96 Ss learned a 23-row button maze under 1 of 3 stress conditions and partial or continuous reinforcement. Stress conditions were error, error and speed instruction, or error and speed instruction plus irrelevant shock. Number of errors were an increasing function of stress, but rate (responses per second) suggested a non-monotonic function. Reinforcement schedule was not an effective variable. Results were discussed with relation to competing response tendencies associated with motivation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmselA.Frustration nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning: some recent history and a theoretical extension. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 306–328.
2.
BadiaP.Effects of drive, reinforcement schedule, and change of schedule on performance. J. exp. Psychol., 1965, 69, 292–297.
3.
CastanedaA.Effects of stress on complex learning and performance. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 52, 9–12.
4.
CastanedaA.PalermoD. S.Psychomotor performance as a function of amount of training and stress. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 50, 175–179.
5.
CicalaG. A.Running speed in rats as a function of drive level and presence or absence of competing response trials. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 62, 329–334.
6.
FarberI. E.SpenceK. W.Complex learning and conditioning as a function of anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 45, 120–125.
7.
MatarazzoJ. D.UlettG. A.SaslowG.Human maze performance as a function of increasing levels of anxiety. J. gen. Psychol., 1955, 53, 79–95.
8.
McHoseJ. H.LudvigsonH. W.Frustration effect as a function of drive. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 14, 371–374.
9.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press1956.
10.
WeinstockS.Resistance to extinction of a running response following partial reinforcement under widely spaced trials. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1954, 47, 318–322.
