects only for measures RI and Total Run (P <.025, .05). No quadratic components were s i g n i f i c a n t . As already noted, a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency for latencies to increase slower after PRF rather than CRF training i s present i n RI and Total Run measures and I t i s presumably the magnitude of this effect that i s reflected i n the s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r components obtained for the Reward Schedule x T r i a l Blocks Trend i n those measures. 3. Components of ITI x T r i a l Blocks Trends. The l i n e a r component was s i g n i f i c a n t only i n measures RI, Total Run and F u l l Alley (P <.01, .025, and .05 respectively). No quadratic components were s i g n i f i c a n t . As noted above, a tendency for latencies to i n -crease more under the 24 hour ITI condition i s present i n a l l measures, and i t i s the magnitude of this difference i n the slopes 75 of the linear component that i s presumably reflected by the significance levels attained by analyses of the linea r components. 4. Components of ITI x Reward x T r i a l Blocks Trends. The only significance obtained was .05 for the quadratic component of t h i s effect for measure RI and the actual probability (approx-imately .048) was only just s i g n i f i c a n t . Mean extinction latencies for each treatment group were plotted against t r i a l blocks. (Fig. 9; Appendix, Figs. 10-14). Inspection of these trends for RI log data shows that Group CS exhibits a marked decrease i n mean-latencies between Blocks I I and I I I , and this contrasts with the direction of curvature towards increasing mean latencies exhibited by Groups PS and CL and (very s l i g h t l y ) by group PL. Ko such recovery late i n extinction training by Group CS appears to be suggested by inspection of t r i a l blocks means for measures other than R2. I I I . Heterogeneity of Variance Tests Due to the obvious discrepancies i n significance levels attained i n analysis of raw, reciprocal and log data, p a r t i c u l a r l y the f a i l u r e to find a s i g n i f i c a n t R x T effect i n Total Run recip-rocal data analysis, tests for heterogeneity of variance were carried out on extinction data analyses (Weiner, 1962, pp. 339-340). Two additional sums of squares were computed for each treatment group i n each analysis. The sum of squares for Ss within each treatment group (SS(S*s W.Gij)) and the sum of squares for the interaction of this effect (SS(T x S_'s W.Gij)) with that of t r i a l blocks were computed and th e i r values are given i n the Appendix (Table XXIV). 76 On the basis of this data, differences i n variance were computed using F max tests for each of these effects and a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n either set of variances indicated heterogeneity of variance. The significance levels attained are summarized i n the Appendix (Table XX). With a = .05, a l l analyses of rau extinction data, three analyses of reciprocal data (Goal, Total Run and F u l l Alley) lacked homogeneity, but only the analysis of measure R2 lacked homogeneity for log transformed data. Since the log transformation was used by McCain (e.g. 1968, 1969) and since the log data analysis seemed more r e l i a b l e than analyses of raw or reciprocal data, i t was decided to use only the results of log data analyses of variance as the basis for deductions. Such a procedure would seem reasonable even for the R2 measure since no contradiction exists between R2 log extinction data analysis (heterogeneous) and R2 reciprocal extinction data analysis (homogeneous), except for a reduction of the significance-l e v e l associated with the main effect of reward schedule from .025 for log data to .05 for reciprocal data. Although no heterogeneity tests were carried out, a similar assumption concerning the greater r e l i a b i l i t y of log data analyses of acquisition data v/as made. IV. Analysis of 'Unblocked' Extinction Data The main reason for recomputing the analyses of variance for each measure and transformation was to determine whether the use of t r i a l blocks might have concealed effects which would other-wise have attained significance. On the other hand, i t was expected that analyses of unblocked extinction data would result i n a 77 g e n e r a l l o w e r i n g o f S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s d u e t o i n c r e a s i n g v a r i a n c e . T h i s l a t t e r e x p e c t a t i o n w a s c o n f i r m e d , a n d l i t t l e o r n o e v i d e n c e w a s f o u n d f o r t h e c o n c e a l m e n t o f a n y s y s t e m a t i c e f f e c t s b y t h e u s e o f ' b l o c k e d ' d a t a . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n t h e A p p e n d i x ( T a b l e X X I I I ) . L i t t l e r e l i a n c e , h o w e v e r , s h o u l d be-l a i d u p o n t h e s e r e s u l t s i n v i e w o f i n c r e a s e d v a r i a n c e a n d p o s s i b l e a c c o m p a n y i n g i n c r e a s e s i n d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n v a r i a n c e . V . S u m m a r y o f M a j o r E x t i n c t i o n R e s u l t s S i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r r u n n i n g v ; a s s h e w n i n a l l m e a s u r e s e x c e p t t h e S t a r t b y G r o u p P S i n c o m p a r i s o n t o G r o u p C S , a n d s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s w e r e s h o w n b y C r o u p P L i n c o m p a r i s o n t o G r o u p C L i n R I , R 2 , a n d F u l l A l l e y m e a s u r e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r e n d s s h o w n i n e x t i n c t i o n a f t e r P R F t r a i n i n g d i f f e r e d f r o m t h a t s h o w n a f t e r C R F t r a i n i n g i n m e a s u r e s R I a n d T o t a l R u n a n d t h e s e e f f e c t s w e r e d u e t o l i n e a r r a t h e r t h a n q u a d r a t i c c o m p o n e n t s , r e f l e c t i n g a f a s t e r i n c r e a s e i n l a t e n c i e s a c r o s s e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s a f t e r C R F t r a i n i n g , r a t h e r t h a n a f t e r PRF t r a i n i n g . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t s s h o w n i n G o a l a n d T o t a l R u n m e a s u r e s , b o t h g r o u p s r u n w i t h a 24 h o u r I T I r a n f a s t e r i n t h e F u l l A l l e y m e a s u r e t h a n b o t h g r o u p s t r a i n e d w i t h a 30 s e c , I T I . D i f f e r -e n c e s i n t h e t r e n d s s h o w n b y g r o u p s r u n u n d e r t h e t w o I T I c o n d i t i o n s o c c u r r e d i n m e a s u r e R I a n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e l i n e a r c o m p o n e n t o f e x t i n c t i o n t r e n d s o c c u r r e d i n m e a s u r e s R I , T o t a l R u n a n d F u l l A l l e y , r e f l e c t i n g a f a s t e r i n c r e a s e i n r u n n i n g s p e e d s a c r o s s e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s w i t h a n I T I o f 2 4 h o u r s r a t h e r t h a n . 30 s e c . A n u n e x p e c t e d f i n d i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e o v e r a l l t r e n d s i n e x t i n c t i o n w a s t h e 7 8 s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n running speeds across t r i a l s shown i n the Goal measure, i n contrast to the more usual decrease i n running speeds shown i n RI, R2, Total Run and F u l l Alley measures. F i n a l l y , i t should be noted that no AOV effects were s i g n i f i c a n t i n analysis of the Start measure for extinction data. 79 DISCUSSION Interpretation of Results Before any^assessment of the results can be made, certain assumptions must be noted to enable decisions to be made between the several different types of analyses carried out. I t would seem quite clear from heterogeneity tests that analyses of log transformed extinction data are generally to be preferred to raw or reciprocal data analyses. The one exception i s measure R2, where log data analysis lacked homogeneity of variance. This, bow-ever, i s perhaps not surprising since measure R2 i s a measure of l a -tency over 18" and not 12" as are a l l the other measures, and therefore this data might be expected to show rather different characteristics from the other measures. In general, therefore, the results of log data analyses w i l l be used as a basis for d i s -cussion and conclusions, although reciprocal data analyses for measure R2 w i l l be preferred i f contradictory to the results obtained from log data analyses. I t might be argued that the (homogeneous) reciprocal data analyses should also be considered for measures Start and RI. I t would however, seem best to minimize the number of analyses on which conclusions are based i n order to minimize type I errors of s t a t i s t i c a l inference. In addition, since the log data analysis replicates the method of analysis employed by McCain (1968, 1969), and the reciprocal data analysis was merely carried out as a means of comparison with the study of Amsel et a l . (1968), i t would seem better to base conclusions mainly upon log data analysis r e s u l t s . 80 A second assumption that w i l l be made i s that o v e r a l l running latencies are best represented by the Total Run, rather than the F u l l A l l ey measure. The c r i t i c a l difference between these to t a l s i s , of course, inclusion of the Start measure i n the F u l l Alley t o t a l . However, the Start measure as defined operation-a l l y i n this study i s not a pure measure of running, since i t includes the latency intervening between the raising of the SB door and leaving the SB. Observation of behavior i n the SB during acquisition and especially extinction training revealed that Ss tended to pause i n the SB after r a i s i n g of the door on a large proportion of t r i a l s . Furthermore, the lack of any sig n i f i c a n t main effects or interactions i n Start extinction latencies i n any analysis of variance c l e a r l y suggests that the Start measure does not r e f l e c t the same effects as do the other section measures. On the basis of these observations, therefore, i t would seem that the Total Run measure i s a better expression of t o t a l running latency than the F u l l Alley measure. An alternative method of analyzing the data from this study would have been to consider the measures taken as a fourth factor i n AOV. While t h i s procedure would have been subject to considerable drawbacks, i t would have provided a more powerful test of effects occurring across measures than the within measures AOVs actually carried out. Consequently, i n an attempt to assess effects common to too or more measures the two t o t a l measures were computed. I t i s therefore assumed that the best test of a general trend across measures are analyses of the t o t a l measures 81 rather than analyses of the section measures considered j o i n t l y . While this obviously must be subject to certain r e s t r i c t i o n s , i n that very powerful effects i n two or perhaps only one measure might achieve significance at a moderate l e v e l i n analysis of a t o t a l measure, i t would seem that t h i s i s a better procedure generally to assess general differences i n trends since a pooling of (possibly s l i g h t ) running measure effects occurs. Thus, on the basis of this argument and the previous one, analysis of the Total Run measure i s assumed to be a better way of assessing effects occurring across running measures, rather than solely considering analyses of indi v i d u a l section measures. Acquisition While there was a general tendency which did not a t t a i n significance for faster running under Cond. P compared with Cond. C, this alone would net seem s u f f i c i e n t grounds to counter the as-sumption that continuous and p a r t i a l rewards groups were "equated" i n terms of mean running latencies at the end of acquisition t r a i n -ing. Consideration of other results together with this trend would seem to make such an assumption questionable. The f i r s t point i s that no e x p l i c i t attempt was made to compare terminal acquisition levels i n view of the tendency to PRP behavior, and consequently while overall extinction means may not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , "terminal acquisition l e v e l s " ( i f such a term i s meaningful when PRP behavior occurs) might not be "equated". A second point i s the tendency noted for Group PL always to run faster than group CL or PS, which appears to attain significance for E.1 (log) data. 82 Coupled with the observation that Group CL ran slowest in two measures (RI and R2 log means) this also would seem to suggest that assumptions concerning the equating of partial and continuous reward groups may be suspect. Faster runinng in acquisition under Cond. L is clearly present in Start, Goal and Full Alley measures. Insignificance in RI, R 2 and Total Run measures and the reversal noted for R 2 means suggests that the effect of ITI is minimal in running meas-ures. The Inference would seem to be that lengthening the ITI increases running speed mainly in Start and Goal measures. Since S_ may be assumed to have a speed of 0 ft/sec. in the SB and GB after photocell D, while running speeds in the central section (Rl, R 2 ) are approxitnatley equated, Ss run under Cond. L would seem to accelerate earlier or faster in the. Start section and/or decelerate slower or later in the Goal section than Ss run with a Short ITI. Pilot studies and observation of pausing and re-tracing in this study indicated that the GB guillotine door appeared to have aversive features for most Ss perhaps due to the noise and speed with which the door f e l l or to the experience of being confined by the door in the GB. Under Cond. L, the aver-sive emotional consequences of the door dropping might be expected to be dissipated compared with Cond. S, or, alternatively, forgetting of the aversive aspects of the door might be expected to be greater under Cond. L than Cond. S. Faster running in the Goal region is not, therefore, surprising under Cond. L. Similar-ly, i f the act of leaving the SB also had certain intrinsic 83 aversive properties, a view supported by the common tendency of frightened or nervous rats to remain where they are placed,, faster leaving of the SB might be expected on simi l a r grounds under Cond. L compared with Cond. S. However, the effect of t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n upon between-subject acquisition performance under CRF/PRF schedules does not appear to have been confined to mean running speeds. Observation of PRP behavior for Groups PS (at least i n Goal and Total Run measures) confirm previous results (e.g. McCain, 1960, 1966; McCain et a l . , 1962a, b; Tyler et a l , 1953). I t would seem from the results of Amsel et a l . (1968) that l i t t l e or no PRP behavior occurred for groups trained under a PRF schedule with an ITI of 24 hours. Inspection of the mean t o t a l a l l e y speeds during- ac-q u i s i t i o n reported by Amsel et a l . (1968, p. 532) reveals a s l i g h t suggestion of PRP behavior for one PRF group (2P i n Expt. 1) out of f i v e such PRF groups. While no evidence for PRP behavior by Group CL i n the present study confirms the results of Amsel et a l . , (1968) the tendency for Group CS to show PEP behavior, even i f i n s i g n i f i c a n t , i s unexpected. This i s c l e a r l y d i f f i c u l t to explain, and i t seems best to treat this tendency as a chance one u n t i l separate investigations can be made. Although the s i g n i f i c a n t I x T interaction obtained for measure RI (which appears mainly to be due to PEP behavior under Cond. S but not Cond. L ) , together with the lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t I x RxT interaction for the same measure might seem to suggest that PRP behavior occurs both for Groups PS and CS, th i s cannot 84 be accepted as r e l i a b l e evidence since the difference between trends for Cond. S and Cond. L may not be e n t i r e l y due to d i f f e r -ences i n PRF behavior. A further objection i s that a l l s i x ac-q u i s i t i o n t r i a l s were considered i n the I x T interaction while only appropriate TFR and TFN t r i a l s were examined i n Scheffe comparisons. The l a t t e r i s therefore a more r e l i a b l e test of PRP behavior within groups than the R x T and I x R x T interaction effects. However i t should perhaps be noted that some comparable CRF groups i n minimal acquisition studies seem to have shown sim i l a r tendencies (e.g. McCain, 1966, Expt. I l l Group C^, Expt. IV, Group C^). With regard to the characteristic section effects found during acquisition t r a i n i n g i n between-subject PRF-CRF designs d i s -cussed e a r l i e r , l i t t l e can be said, since the tendency for faster running under Cond. P i n a l l sections was i n s i g n i f i c a n t . S l i g h t l y more extensive acquisition might thus give r i s e to the s i g n i f i c a n t superiority of PRP groups i n Start and Run measures and CRF supe-r i o r i t y i n the Goal measure noted early i n training (e.g., Goodrich, 1959; Haggard, 1959; Wagner, 1961). However, the s i g n i f i c a n t I x R effect obtained i n measure RI suggests that these generalizations may be subject to l i m i t a t i o n s for minimal acquisition depending on the ITI, since Group PS ran slower than Group CS while Group PL ran faster than Group CL. This raises a problem for Amsel's account of between-S_ acquisition effects as to why reverse effects are obtained depending upon the ITI. Trend effects other than PRF behavior do not seem to pose 85 any p a r t i c u l a r problems of interpretation. The general trend to a decrease i n overall acquisition latencies late i n t r a i n i n g ap-pears to be Indicative of acquisition of the running response. The s i g n i f i c a n t R x T interaction obtained for R2 raw and log data, but not reciprocal data analysis, i s suspect due to the lack of homogeneity of R2 raw and log analyses of extinction data. In any case, this effect appears to be due to a greater decrease i n latencies under Cond. C than Cond. F, which i s to be expected both because j>s under Cond. C received more rewards and because late i n tetwe.en-S_ acquisition training CRF superiority i n a l l measures has been commonly reported (e.g., Goodrich, 1959; Haggard, 1957; Wagner, 1961). The s i g n i f i c a n t I x R x T interaction obtained for measure R2 raw and log data seems to suggest that a return to slower running occurs for Group CS but not Group CL late i n t r a i n -ing i n measure R2, perhaps due to s a t i a t i o n on the part of Groups CS. However, since this effect was far from s i g n i f i c a n t i n recip-rocal data analysis, which was the only analysis of R2 data r e l i a b l e i n terms of homogeneity of variance at least for extinction data, i t seems that the s i g n i f i c a n t effect obtained for raw and log data analyses may w e l l be misleading. F i n a l l y , the s i g n i f i c a n t I x T interaction obtained for Total P.un log data seems, as already noted, to indicate PRP behavior under Cond. S but not Cond. L. In summary, i t would seem that while I t i s perhaps un-wise to assume that PRF and CRF groups within each condition of ITI were equated i n terms of mean running speeds at the end of ac-q u i s i t i o n , such differences as there were do not appear to have 86 been large. On the other hand, increased t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n does seem to have been associatd with s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r mean running speeds (at l e a s t i n Start, Goal and F u l l A l l e y measures) and with a reduction i n the PRP behavior shown by PRP groups. Ex t i n c t i o n The trends shown i n ex t i n c t i o n would seem to suggest that greater R to E was exhibited i n at l e a s t some running measures b y both PRF groups. This requires the assumption that the T o t a l Run measure analysis r e s u l t s i n the pooling of e f f e c t s from several running measures. The c r i t i c a l evidence i n favor of t h i s assump-t i o n from t h i s study i s the greater s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l achieved by the R x T e f f e c t i n analysis of the Total Run measure compared with that obtained from analysis of measure RI. However, i t does seem that there i s l i t t l e difference between the trends of the two conditions of reward schedule f or the Goal measure and c e r t a i n l y none for the Start measure. While McCain (1968, 1969) reported evidence f or a PRE i n a l l section measures except the Start measure, i t i s important to note that t h i s was (apparently) based upon differences between means rather than trends. With regard to the differences between means under the two reward schedules, i t i s clear that Ss run under Cond. P ran s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r than Ss run under Cond. C i n a l l measures other than the Start measure. Furthermore, the magnitude of t h i s e f f e c t appeared to be greatest i n the Goal measures. However, i t also i s clear that Group PL d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from Group CL i n measures RI, R2, and F u l l A l l e y , but these groups do not d i f f e r 87 s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n Start, Goal or Total Run measures, while Groups PS and CS d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n terms of mean overall extinction latencies i n a l l measures except the Start. In view of the s i g n i f i c a n t l y faster running associated with Cond. L. i n acquisi-t i o n i n Start, Goal and F u l l Alley measures, and the same tendency observable i n the Total Run measure (P = .10), spacing would d e f i n i t e l y appear to depress PRF mean, extinction speeds at least i n Goal and Total Run measures since no difference between FRF groups were s i g n i f i c a n t i n extinction. L i t t l e evidence for any elevation of CRF extinction speeds due to spacing i s apparent, except that the superiority of Group CL over Group CS attained significance i n extinction for the Total Run measure, but this difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t i n acquisition. The results of this study suggest that the effect of increased t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n upon extinction trends i s to i n -crease the rate of extinction. While only i n measure RI was the I x R effect s i g n i f i c a n t , the s i g n i f i c a n t effects obtained for the line a r components of this interaction i n measures RI, Total Run and F u l l Alley appear to suggest that the rate of extinction was slower under Cond. S. than Cond. L . Lack of any s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the trends of treatment groups, other than the s i g n i f i c a n t quadratic component obtained for the I x R x T interaction for measure RI, suggests that this effect i s not confined to one condition of reward schedule. In summary, the results of this study suggest that, i n terms of differences between extinction trends, a FRE occurred 88 Irrespective of whether t r i a l s were highly massed or highly distributed. L i t t l e evidence, except for the s i g n i f i c a n t quadratic effect obtained for the I x R x T interaction i n measure RI sug-gests that differences i n trends between groups trained under the same condition of reward schedule occurred i n extinction. In terms of differences between means, evidence for greater R to E after PRF acquisition t r a i n i n g was obtained when t r i a l s were highly massed, and some evidence for greater R to E after PRF training when t r i a l s were highly distributee' was obtained i n RI, R2 and F u l l Alley measures. How far comparisons