Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
' page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
'I 3 - 2 a i'3 fc<? 8
LD3907 1
.G7 Rubin, Leonard Sidney, 1922-
1951 An experimental comparison of the
.R9 effects of p artial and continuous re
inforcement under conditions of d if
ferent degrees of both secondary re
inforcement and distribution of
practice.
vi,115p. d iag rs., tables.
Thesis (Ph,D.) - N.Y.U., Graduate
School, 19 51.
Bibliography: p.86-88.
C75302
ShcU Us'
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
LIPRARY 0?
NFf YORK Uiilvn^TTl
UNIVERSITY Ht'iGHI'S
An Experimental Comparison of the Effeots of Partial
and Continuous Reinforcement under Conditions of
Different Degrees of Both Secondary
Reinforcement and Distribution
of Practice
Leonard S. Rubin
Submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements
for the degree of Dootor of Philosophy in the graduate
School of Arts and Science of New York University
n aca_
FaJR .H SI
i i .
ACKNOWLEDGSM0IT
The w riter wishes to express his gratitude to
Prof, H.H. Kendler for his many helpful suggestions
and astute criticism s offered throughout the course
of th is experimental investigation. The w riter is
also indebted to Prof, L.W. Crafts for h is many
critica l comments.
2 o 'M 1 ^
iii
Contents
Page
Introduction 0 0 * » . . . . . . . l
Purpose, ................................29
Experiment I . . . . 51
Statement of Problem •............................................31
Subjects ..................................... • • • • • 3 2
Apparatus.................................... 32
Preliminary Training .......................................37
Procedure in Learning Series.......................38
Procedure in Extinction Series . . . . 41
Description o f Experimental Groups. • .4 1
S ta tistica l A n a ly s is ...............................................43
R esults...............................................................................................47
A c q u isitio n ....................................................................47
Extinction • • • • • • • • • • 5 2
Discussion • • • • ......................................................59
Experiment I I ..................................................• • • • 6 4
Statement of P rob lem ...............................................64
S u b je c ts ................................................................. . 6 7
Apparatus and Preliminary Training, • .6 7
Procedure in Learning Series, . • • . 67
Procedure in Extinction Series • • • • 68
Desoriptiojj of Experimental Groups, . .6 9
S ta tistica l Analysis • • « • • • • 69
iv
Page
R esults.................................................................. . • • • 7 0
Acquisition...............................................................................70
Extinction ..................................................70
Discussion* .................................................................70
General Discussion of Results ..................................... 76
Summary.......................................... . 8 4
B ibliography........................................................................, . 8 6
A ppendix.............................................................................................89
V
Tables
Page
Table ! • • • • • • • ..........................................4
Table II. ............................................................................10
Table I I I ...................................................................................12
Table .................................... 14
Table ...........................................................................................24
Table VT...........................................................................................25
Table V I I ...................................................................................44
Table V I II ...................................................................................46
Table ..........................................................................................48
Table X . . . . . .......................................................55
Table XI...........................................................................................71
Table X I I ...................................................................................73
Table X I II ...................................................................................91
Table X I V ....................................................................................98
Table XV........................................................................................104
Table X V I .................................................................................HO
Table X V II......................................................... .114
Table XVIII.................................................................................115
vi
Figures
Page
Figure I . • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 0
Figure I I .............................................................................................55
Figure III• • • • • • • • • • • • 5 5
Figure III A. • • • • • • • • • • • 5 6
Figure IV.................................................. 49
Figure V , • • • • • ■..................................................51
Figure VI.............................................................................................55
Figure VII ................................................................54
Figure V I I I ......................................................................................72
Figure IX • 92
Figure .............................................................................................95
Figure XI, . • • • 9 4
Figure X I I ......................................................................................95
Figure X I II ....................................................................................105
Figure XIV • • • .................................................... 106
Figure XV...........................................................................................107
Figure ...................................................................................108
Introduction
At on© tin© Watson (23) baliovod that the entire
learning process could be accounted for on the basis of
two principles - frequency and recency. In proposing the
principle of frequency, Watson believed he was getting rid
of the subjectivity implied in Thorndike's concepts of
satisfiers and annoyers. Several experimental objections
were raised againat Watson's omphasis on the principle of
frequency in his theoretical formulation. The experimental
results of Kuo (14), Peterson (17) and Gengerelli (7)»
appeared to invalidate Watson's principle. These studies
indicated that in any adequate description of the learning
prooess the principle of frequency could not supplant some
statement of the principle of effect.
The original statement, of the " law of effect", as
postulated by Thorndike (22!), was in mentalistic formi the
vividness (attention - getting power) of the correct response,
or its satisfyingness, or its pleasurable charaoter was
supposed to explain the selection process in trial « and -
error learning. Following this he attempted to formulate a
more objective position. The most objective contemporary
reinforcement theory is the one proposed by Hull (9)» His
fourth postulate statesi "Whenever an effector activity (r— R)
and a receptor activity(S—~s) occur in close temporal
2
contiguity (sOr), and this aOr ia oloaely and consistently
associated with the diminution of a need (G), there w ill
result an increment to a tendency (sHr) for that afferent
impulse on later occasions to evoke that reaction* The
increments from successive reinforcements summate in a
manner which yields a combined habit strength (sHr) which is
a simple positive growth function of the number of reinforce
ments (N)------
Many experimenters have demonstrated that the strengthening
of conditioned responses is not a simple function of the
number of reinforcements. Reinforcement on a fraction of the
trials may lead to as rapid acquisition of a response as
continual reinforcement and also to a greater resistance to
extinction. These results have seriously challenged the reinforce
ment theory of Hull since one would expect that acquisition
as well as the number of trials to reach extinction would be
positively related to the number of reinforcements.
Pavlov (15) was the first to recognize the importance
of the partial reinforcement procedure. Using one dog, he
applied the conditioned stimulus and followed it with the
presentation of food on alternate trials only* This procedure
produced conditioning by the 20th application, about as quiokly
as was customary with the method of continuous reinforcement. An
early study in partial reinforcement which aroused general
interest was performed by Humphreys (10). In the acquisition
