San Fernando Valley State College
A t.hesi.s subMitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Richard Duerr
August~
~ccreary
-
1967
The thesis of Richard Duerr McCreary is approved:
San PerMn.do V$lley State College
August, 1967
ii
Pag~
..
•
..
...
...
...... ..
•
•
•
INTRODUCTION
.
METHOD •
RESULTS,.
.
DISC'USSION ..
.
BiaLIOGRAPmt •
..
..
iv
.
1
14
18
.. . .....
.
.
.
36
.
.
., •
43
.
iii
h.9'e
Table l!t Sunnnart Table for Olt'iginal Lea:tning- Trials.
22
Table 2 .. Summary Table for orig-inal Learning Errors ..
23
Table 3. Sw.maary Table for Mver ,al :teaming Trials ..
24
Table for Reversal Leaminq Errors ..
25
Table 4.
SwnrMu~y
Table S .. Su1mnary Table for Ratio Errors/Trials
nurin9
~blGl
~eversal
Learning
7 .. Suro:nary ?:table for First. 'trial Revex-sal
aesponses.
20
Table S .. SUl'ftlllaX'Y Table for Proportion of Errors on
Pteve.rsed Pa ira.
Figure 1..
ViiJure 2..
Fi.qure 3..
Figure 4..
Mean Number of Trials to Reversal
Leamin9', All Groups
30
Trial by Trial Errors DurinCJ Reversal
Learning, One Pair aeversetL
31
Trial by Trial Brt:O)tii .Du;;:ing Reversal
Learning, Three Pairs Reversed.
32
Trial by Trial Errors Durinq Reversal
L~rning,
P iqure 5.
Pi9ure 6w
29
Four Pairs Raver•ea.
33
TX: ial by Trial Br~ors Du:rin9 Reversal
L$&:rning. Six Pair$ Reversed..
34
Propo~tion of Errors Made on P~versed
Pairs..
35
iv
Richard Duerr McCreary
Master of Arts in Psychology
Bight.y
!•
were presented with a stimulus panel con-
'taining four buttons arranged in a diamond :pattern.
of the buttons were li9ht.ed at a time and
!.•
Two
were required
to learn, through trial and error, to ·push the correct
button for each of the six combinations..
rect button caused it
·tQ
flash WXR.
Pushing the oor...
upon reaching criter-
One, three, four, or six of
pairs were reversed and §.a were required to leam the
was created for half the Is.
the
llGW task.
The
rt~~m~dning
§.e were given overtraining, oon-
I
sistinq of an addi:t.ional 49 stimulus presentations, prior
to reversal leaminq.
OVertrtlt!ni\OlJ facilitated reversal
1eaming for all levels of number of pairs reversed..
f$ffect was significant beyond the .. 01 le,el.
v
'fbi$
Difficulty
of reversal learning showed a curvilinear relationship
t.o t.he number of pairs rev•u:sed. with the greatest dif•
ficulty
ocour~inq
wh•n 3 or 4 pairs were rever$ed.
There
was no significant int.e:r:aotd.on. effect. between the two
variables ..
Of the five t.heontical int$tpretat.iotul of the over...
training efff!Jat. that.
we~u~·e
evaluated, four were clearly
shown to be inaonaistent with the results of this study.
'lhe interpret.atiell of Jtetid (1953) and Pubols (1956), that
the organism learns a •response of d:lsoriainat.ing" during
overtraining, while consistent with the obtained
resulU~t
' was not totally endorsed.. because of a lack of predictive
possibilities for this experim.ent.
/
vi
This paper is an investigation of the effoet of two
ber of it.eu reversed in a learned set..
Little expa.rimen-
tat.ion has been e:onduoted on the second of these variables ·
interest is in the first variable, and discriminating- alllOnq
the various theoretical interpretations of its effect.
on a discrimination task facilitates reveraal learning.
trials to one sttmulus, in a dichotomous task, facilitates
Most of the research in the area of response reversal
single dichotomous choice.
Reid (1953) trained three
trained to respon4 to the opposite color, while the other
groups were
giv~
so and 1$0 trials of overtraining prior
1
t~ials
reached criterion on the reversal task soon•r than
ei:tbel:' of the other two tgroupa# althouth initially they
responded to t.b.e
incor~at.
choice for a lon;et: period.
:Reid su.g-qests that. the overtrained rat$ have a greater
•opportunity to extintuish irrelevant. aues..
In other words.
the nt. learns a "response of d!seriminat.inq .. "
Pt.lbols • (1956) intAu!pretation of the overtraininq
effect is essentially the same as that o£ Reid.
confi.rmed Reid's :findinqa in
two
He further
expe:c-iment.s with tats in
which he ineluded a cont.r¢1 for position preferences prior
to original learning.
Be fountl no ed..qnifieant effect due
to position p:tefcn:·enee If but did demon&trate the facilitat-
ing effect of overtraining on bQtb a brightness and a
spatial diaoriminat.iotl task. ..
fhe extat of a '*respons• of duorilatnating" was
investigated by Mac1d.nt.osh (1962) •
blaek-white discrilftination
ove:rt.:raining..