between means are r e l i a b l e as evidence for a PRE does not seem clear. Increased t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n appears to hasten extinction (at least i n measures RI, Total Run and F u l l Alley) under both conditions of reward schedule. Some evidence may also be noted for depression of PRF running speeds and elevation of CRF running speeds i n extinction when t r i a l s are spaced. The results of th i s study would thus generally appear to support Mackintosh's (1970) findings concerning the effect of t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n upon the PRE after more extended acquisition. In that study, evidence for a PRE ( i n terms of the number of t r i a l s to an extinction c r i t e r i o n based on latencies) was found when t r i a l s were massed or spaced, although spacing attenuated this e f f e c t . This appeared to be mainly due to a reduction i n PRF group R to E when t r i a l s were spaced rather than massed, although there i s some suggestion of an increase i n R to E shown by CR.F groups when t r i a l s were spaced rather than massed. Analysis of mean extinction 89 latencies for each treatment group failed to show a significant I x R effect, however, and Mackintosh therefore analyzed the tvro PRF groups and the tvro CRF groups separately. A significant effect of ITI for the CRF groups and a significant Interaction between ITI and t r i a l blocks for the PRF groups was found, in each case supporting the results of analysis of t r i a l s to the extinction criterion. The results of this study also seem to indicate that attenuation of the PRE when t r i a l s are highly spaced is due to a depression in PRF group latencies . The extent to which any elevation of CRF group speeds occurred cannot be assessed from Mackintosh's study, since although the spaced CR.F group ran faster in extinction than the massed CRF group, the former group ran faster than the spaced PRF group in acquisition, while the reverse was the case for the massed groups. Seme elevation of CRF running time in extinction under Cond. L cannot be entirely ruled out in this study, but i t seems unlikely that the tendency for Group CL to run faster than Group CS (in measures Start, Goal and Full Alley) in acquisition was increased in extinction since both groups under Cond. L appeared to have shown a tendency, i f any, to extinguish faster than both groups under Cond, S (in measure RI, Total Run and Full Alley). These results, therefore, suggest that a PRE may be obtained after a sequence of only five acquisition t r i a l s i r r e -spective of whether t r i a l s are highly spaced or highly massed. Thus the hypothesis tested, that a PRE would occur after only 90 minimal acquisition irrespective of whether the ITI was 30 sec. or 24 hours, was confirmed. However, these, results also suggest that attenuation of the PRE may occur i n certain running measures to the point where no differences between reward conditions are found i n terms of differences i n mean extinction latencies. As a test of Frustration Theory, these results appear to disconfirm the fru s t r a t i v e NRF account of the PRE, and provide s l i g h t l y stronger evidence against this account than that found by McCain (1968, 1969) since food reward was eliminated during handling. However, i t should be noted that the p o s s i b i l i t y that r ^ and r ^ may have developed from some other source i n pretraining should not be overlooked. Moreover, the results of this study and of Mackintosh (1970, Expt. 1), suggesting attenuation of the PRE when t r i a l s are spaced,do suggest that the use of a long ITI i s unfavorable to the development of a PRE, and th i s may have been a contributing factor i n Amsel et al.'s (1968) f a i l u r e to obtain a PRE after a s i m i l a r schedule of minimal acquisition. While these results do not support the fr u s t r a t i v e NRF account cf the PRE, the question that remains to be answered i s whether they favor Sequential Effects Theory. As already noted, i t i s clea r l y wrong to suppose that Sequential Effects Theory implies that stimulus after-effects are short l i v e d and do not persist over periods as long as 24 hours (v. Capaldi, 1967). Theoretically, therefore, occurrence of a PRF, with spaced t r i a l s i s predictable on the basis of the account of the PRE proposed by Capaldi (e.g. 1967) discussed above. 91 I t s t i l l might be the case that there could be empir ica l grounds which make i t implausible to expect persistence of the stimulus a f te r -e f fec ts of R and N t r i a l s to pers is t over periods as long as 24 hours; Invest igat ions of patterning behavior at long ITIs suggest that such patterning becomes more d i f f i c u l t as the ITI increases, (e .g . Katz et a l . , 1966) and a number of studies have fa i l ed to f ind evidence for patterning behavior with ITIs as long as 24 hours (Amsel et a l . , 1969; Surridge and Amsel, 1968, 1969). However,Mackintosh (1970) has argues that f a i l u re to f ind patterning R N with a 24 hour ITI does not necessar i ly imply that S or S does not pers is t over 24 hours; rather , S_ may be unable to r e c a l l which type of t r i a l (N or R t r i a l ) occurred most recent ly . Mackintosh (1970) proposed that during PRF t ra in ing with P spaced t r i a l s a type of a f te r -e f fec t intermediate between S and N S a r i s e s , and i s conditioned to the instrumental response. Since N B th is type of a f te r -e f fec t i s assumed to be more l i k e S than i s S , occurrence of a PRE a f ter PRF/CRF t ra in ing with spaced t r i a l s may s t i l l be pred ic ted, while patterning behavior (and PRP behavior) would be less l i k e l y to occur with increased t r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . Such an account might be c r i t i c i z e d i n that i t appears to suggest that a f te r -e f fec ts pers is t i n sp i te of the occurrence of i n t e r -vening R t r i a l s , whi le Capaldi (e .g . 1967) has e x p l i c i t l y stated that a l l a f te r -e f fec ts are conditioned to the instrumental response on subsequent R t r i a l s and do not pers is t thereaf ter . On the other hand, evidence suggesting that the f a i l u r e to obtain patterning with a long ITI i s due to forget t ing of the nature of the las t t r i a l or 92 alternative chosen i s suggested by a number of studies (e.g. S t i l l , 1966; Mackintosh et a l . , 1968). Thus while the argument advanced by Mackintosh (1970) is open to a number of criticisms, i t would appear at present that i t provides some defence of an account in terms of Sequential Effects Theory of the PRE when t r i a l s are highly distributed. With regard to the attenuation of the PRE when t r i a l s are spaced, a number of accounts may be suggested. The basic problem would appear to be that the source of this attenuation is not well defined since i t might have occurred cither due to spacing in acqui-sition or due to spacing in extinction, or both. Further inves-tigation, systematically carying ITIs in both acquisition and extinction is clearly required. As already noted, Mackintosh (1970) proposed that attenuation of the PRE with spaced t r i a l s i s due to a reduction in R to E of spaced PRF groups due to proactive interfer-ence (PI) from preceding t r i a l s (i.e. S R ) interfering with the N after-effects of subsequent N t r i a l s (S ). Two problems appear to be raised by this study for Mackintosh's (1970) account of attenuation of the PRE. The f i r s t problem concerns the occurrence of a PPJP behavior in acquisition for Group PS but hardly, i f at a l l , for Group PL. It might there-fore be suggested that i f spacing results in the forgetting of the order of t r i a l s and interference by the after-effects of preceding R t r i a l s with the after-effects of subsequent N t r i a l s , then S_ may be unable to recall which type of t r i a l (R or N) occurred last, and hence PRP behavior should not be expected when t r i a l s are spaced, 93 for the same reasons that patterning behavior would be unlikely to occur with highly spaced t r i a l s . A second problem i s to account for why both groups run with spaced t r i a l s tended to extinguish faster than both groups run with massed t r i a l s . I f spacing results i n interference with the after-effects of N t r i a l s by the a f t e r -effects of preceding R t r i a l s , and d i f f i c u l t y i n r e c a l l i n g the order of t r i a l s , then i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see why Group CL does not show a tendency to a slower rate of extinction than Group CS since the after-effects of prior acquisition (R) t r i a l s would, on the basis of the same l o g i c , interfere with the after-effects of extinction (N) t r i a l s for Group CL. Admittedly, however, i n Mackintosh's analysis of CRF groups, the interaction of ITI and t r i a l s was not s i g n i f i c a n t although the main effect of ITI was s i g n i f i c a n t . Further investigation cf differences between trends exhibited by CRF groups i n extinction with ITI as the independent variable i s c l e a r l y required. F i n a l l y , there would appear to be some suggestion from comparison of the two transformations used that the log transform-ation used by McCain (1968, 1969) i s preferable to the reciprocal transformation used by Amsel et a l . (1968). Not only did the reciprocal transformation f a i l to correct heterogeneity of variance i n 50% of the analyses, but a general lowering of significance levels i s notable i n homogeneous reciprocal data analyses. Further investigation of the efficacy of these trans-formations i s c l e a r l y required. Some differences i n the type of data analyzed by McCain (1968, 1969) and Amsel et a l . e x i s t , 94 however, and t h e r e f o r e no c l e a r assessment can be made c o n c e r n i n g the p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e t y p e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n used upon t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t h o s e s t u d i e s . 95 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the differences between extinction trends reported here suggest that a PRE may be obtained irrespective of whether t r i a l s i n both acquisition and extinction are massed (ITI=30 s e c ) , or distributed (ITI=24 hours). This study also suggests that mean extinction latencies may not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n certain measures for p a r t i a l and continuous reward groups i f t r i a l s are spaced. The effect of spacing t r i a l s upon mean extinc-t i o n latencies appears to be to increase mean latencies for p a r t i a l reward groups, although the. p o s s i b i l i t y that a s l i g h t reduction i n the mean latencies of continuous reward groups also occurs was not enti r e l y eliminated. The effect of spacing upon trends i n extinc-tion appears to be to increase the rate o f extinction both for continuous and p a r t i a l rewards groups. Occurrence of a PRE under either condition of ITI was judged to be contrary to predictions based on the fr u s t r a t i v e NRF account o f the PRE. On the other hand, occurrence of the PRE under both ITI conditions does not appear to pose any problems for interpretation i n terms of Sequential Effects Theory. However, the current 'sequential effects' account of attenuation of the PRE when t r i a l s are spaced does not appear to account adequately for a l l the attenuation effects found. 96 REFERENCES Amsel, A. The role of f r u s t r a t i v e nonreward i n noncontinuous reward situations. