scholarly journals The frustration effect as a function of interoceptive and exteroceptive cues in a Skinner box analogue of the double runway

1970 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Cole ◽  
Frederick M. Van Fleet
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Double Runway ◽  
Skinner Box

Frustration Effect as a Function of Drive

1964 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. McHose ◽  
H. Wayne Ludvigson
Keyword(s):  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Female Rats ◽  
Double Runway ◽  
Post Shift ◽  
Group Weights

27 female rats received 96 acquisition and 16 post-shift trials in an L-shaped double runway. In acquisition food was present both in the first (G1) and the second (G2) goal boxes, but was omitted from G1 on half the post-shift trials. The usual frustration effect (FE), in which response speeds in the second alley are faster following absence as compared with presence of reward in G1, appeared in each of 2 drive (D) groups. However, the magnitude of the FE was greater in the high D group (weights maintained at 80% of initial ad lib. level) than in the low D group (weights at 90%).

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

“Freeloading” in a Runway as a Function of Amount of Training and Type of Reinforcement Schedule

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin M. Leung ◽  
Glen D. Jensen ◽  
Richard P. Tapley
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Schedule Of Reinforcement ◽  
Single Pellet ◽  
Skinner Box

2 groups of 60 rats received either 75 or 285 runs in a runway before being given a choice between freeloading from a dish of pellets in the start box or running the maze for a single pellet. The 285-trial Ss showed less willingness to perform the operant than the 75-trial Ss. This is opposite to what Jensen (1963) had found in the Skinner box. Schedule of reinforcement (100 vs 50%) during training did not significantly affect freeloading scores.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document