It
~·
t.~utk.
!lata were trainea on a
with varying degrees of
found that overtrainin9 facilitated
. reversal. butt :retar4e4 learning otl a subsequent. horizontalvenieal disc:rtmination t.as'k..
Alt.hoU*Jh Mackintosh
eon<::lu~.
that the rats t.berefore do not. leam a general •response of:
discriminating", this el(periment does support the inter.pretation that t-he rats lum a specific "response of diseriminatil\g .. "
That is,. during ov-.rtrainint'. the rats
learn to respond to tbe ei911ifieant. set of stimuli.
lt is
not dlear whether or not Reid considers the "response of
diseriminetin9"
~o
be $p&eifia or general.
An ppe:riment. similar to that of Mackintosh. aonduqt.ed by Brookshi~, lfarren and Ball (1961) also found
that overtraining :J:acilitat.ed reversal within a parti4ular
$tixmllus dilunsion. but had no effect on subsequent
learning in a different dimension.
This also indicates
that i:f an aaquil:'4!ld "response of diseriminatinq» a.oeotm.ts
for the facilitatint effect of overtraining on reversal.
it. is specific to the part.iCillar d:i.mension learned.
usinq
kinde~gart.en
(1966) also investigated
and second....trade children, Eimas
t~be
intradimensional •nd extra-
di.wms ional effects of overtraining.
Be found that. over-
t..rainin9 fa<:ilitated. J:ev.arsal for both intradittle:uaional
and
learntnq, although the facilitating
eKtradi~sional
eff•ct was .significantly 9reat:.er foll" the intradimenaional
fJr.he d.i..mensione u.sed wel:'• color and fol'm.
task.
retllults indi<:at.e t.hat. in children
crt:n:.inating"
9~eral
aoqui~d.
~
'Rl'utult~
•response of dis-
during· overtraining mi9ht be more
than euah a ptocess in rats.
:tn anQt.her eltpe:ri•nt. with children., Golin ().964)
found aqe t.o
'J:)$
t.mining effeot..
a siqnificamt. vru:iable
on
ret~furding
the
ov~u:­
a vi•ual 4isari•inatd.on tartk., chilcb:en
3-1/2 to 4 showed increased difficulty of reversal learning with increased amounts of overtraining.
However, with
children 4-1/2 to 5 overtraining facilitated reversal.
Some mediating response sueh as •'observin9 ••
1 the
relevant
stimulus dimension (Zeaman and House, 1963), or the verbal
labeling interpretation offered by Kandler and Kendler
(1962) were considered in the interpretation of the re-
sults.
While these interpretations may prove to have the
greatest explanatory value, the present study is not designed to discriminate among those theories proposing
higher mediational processes.
As a consequence, the inter-
pretation of Reid will be used to represent this type
of explanation.
In another investigation of intradimensional-extradimensional reversal learninq, Tighe (1964) trained two
groups of monkeys to respond to one dimension of a two
dimensional task.
Half of eaoh group was then trained to
respond to the other dimensi.on prior to reversal learning
and half trained to reverse the original dimension before
learning the second dimension.
In both groups the seaond
dimension was learned more rapidly than the reversal.
There was no overtraining on the reversed dimension, however.
These results indicate that reversal learning is
more difficult than original discrimination when no over-
5
training is
used~
A demonstration of the
facilitatin~
effect of over-
training on a more complex task was reported.
Mandler, O'Dowd, and Wallach (1958).
by
Bruner,
Rats were required
to learn a pattern of left-right-left-right- or riqht-
left-right-left on a 4 unit
T~aze.
TWo groups of rats
were given 2 levels of overtraining prior to reversal.
The other factor investigated was drive level.
Half of
the rats in each group were deprived of food for 12 or 36
hours.
~over-training
facilitated reversal in the low;
but not in the high drive group.
The authors suggest that
the overtrained rats learn a ''principle .. which can be applied in a new situation.
Another interpretation of the overtraining reversal
effect is offered by Capaldi and Stevenson
(1957)~
They
point out that during overtraining the org-anism is receiving- continuous reinforcement. to the positive stimulus.
This schedule of continuous reinforcement makes nonrein-
foraement to the previously positive stimulus more discriminable.
When reversal learninq is initiated, the over-
trained organism will extinguish the old response faster
than an organism which has been trained to criterion and
not experienced the continuous reinforcement.
The over-
training reversal effect is essentially a function of the
6
extinction of the old responses.
Their interpretation
results from experiments, using rats on a visual discrimination task.
A
sL~ilar
interpretation is offered by North and
·Stimmel (1960) and Birch, Ison and Sperling (1960).
They
suggest that during overtraining the increased number of
rewards builds up stronger rG's to the positive stimulus.
upon reversal, the overtrained organism experiences greater
frustration which leads to faster learning..
Essentially
this interpretation also suggests that the overtraining
effect is a function of extinction of the old response.