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1958, 55, 102-119. Amsel, A. Frustrative nonreward i n p a r t i a l reinforcement and d i s -crimination learning: Some recent history and a theoretical extension. Psychololical Review, 1962, 69, 306-328. Amsel, A., Rashotte, M.E., and MacKinnon, J.R. P a r t i a l r e i n f o r -cement effects within-subject and between-subjects. Psychol- ogical Monographs, 1966, 79_, No. 20 (Whole No. 628). Amsel, A. P a r t i a l reinforcement effects on vigor and persistence. In Spence, K.W., and Spence, J.T. (Eds.) The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 1. New York, 1967. Amsel, A., Ernhart, C.B., and Galbrecht, C.B. Magnitude of the fru s t r a t i o n effect and strength and antedating goal factors. Psychological Reports, 1961, 8, 183-186. Amsel, A., Hug, J . J . , and Surridge, CT. Number of food p e l l e t s , goal approaches and the PRE after minimal acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 530-534. Amsel, A., Hug, J . J . and Surridge, CT. Subject-to-subject t r i a l sequence, odor t r a i l s and patterning at 24-h ITI. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 119-120. Amsel, A., Rashotte, M.E. and Galbrecht, L. Can generalization of the PRE be reduced by d i s t i n c t i v e pretraining? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 401-403. Amsel, A., and Ward, J.S. Motivational properties of f r u s t r a t i o n : I I . Frustration drive stimulus and fru s t r a t i o n reduction i n selective learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954 48, 37-47. Bacon, W.E. P a r t i a l reinforcement extinction effect following different amounts of t r a i n i n g . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 998-1003. Banks, R.K. Intermittent punis ment effects (IPE) sustained through changed stimulus conditions and through blocks of non punished t r i a l s . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 456-460. Banks, R.K. Role of the instrumental response i n the PRE. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80, 133-138. Black, R.W., and Spence, K,W. Effects of i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement on resistance to extinction following extended t r a i n i n g . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 559-563. 97 Bloom, J.M. Extinction responding as a function of rewarded and nonrewarded goal confinemtnt. Paper read at Southwest Psychol-ogical Association, Dallas, 1966, Bloom, J.M., and Capaldi, E.J. The behavior or rats i n r e l a t i o n to complex patterns of p a r t i a l reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961, 54, 261-265. Bowen, J . , and McCain, G. Occurrence of the p a r t i a l reinforcement extinction effect after only one NRNR sequence of t r i a l s . Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9_, 15-16. Brown, R.T., and Logan, F.A. Generalized p a r t i a l reinforcement effect. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 60, 64-69. Brown, R.T., and Wagner, A.R. Resistance to punishment and extinc-tion following tr a i n i n g with shock or nonreinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 503-507. Capaldi, E.J. The effects of different amounts of alternating p a r t i a l reinforcement on resistance to extinction. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 451-452. Capaldi, E.J. The effect of different amounts of train i n g on the resistance to extinction of different patterns of p a r t i a l l y reinforced responses. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1958, 51, 367-371. Capaldi, E.J. Effect of N-length, number of different N-lengths and number of reinforcements on resistance to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 6(8, 230-239. Capaldi, E.J. P a r t i a l reinforcement: An hypothesis of sequential effects. Psychological Review, 1966, _73, 459-477. Capaldi, E.J. A sequential hypothesis of instrumental learning. In Spence, K.S., and Spence, J.T. (Eds.) The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. I. New York,1967. Capaldi, E.J., and Deutsch, E.A. Effects of severely li m i t e d ac-qu i s i t i o n training on the PRE. Psychonomic Science, 1967, _9_, 171-172. Capaldi, E.J., and Hart, D. Influence of a small number of p a r t i a l reinforced tr a i n i n g t r i a l s on resistance to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 166-171. Capaldi, E.J., Hart, D., and Stanley, L.R. Effect of i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement on the af t e r - e f f e c t of nonreinforcement and r e s i s t -ance to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 70-74. 98 Capaldi, E . J . , and Minkoff, R. Influence of order of occurrence of nonreward and small reward on acquisition and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 156-160. Capaldi, E . J . , and Ol iv ie r , W.P. Effect of ITR following a sub-stant ial number of consistently rewarded t r i a l s . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75_, 135-138. Capaldi, E . J . , and Spivey, J .E . Effects of goalbox s imilar i ty on the after-effect of nonreinforcement and resistance to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66_, 461-465. Capaldi, E . J . , and Spivey, J . E . In ter t r ia l reinforcement and after-effects at 24 hour intervals. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1_, 181-182. Capaldi, E . J . , and Spivey, J .E . Stimulus consequences of reinforce-ment and nonreinforcement: stimulus traces or memory. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 403-404. Capaldi, E . J . , and Stanley, L.R. Percentage of reward versus N -length in the runway. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3^ 263-264. Capaldi, E . J . , and Wargo, P. Effect of transitions from nonreinforced to reinforced t r i a l s under spaced t r i a l conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65_, 318-319. Capaldi, E . J . , and Z i f f , D.R. Schedule of Par t ia l reward and the negative contrast effect. Journal of Comparative and Physiol-ogical Psychology, 1969, 68, 593-596. Daly, H.B. Is instrumental responding necessary for nonreward following reward to be frustrating? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80, 186-187. Fallon, D. Resistance to extinction following learning with punish-ment of reinforced and nonreinforced l i c k i n g . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 7j6, 550-557. Glazer, E . , and Amsel, A. Transfer of learned persistence from frustration produced by blocking of frustration produced by non-reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 18, 311-312. Gonzalez, R . C , and Bitterman, M.E. Resistance to extinction in the rat as a function of percentage and distribution of reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964, 58, 258-263. Gonzalez, R . C , and Bitterman, M.E. Spaced-trials par t ia l reinforce-ment effect as a function of contrast. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969, 67_, 94-103A 99 Goodrich, K.P. Performance i n different segments of an instrumental response chain as a function cf reinforcement schedule. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 5_7, 57-63. Grice, G.R., and Hunter, J . J . Stimulus in t e n s i t y effects depend Upon the type of experimental design. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 247-256. Haggard, D.F. Acquisition of a simple running response as a function of p a r t i a l and continuous schedules of reinforcement. Psychological Record, 1959, 11-18. Hays, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s for Psychologists, NewYork: E o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1963, Henderson, K. Within-subjects partial-reinforcement effects i n acquisition and i n l a t e r discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 704-713. H u l l , C L . Prin c i p l e s of behavior. New York: Appleton, 1943. H u l l , C.L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Hulse, S.H. Amount of percentage of reinforcement and duration of goal box confinement i n conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56_, 48-57. Humphreys, L.G. The effect of random alternation of reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid reactions. Journal of. Experimental Psychology, 1939, 25, 141-158 (a). Humphreys, L.G. Acquisition and extinction of verbal expectations i n a s i t u a t i o n analogous to conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1939, 25, 294-301 (b). Jenkins, W.O., and Stanley, J.C. J r . P a r t i a l reinforcement: A review and a c r i t i q u e . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1950, 47, 193-234. Katz, S*, Woods, G.T., and Carrithers, J.H. Reinforcement a f t e r -effects and i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 624-626. Kendler, H.H. and Lachman, R. Habit reversal as a function of schedule of reinforcement and drive strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 584-591. 100 Koteskey, R.L., and Stettner, L. Role of nonreinforcement-rein-forcement sequences i n the partial-reinforcement effect. journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 76, 198-205. Lehr, R. P a r t i a l reinforcement and variable magnitude of reward effects i n a T-maze. Unpub. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers Univ., 1967. Lehr, R. P a r t i a l reinforcement and variable magnitude of reward effects. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970, 70, 286-293. Leonard, D.E. Effect of magnitude and schedule of p a r t i a l re-inforcement on the acquisition and extinction of an instrumental reaction. Unpub. Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of Texas, 1966. Lewis, D.J. Acquisition, extinction and spontaneous recovery as a function of percentage of reinforcement and i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l s . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 45-53. Lewis, D.J. P a r t i a l reinforcement: A selective review of the l i t e r a t u r e since 1950. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1960, 57, 1-28. Mackintosh, N.J. Dist r i b u t i o n of t r i a l s and the p a r t i a l reinforce-ment ef f e c t , 1970, , i n press. Mackintosh, N.J. and L i t t l e , L. Effects of different patterns of reinforcement on performance under massed or spaced extinction. Psychonomic Science, i n press. Mackintosh, N.J., McGonigle, R., Holgate, V., and Vanderver, V. Factors underlying improvement i n s e r i a l reversal learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1968, 22_, 85-95. McCain, G. The effect of i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement on resistance to extinction. Paper read at Midwest, Psychological Association, St. Louis, A p r i l , 1964. McCain, G. P a r t i a l reinforcement with a small number of t r i a l s , : Modified extinction procedures. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 133-134 (a). McCain, G. P a r t i a l reinforcement with a small number of t r i a l s : Performance i n extinction. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 131-132 (b). McCain, G. P a r t i a l reinforcement with a small number of ac q u i s i -tion t r i a l s : Pretraining and a c q u i s i t i o n . Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 249^250 Jc). 101 McCain, G. P a r t i a l reinforcement with a small number of acquisi-tion t r i a l s : Pretraining and acquisition. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 249-250 (c) McCain, G. P a r t i a l reinforcement effects following a small number of acquisition t r i a l s . Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, Vol. 1, No.12, 1966. McCain, G. The PRE after minimal acquisition: Goal box placement with single p e l l e t reward. Psychonomic Science, 1970, Vol. 18, (5), 313-314. McCain, C, Lee, P., and Powell, N. Extinction as a function of p a r t i a l reinforcement and overtraining. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 1004-1006. McCain, C., Love, N., and Gruer, W. Extinction as a function of a small number of p a r t i a l l y reinforced t r i a l s . Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 451-454. P a d i l l a , A. A few acquisition t r i a l s : Effects of magnitude and percentage of reward. