Combination of Drive and Incentive *

Abstract

This experiment was designed to investigate the combination of drive and incentive as determinants of performance. Nine groups of rats were trained to press a bar under three levels of food deprivation (12, 24 and 36 hr.) and three incentive conditions (1, 2 and 3 pellets). Response strength was estimated by counting the number of responses with a latency of 1 sec. or less during five 20 trial sessions. The results indicated that response strength increased with hours of deprivation and with amount of food reward. Significant interactions between sessions and drive, and sessions and incentive provided additional support for the multiplicative combination of H (habit) and D (drive) and H and K (incentive). The lack of significant interaction between D and K was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that D and K combine additively rather than multiplicatively.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

(1956). The effect of drive on learning with secondary reinforcement. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 49, 254–60.

Campbell

B. A.

Kraeling

(1953). Response strength as a function of drive level and amount of drive reduction. J. exp. Psychol. 45, 97–101.

Crespi

L. P.

(1942). Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. Amer. J. Psychol. 55, 467–517.

Deese

Carpenter

J. A.

(1951). Drive level and reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol 42, 236–8.

Dufort

R. H.

Kimble

G. A.

(1956). Changes in response strength with changes in the amount of reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol. 51, 185–91.

Eisman

Asimow

Maltzman

(1956). Habit strength as a function of drive in a brightness discrimination problem. J. exp. Psychol. 52, 58–64.

Fletcher

F. M.

(1940). Effects of quantitative variation of food incentive on the performance of physical work by chimpanzees. Comp. Psychol. Monogr. 16, No. 82.

Grindley

G. C.

(1929). Experiments on the influence of amount of reward on learning in young chickens. Brit. J. Psychol. 20, 173–80.

Heyman

(1957). Certain relationships between stimulus intensity and stimulus generalization. J. Exp. Psychol. 53, 239–48.

10.

Hillman

Hunter

Kimble

(1953). The effect of drive level on the maze performance of the white rat. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 46, 87–9.

11.

Hull

C. L.

(1943). Principles of Behavior New York.

12.

Hull

C. L.

(1951). Essentials of Behavior New Haven.

13.

Hull

C. L.

(1952). A Behavior System New Haven.

14.

Kendler

H. H.

(1945). Drive interaction: II. Experimental analysis of the role of drive in learning theory. J. exp. Psychol. 35, 188–98.

15.

Loess

H. B.

(1952). The effect of variations of motivational level and changes in motivational level on performance in learning Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Univ. of Iowa.

16.

Passey

G. E.

(1948). The influence of intensity of unconditional stimulus upon acquisition of a conditional response. J. exp. Psychol. 38, 420–8.

17.

Pereboom

A. C.

(1957). An analysis and revision of Hull's Theorem 30. J. exp. Psychol. 53, 234–7.

18.

Perin

C. T.

(1942). Behavior potentiality as a joint function of the amount of training and degree of hunger at the time of extinction. J. exp. Psychol. 30, 93–113.

19.

Perin

C. T.

(1943). A quantitative investigation of the delay of reinforcement gradient. J. exp. Psychol. 32, 37–51.

20.

Ramond

C. K.

(1954). Performance in selective learning as a function of hunger. J. exp. Psychol. 48, 265–70.

21.

Reynolds

Marx

Henderson

(1952). Resistance to extinction as a function of drive-reward interaction. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 45, 36–42.

22.

Spence

K. W.

(1954). Current interpretations of learning data and some recent developments in stimulus response theory. Learning Theory, Personality Theory and Clinical Research New York.

23.

Spence

K. W.

Behavior Theory and Conditioning New Haven.

24.

Strassburger

R. C.

(1950). Resistance to extinction of a conditioned operant as related to drive level at reinforcement. J. exp. Psychol. 40, 473–87.

25.

Teel

K. S.

(1952). Habit strength as a function of motivation during learning. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 45, 188–91.

26.

Williams

S. B.

(1938). Resistance to extinction as a function of the number of reinforcements. J. exp. Psychol. 23, 506–22.