However, the suggestion that frustration is the mechanism
for facilitating extinction makes their interpretation
somewhat different from that of Capaldi and Stevenson
(1957).
Birch et al (1960) used a different procedure
from other investigators however, for original, as well as
re"ersal learning-.
Rats were rewarded for running to a
white platform and not rewarded for running to a black
platform.
present.
platforms..
on each trial,only one of the platforms was
Criterion was relative running speed to the two
They found a significant difference in favor
•of the overtrained rats in reaching the criterion during
reversal lel!u:ning.
North and Stimmel (1960) offer the
same interpretation for the f@l:at that overtraining facili-
1
tat.$4 extinction il\ a straight. alley.
!fl.ae. veu:iouf!l explanations, offeJ:ed
iJO
far, for t.be
appau:ent.ly facilitating offec:t of ovtJuttrainint on reversal
. 1ea:tning arfil eimilar ill tlu\t. they r•late t.b.e phenomenon
· to fa•t.•r extinction of the old re•ponse.
A aompl$te1y
· different ty~ o;f explanati<>n is offered by n•J\mato and
Jagoda
(1~61).
'l'hey SU9fGSt. organi&N
ne~lly
explore
their enviJt:"onment and make a variety of reapon••••
furtmu:
•utJ~••t
. than what to
which
th~
t.bat organism$ lettt-11 what to avoid. ratll.$r
ln the overtrainint; situation, in
Sf;ualt.
orgamillfm is mald.nt
. only correet responses, avoid..,;
· anae tendellci•• to tb.e nonrew<utded stimu.l! are
Thus
lfbey
wh~u~ rev~rsal
learning is
uitiat~,
redu~ed ..
the overtlt8ined
organism is mer• likely t.o respond to a pJ:"eviously non~ewarded
stimulus.
tbre• groups of
'.to t.ut tbis hypotllesis t.hey tra:Lnecl
ra.u
to orit:.erion Oll a briqbtn.ess dis-
ortnlination maae t.1utk.
The
aont.~ol
group was then required
to learn t.he revers• of the previous d:Lserim:i.nation.
two
e)Cper~nt.al
trainit:v~iJ 1
reet
The
groups were given 200 trials of over-
ltowever.. one group was foNed to choose the cot...
$t:il~lus
on 40 of the overt:rainiaq trial.s* while the
other troup received 40 forced choice trial• eo th•
inat.ntreet std.mulus.
\"he fotct:Jd oho1c::•-oorrect. iJroup
leamed the
fast.ot, While t.he
revert~al
for~ed
choic•-
ineorroet. s;roup was the slowest of the three.
'!the authors
conclude that the 40 for<:Eh1 choice-incorrect trials in-
creased tbe avoidance tendenei•st previously mentioned,
thus retarding reversal
l~~aa%'ning- ..
t.rbe final inter:pret.at.ion of t.be: overtraining
reve~:sa1
effeQt, to be dontd.i!ered, is offered by Hill, spear
Clayton (1961).
a~·ui
'fhey •u.qgemt that durint overt:.:raininq,
stimulus satiation is built up to thEt correct. cues and
th~y
are avoidetl as soon as possible.
Four groups of
rats were qiv•n tU.fferet trainitlq proc•dure• in a '!-maze
prior to rewrsal learning-.
'!he control qroup was rever-
sed upon raaehint;; O!!'i:t.eri'On while the other three g-roups
received some type of overtraining.
one qroup Qs giv$n
standard :free-c:hoic:e ovett:r:aininq consisting of 102 trials.
The second
e~ril:'Mm.tal
trials all
for~ed-ehoice
last group
wa~,;
group was giv&n 102 overtraininq
t;Tiven 204
to the
cor~eet
oven~ining
side, while the
trials, foreed-
choic:te to both the correct. and .incorrect. side.
tati~
Jio faoili-
effect du• to any of the ovartraintn, proc$dures
was found.
In fact, t-eversal, leaX1liag wa somewhat ;re-
tarded by the free overtrainint an4 treatly retarded
by
the fo:r:aed-cboice overtraining when half the trials were
to eaeh side.
This is one of the few &xpet"iments whi.eb
fail.~ ·t.o
confirm t:.be overtraining' $f!tttc't; however,
ht.us
the~
\rt$re so•
othet' studieta.
si~ion
proeed:u~a.l
tfhe
!.•
d!ffcu:$Jloes .,.We6n t.bla and
w•~:e
tiven a :fix•d nlUllbex- of acqu!-
as well aa rev-er•al tr!ala. rat-her t.l1an trained to
a criterion.
Also. the ccDtrol <;froup was given an equal
amotmt of handlinf prior to revertJal, alt.hou9h this in-
volv.ad no overt.r:ain.ittg.
t.hcd.~
~·
authors fu¥ther
su~est tha~
simple dlsari-.intttion taak mi.g'ht. be too easy to
&monatrate the overtraining effet:tt....