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9_, 241-242. Pavlik, W.B. , and Born, D.G. P a r t i a l reinforcement effects i n selective learning. Psychological Reports, 1962, 11_, 575-580. Pavlik, W.B., and Carlton, P.L. A reversed partial-reinforcement e f f e c t . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 417-423. Pavlik, W.B., Carlton, P.L., and Hughes, R.A. P a r t i a l reinforce-ment effects i n a runway: Between- and within-Ss. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 6_, 203-204. Pavlik, W.B., Carlton, P.L.,Lehr, R., and Hendrickson, C. A reversed PRE. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75, 274-276. Pavlik, W.B., Carlton, P.L.,and Manto, P.G. A further study of the p a r t i a l reinforcement effect within subjects. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 533-534. Pavlik, W.B., and Lehr, R. Strength of alternative responses and subsequent choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74_, 562-573. Pavlik, W.B., and Reynolds, W.F. Conventional and reversed p a r t i a l reinforcement effects i n selective learning. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 155-156. 102 Peckham, R.H., and Amsel, A. Within subject demonstration of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f r u s t r a t i o n and magnitude of reward i n a d i f f e r e n t i a l magnitude of reward d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, _73, 187-193. Pennes, E.S., and Ison, J.R. E f f e c t s of p a r t i a l reinforcement on discrimination learning and subsequent reve r s a l or e x t i n c -t i o n . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 7_4, 219-224. Pra t t , P.A. and Halpern, J . The e f f e c t of extended a c q u i s i t i o n upon the replacement capacity of i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 14, 203-204. Rashotte, M.C. F r u s t r a t i v e factors i n persistence: Within-and between-S_ comparisons. Doctoral t h e s i s , University of Toronto, 1966. Rashotte, M.C, and Amsel, A. A c n u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n within subjects of a continuously rewarded response and a response learned under discontinuous negatively correlated reward. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 257-258. Rashotte, M.E., Ross, M., and Amsel, A. Generalization of the PRE. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 1_1, 173-174. Reynolds, C S . Behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961, 4^ 47-72. Reynolds, C S . Some l i m i t a t i o n of behavioral contrast and induction during successive discrimination. Journal of the Experimental- Analysis of Behavior, 1963, 6, 131-139. Ross, R.R. P o s i t i v e and negative partial-reinforcement e x t i n c t i o n e f f e c t s c a r r i e d through continuous reinforcement, changed motivation, and changed response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 492-502. S h e f f i e l d , V.F. E x t i n c t i o n as a function of p a r t i a l reinforcement and d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r a c t i c e . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39, 511-526. Spear, N.L. Retention of reinforcement magnitude. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 216-234. Spear, N.E., and H i l l , W.F. Adjustment to new reward: Simultaneous and successive contrast e f f e c t s . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 510-519. Spear, N.E., and Pavlik, W.B. Percentage of reinforcement and reward magnitude e f f e c t s i n a T-maze: Between- and w i t h i n -subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 71, 521-528. 103 Spear, N.E., and Spitzner, J.H. Simultaneous and successive con-t r a s t e f f e c t s of reward magnitude i n s e l e c t i v e learning. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (10, While No.18). Spear, N.E., and Spitzner, J.H. PRE i n a T-maze brightness discrimination w i t h in- and between-Ss. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 320-322. Spence, K.W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Spence, K.W., P i a t t , J.R., and Matsumoto, R. I n t e r t r i a l r e i n f o r c e -ment and the p a r t i a l reinforcement e f f e c t as a function of number of t r a i n i n g t r i a l s . Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3^ 205-206. Spivey, J.E. Influence of small numbers of p a r t i a l reinforcement, t r a i n i n g t r i a l s on resistance to e x t i n c t i o n , Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1964. Spivey, J.E. Resistance to e x t i n c t i o n as a function of number of N-R t r a n s i t i o n s and percentage of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 7_5, 43-48. Spivey, J.E., and Hess, D.T. E f f e c t of p a r t i a l reinforcement t r i a l sequences on e x t i n c t i o n performance. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 10, 375-376. Spivey, J.E., Hess, D.T., and Black, D. Influence of p a r t i a l r e -inforcement pattern and i n t e r t r i a l reinforcement on e x t i n c t i o n performance following abbreviated t r a i n i n g Psychonomic Science, 1968, , 377-378. Spivey, J.E., Hess, D.T., and Klemic, J . E x t i n c t i o n performance as a function of N-R t r a n s i t i o n s and i n t e r t r i a l r e i n f o r c e -ment with extended reinforcement t r a i n i n g . Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 765-771. S t i l l , A.W. Repetition and a l t e r n a t i o n i n r ^ t s . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 18, 103-108. Surridge, G.T., and Amsel, A. A c q u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n under si n g l e a l t e r n a t i o n and random partial-reinforcement con-d i t i o n s with a 24-hour i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72^ , 361-368. Surridge, C.T., and Amsel, A. Confinement duration on rewarded and non-rewarded t r i a l s and patterning at 24-hour ITI. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 10, 107-108. 104 Surridge, CT., Rashotte, MsR., and Amsel, A. Resistance to extinction of a running, response after a small number of p a r t i a l l y rewarded t r i a l s . Psychonomic Science, 1967, ]_t 31-32. Tombaugh, T.N. The effects of N-R transitions under extended training conditions on resistance to extinction. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 18, 173-174. Tyler, D.E., Wortz, E.C, and Bitterman, M.E. The effect of random and alternating p a r t i a l reinforcement on resistance to extinction i n the r a t . American Journal of Psychology, 1953, 66, 57-65. Wagner, A.R. Effects of amount and percentage of reinforcement and number of acquisition t r i a l s on conditioning and extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 62, 234-242. Weinstock, S. Resistance to extinction of a running response follow-ing p a r t i a l reinforcement under widely spaced t r i a l s . Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1954, 42, 318-322. Wilson, W., Weiss, B.J., and Amsel, A. Two tests of the Sheffield hypothesis concerning resistance to extinction, p a r t i a l reinforcement and d i s t r i b u t i o n of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 50, 51-60. Young, A.G. Resistance to extinction as a function of p a r t i a l re-inforcement and bar weighting. Journal-of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79_, 363-367. APPENDIX LIST OF CONTENTS Pages Figures 10-14 106-110 Tables III - XXIX 111-147 106 F i g . 10. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group. (Start measure, Log( data) 107 L O Q Z O u UJ LO L U O z L U z < L U 2 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . T 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 6 0 . 5 0 . 4 0 . 3 P S O -O c s © & P LA A C L • A A^ 1 2 3 " "4 5 — 6 ACQUISITION TRIALS A' 1 2 3 EXT INC TI ON TRIAL BLOCKS Fig. 11. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group. (Run 1 measure, Log data) i 108 0.4 " 0,3 I • • * 1 i J :—: ' ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 A C Q U I S I T I O N T R I A L S E X T I N C T I O N TR IAL B L O C K S F i g . 12. M e a n r u n n i n g l a t e n c i e s o n e a c h t r i a l ( b l o c k ) i n a c q u i s i t i o n a n d e x t i n c t i o n f o r e a c h t r e a t m e n t g r o u p . ( R u n 2 m e a s u r e , L o g d a t a ) 109 2 . 3 r 2 . 2 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 • ^ 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 • 5 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 8 P S O-C S ©-P L A-C L A -• O -9 1 • \ 6 V \ —•'3ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 A C Q U I S I T I O N T R I A L S 1 2 3 E X T I N C T I O N T R I A L S L O C K S F i g . 1 3 M e a n running la t e n c i e s on each t r i a l (block) i n a c q u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n f o r each treatment group. (Goal measure, Log data) 110 LO Q z O U L U L O L U U z L U z < L U 5 3 . 2 3 . I 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 8 2 . 7 2 . 6 2 . 5 2 . 4 2 . 3 3 .2 . 2 . 1 2 . 0 1 . 9 •1 . 8 1 . 7 •P S O - O C S © • P L A. ^ C L A A _1_ A j i _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 A C Q : U I S I T I.O N . • T R T A L S -L. Jm 1 2 3 E X T I N C T I O N T R I A L B L O C K S Fig. 14. Mean running latencies on each t r i a l (block) i n acquisition and extinction for each treatment group. ( F u l l A l l e y measure, Log data) I l l TABLE I I I Mean Acquisition Latencies i n Seconds for Each Condition of Reward Schedule and Each Measure LOG DATA Measure CONDITION c PRF CRF Start 1.393 1.468 Run 1 .624 .691 Run 2 .786 .878 Goal 1.226 1.286 Total Run 1.723 1.808 F u l l Alley 2.197 2.286 ! RAW DATA Measure CONDITION PRF CRF Start 4.137 4.829 Run 1 .966 1.340 Run 2 1.258 1.618 Goal 3.153 3.441 Total Run 5.377 6.400 F u l l Alley 9.514 11.228 RECIPROCAL DATA Measure CONDITION PRF CRF Start .526 .491 Run 1.489 1.436 Run 2 .916 .869 Goal .581 .559 Total Run .256 .249 F u l l Alley .151 .147 i__ Each entry i s the mean of 108 observations 112 TABLE l v Mean Acquisition Latencies In Seconds for Each Condition of ITI and Each Measure LOG DATA Measure CONDITION ITI » 30 sec. ITI = 24 hr. Start 1.569 1.293 Run 1 .689 .626 Run 2 .797 .867 Goal 1.380 1.132 Total Run 1.850 1.681 | F u l l Alley 2.377 2.106 RAW DATA Measure CONDITION ITI = 30 sec. ITI = 24 hr. Start 5.144 3.822 Run 1 1.162 1.143 Run 2 1.319 1.557 Goal 4.021 2.573 ! Total Run 6.502 5.274 i F u l l A l ley 11.646 9.096 RECIPROCAL DATA Measure CONDITION ITI = 30 sec. ITI =• 24 hr. Start .437 .580 Run 1 1.410 1.516 Run 2 .935 .850 Goal .497 .642 Total Run .230 .275 F u l l A l ley .126 .171 Each entry i s the mean of 108 observations 113 TABLE V Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies i n Seconds f o r Each Treatment Group Data Measure Treatment Groups P-S C-S PL C-L • Start 1.575 1.562 1.212 1.373 Run 1 .728 .650 .520 .732 T n o ' Run 2 .790 .803 .783 .952 LUG Goal 1.332 1.429 1.119 1.144 T o t a l Run - 1.839 - 1.861 1.608 1.755 Fu l l Alley 2.376 2.378 2.018 2.194 Start 5.188 5.100 3.087 4.558 Run 1 1.217 1.107 .715 1.572 Run 2 1.297 1.341 1.218 1.896 RAW Goal 3.926 4.116 2.380 2.767 T o t a l Run 6.440 6.564 4.313 6.234 Fu l l Alley 11.628 11.663 7.400 10.792 Start .438 .437 .614 .546 Run 1 1.316 1.504 1.663 1.369 ' RECIP. Run 2 .934 .936 .898 .802 G$al .543 .451 .618 .667 T o t a l Run .232 .228 .279 .271 • F u l l Alley t i .126 .126 .176 - — .167 Each entry i s the mean o f 54 observations 114 TABLE VI Mean Acquisition Latencies in Seconds on Each T r i a l LOG DATA Measure 1 2 Trials 3 4 5 6 Start 1.978 1.790 1.407 1 .080 1.121 1.208 Run 1 .934 .672 .623 .636 .555 .525 Run 2 1.110 .872 .776 .768 .722 .743 Goal 1.607 1.349 1.275 1 .076 1.275 .954 Total Run . 