The present study employed the sequential prediction task to determine whether the partial reinforcement hump effect—a rise in the dependent variable curve following partial reinforcement—is a reliable phenomenon. 210 college students received one of seven sequences in which two events occurred equally often for 100 trials and in which the maximum run length was 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, followed by 30 trials during which one event was always correct. A hump appeared in the post-acquisition curves of all seven groups. The location of the hump was a function of the maximum run length during Trials 1–100. These results provide strong support for an expectancy interpretation of the partial reinforcement extinction effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CapaldiE. J.Partial reinforcement: An hypothesis of sequential effects. Psychological Review, 1966, 73, 459–477.
2.
DetambelM. H.A reanalysis of Humphreys' “Acquisition and extinction of verbal expectations.”Unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana Univer., 1950.
3.
EstesW. K.Research and theory on the learning of probabilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1972, 67, 81–102.
4.
EstesW. K.The cognitive side of probability learning. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 37–64.
5.
GrantD. A.HakeH. W.HornsethJ. P.Acquisition and extinction of a verbal conditioned response with differing percentages of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 42, 1–5.
6.
GrantD. A.SchipperL. M.The acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid responses as a function of the percentage of fixed-ratio random reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 313–320.
7.
HartleyR. E.WilliamsC. D.A three-element model for binary prediction. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 327–335.
8.
HartleyR. E.WilliamsC. D.Prolegomenon to cognitive learning theory. Interdisciplinaria, in press.
9.
HilgardE. R.Theories of learning. (3rd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
10.
HumphreysL. G.Acquisition and extinction of verbal expectations in a situation analogous to conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1939, 25, 294–301. (a).
11.
HumphreysL. G.The effect of random alternation of reinforcement on the acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1939, 25, 141–158. (b).
12.
HumphreysL. G.Extinction of conditioned psycho-galvanic responses following two conditions of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 27, 71–75.
13.
JenkinsW. O.StanleyJ. C.Jr.Partial reinforcement: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, 193–234.
14.
JonesM. R.From probability learning to sequential processing: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 153–185.
15.
KoteskeyR. L.A stimulus-sampling model of the partial reinforcement effect. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 161–171.
16.
LaBergeD.Effect of preliminary trials on rate of conditioning in a simple prediction situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 57, 20–24.
17.
LewisD. J.Partial reinforcement: A selective review of the literature since 1950. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 1–28.
18.
MyersJ. L.Sequential choice behavior. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 109–170.
19.
RobbinsD.Partial reinforcement: A selective review of the alleyway literature since 1960. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 415–431.
20.
ShibaS.A model for positive and negative recency effects on predictive behavior. Japanese Psychological Research, 1964, 6, 46–52.
21.
WilliamsC. D.HartleyR. E.TaylorJ. L.HarringtonR. T.Event patterns in sequential choice behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 1975, 88, 33–47.