Xa any event., they
conclude that. ttbe rank order of th<t t.bree o'Vertrained
~:r:oupra
ia <=Or.t.ltistont vith th4tir hypothesis of stimulus
•atie.tion.
The second variab:te tto be considered in this study
is t.hat of the number of items
~evened
in ,._ learned set.
J.teversal learninq may be considered a special ease of
titans :fer u-.inift9.
G~me~ally,
poad.tive t.ranefe11.' is a
funotL>:n of si:nt!larit.y boween whalt baa been learned &'nd
what is bein9
l•a~ned.
fJhe trCJateJ: the taimilarit.y* 'hhe
ifl\'aat.•r th• pos:lt.tve t.ransfe.-# or "t.roaetive facilitation.;
JX'io:r: l•mtng tnt:•rferin<J with 'nGW leam1nt is al.•o a
functd.on of t.he
tion.s.
s1•ila~ity
bet.ween t.be two
lea~ing
sit:r.ua-
Ret.ttos..stive inb.Ud.tiol\ Uiczrease• as the similarity
between the t.wo leat"ninlf situtttione increases.
(1927) hypotbesi•ed. a
aunili~ar
similarity and facilitation to
l.ob.i.nson
relationship bt:et.ween
&a4~t.
for the apparent.
10
states tnat. t;b$
t.:h~ $!~i.la~it.y
(1953)
ftu::·t.:~r-
ftu:- tt'aininq.
f~tut.
ts ()f a
poSJitive transfer will. occur When
~i~
or minimttm degree.
speoified the variable• involved in transBe sug;ef:Jted t.hat positt'Ve Uanltfer will
items lNIVeraed in the lea:rne<l set..
1
OS~ood
'their e:scperiment ia
unique in that it permits a •a•u~ct of d~r<te of reve,rsal
in t'he t'•vel:'ilal task.
~ey
Pl'Nltstmted
!..•
with a panel of
six lf.9bt.llt ¢reatinq .fiftt. . poasible pail!S of light$,. §.s
wel!te !"Qquired to l,eam the co"GQt; li9'ht for each
The
pr~sent.tU:iGJn
of "*a'h of the fifteen pai.t's# in randall\
order; was considered one
$om$
~ir ..
trial~.
l.J'P,on reaching a:rit.et:iOJh
portion of the leatlled eet. was revel"sed,.
I
f
I
It waG foun4\
11
in the middle range of the number of items reversed.
Re ....
versal learning was fastest and approximately equal for
the groups receiving 20% and 100% reversed items and most
difficult when 60% of the items were reversed ..
It is the purpose of the present experiment to
partially replicate the investigation of Wortz and McTee.
Further, this methodology provides a way of studying the
overtraining reversal phenomenon and possibly discriminating among the theoretical interpretations which have been
used to account for it.
An attempt
was made to apply a variety of mathemati-
cal learning models to the present experiment.
These in-
cluded the ••equal-alpha" and "identity-operator•• models,
as well as an original model used by Galanter and Bush
(1959) in an analysis of a response reversal experiment.
Also considered was Restles (1955) discrimination theory,
a Markov model proposed by Bower and Theios (1963) and a
model used by Theios (1965) in an avoid.a.nce reversal
experiment.
Each was rejected for one of the following
reasons:
1.
The basic model could not be applied to
reversal learning.
2.
The sequential data analysis used to estimate
the parameters of the model cannot be applied in
12
eituat.ion•
whe~e
a trial consd.sts of more than.
a single diohot<::mtO\Ul choice.
3..
The model wa-ut used to account for a:vc:d.dance
1Garning, (:reati:t19 a method of param•ter
t~usti­
mation tlhich was inappropriate for this desiifl ..
Bowev~r~
t.he met'hod of data analysis ut.iliaed by
tha&JI!l models did lead to t.eabn.iques for disoriminatin9
among the theoretical
effeet..
int~rpretations
of the
ov~rtraining
Five of these interpr$tationa" whioh are now
su.arized, will be evaluated in the ptflS(ll:nt experiment ..
(a) Retd (1953) and Pubols (1956) sug-gest that. durb19 over•
training an incretuJed •reSJ?Onse of
acquired..
cU.scrim:Lnatin~*'
is
(b) Capaldi and Stevenson (1957) attribute the
effect to the faat. that oont.inuous x-einforoement. as oceuxs
durin<;~
ottertraining. leads to faster Qtinotion.
(a) It
is suggested that. overtraining build$ up strong-En: rG •s to
th~
positive stimulus by lforth and
airah, Ison, and
Spe~ling
(1960).
St.~l
(1960) and
Upon reversal there is
graater "frustration" (:&.using g-reater disruption of the
task,. hflomt:te
fatllt~r l~~rnincJJ-
(d) 'fhe uplanation offered
by :O'Amato and Ja9o<'ia (1961) is that. during> overtraining
only aorrect. response$ are being made and avoidance tend•n<d..es to the nnnrerwarded stimuli are r•duoed.