2.171 1.845 1.759 1 .619 1.721 1.479 Full Alley 2.755 2.475 2.220 1 .977 2.081 1.940 RAW DATA Measure Tria Is 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start' 7.690') 6.806 4.047 2 .319 3.014 3.022 Run 1 2.233 1.030 .943 1 .067 .842 .803 Run 2 2.383 1.543 1.216 1 .199 1.087 1.200 Goal 4.650 3.157 3.797 2 .119 4.061 1.999 Total Run 9.265 5.731 5.956 4 .385 5.990 4.002 Full Alley 16.956 12.537 10.002 6 .704 9.004 7.024 RECIPROCAL DATA Measure Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start .211 .320 .475 .673 .696 .677 Run 1 .986 1.231 1.390 1.532 1.747 1.890 Run 2 .613 .814 .917 .942 1.008 1.062 Goal .357 .421 -.555 .636 .609 .840 Total Run .163 .206 .249 .279 .267 .349 F u l l Alley .081 .106 .147 .177 .176 .205 Each entry i s the mean of 36 observations T A B L E V I I 1 1 5 M e a n A c q u i s i t i o n L a t e n c i e s i n S e c o n d s f o r e a c h C o n d i t i o n o f o f R e w a r d S c h e d u l e o n e a c h T r i a l L O G D A T A R e w a r d S c h e d u l e M e a s u r e T R I A L S C o n d i t i o n 1 2 3 4 5 6 S t a r t 2 . 1 3 8 1 . 7 0 4 1 . 1 9 9 1 . 0 5 8 1 . 0 5 7 1 . 2 0 3 R u n 1 . 8 1 4 . 6 2 2 . 5 9 3 . 6 5 0 . 5 7 8 . 4 8 6 P R F R u n 2 . 9 8 1 . 7 7 5 . 7 4 3 . 7 8 3 . 7 1 2 . 7 2 3 Goal 1 . 3 9 4 1 . 3 6 2 1 . 2 9 5 1 . 1 0 9 1 . 3 0 4 . 8 8 0 Total R u n 1 . 9 5 6 1 . 7 9 6 1 . 7 5 4 1 . 6 5 9 1 . 7 5 7 1 . 4 1 8 F 1 1 Alley 2 . 6 9 8 2 . 3 8 5 2 . 1 2 6 1 . 9 9 7 2 . 0 6 6 1 . 9 0 9 Start 1 . 8 1 8 1 . 8 7 6 6 1 4 1 . 1 0 1 1 . 1 8 6 1 . 2 1 2 Run 1 1 . 0 5 3 . 7 2 3 . 6 5 3 . 6 2 2 . 5 3 1 . 5 6 4 C R F Run 2 1 . 2 4 0 . 9 6 9 . 8 0 9 . 7 5 3 . 7 3 2 . 7 6 3 Goal 1 . 8 2 0 1 . 3 3 5 1 . 2 5 5 1 . 0 4 2 1 . 2 4 5 1 . 0 2 1 Total R u n 2 . 3 8 6 1 . 8 9 4 l . " » 6 3 1 . 5 7 8 1 . 6 8 6 1 . 5 3 9 R i l l Al 2 . 8 1 3 2 . 5 6 5 2 . " 4 1 . 9 5 6 2 . 0 9 7 1 . 9 7 1 R A W DATA 1 2 3 L S 4 5 6 Start 8 . 8 6 9 5 . 7 8 6 2 . 7 4 9 2 . 1 4 0 2 . 1 1 7 3 . 1 6 2 Run 1 1 . 4 0 3 . 8 9 5 . 8 6 8 1 . 0 2 7 . 9 4 3 . 6 6 1 P R F Run 2 1 . 8 5 2 1 . 1 9 2 1 . 1 2 7 1 . 2 1 9 1 . 0 5 2 1 . 1 0 5 Goal 3 . 5 2 3 3 . 2 5 4 3 . 8 2 3 2 . 2 2 0 4 . 4 4 5 ' 1 . 6 5 3 Total R u n 6 . 7 7 8 5 . 3 4 1 5 . 8 1 8 4 . 4 6 6 6 . 4 3 9 3 . 4 1 9 F u l l Alley 1 5 . 6 4 7 1 1 . 1 2 7 8 . 5 6 7 6 . 6 0 6 8 . 5 5 6 6 . 5 8 2 Start 6 . 5 1 1 7 . 8 2 6 5 . 3 4 4 2 . 4 9 8 3 . 9 1 2 2 . 8 8 1 R u n 1 3 . 0 6 2 1 . 1 6 6 1 . 0 1 7 1 . 1 0 7 . 7 4 1 . 9 4 6 C R F Run 2 2 . 9 1 4 1 . 8 9 5 1 . 3 0 6 1 . 1 7 9 1 . 1 2 2 1 . 2 9 4 Goal 5 . 7 7 7 3 . 0 6 0 3 . 7 7 0 2 . 0 1 8 3 . 6 7 7 2 . 3 4 5 Total R u n 1 1 . 7 5 3 6 . 1 2 1 6 . 0 9 3 4 . 3 0 3 5 . 5 4 0 4 . 5 8 4 Full A l ley 1 8 . 2 6 4 1 3 . 9 4 7 1 1 . 4 3 8 6 . 8 0 1 9 . 4 5 2 7 . 4 6 6 T A B L E V I I ( c o n t i n u e d ) M e a n A c q u i s i t i o n L a t e n c i e s i n S e c o n d s f o r e a c h C o n d i t i o n o f R e w a r d S c h e d u l e o n e a c h T r i a l R E C I P R O C A L D A T A R e w a r d M e a s u r e T R I A L S S c h e d u l e C o n d i t i o n 1 2 3 4 5 6 S t a r t . 1 6 2 . 3 1 7 . 5 7 6 . 6 9 1 . 6 6 6 . 7 4 3 R u n 1 1 . 0 5 2 1 . 2 9 3 1 . 4 7 3 1 . 4 0 9 1 . 7 4 9 1 . 9 5 9 P R K R u n 2 . 7 1 1 . 8 9 2 . 9 5 5 . 8 9 6 1 . 0 0 0 1 . 0 4 3 G o a l . 4 7 0 . 4 1 7 . 5 4 6 . 6 0 4 . 5 8 0 . 8 6 8 T o t a l R u n . 2 0 0 . 2 1 6 . 2 4 8 . 2 5 9 . 2 5 0 . 3 6 1 F u l l A l l e y . 0 8 4 . 1 1 5 . 1 5 9 . 1 6 8 .169 . 2 1 0 S t a r e . 2 6 0 . 3 2 3 . 3 7 3 . 6 5 5 . 7 2 6 . 6 1 1 R u n 1 . 9 2 0 1 . 1 7 0 1 . 3 0 6 1 . 6 5 5 1 . 7 4 5 1 . 8 2 2 CUV R u n 2 . 5 1 5 . 7 3 5 . 8 7 9 . 9 8 8 1 . 0 1 6 1 . 0 8 1 G o a l . 2 4 4 . 4 2 6 . 5 6 5 . 6 6 8 . 6 3 7 . 8 1 3 T o t a l R u n . 1 2 7 . 1 9 5 . 2 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 2 8 4 . 3 3 8 F u l l A l l e y . 0 7 7 . 0 9 8 . 1 3 5 . 1 8 6 . 1 8 4 . 2 0 0 E a c h e n t r y i s t h e m e a n o f 18 o b s e r v a t i o n s 117 TABLE VIII Mean Acquisition Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of ITI on each T r i a l LOG DATA ITI TRIALS COND. MEASURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start 2.150 2.025 1.561 1.164 1.165 1.347 Run 1 .914 .595 .658 .715 .655 .596 CUfVRT Run 2 1.098 .782 .730 .709 .715 .746 Goal 1.694 1.430 1.379 1.085 1.606 1.088 Total Run 2.213 1.835 1.837 1.636 1.991 1.588 F u l l Alley 2.866 2.596 2.357 2.039 2.304 2.099 Start 1.806 1.555 1.253 .995 1.078 1.068 Run 1 .953 .749 .587 .558 .455 .453 T n\TP Run 2 1.123 .963 .828 .827 .729 .740 Goal 1.520 1.268 1.172 1.067 .944 .820 Total Run 2.129 1.856 1.681 1.601 1.451 1.369 F u l l A l ley 2.644 2.3.54 2.083 1.915 1.859 1.782 RAW DATA ITI COND. MEASURE TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start 9.361 8.334 4.339 2.499 2.612 3.716 Run 1 1.654 .839 1.043 1.339 1.090 1.007 Run 2 2.240 1.205 1.101 1.066 1.076 1.227 o n U K x Goal 4.952 3.461 4.801 2.152 6.366 2.393 Total Run 8.846 5.506 6.944 4.557 8.532 4.627 F u l l A l ley 18.207 13.840 11.284 7.057 11.144 8.343 Start 6.019 5.278 3.754 2.138 3.417 2.327 Run 1 2.811 1.221 .842 .794 .593 .599 T nwr* Run 2 2.526 1.882 1.332 1.332 1.098 1.172 Goal 4.348 2.853 2.792 2.086 1.756 1.605 Total Run 9.684 5.956 4.967 4.212 3.447 3.377 F u l l Alley 15.704 11.233 8.721 6.351 6.864 5.704 TABLE VIII (continued Mean Acquisition Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of ITI on each T r i a l RECIPROCAL DATA ITI COND. MEASURE TRIALS 3 SHORT Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run F u l l A l l e y .169 .900 .601 .314 .140 .068 .219 1.347 .876 .354 .202 .090 .345 1.340 .980 .508 .234 .122 .622 1.538 1.043 .642 .282 .164 .645 1.561 1.034 .463 .208 .140 .624 1.770 1.075 .700 .306 .173 LONG Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run F u l l A l ley .252 1.072 .625 .400 .179 .093 .421 1.115 .751 .488 .210 .123 .604 1.439 .854 .602 .263 .172 .724 1.526 .840 .629 .276 .190 .747 1.933 .982 .755 .327 .213 .730 2.011 1.049 .980 .393 .237 119 TABLE IX Mean A c q u i s i t i o n Latencies In Seconds f o r each Treatment Group on each T r i a l LOG DATA Group Measures J TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start 2.343 1.880 1.457 1.204 1.148 1.418 Run 1 .958 .657 .693 .771 .733 .557 Run 2 1.062 .780 .755 .759 .688 .696 Goal 1.569 1.454 1.437 1.036 1.523 .963 T o t a l Run 2.138 1.874 1.903 1.652 1.989 1.475 F u l l A l l e y 2.922 2.527 2.361 2.067 2.300 2.077 Start 1.958 2.170 1.664 1,124 1.182 1.277 Run 1 .871 .533 .623 .659 .577 .635 Run 2 1.134 .784 .704 .659 .742 .795 c-s Goal 1.819 1.405 1.321 1.134 1.679 1.213 Tota l Run 2.287 1.795 1.770 1.620 1.994 1.701 F u l l A l l e y 2.809 2.666 2.352 2.011 2.308 2.120 Start 1.934 1.527 .942 .913 .965 .988 Run 1 .671 .586 .493 .530 .424 .414 TJ T Run 2 .900 .771 .731 .808 .736 .750 P-L Goal 1.219 1.270 1.154 1.183 1.077 .813 T o t a l Run 1.773 1.718 1.605 1.666 1.524 1.361 F u l l A l l e y 2.473 2.244 1.892 1.927 1.831 1.741 St a r t 1.679 1.583 1.564 1.078 1.190 1.147 Run 1 1.235 .913 .682 .586 .486 .493 Run 2 1.345 1.155 .914 .847 .723 .730 Goal 1.820 1.265 1.190 .951 .811 .828 T o t a l Run 2.485 1.994 1.757 1.536 1.378 1.377 F u l l A l l e y 2.816 2.464 2.275 1.902 1.886 1.822 Each entry i s the mean of 27 observations 120 TABLE IX (continued) Mean Acquisition Latencies in Seconds for each Treatment Group on each T r i a l RAW DATA Group Measures TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 • P-S Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run Ful l Alley 10.941 1.759 2.184 4.350 8.293 19.234 7.172 .963 1.204 3.609 5.777 12.949 3.701 1.086 1.166 5.123 7.374 11.076 2.689 1.345 1.184 1.980 4.510 7.199 2.359 1.349 1.004 6.677 9.030 11.389 4.263 .801 1.040 1.817 3.658 7.921 c-s Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run Full Alley 7.781 1.550 2.296 5.553 9.399 17.180 9.497 .716 1.206 3.313 5.234 14.731 4.978 1.000 1.036 4.479 6.514 11.492 2.310 1.333 .948 2.323 4.604 6.914 2.864 .831 1.148 6.056 8.034 10.899 3.169 1.213 1.413 2.970 5.597 8.766 P-L Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run Full Alley 6.798 1.047 1.520 2.696 5.262 12.060 4.400 .827 1.179 2.899 4.904 9.304 1.797 .650 1.088 2.523 4.261 6.058 1.591 .708 1.254 2.460 4.422 6.013 1.874 .537 1.099 2.213 3.849 5.723 2.061 .521 1.170 1.490 3.181 5.242 Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run Ful l Alley 5.241 4.574 3.532 6.000 14.107 19.348 6.156 1.616 2.584 2.807 7.007 13.162 5.711 1.034 1.577 3.061 5.672 11.383 2.686 .880 1.410 1.712 4.002 6.688 4.960 .650 1.097 1.299 3.046 8.006 2.593 .678 1.174 1.720 3.572 6.166 Each entry i s the mean of 27 observations 121 TABLE IX (continued) Mean Acquisition Latencies in Seconds for each Treatment Group on each T r i a l RECIPROCAL DATA Group Measures TRIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start .126 ..278 .377 .608 .579 .659 Run 1 .859 1.196 1.254 1.299 1.456 1.829 Run 2 .660 .884 .950 .966 1.051 1.093 F-S Goal .412 .342 .495 .694 .527 .787 Total Run .173 .192 .217 .275 .197 .339 F u l l Alley .066 .098 .122 .160 .131 .182 Start .212 .159 .313 .635 .711 .589 Run 1 .942 1.499 1.425 1.778 1.667 1.712 Run 2 .542 .868 1.010 1.120 1.016 1.058 u — O Goal .216 .366 .522 .590 .398 .613 Total Run .124 .211 .251 .289 .218 .272 F u l l Alley .071 .082 .123 .168 .148 .163 Start .197 .356 .775 .774 .752 .827 Run 1 1.246 1.390 1.693 1.519 2.042 2.090 P T Run 2 .762 .900 .960 .825 .949 .993 r - i a Goal .528 .491 .596 .514 .633 .949 total Run .227 .241 .278 .243 .303 .382 F u l l Alley J.03 .133 .197 .176 .206 .239 . . * „ I- T Start .307 .486 .434 .675 .742 .633 C T Run 1 .898 .841 1.186 1.532 1.823 1.932 Run 2 .488 .602 .748 .855 1.016 1.105 Goal .273 .485 .608 .745 .877 1.012 Total Run .130 .179 .249 .310 .351 .404 F u l l Alley .083 .113 .148 .204 .220 ,236 Each entry is the mean of 27 observations 122 TABLE X Significance Levels Attained i n Scheffe Comparisons of Overall Acquisition Means of Treatment Groups when IxR was Significant Measure — — — D Comparison Treatment Group Means Prob. A T PS CS PL CL A Run 1 L 0 G PS v CS PL v CL PS v PL CS v CL PS+CL v PL . .7281 .6497 .5197 . 7 3 2 4 MS NS NS NS NS 'NS' s i g n i f i e s P >.05 TABLE XI Significance Levels Attained i n Scheffe Comparisons of Within Group-Means on Acquisitions T r i a l s Following Nonreward (TFN) and Acquisition T r i a l s Following Reward (TFR) Measure Data Group Significance Goal PS ** Log CS PL CL NS NS NS Total PS * Run Log CS PL CL NS NS NS F u l l PS NS Alley Log CS PL CL NS NS NS Goal PS ** Raw CS PL CL NS NS NS Total PS NS Run Raw CS PL CL NS NS NS F u l l PS NS A l l e y Raw CS PL a NS NS NS Goal PS NS Reciprocal CS PL CL NS NS NS Total PS ** Run Reciprocal CS PL CL NS NS NS F u l l PS NS Alley 1 Reciprocal CS PL CL NS NS NS ** s i g n i f i e s P <.025 * " P.<.05 NS " P.>.05 124 TABLE XII Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for Each Condition of Reward Schedule LOG DATA Measure Condition D PRF CRF Start 1.210 1.532 1.27 Run 1 0.659 0.916 1.39 Run 2 0.858 1.174 1.37 Goal 1.012 1.505 1.49 Total Run 1.632 2.123 1.30 F u l l A l l e y 2.053 2.540 1.24 RAW DATA Measure Condition D PRF CRF Stert 3.144 4.904 1.56 Run 1 1.109 1.996 1.80 Run 2 1.522 2.932 1.93 Goal 2.045 4.633 2.27 Total Run 4.676 9.561 2.04 F u l l A l l e y 7.820 14.465 1.85 RECIPROCAL DATA Measure Condition D PRF CRF Start 0.695 0.470 1.48 Run 1 1.539 1.141 1.35 Run 2 0.938 0.669 1.40 Goal 0.727 0.482 1.51 Total Run 0.287 0.197 1.46 F u l l A l ley 0.174 0.118 1.48 Entries i n column D represent the ra t i o of the mean for the CRF condition divided by the mean for the PRF condition. Each mean was derived from 162 observations. 125 v TABLE X l l l Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for Each Condition of ITI LOG DATA Measure CONDITION ITI •» 30 sec. ITI - 24 hr. D Start 1.513 1.229 1.23 Run 1 0.815 0.760 1.07 Run 2 1.083 0.949 1.14 Goal 1.460 1.057 1.38 Total Run 2.037 1.719 1.18 F u l l A l l e y 2.479 2.115 1.15 RAW DATA Measure CONDITION ITI * 30 sec. ITI = 24 hr. D Start 4.807 3.241 1 . A 8 Run 1 1,559 1.547 1.01 Run 2 2,561 1.893 1.35 Goal 4,299 2.379 l . f l Total Run 0.418 5.819 1.45 F u l l Alley 13,223 9.060 1.46 RECIPROCAL DATA Measure CONDITION ITI = 30 sec. ITI = 24 hr. Start 0.508 0.658 1.30 Run 1 1.204 1.475 1.22 Run 2 0.765 0.842 1.10 Goal 0.466 0.743 1.60 Total Run 0.200 0.285 1.43 F u l l Alley 0.119 0.172 1.45 Entries i n column D represent the r a t i o of the mean for Cond. S (ITI = 30 sec.) divided by the mean for Cond. L (ITI = 24 h r . ) . Each mean was derived from 162 observations. 