Frustration effect following correlated nonreinforcement.

1968 ◽  
Vol 78 (3, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 396-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. Logan
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

Incomplete reduction of reward and the frustration effect with hunger constant.

1969 ◽  
Vol 80 (3, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 493-497
Author(s):  
Lawrence A. Hall ◽  
John N. Marr
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

A frustration effect with adult humans?

1979 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeral R. Williams ◽  
Stanley C. Geison
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Adult Humans

Magnitude of Frustration Effect and Strength of Antedating Goal Factors

1961 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abram Amsel ◽  
Claire B. Ernhart ◽  
Charles R. Galbrecht
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Jury Sentencing Recommendations Using Procedural Justice Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni Ribeiro ◽  
Emma Antrobus
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Perceptions Of Fairness ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is critical for the system to function effectively. Two studies investigated the impact of jury sentencing recommendations on public confidence using procedural justice theory. The first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury involvement in sentencing (voice present versus voice absent) and the punitiveness of the minimum non-parole period (more punitive versus less punitive) to examine whether giving juries a “voice”—a key element of procedural justice—would increase public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Contrary to predictions, results revealed that a more punitive sentence led to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which was associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge’s agreement with the jury’s recommendation—as well as the Judge’s reason for disagreement—would elicit the “frustration effect,” leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Results of both studies could suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not effectively increase public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the courts, however alternate explanations are discussed.

Reexamining the frustration effect in rats: Aftereffects of surprising reinforcement and nonreinforcement

2003 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven C Stout ◽  
Robert L Boughner ◽  
Mauricio R Papini
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

scholarly journals The relative effects of nonreward and response thwarting on the frustration effect

1968 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Di Lollo ◽  
R. C. Davidson ◽  
G. R. Hammond ◽  
R. J. Donovan
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

The frustration effect as a function of training magnitude: Within- and between-Ss designs

1969 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 261-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. McHose ◽  
James R. Gavelek
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect

Effects of Consistent to Partial Reinforcement or Partial Reinforcement in the Amsel Frustration Effect

1978 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 529-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T. Goomas
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Partial Reinforcement

In a “double alley” study the intensity of the frustration effect was dependent upon the prior development of fractional anticipatory goal responses in the first alley. A group maintained on 50% reinforcement in Goal Box 1 showed the frustration effect with run speeds, then with goal speeds in the second alley.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document