Spear; and Claytf>n (1951)
•~;gest
(o) Hill.
that durillg overtraining
13
stimulus satiation is built. up to the aorreet cues and
trained to
cri~ion
.reversal lealmin<J.
were feur aubgroups..
and half given
ove~:r:a:J.nin9
th~
prior to
Within eaoh !iJf these conditions there
A
diff~ntEmt.
proportion of the itenW
14
,,W>l•at.'!.
-
The $$ were 30 student• fi"Ocnt the un4ergAduate
ptly·~
AE.J1f~t'a tu.~
The stimulu$ pan_.l eonsisted of four buttons arr&n'lJed
in a diurond pattern
approximat~ly
4 ins .. !'.lqua:re..
Baoh
lS
-
'fhe B'a panel was on the opposite aide of the atilml·
-
lua panel aueh that it could not be eeen by the S.
It con-
a is ted of six buttons, each eontrolling the presentation of
one of the pairs of liqhts, and aix svitehea, each deter-
mining the eorreet button for one of the peirs..
('!hia
-
equipment was built, and loan•d to the B by Dr. B.
c.
Wo:rta
of the oarret.t. AiR.eaearch Manufacturing eo .. )
!here was a separate tally sheet for each
!
oontatn-
inq the randomized order of the presentation of the pairs
of lights.
Procedure
-
'!be Sa were trained individually ud the average
aeaaion took approximately 15 nainutea.
in front of the atimul'd>parutl, each
!
After being seated
waa given the fol-
-
(B
points.)
-
Two of them will coM on at a time like this.
(B activates one of the pairs.)
~.
You are to push one of
Xf you choose the correct one. it will flash WlB
1 ike this.
(!. pushes t.he conect button which
Then reactivates the pair.)
lir:~hts
If you choose the incorrect
ahuta off both lights.)
one, nothing happens.
up.
(B puahee the other button which
Por every pair, there ia one
button that ia alwaya correct, and one that ia always
16
incorrect.
Now you push the correct button for that pair.
(E activates the pair again.
button, E says "Thats right."
If the
~pushes
the correct
If the §..pushes the incor-
rect button, the explanation is given again.)
Your task
is to learn the correct button for every one of the pairs.
Do you have any questions?"
Training on the ori9inal learning task was then
started.
one presentation of all of the six pairs of
lights was considered one trial.
Within each trial the
six pairs were presented randomly to prevent
~s
from learn-
ing a sequence of responses, rather than learning the
correct responses to the individual pairs.
The correct
choice for each pair of lights was the same for all
during original learning.
~s
Two of the buttons were correct
once and two were correct twice.
The criterion for learn-
ing the original task was considered two consecutive
errorless trials.
upon reaching criterion, some of the
previously correct choices were reversed for half of the
~s.
The other
to reversal.
~s
received 8 trials of overtraining prior
For the reversal learning task, 1, 3, 4# or
all 6 of the previously correct choices were reversed,
thus creating a 2 by 4 factorial design with 10
ly assigned to each of the groups.
~s
random-
17
18
Results
In order to establish that no differences existed
between groups prior to reversal learninq, two meaaurea
were
eubjecte~1.
to statistieal analysis.
An analysis
of
variance was performed on the number of trials to original
learning.
As shown in 'J.'able l, there was no significant
difference between the groupe.
A similar analysis was
performed on the number of errors made during original
learning (Table 2), and again no significant difference
was found.
An analysis of variance, overtraining by number of
pairs reversed (R'PR), was performed on the number of trials
to reversal learning ('l'able 3) and on the n\'U.llber of errors
during reversal learning
(~able
4).
As can be seen from
the tablea, both overtrainin9 and llPR. were aiqnifieant
beyond the .01 level for triala to reversal learning and.
errors durinq reversal learning.
J!fo siqnifieant inter··
action effect between the two variables was present on
either of the two measures.
Fiqure 1 shows
~hat
over-
trainin9 facilitated reversal learning for all levels of
RPR.
It can also be seen in Piqure 1 that the effect of
RPR appears somewhat curvilinear, with the peak difficulty
in reversal learninq occurrinq when four cf the pairs were
reveraed.
Since there was no aiqnifieant interaction
\
\,
19
effect between overtraining and
&a. the criterion and
overtrailled qzooupa were combined for each level of liPtt and
a test for trends perfoZ'!Iled on the means.
Both the 1 inear
and quadratic trends were ai9nifieant beyond the .01
level (Linear, P• 8.358* dfa 1.72 Quadratic, P=24.700,
df • 1,72).
The linear trend accounted for 23.1% of the
variance and the quadratic trend for 68.3% of the variance.
The ratio errors/trials was computed for eaah
analysis of variance, overtraining by HPR,
(~able
!· An
5)
showed that BPR significantly (.01 level) effected this
The qroupa that learned the reversal task fastest
ratio..
had the lowest ratio of errors to trials.
However#' the
overtraining effect did not meet the required level of
significance on this measure.