126 TABLE XIV Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for each Treatment Group Data Measure Treatment Groups P-S C-S P-L C-L Start 1.279 1.747 1.140 1.317 Run 1 .658 .972 .660 .860 T O P Run 2 .832 1.333 .884 1.014 L I U L T Goal 1.015 1.905 1.009 1.105 Total Run 1.633 2.440 1.631 1.807 F u l l Alley 2.083 2.875 2.024 2.205 Start 3.465 6.149 2.822 3.659 Run 1 1.113 2.005 1.106 1.988 R A U Run 2 1.451 3.670 1.592 2.194 luiVv Goal 2.002 6.595 2.087 2.671 Total Run 4.566 12.270 4.785 6.853 F u l l Alley 8.031 18.418 7.608 10.512 Start .652 .363 .739 .577 Run 1 1.468 .941 1.609 1.341 Run 2 .982 .549 .895 .790 Recip. Goal .696 .235 .758 .729 Total Run .278 .121 .297 .273 F u l l A l l e y .170 .068 .178 .167 Each entry i s the mean of 81 observations TABLE XV Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds on each T r i a l Block Data Measure TRIALS BLOCKS 1 2 3 Start 1.301 1.318 1.494 Run 1 .663 .755 .955 LOB Run 2 .811 .992 1.244 Goal 1.153 1.260 1.363 Total Run 1.691 1.841 2.101 F u l l Alley 2.112 2.252 2.526 Start 3.526 3.865 4.680 Run 1 1.157 1.431 2.071 RAW Run 2 1.500 2.059 3.126 Goal 2.713 3.520 3.784 Total Run 5.367 7.010 8.980 F u l l A l l e y 8.892 10.874 13.661 Start .581 .655 .512 Run 1 1.511 1.408 1.100 RECIPROCAL Run 2 1.002 .779 .630 Goal .653 .623 .538 Total Run .278 .251 .197 F u l l Alley .171 .154 i .112 Each entry i s the mean of 108 observations 128 TABLE XVI Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of Reward Schedule on each T r i a l Block Data Measure REWARD SCHEDULE CONDITION PRF CRF Extinction T r i a l Blocks Extinction T r i a l Blocks 1 1.427 LOG Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run F u l l Alley 1.175 .650 .675 .883 1.489 1.914 1.090 .609 .885 1.100 1.672 2.011 1.364 .718 1.014 1.056 1.736 2.235 .676 .947 1.422 1.894 2.310 1.547 .902 1.100 1.423 2.011 2.494 1. • :3 1.170 1.474 1.670 2.466 2.817 RAW Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run F u l l A l ley 2.959 1.175 .997 1.506 3.678 6.637 2.563 .973 1.543 2.431 4.947 7.509 3.909 1.180 2.026 2.197 5.403 9.312 4.093 1.139 1.994 3.920 7.053 11.146 5.166 1.888 2.575 4.609 9.073 14.239 5.452 2.962 4.226 5.370 12.557 18.009 RECIP, Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run F u l l Alley .692 1.602 1.136 .783 .316 .198 .799 1.652 .860 .694 .278 .182 .595 1.361 .819 .704 .268 .141 .469 1.421 .868 .523 .240 .145 .511 1.164 .699 .551 .224 .126 .430 .838 .441 .372 .127 .082 Each entry i s the mean of 54 observations 129 TABLE XVII Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for each Condition of ITI on each T r i a l Block 1 ITI CONDITION Data Measure Short (30 sec.) Long (24 hr .) Extinction T r i a l Blocks Extinction T r i a l Blocks 1 2 3 i 2 3 Start 1.482 1.444 1.614 1.120 1.192 1.373 Run 1 .778 .857 .809 .548 .653 1.079 LOG Run 2 " .910 1.062 1.277 .713 .923 1.212 Goal 1.385 1.467 1.528 .921 1.052 1.198 Total Run 1.932 2.022 2.156 1.451 1.660 2.046 F u l l A l ley 2.372 2.447 2.618 1.851 2.058 2.435 Start 4.453 4.362 5.605 2.599 3.368 3.755 Run 1 1.508 1.649 1.519 .806 1.212 2.624 RAW Run 2 1.893 2.268 3.520 1.099 1.850 2.731 Goal 3.669 4.509 4.719 1.757 2.532 2.848 Total Run 7.071 8.425 9.758 3.660 5.594 8.203 F u l l A l ley 11.524 12.787 15.363 6.259 8.962 11.958 Start .497 .573 .454 .665 .737 .571 Run 1 1.287 1.070 1.256 1.735 1.746 .944 RECIP- Run 2 .930 .717 .650 1.074 .842 .610 ROCAL Goal .483 .473 .442 .823 .773 .634 Total Run .211 .204 .184 .344 .299 .211 F u l l Alley .128 i .125 .105 .214 .183 .119 Each entry i s the mean of 54 observations 1 3 0 TABLE XVIII Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for Each Treatment Group on each T r i a l Block LOG DATA Group Measure TRIALS 1 2 3 Start 1 . 2 8 8 1 . 1 2 5 1 . 8 2 6 Run 1 . 7 9 5 . 5 8 3 . 5 9 6 D C Run 2 . 6 9 0 . 9 0 7 . 8 9 9 r —o Goal . 9 6 5 1 . 1 0 5 . 9 7 4 Total Run 1 . 6 2 8 1 . 6 6 4 1 . 6 0 7 F u l l Alley 2 . 0 6 0 2 . 0 2 3 2 . 1 6 5 Start 1 . 6 7 6 1 . 7 6 4 1 . 8 0 2 Run 1 . 7 6 2 1 . 1 3 2 1 . 0 2 2 Run 2 1 . 1 2 9 1 . 2 1 6 1 . 6 5 4 C-S Goal 1 . 8 0 4 1 . 8 2 9 2 . 0 8 2 Total Run 2 . 2 3 5 2 . 3 8 0 2 . 7 0 6 F u l l Alley 2 . 6 8 4 2 . C 7 0 3 . 0 7 1 Start 1 . 0 6 3 1 . 0 5 5 1 . 3 0 3 Run 1 . 5 0 5 . 6 3 4 . 3 4 0 Run 2 . 6 6 0 . 8 6 3 1 . 1 3 0 P-L Goal . 8 0 2 1 . 0 8 9 1 . 1 3 8 Total Run 1 . 3 5 0 1 . 6 7 9 1 . 8 6 5 F u l l A l ley 1 . 7 6 7 1 . 9 9 9 2 . 3 0 6 Start 1 . 1 7 8 1 . 3 3 0 1 . 4 4 4 Run 1 . 5 9 0 . 6 7 2 1 . 3 1 8 Run 2 . 7 6 6 . 9 8 4 1 . 2 9 4 C-L Goal 1 . 0 4 0 1 . 0 1 6 1 . 2 5 9 Total Run 1 . 5 5 2 1 . 6 4 2 2 . 2 2 6 F u l l A l ley 1 . 9 3 5 2 . 1 1 7 2 . 5 6 4 131 TABLE XVIII (continued) Mean Extinction Latancies in Seconds for Each Treatment Group on each T r i a l Block RAW DATA Group Measure TRIALS 1 2 3 Start 3.440 2.531 4.423 Run 1 1.635 .834 .868 Run 2 1.023 1.631 1.700 P-S Goal 1.751 2.427 1.829 Total Run 4.410 4.892 4.397 Fu l l Alley 7.850 7.423 8.820 Start 5.466 6.192 6.787 Run 1 1.382 2.464 2.169 /I o Run 2 2.763 2.904 5.341 C-S Goal 5.587 6.590 7.609 Total Run 9.731 11.959 15.119 Ful l Alley 15.198 18.151 21.906 Start 2.479 2.594 3.394 Run 1 .714 1.113 1.492 T i T Run 2 .972 1.454 2.352 P-L Goal 1.260 2.435 2.565 Total Run 2.945 5.002 6.409 Full Alley 5.424 7.596 9.803 Start 2.719 4.141 4.117 Run 1 . .897 1.312 3.755 T Run 2 1.226 2.246 3.111 C-L Goal 2.253 2.629 3.130 Total Run 4.375 6.186 9.996 Full Alley 7.095 10.327 14.112 132 TABLE XVIII (continued Mean Extinction Latencies i n Seconds for Each Treatment Group on each T r i a l Block RECIEROCAL DATA Group Measure TRIALS 1 2 3 Start .658 .755 .544 Run 1 1.312 1.514 1.578 T> O Run 2 1.103 .867 .976 r—a Goal .695 .668 .726 Total Run .267 .278 .288 F u l l A l ley .171 .182 .157 Start .335 .391 .364 Run 1 1.263 .626 .933 Run 2 .757 .567 .324 C-S Goal .271 .277 .158 Total Run .156 .129 .079 F u l l Alley .085 .068 .052 Start .726 .844 .646 Run 1 1.893 1.791 1.144 X> T Run 2 1.169 .854 .662 r — L Goal .871 .720 .682 Total Run .365 .278 .247 F u l l Alley .224 .183 .126 Start .604 .631 .496 Run 1 1.578 1.701 .743 Run 2 .980 .830 .560 C-L Goal .775 .826 .586 Total Run .323 .319 .175 F u l l Alley .205 .184 .112 TABLE XTX Significance Levels Attained i n Scheffe Comparisons of Overall Extinction Means of Treatment Groups when IxR was Signif i c a n t Measure DATA Comparison Treatment Group Means Prob. PS CS PL CL GOAL PS V CS 1.0145 1.9050 1.0094 1.1051 *** o PL V CL NS o •J PS CS V V PL CL NS *** TOTAL RUN PS V CS 1.6331 2.4399 1.6312 1.8067 *** o PL c CL NS o PS CS V V PL CL NS * GOAL PS V CS 2.0024 6.5954 2.0868 2.6708 *** 1 PL PS V c CL PL NS NS CS V CL *** GOAL PS V CS 0.6962 0.2353 0.7575 0.7289 * § PL c CL NS M PS V PL NS a. CS V CL * 'NS' s i g n i f i e s P >.05 *** " p <„01 * " P <.05 NS " P >.05 134' TABLE XX Significance Levels Attained by F Max. Tests of Heterogeneity of Variance of Extinction Data Data Measure Significance Levels (A) (B) i1 Heterogeneous? Start NS NS No Run 1 NS NS No LOG Run 2 * NS Yes DATA Goal RS NS No Total Run fiS NS No Fu l l Alley NS NS No Start NS *** Yes Run 1 * *** Yes RAW Run 2 *** *** Yes DATA Goal * *** Yes Total Run *** * Yes Fu l l Alley * * Yes Start NS NS No Run 1 NS NS No RECIPROCAL Run 2 NS NS No DATA Goal * NS Yes Total Run . * NS Yes F u l l Alley *** *** Yes Column A significance levels were obtained from F max. tests on S.S. (S's W.Gi.j) Columb B significance levels were obtained from F max. tests on SS (TxS's W. Gi.j) Values of these S.S. are given in Table 24. If either column (A) or (B) Indicates that a significant effect was obtained, the analysis concerned lacked homogeneity of variance. ** signifies P <.01 * " P <.05 NS " P >.05 135 TABLE XXI Significance Levels Attait.ed by Linear and Quadratic Components of Trends i n E x t i n c t i o n Trend E f f e c t Data Component Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal T o t a l Run F u l l A l l e y u co CU rH D-l CO w u a CO O X L Q T T Q T L Q T RECIP. RECIP, RECIF, * * * * * * NS *** NS NS * * * * NS * * * * *** * * * * *** *** * * * * * **A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ft** NS * * * * * * * NS * * * * NS * * * * * * * * * * * * NS ftftft * * * ftftft ftftft * * * ftftft * * * ftftft ft * * * *** *** *** co o O rH « <0 iH U H Q T L Q T L Q T RECIF. RECIP. RECIF, NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS N5 ft** NS *** ft* NS ft* ft* ft ft** NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ** NS NS NS NS NS ** NS NS * NS NS NS HS NS * * * NS 136 TABLE XXI (continued) Significance Levels Attained by Linear and Quadratic Components of Trends in Extinction Trend Data Component Effect Start Run 1 Run 2 Goal Total Run Fu l l Alley L NS ** NS NS NS x Q LOG NS NS NS NS NS NS <U rt CQ T NS * NS NS * NS 3. s TJ O O <U O -H L LOG NS ** NS NS ftft ft* H W u n u Q NS NS NS NS NS NS c o ca rt H T NS * NS NS * NS -e RJ a) 9) h C L LOG NS NS NS NS NS NS !»-H M <B Q NS * NS NS NS NS t» T NS NS NS NS NS NS L RAW NS NS NS NS NS NS Q NS * NS NS NS NS T3 T NS NS NS NS NS NS n X co M u o L RAW NS NS NS NS NS NS 0) H O - r i « 3 H U Q NS NS NS NS NS NS •o « O X CU CO T NS NS NS NS NS NS rt CJ co cu H CO r l *> L RAW NS NS NS NS NS NS fc' CH H Q NS NS NS NS NS NS T NS NS NS NS NS NS L signifies a Linear Component Q " a Quadratic Component T " the overall trend *** '» P < ,01 ** 11 P < .025 * " p < .05 NS " P > .05 137 TABLE XXII Summary of Significance Levels Attained by the Interaction of Treatment Groups and E x t i n c t i o n T r i a l Blocks Measure Log Raw Reciprocal Start NS NS NS Run 1 * * * * * * ** Run 2 NS NS NS Goal NS NS NS Tot a l Run * NS NS F u l l A l l e y NS NS NS *** s i g n i f i e s P < . 0 1 * * it P <.025 * II P < .05 NS is P > .05 138 TABLE XXIII Summary of Probabilities Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Extinction Data without the Use of T r i a l Blocks Effect Measure Log Data J Raw Data Reciprocal Data R Start NS NS NS Reward Run 1 * * NS Schedule Run 2 ** ** * Main Run *** ft*** Effect Total Run *** *** ** F u l l Alley #** *** * I Start NS NS NS ITI Run 1 NS NS NS Main Run 2 NS NS NS Effect Goal ** *** * Total Run NS NS NS F u l l Alley * * * Rxl Start NS NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS NS of Reward Run 2 NS NS NS Schedule Goal *** *** * & ITTI Total Run ft NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS NS T Start NS NS NS Trials Run 1 ** ** ft Main Run 2 ftftftft **** **** Effect Goal NS NS NS Total Run **** **** **•* F u l l Alley **** **** ft*** RxT Start NS NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS NS of Reward Run 2 * NS NS Schedule Goal NS NS NS & Trials Total Run NS NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS NS IxT Start NS NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS NS of ITI Run 2 NS NS NS & T r i a l s Goal NS NS NS Total Run NS NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS NS RxIxT Start NS NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS NS of Reward Run 2 NS NS NS Schedule, Goal NS NS NS ITI & Total Run NS NS NS Trials F u l l Alley NS j NS NS **** s ignif ies P <.001 *** <• P <.oi * * " P <.025 *. p <.05 NS " P >.05 139 TABLE XXIV Sums of Squares f o r S's Within Each Group ( SS(S's W.Gl.jJ) and for the Interaction of T r i a l s & S's Within Each Group (S.S.(TxS's W.Gi.