EFFECTS OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF REINFORCEMENT UNDER PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES ON RUNNING SPEEDS

SEISOH SUKEMUNE; MITSUYA YAMAUCHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.5.137

SEISOH SUKEMUNE, MITSUYA YAMAUCHI

Author information

JOURNALS FREE ACCESS

Volume 5 (1963) Issue 3 Pages 137-141

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.5.137

Details

Released dates
Released: February 24, 2009 [Advance Publication] Released: - received: September 19, 1963 corrected: - accepted: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : 33 rats were given runway training under 23 hr food deprivation. Both total number of trials for 5 acquisition days (Nt=20) and total amount of reinforcement (Rt=40) given over the Nt were kept constant for 2 partial reinforcement groups (50 and 75) and 1 continuous group (100), while total number of reinforced trials (Nr) was variable (10 in Group 50, 15 in Group 75, and 20 in Group 100) under partial reinforcement schedules. 3 extinction days followed. Reciprocal latency and total running time for both acquisition and extinction yielded insignificant differences among groups, namely, Nr did not primarily affect both acqui-sition and extinction, while did significant differences among days. The interaction between groups and days was insignificant for both acquisition and extinction in each measure. Some interpretation of the data with regard to Nr, Nt and Rt was made.
Right : 33 rats were given runway training under 23 hr food deprivation. Both total number of trials for 5 acquisition days (Nt=20) and total amount of reinforcement (Rt=40) given over theNtwere kept constant for 2 partial reinforcement groups (50 and 75) and 1 continuous group (100), while total number of reinforced trials (Nr) was variable (10 in Group 50, 15 in Group 75, and 20 in Group 100) under partial reinforcement schedules. 3 extinction days followed. Reciprocal latency and total running time for both acquisition and extinction yielded insignificant differences among groups, namely, Nrdid not primarily affect both acquisition and extinction, while did significant differences among days. The interaction between groups and days was insignificant for both acquisition and extinction in each measure. Some interpretation of the data with regard to Nr, Nt and Rt was made.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AUTHOR Details: Wrong : SEISOH SUKEMUNE¹⁾, MITSUYA YAMAUCHI¹⁾²⁾
Right : SEISOH SUKEMUNE¹⁾, MITSUYA YAMAUCHI¹⁾

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Hiroshima Women's College University of Hiroshima
2) Now at Hiroshima Jogakuin College.

Right :
1) Hiroshima Women's College University of Hiroshima

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : GUTHEJE, E. R. The Psychology of learning. Revised. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper, 1952.
HALL, J. F. Psychology of motivation. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1961.
HULL, C. L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
JENKINS, W. O., & STANLEY, J. C. Partial reinforce-ment: a review and critique. Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47, 193-234.
LAWRENCE, D. H., & FESTINGER, L. Deterrents and reinforcement: The psychology of insu,jficient reward. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1962.
LEWIS, D. Partial reinforcement: a selective review of the literature since 1950. Psychol. Bull., 1960, 57, 1-28.
LINDQUIST, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953.
SPENCE, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
SUKEMUNE, S., & HABU, Y. Partial reinforcement with differing total number of reinforced trials under the equality of total amount of reinforce-ment and of total number of trials in the white rat. Jap. J. Psychol., 1963, 34, 130-133. (In Japanese).
YAMAUCHI, M., & SUKEMUNE, S. Note on partial reinforcement schedules. Psychol. Rep., 1959, 5, 579-580.
YAMAUCHI, M., & HABU, Y. The effect of partial reinforcement on runway response of white rats in the same condition of total amount of reward. Ann. anim. Psychol, 1960, 10, 65-70. (In Japanese).

Right : GUTHRIE, E. R. The psychology of learning. Revised.(2nd ed.) New York: Harper, 1952.
HALL, J. F. Psychology of motivation. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1961.
HULL, C. L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
JENKINS, W. O., & STANLEY, J. C. Partial reinforcement: a review and critique. Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47, 193-234.
LAWRENCE, D. H., & FESTINGER, L. Deterrents and reinforcement: The psychology of insufficient reward, Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1962.
LEWIS, D. Partial reinforcement: a selective review of the literature since 1950. Psychol. Bull., 1960, 57, 1-28.
LINDQUIST, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953.
SPENCE, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
SUKEMUNE, S., & HABU, Y. Partial reinforcement with differing total number of reinforced trials under the equality of total amount of reinforcement and of total number of trials in the white rat. Jap. J. Psychol., 1963, 34, 130-133.(In Japanese).
YAMAUCHI, M., & SUKEMUNE, S. Note on partial reinforcement schedules. Psychol. Rep., 1959, 5, 579-580.
YAMAUCHI, M., & HABU, Y. The effect of partial reinforcement on runway response of white rats in the same condition of total amount of reward. Ann. anim. Psychol, 1960, 10, 65-70.(In Japanese).

