Frustration theory (Amsel, 1958) is unable to explain partial reinforcement effects following limited acquisition training. It is suggested that attempts to explain these findings may have implications for conditioning theories in general, and that more attention should be given to the early acquisition process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmselA.The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 102–119.
2.
AmselA.HugJ. J.SurridgeC. T.Number of food pellets, goal approaches, and the partial reinforcement effect after minimal acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 530–534.
3.
CapaldiE. J.LanierA. T.GodboutR. C.Reward schedule effects following severely limited acquisition training. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 521–524.
4.
CapaldiE. J.WatersR. W.Conditioning and nonconditioning interpretations of small-trial phenomena. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 84, 518–522.
5.
IsonJ. R.AdinolfiA. A.Differential resistance to extinction determined by a small number of differential instrumental conditioning trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 350–352.
6.
McCainG.Partial reinforcement effects following a small number of acquisition trials. Psychonomic Science Monograph Supplements, 1966, 1, 251–270.
