Previous studies have reported that the differential outcomes procedure enhances learning and memory in special populations with cognitive deficits (see Goeters, Blakely, & Poling, 1992, for a review). In the present study we extend these findings to healthy adults who were asked to discriminate between the symbols “ > ” and “ < ” in mathematical statements. In Experiment 1, the performance of participants who showed difficulties in discriminating between these symbols was better (shorter response times) for the differential outcomes condition than for the nondifferential outcomes condition. In Experiment 2, the difficulty of the task was increased by using signed decimal numbers. Similar to Experiment 1, participants who initially had difficulties in discriminating between the symbols showed better performance (higher accuracy) for the differential outcomes condition than for the nondifferential outcomes condition, but only when both numbers were negative. These findings suggest that the differential outcomes procedure can be used to improve performance of challenged healthy adults on discrimination tasks with mathematical symbols and relations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrodiganD. L.PetersonG. B. (1976). Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity.Animal Learning & Behavior4, 121–124.
2.
DeLongR. E.WassermanE. A. (1981). Effects of differential reinforcement expectancies on successive matching-to-sample performance in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes7, 394–412.
3.
EdwardsC. A.JagieloJ. A.ZentallT. R.HoganD. E. (1982). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in matching to sample by pigeons: Mediation by reinforcer-specific expectancies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes8, 244–259.
4.
EstévezA. F.FuentesL. J. (2003). Differential outcomes effect in four-year-old children.Psicológica24, 159–167.
5.
EstévezA. F.FuentesL. J.Mari-BeffaP.GonzálezC.AlvarezD. (2001). The differential outcomes effect as useful tool to improve conditional discrimination learning in children.Learning and Motivation1, 48–64.
6.
EstévezA. F.OvermierJ. B.FuentesL. J. (2003). Differential outcomes effect in children: Demonstration and mechanisms.Learning and Motivation34, 148–167.
7.
GoetersS.BlakelyF.PolingA. (1992). The differential outcomes effect.The Psychological Record42, 389–411.
8.
HochhalterA. K.SweeneyW. A.BakkeB. L.HolubR. J.OvermierJ. B. (2000). Improving face recognition in alcohol dementia.Clinical Gerontologist22, 3–18.
9.
JosephB.OvermierJ. B.ThompsonT. (1997). Food and nonfood related differential outcomes in equivalence learning by adults with Prader–Willi syndrome.American Journal on Mental Retardation4, 374–386.
10.
KruseJ. M.OvermierJ. B.KonzW. A.RokkeE. (1983). Pavlovian CS effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific.Learning and Motivation14, 165–181.
11.
LittM. D.SchreibmanL. (1981). Stimulus-specific reinforcement in the acquisition of receptive labels by autistic children.Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities1, 171–186.
12.
MakiP.OvermierJ. B.DelosS.GutmanA. J. (1995). Expectancies as factors influencing conditional discrimination performance of children.The Psychological Record45, 45–71.
13.
MalangaP.PolingA. (1992). Letter recognition by adults with mental handicaps: Improving performance through differential outcomes.Developmental Disabilities Bulletin20, 39–48.
14.
MillerO. T.WaughK. M.ChambersK. (2002). Differential outcomes effect: Increased accuracy in adults learning kanji with stimulus specific rewards.The Psychological Record52, 315–324.
15.
PetersonG. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behavior.Animal cognition. RoitblatH. L.BeverT. G.TerraceH. S.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16.
PetersonG. B.LinwickD.OvermierJ. B. (1987). On the comparative efficacy of memories and expectancies as cues for choice behavior in pigeons.Learning and Motivation18, 1–20.
17.
PetersonG. B.TrapoldM. A. (1980). Effects of altering outcome expectancies on pigeons’ delayed conditional discrimination performance.Learning and Motivation11, 267–288.
18.
RescorlaR. R. (1992). Response–outcome versus outcome–response associations in instrumental learning.Animal Learning & Behavior20, 223–232.
19.
RescorlaR. R. (1994). Transfer of instrumental control mediated by a devalued outcome.Animal Learning & Behavior22, 27–33.
20.
RescorlaR. R.ColwillR. M. (1989). Associations with anticipated and obtained outcomes in instrumental training.Animal Learning & Behavior17, 291–303.
21.
SaundersR.SailorW. (1979). A comparison of three strategies of reinforcement on two-choice learning problems with severely retarded children.AAESPH Review4, 323–333.
22.
SchneiderW. (1988). MicroExperimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers20, 206–217.
23.
SheppB. E. (1962). Some cue properties of anticipated rewards in discrimination learning of retardates.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology55, 856–859.
24.
SheppB. E. (1964). Some cue properties of rewards in simultaneous object-discriminations of retardes.Child Development35, 587–592.
25.
TrapoldM. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different?.Learning and Motivation1, 129–140.
26.
TrapoldM. A.OvermierJ. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning.Classical conditioning: Current research and theory. BlackA. A.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
27.
WilliamsD. A.ButlerM. M.OvermierJ. B. (1990). Expectancies of reinforcer location and quality as cues for a conditional discrimination in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes16, 172–178.