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : 33 rats were given runway training under 23 hr food deprivation. Both total number of trials for 5 acquisition days (Nt=20) and total amount of reinforcement (Rt=40) given over theNtwere kept constant for 2 partial reinforcement groups (50 and 75) and 1 continuous group (100), while total number of reinforced trials (Nr) was variable (10 in Group 50, 15 in Group 75, and 20 in Group 100) under partial reinforcement schedules. 3 extinction days followed. Reciprocal latency and total running time for both acquisition and extinction yielded insignificant differences among groups, namely, Nrdid not primarily affect both acquisition and extinction, while did significant differences among days. The interaction between groups and days was insignificant for both acquisition and extinction in each measure. Some interpretation of the data with regard to Nr, Nt and Rt was made.
Right : 33 rats were given runway training under 23 hr food deprivation. Both total number of trials for 5 acquisition days (Nt=20) and total amount of reinforcement (Rt=40) given over the Nt were kept constant for 2 partial reinforcement groups (50 and 75) and 1 continuous group (100), while total number of reinforced trials (Nr) was variable (10 in Group 50, 15 in Group 75, and 20 in Group 100) under partial reinforcement schedules. 3 extinction days followed. Reciprocal latency and total running time for both acquisition and extinction yielded insignificant differences among groups, namely, Nr did not primarily affect both acquisition and extinction, while did significant differences among days. The interaction between groups and days was insignificant for both acquisition and extinction in each measure. Some interpretation of the data with regard to Nr, Nt and Rt was made.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : GUTHRIE, E. R. The psychology of learning. Revised.(2nd ed.) New York: Harper, 1952.
HALL, J. F. Psychology of motivation. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1961.
HULL, C. L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
JENKINS, W. O., & STANLEY, J. C. Partial reinforcement: a review and critique. Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47, 193-234.
LAWRENCE, D. H., & FESTINGER, L. Deterrents and reinforcement: The psychology of insufficient reward, Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1962.
LEWIS, D. Partial reinforcement: a selective review of the literature since 1950. Psychol. Bull., 1960, 57, 1-28.
LINDQUIST, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953.
SPENCE, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
SUKEMUNE, S., & HABU, Y. Partial reinforcement with differing total number of reinforced trials under the equality of total amount of reinforcement and of total number of trials in the white rat. Jap. J. Psychol., 1963, 34, 130-133.(In Japanese).
YAMAUCHI, M., & SUKEMUNE, S. Note on partial reinforcement schedules. Psychol. Rep., 1959, 5, 579-580.
YAMAUCHI, M., & HABU, Y. The effect of partial reinforcement on runway response of white rats in the same condition of total amount of reward. Ann. anim. Psychol, 1960, 10, 65-70.(In Japanese).

Right : GUTHRIE, E. R. The psychology of learning. Revised. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper, 1952.
HALL, J. F. Psychology of motivation. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1961.
HULL, C. L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
JENKINS, W. O., & STANLEY, J. C. Partial reinforcement: a review and critique. Psychol. Bull., 1950, 47, 193-234.
LAWRENCE, D. H., & FESTINGER, L. Deterrents and reinforcement: The psychology of insufficient reward. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1962.
LEWIS, D. Partial reinforcement: a selective review of the literature since 1950. Psychol. Bull., 1960, 57, 1-28.
LINDQUIST, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953.
SPENCE, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
SUKEMUNE, S., & HABU, Y. Partial reinforcement with differing total number of reinforced trials under the equality of total amount of reinforcement and of total number of trials in the white rat. Jap. J. Psychol., 1963, 34, 130-133. (In Japanese).
YAMAUCHI, M., & SUKEMUNE, S. Note on partial reinforcement schedules. Psychol. Rep., 1959, 5, 579-580.
YAMAUCHI, M., & HABU, Y. The effect of partial reinforcement on runway response of white rats in the same condition of total amount of reward. Ann. anim. Psychol, 1960, 10, 65-70. (In Japanese).

Abstract

33 rats were given runway training under 23 hr food deprivation. Both total number of trials for 5 acquisition days (Nt=20) and total amount of reinforcement (Rt=40) given over the Nt were kept constant for 2 partial reinforcement groups (50 and 75) and 1 continuous group (100), while total number of reinforced trials (Nr) was variable (10 in Group 50, 15 in Group 75, and 20 in Group 100) under partial reinforcement schedules. 3 extinction days followed. Reciprocal latency and total running time for both acquisition and extinction yielded insignificant differences among groups, namely, Nr did not primarily affect both acquisition and extinction, while did significant differences among days. The interaction between groups and days was insignificant for both acquisition and extinction in each measure. Some interpretation of the data with regard to Nr, Nt and Rt was made.

Released dates

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!