Pi1JUrea 2 through S show the trial by trial errors
for the criterion and overtrained groups for each level
of DR.
lt has already been shown that the difference in
number of trials to reversal learninq for theee groups is
significant.
~o
demonstrate that tbe learning curves
differ, an analysis of variance, overtraining by HPR, vas
performed on the errors made on the first trial.
over-
training bad no significant effect on this measure, as
abown. in Table 6.
Si:nee there waa no significant dif-
ference between the criterion and overtrained groups for
20
the initial errors made during reversal learning, yet the
overtrained groups learned the reversal in fewer trials,
it can be stated that the learning curves for the two
groups do differ.
As a test of the hypothesis that overtraining increases the probability of a reversal response when the
task is changed, an analysis of variance was performed on
the number of reversal responses made on the first trial
of reversal learning.
As shown in 'table 7, overtraining
had no significant effect on the number of initial
reversal responses made.
The effect of overtraining on the type of errors
made during reversal learning was the final measure to be
considered.
The proportion of errors made on reversed
pairs was computed for each
(~able
~·
Analysis of variance
8) showed that the overtraining effect was not sig-
nificant.
As could be expected, increasing the number of
reversed pairs did effect this proportion (.01 level).
Group means for the proportion of errors made on
pairs were graph$d and are shown in Figure 6.
reve~sed
The pro-
portions for the two conditions are almost identical for
levels 3 and 4 of NPR.
The greater proportion of reversed
item errors made by the overtrained group when one pair
was reversed is attributed to the fact that too few errors
21
were made by this group to get a reliable proportion.
22
TABLE 1
Analysis of Variance Summary Table For
Humber of Trials to Original Learning
(Raw data normalized
by
logrithmio transformation)
m
Source
H.
Groups
.011
7
.002
Within
4.310
72
.060
Total
4.321
79
~
r..
.. 033
23
Analysis of variance Summary Table for Number of Errors
Made During original Learning
(Raw data normalized by logarithmic transformation)
...
Sourge
u.
Groups
.018
7
.. 003
Within
5.374
72
.. 073
Total
5 .. 392
79
!U.
r..
.. 041
25
TABLE 4
Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Number of Errors
Made Durinq Reversal Learninq
(Raw data
normali~ed
by
loqarithmic transformation)
•
Source
u..
a
Number of Pairs Reversed.
5.827
3
1 .. 942
10 .. 972**
Overtraining
1.431
1
1.431
a.oas••
.271
3
.093
Within
12.179
72
.177
Total
20 .. 308
79
Interaction
**significant .01 level
..L
.525
26
'l'ABLE 5
Analysis of variance SUll.Ullit.;y Table for the Ratio of
Errors/Trials for Reversal Learning
..
soyret
u.
9.[
Number of Pairs Reversed
7.043
3
2.348
overtraining
.680
1
.680
3.176
InteJ:action
.. 262
3
.087
.406
Within
15.437
72
.214
Total
23.422
79
**significant .01 level
....l.
10.971**
27
-fABLE 6
Analysis of variance Summary Table for Number of Errors
Made on First Trial of Reversal Lea%ninq
§OY,!i'O!
§.§..
!U.
•
-F
Number of Pairs Reversed 39.738
3
overtraining
.. 003
1
.003
ns
2.237
3
.. 746
.577
92.999
72
1.292
134.888
79
Interaction
Within
Total
**siqnificant. .01 level
13 .. 246
10 .. 252**
28
TABLE 7
Analysis of variance Summary Table for NUmber of Reversal
Responses Made on First Trial of Reversal
§O!l£C!
....u.
~
Number of Pairs Reversed
46.600
3
overtraining
.200
l
Learnin~
Hi.
l$.533
.094
1 .. 244
3
2 .. 633
Within
152.300
72
2.115
Total
207
79
**siqnificant. .. 01 level
7 .. 344**
.200
7.900
Interaction
..L
29
j\
TABLE 8
Analysis of variance Summary Table for the
Propor~ion
of Errors Made on Reversed Pairs During Reversal Learning
sours!
a
M
Number of Pairs Reversed
.630
2
overtraining
.. 022
Interaction
•
..1:.
.. 315
5 .. 833**
l
.022
.310
.141
2
.. 071
1.315
Within
2.913
54
.054
Total
3.706
59
**significant .01 level
30
20
en
__.
<X: 15
0::
ILL
0
0:: 10
w
m
~·
:::>
z
~5
w
/
/
.-.. CRITERION TRAINED
/
/
o- -o OVERTRAINED
r/
:E
3
4
6
NUMBER OF PAIRS REVERSED
· "FIG. I MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO REVERSAL
LEARNING FOR ALL GROUPS."
31
40
. 30
25
(/)
0::
0 20
0::
0::
w
15
-
10
CRITERION TRAINED
OVERTRAINED
5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TRIALS
"FIG. 2. TRIAL BY TRIAL ERRORS- I REVERSED."
32
35
30
25
(/)
0:::
0 20
0::
0::·
w
10
CRITERION TRAINED
.. -- OVERTRAINED
5
. 5
10
15
20 .