-Q) (a) SS(S's W. Gi.j.)) Data Measure Treatment Groups P-S C-S P-L C-L Start 171.49 325.88 176.74 238.03 Run 1 14.92 54.22 11.05 56.49 Run 2 13.63 206.08 12.45 60.22 DATA Goel 29.56 170.68 51.44 175.23 Total Run 61.53 972.20 146.69 669.02 F u l l A l l e y 253.12 1235.86 489.68 1349.68 Start 7.26 3.50 5.72 3.73 Run 1 11.79 7.66 14.07 13.59 Run 2 5.82 2.75 3.56 3.26 DATA Goal 2.11 0.57 3.75 3.75 To t a l Run 0.24 0.13 0.54 0.51 F u l l A l l e y 0.18 0.02 0.09 0.24 Start 7.86 8.15 7.63 8.41 Run 1 1.60 4.15 1.88 4.14 Run 2 1.98 7.75 1.63 3.67 DATA Goal 2.46 3.72 3.63 7.28 Tota l Run 1.99 5.93 3.84 7.55 F u l l A l l e y 3.84 3.79 3.92 8.49 (b) SS(TxS's W.Gi.j .)) St a r t 114.58 244.10 29.14 98.57 Run 1 25.83 16.39 12.70 84.08 RAW Run 2 10.03 54.98 7.12 40.47 DATA Goal 23.52 155.25 21.04 33.61 - T o t a l Run 97.63 205.47 60.28 284.45 F u l l A l l e y 268.93 214.20 79.91 365.16 Start 1.63 1.00 1.92 1.67 Run' 1 9.05 5.00 8.52 5.17 RECIPROCAL Run 2 1.79 1.36 1.45 1.50 DATA Goal 0.86 0.58 1.05 1.51 To t a l Run 0.18 0.84 0.11 0.19 F u l l A l l e y 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.07 Start 2.58 4.47 1.62 2.12 Run 1 1.73 1.62 1.71 3.24 Run 2 0.93 1.19 0.84 1.83 DATA Goal 1.45 3.17 1.29 1.31 To t a l Run 2.26 1.47 1.21 2.46 1 F u l l A l l e y 2.48 0.94 1.08 2.04 TABLE XXV A H U Summary of Probabilit ies Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Acquisition Data Effect Measure Raw Data Reciprocal Data R Start NS NS Reward Run 1 NS NS Schedule Run 2 NS NS Main Goal NS NS Effect Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS I Start NS NS I T I Run 1 NS NS Main Run 2 NS NS Effect Goal ** NS Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS *ft R x l Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of Reward Run 2 NS NS Schedule Goal NS NS & ITI Total Run NS NS F u l l Run NS NS I Start **** ft*** Trials Run 1 **** **** Main Run 2 **** **** Effect Goal *** ft*** Total Run **** ft*** Rull Alley **** ft*** R x T Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of Reward Run 2 * NS Schedule Goal NS NS & Trials Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS I x T Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of I T I Run 2 NS NS & Trie.Is Goal NS NS Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS R x I x T Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of I T I , Run 2 ** NS Reward Goal NS NS Schedule Total Run NS NS & Trials F u l l Alley NS NS **** s ignif ies P <.001 *** »< p <.oi ** " p <.025 * " P <.05 NS " P >.05 U l TABLE XXVI Summary of Probabilities Obtained from Analyses of Variance of Extinction Data i n Terms of T r i a l Blocks Effect Measure Raw Data Reciprocal Data R Start NS NS Reward Run 1 * NS 'Schedule Run 2 ** * Main Goal **** * Effect Total Run *** * F u l l Alley *** * I • Start NS NS ITI Run 1 NS NS Main Run 2 NS NS 'Effect Goal «-*** ** Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley * * Rxl Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of Reward Run 2 NS NS Schedule Goal *** NS & ITI Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS NS T Start NS NS T r i a l Blocks Run 1 * * Main Run 2 **** ftftftft Effect Goal NS NS Total Run ft*** ftftft F u l l Alley **** ftftftft RxT Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 * NS of Reward Run 2 NS NS Schedule Goal NS NS & T r i a l s Total Run * NS F u l l Alley NS NS IxT Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 ** *ftft of ITI Run 2 NS NS & T r i a l s Goal NS NS Total Run NS NS F u l l Alley NS * RxIxT Start NS NS Interaction Run 1 NS NS of ITI, Run 2 NS NS Reward Goal NS NS Schedule Total Run NS NS & T r i a l s F u l l Alley NS 1 NS **** s ignif ies P <.001 ft*ft «• p <,oi ** 11 P <.025 * " P <.05 NS " P >.05 TABLE XXVII Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Acquisition Data START MEASURE SOURCE sm OF DF MEAN F PROP. SQUARES SQUARE Reward .301 1 .301 .33 .575 ITI 4.118 1 4.118 4.54 .039 Reward x ITI .410 1 .410 .45 .513 S i n G 29.032 32 .907 T r i a l s 25.142 5 5.028 20.08 .000 Reward x T r i a l s 2.603 5 .521 2.08 .070 ITI x T r i a l s .815 5 .163 .65 .664 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .556 5 .111 .44 .819 Error 40.063 160 .250 Total 103.04 215 RUN 1 Reward .244 1 .244 .97 .335 ITI .213 1 .213 .85 .368 Reward x ITI 1.144 1 1.144 4.53 .039 S i n G 8.075 32 .252 T r i a l s 3.829 5 .766 7.13 .000 Reward x T r i a l s .474 5 .095 .88 .495 ITI x T r i a l s .825 5 .165 1.54 .181 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .586 5 .117 1.09 .368 Error 17.192 160 .107 Total 32.582 215 RUN 2 Reward .451 1 .451 2.00 .163 ITI .271 1 .271 1.20 .281 Reward x ITI .331 1 .331 1.47 .233 S i n G 7.203 32 .225 T r i a l s 3.826 5 .765 17.64 .000 Reward x T r i a l s .556 5 .111 2.56 .029 ITI x T r i a l s .233 5 .047 1.08 .376 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .517 5 .103 2.38 .040 Error 6.940 160 .043 Total 20.329 215 143 TABLE XXVII (continued) Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Acquisition Data GOAL SOURCE SUM OF DF MEAN F PROB. SOUARES SQUARE Reward .200 1 .200 .33 .577 ITI 3.334 1 3.334 5.50 .024 Reward x ITI .070 1 .070 .12 .733 S i n G 19.412 32 .607 T r i a l s 9.211 5 1.842 8.76 .000 Reward x T r i a l s 1.682 5 .336 1.60 .162 ITI x T r i a l s 2.153 5 .431 2.05 .074 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 1.018 5 .204 .97 .440 Error 33.632 160 .210 Total 70.710 215 TOTAL RUN Reward .386 1 .386 .72 .408 ITI 1.536 1 1.536 2.85 .097 Reward x ITI .208 1 .208 .39 .545 S i n G .172 32 .539 Tr i a l s 9.959 5 1.992 12.48 .000 Reward x T r i a l s 1.606 5 .321 2.01 .079 ITI x T r i a l s 1.817 5 .363 2.28 .049 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 1.147 5 .229 1.44 .213 Error 25.533 160 .160 Total 59.429 215 FULL ALLEY Reward .428 1 .428 .57 .462 ITI 3.954 1 3.954 5.28 .027 Reward x ITI .411 1 .411 .55 .471 S i n G 23.984 32 .750 T r i a l s 18.195 5 3.639 21.39 .000 Reward x T r i a l s .355 5 .071 .42 .838 ITI x T r i a l s .517 5 .103 .61 .697 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .426 5 .085 .50 .777 Error 27.222 160 .170 Total 75.491 215 'S i n G' (S's within groups) was the error term for R, I and Rxl. For other e f f e c t s , 'Error' was the appropriate error term. 144 TABLE XXVIII Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Extinction Data Employing T r i a l Blocks START MEASURE SOURCE SUM OF DF MEAN F PROB. SQUARES SQUARE Reward 2.807 1 2.807 2.80 .100 ITI 2.189 1 2.189 2.18 .145 Reward x ITI 0.571 1 .571 .57 .462 S i n G 32.054 32 1.002 T r i a l s 0.816 2 .408 .24 .095 Reward x T r i a l s 0.247 2 .123 2.42 .490 \ ITI x T r i a l s 0.807 2 .040 .73 .790 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 0 197 2 .010 .06 .934 Error 10.797 64 .169 Total 49.581 107 1 RUN 1 Reward 1.783 1 1.783 4.85 .033 ITI 0.082 1 .082 .22 .644 Reward x ITI 0.087 1 .087 .24 .634 S i n G 11.767 32 .368 Tr i a l s 1.474 2 .737 5.69 .005 Reward x T r i a l s 0.834 2 .417 3.22 .045 ITI x T r i a l s 1.427 2 .713 5.50 .006 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 0.537 2 .269 2.07 0.132 Error 8.292 64 .130 Total 26.284 107 RUN 2 Reward 2.690 1 2.690 5.73 .022 ITI 0.479 1 .479 1.02 .321 Reward x ITI 0.927 1 .927 1.97 .166 S i n G 15.030 32 .470 T r i a l s 3.402 2 1.701 22.74 .000 Reward x T r i a l s 0.296 2 .296 1.98 .144 ITI x T r i a l s 0.079 2 .079 0.52 .601 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 0.188 2 .094 1.26 .291 Error 4.786 64 .075 Total 27.877 107 145 TABLE XXVIIi (continued) Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log E x t i n c t i o n Data Employing T r i a l Blocks GOAL SOURCE SUM OF DF MEAN F PROB. SQUARES SQUARE Reward 6.565 i X 6.565 12.29 .002 ITI 4.374 1 4.374 8.19 .007 Reward x ITI 4.265 1 4.265 7.99 .008 S i n G 17.090 32 .534 T r i a l s .795 2 .398 3.52 .035 Reward x T r i a l s .403 2 .202 1.79 .174 ITI x T r i a l s .083 2 .042 .37 .697 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .168 2 .084 .74 .484 Error 7.223 64 .113 Total 40.967 107 TOTAL RUN Reward 6.514 1 6.514 10.79 .003 ITI 2.723 1 2.723 4.51 .040 Reward x ITI 2.691 1 2.691 4.46 .041 S i n G 19.320 32 .604 T r i a l s 3.093 2 1.546 13.37 .000 Reward x T r i a l s .788 2 .394 3.41 .038 ITI x T r i a l s .641 2 .321 2.77 .069 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .175 2 .087 .76 .478 Error 7.403 64 .116 Total 43.348 107 FULL ALLEY Reward 6.401 1 6.401 10.22 .033 ITI 3.583 1 3.583 5.72 .022 Reward & ITI 2.517 1 2.517 4.02 .051 S i n G 2.004 32 .626 T r i a l s 3.203 2 1.601 15.66 ,000 Reward x T r i a l s .156 2 .078 .76 .476 ITI x T r i a l s .521 2 .260 2.55 .084 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s .088 2 .044 .43 .658 Error 6.544 64 .102 Total 43.056 107 'S i n G' (S's within groups) was the error term for R, I and Rxl. For other e f f e c t s , 'Error' was the appropriate error term. 146 TABLE XXIX Analysis of Variance Tables for Analyses of Log Extinction Data Without the Use of T r i a l Blocks START MEASURE SOURCE SUM OF DF MEAN F PROB. SQUARES SQUARE Reward 5.657 1 5.657 2.06 .157 ITI 4.904 1 4.904 1.79 .187 Reward x ITI .771 1 .771 .28 .606 S i n G 87.678 32 2.740 Tr i a l s 3 896 8 .487 1.68 .103 Reward x T r i a l s 2. 87 8 .298 1.03 .415 ITI x T r i a l s 2.241 8 .280 .97 .463 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 1.386 8 .173 .60 .781 Error 74.244 256 .290 Total 183.16 323 RUN 1 Reward 4.006 1 4.006 4.51 .039 ITI .380 1 .380 .43 .524 Reward x ITI .436 1 .436 .49 .495 S i n G 28.402 32 .888 T r i a l s 4 507 8 .563 2.57 .010 Reward x Tr i a l s 1.458 8 .182 .83 .576 ITI x T r i a l s 2.264 8 .283 1.29 .247 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 1.327 8 .166 .76 .642 Error 56.026 256 .219 Total 98.807 323 RUN 2 Reward 7.518 1 7.518 6.13 .018 ITI .897 1 .897 .73 .403 Reward x ITI 2.219 1 2.219 1.81 .185 S i n G 39.268 32 1.227 T r i a l s 9.526 8 1.191 8.18 .000 Reward x T r i a l s 2.366 8 .296 2.03 .043 ITI x T r i a l s .661 8 .083 .57 .805 Reward x ITI x T r i a l s 1.024 8 .128 .88 .536 Error 37.269 256 .146 Total 100.75 323 147 T A B L E X X I X ( c o n t i n u e d ) A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e T a b l e s f o r A n a l y s e s o f L O R E x t i n c t i o n D a t a W i t h o u t t h e U s e o f T r i a l B l o c k s G O A L S O U R C E S U M O F D F M E A N F P R O B . S Q U A R E S S Q U A R E R e w a r d 1 6 . 3 6 7 1 1 6 . 3 6 7 1 1 . 1 3 . 0 2 2 I T I 9 . 6 6 1 1 9 . 6 6 1 6 . 5 7 . 0 1 5 R e w a r d x I T I 1 0 . 9 7 7 1 1 0 . 9 7 7 7 . 4 7 . 0 1 0 S i n G 4 7 . 0 4 9 32 1 4 . 7 0 3 T r i a l s 2 . 9 9 5 8 . 3 7 4 1 . 5 3 . 1 4 7 R e w a r d x T r i a l s . 9 1 3 8 . 1 2 0 . 4 9 . 8 6 3 I T I x T r i a l s . 1 6 0 8 . 2 0 0 . 8 2 . 5 8 9 R e w a r d x I T I x T r i a l s 1 . 5 7 9 8 . 1 0 7 . 8 1 . 6 0 0 E r r o r 6 2 . 7 3 9 2 5 6 . 2 4 5 T o t a l 1 5 3 . 9 3 3 2 3 T O T A L RUN R e w a r d 1 8 . 0 6 4 1 1 8 . 0 6 4 1 0 . 3 1 . 0 0 3 I T I 6 . 4 7 9 1 6 . 4 7 9 3 . 7 0 . 0 6 1 Reward x I T I 8 . 5 4 3 1 8 . 5 4 3 4 . 8 8 . 0 3 3 S i n G 5 6 . 0 5 6 32 1 . 7 5 2 T r i a l s 9 . 6 3 5 8 1 . 2 0 4 5 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 R e w a r d x T r i a l s 1 . 7 2 4 8 . 2 1 6 0 . 9 0 . 5 2 2 I T I x T r i a l s 2 . 2 2 2 8 . 2 7 8 1 . 1 5 . 3 2 7 R e w a r d x I T I x T r i a l s 1 . 6 6 0 8 . 2 0 8 . 8 6 . 5 5 0 E r r o r 6 1 . 6 1 2 2 5 6 . 2 4 1 T o t a l 1 6 5 . 9 9 3 2 3 F U L L A L L E Y R e w a r d 1 7 . 3 7 0 1 3 7 . 3 7 0 8 . 8 2 . 0 0 6 I T I 9 . 9 1 7 1 9 . 9 1 7 5 . 0 4 . 0 3 0 R e w a r d x I T I 6 . 9 6 1 1 6 . 9 6 1 3 . 5 4 . 0 6 6 S i n G 6 3 . 0 0 7 32 1 . 9 6 9 T r i a l s 1 0 . 1 4 5 8 1 . 2 6 8 6 . 1 9 . 0 0 0 R e w a r d x T r i a l s . 9 4 2 8 . 1 1 8 . 5 7 . 8 0 0 I T I x T r i a l s 2 . 2 0 6 8 . 2 7 6 1 . 3 5 . 2 2 0 R e w a r d x I T I x T r i a l s 1 . 6 5 8 8 . 2 0 7 1 . 0 1 . 4 2 8 E r r o r 5 2 . 4 4 1 2 5 6 . 2 0 5 T r i a l s 1 6 4 . 6 5 3 2 3 ' S i n G ' ( S ' s w i t h i n g r o u p s ) w a s t h e e r r o r t e r m f o r R , I a n d R x l . F o r o t h e r e f f e c t s , ' E r r o r ' w a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e e r r o r t e r m .
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Distribution of trials and the partial reinforcement effect after minimal acquisition
Text