25
30
35
TRIALS
"FIG. 3. TRIAL BY TRIAL ERRORS- 3 REVERSED."
\
33
40
. :30
25
(f)
0::
0 20
0::
0::
LLI
15
10
CRITERION TRAINED
.. -.. OVERTRAINED
5
5
10
15
20
25
:30
35
TRIALS
"FIG. 4. TRIAL BY TRIAL ERRORS- 4 REVERSED."
40
35
30
25
(/)
0:::
0 20
0::
0::
LLI
15
-
10
CRITERION TRAINED
OVERTRAINED
5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TRIALS
"FIG. 5
TRIAL BY TRIAL ERRORS- 6 REVERSED."
35
en
a::
-
1.0
0
.9
~
w
(/)
a::
w
>
w
a::
·I
(f)
a::
.8
.7
.6
o.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0
a::
a::
w
.5
. LL.
A
0
z
0
. - . CRITERION TRAINED
.3
1-
a---o
a:: .2
OVERTRAINED
0
a..
0
a::
a..
.l
0~----~--------------------~--~-I
3
4
NUMBER OF PAIRS REVERSED
11
FIG. 6. PROPORTION OF ERRORS MADE ON
REVERSED PAIRS BY CRITERION AND OVERTRAINED
GROUPS FOR I, 3, OR 4 PAIRS REVERSED."
An
attempt to discriminate amon9 the various t.heoret-
ical interpret.at.iona of the overtraining reversal effeat
study o:n the difficulty of reversal learning (Wortre and
Ma7.'ee 1965) ..
The resuli!s show that overtraining faoilita-
with lower animals or children..
t'bis study demonstrates
-
the phenomenon on a relatively eomplex task using adult Ss
sults of this experiment.
They will be reviewed and
evalu~
at.ed in the order previously presented.
aeiiPs ().953) and Pubols' (1956.) increased "response
training effect and the faat tbat this effect. was manifeust.ed at all level& of DR..
5) shows that all
fo~nee
g-roup~t
If overt.rainin9 increases
continued to improve their per-
in • relativeJ.y monotonic fashion. but the
37
curves for the overtrained 9toups are obviously steeper ..
This would also be expected from their interpretation.
on
the other hand, an inarea.sed •response of
dis~~
criminatingn is a eo:mparat.ively vaque donoept for explain,·
inq the overtraining
phenQmeno~.
tt
does little
~~re
than
state that. overtraining leads to faster reversal learning ..
Bxt.radimensional studies i.ndieate that this increased
ability is specific to the
dit~nsion
used in training,
yet. it is difficult to test auc'M a general oonaept within
a single dimension..
While this interpretation is consis-
tent with the rettrults. aaoept.anoe of it, as a sufficient
expl.anatory conce-pt is not. antirely endorsed..
said that this
e~pariment
It could be
failed tP disprove the interpre-'
tation for a laek of predictive possibilities that could
be t.ested in the present study ..
If
~onti~uous
reinforeem«nt
durin~
overtraining
leads to fasur •xtinetion upon reversal, as suq9e$t.ed by
Capaldi and Stevenson
(1~57);
the effect should be more
apparent a.s more: of the .,.irs are reversed..
lnareasing
the proport!Qn of responses to be extin'Juished should increase the overt.raininq effect., if extinction is the ori··'·
tical factor.
That is, when all of the pairs are reve:t$ed
the differenee
be~een
should be tbe qreatest.
criterion and overtrain$d groups
The failure to find interaction
i
38
tion alone does not. account for the phenomenon..
Further~
reversed group, tbe error$ occurred on the reversed pain
in
appr~.':Jltimately th~
ov~rtrainin9
Etame proportion as the number of pairs
did no.t lead to an increase in
thE~
proportion
i
i
of errors made on reveraed pairs (Table
a.).
1.'he explana-i
1
tion that reversal lt:bcu:ning is a funat.ion of e)tti:nction and
1
This is the explanation ..;)ffered by Borth and Stintmel (1 ~60)
and Birch, taon and Sperling (HJ60)..
In addition, the
39
on the reversal task, there should be some type of interaction between overtraininq and NPR.
No such interaction
was found for either trials to reversal or errors durinq
reversal.
~erefore,
this tnterpretation is also consider-
ed inadequate.
D'Amato and Jagoda (1961) suggest that avoidance
tendencies
to the incorrect
ovel:traininq..
should make
st~li
are reduced during
If this is the case, the overtrained g-roups
~ore
reversal responses when the task is
changed since they are less likely to avoid the previously
incorrect. reepo:nse.
There
wa$
no significant difference
between criterion and overtrained groups on this measure,
as shown in Table 7.
Further, if the aritet: ion trained
group bas greater avoidance tendencies to the chan9ed
pairs, then the difference between the groups
greater as more of the pairs are changed.
~~Jbould
be
That is, the
overtraining effect should increase as the NPR is increased.
The failure to find an interaction between the two variables aqain appears inconsistent with this interpretation.
However, in this experiment, the explanation offered
by n•Amato and. 3agoda may be
may
viewed differently.
be regarded as one button, rather than
A stimulu.
a pair of button•·
: lf a stin\ulu• is viewed in this manner, however, original
40
learning could not be a matter of developing avoidance
tendencies since each button is correct at least once.
:'l'be avoidance tendencies, sugg-ested by D'Amato and Jagoda,
cannot then be used to account for the observed overtraininq effect.
However a sttmulus is viewed, this explanation
fails to account for the results.
The final interpretation to be considered is that of
Hill, Spear and Clayton (1961).
According to their view,
stimulus satiation is built up to the correct cues during
overtraining and they are avoided as soon as possible ..
,This suggests that the overtrained groups should make more
initial reversal responses since they will
:to avoid the old responses.
was not the oase.
b$
more likely
As shown in Table 7, this
ln addition, the overtraining effect
should increase as the number of reversed pairs is inereas-
ed.
Increasing the proportion of cues that can be cor-
:rectly avoided increases the opportun.ities for the effect
to be manifested.
As mentioned before, this suggested
interaction was not present.
The previously considered
!alternative, of viewinq eaeh button, rather than each pair
i
[as
a stimulus,. makes it tmpossible to avoid previously
I
correct c:mes since all buttons are correct at least once.
1
:In either case, this explanation is unable to account for
41
the results of this experiment. and stimulus satiation is
apparently not the critical mechanism.
The four interpretations of the overtraining effect
;that were considered inconsistent with the obtained re:sults, all suggest some mechanism related to the process
of overtraining itself..
The possibility that the apparent.
effect of overtraining is not due to the overtraining
itself is now considered.
All overtrained groups were given post criterion
training consisting of 48 stimulus presentations.
additional experience in the training situation
This
alone~
may
be responsible for the effect attributed to the overtraining on the original task.
The suggestion by Reid and Pubols, that a "response
of discriminatingt•, acquired during overtraininq, does not
seem to be necessarily related to overtraintng, but only
this is the meaning of the authors.
One method for testinq the .. experience" hypothesis,
\<!OUld
'
be to train S$ on suacesaive reversal tasks without
overtraining.
I
On a complex task, such as that used in the
present experiment, each successive reversal should be
learned more rapidly, if experience is the critical
varia~le.
42
Another possibility would be to vary the number of
fixed original learning trials for different groups and
reversing the task before criterion was reached.
In this
way ; there would be no overtraining, but the groups would
have differd.r.ng amounts of experience.
43
Bibliography
Birch, D., Ison, J.R., & Sperling, S.E. Reversal learning
·
under single stimulus presentation. J: txP• Psycbol.,
1960 t 601 36-40 •
:arookshire, K.. H., Warren, J .. M., & Ball, G.G. Reversal and
transfer learning following overtraining in rat and
chicken. J. comp. Physiol. Psychol.t 1961,
54, 98-102 ..
Bruner, J.S., Mandler, J.M., o•Dowd, D., & Wallach, M.A.
The role of overlearning and drive level in reversal
learning. J .. gomp. Rbxsiol. Psycho!., 1958, 51,
607-613.
Capaldi, E.J. Stevenson, H.W. Response reversal following
different amounts of overtraining. J. comp. phystol.
Psvchol., 1957, 50, 195-198.
D 1 Amato, M.R. & Jagoda, H. Analysis of the role of overlearning in discrimination reversal.. J. elq~. Psychol._,
1961, 61, 45-50.
Eimas, P.D. Effects of overtraining and age on intradLmensional and extradtmensional shifts in children.
J. exp. child Psycho!., 1966, 3, 348-355.
Galanter, E., & Bush, R.R .. Some'!' maze experiments. In R.R ..
Bush and W.K. Estes (Eds.) §tud~es in mathematical
learning., Stanford: Stanford university Press,
1959, 265-289.
Galin,
E.s. Reversal learning and conditional discrimination in children~ J. come •• Rh~siol. Psychol., 1964,
58 (3), 441-445.
~randage, A. Orthogonal coefficients for unequal intervals.
Biomet~ics.,
1958, 14, 287-289.
~ill, W.F.1 Spear, N.E. & Clayton, K.N. T maze reversal
learning after several different overtraining
procedures. J. ex.e. Psy:chol .._, 1962, 64, 533-540 ..
44
.K:erl(.U.er # a.s. I & lt$ndler I 1' .s. Vertiaal and horizontal
process•• in probl•m $olvinq. ~sx;cho,~.. ,rev., 1962,
69, l-16 ..
Macltintosh, N.J .. The effects of overt.rainillif Oll a
reversal and nonrevenal ehift. J. e~;e,r ,Psi~:;:hpl, .. ,
1961, 62, 200-202.
No_rth, A.J., & Stimmel., D.. '!. Extinction of am instrumental
rfnilponse followinl a lar<J• numbt:u:- of l:~dnfoJ:oements.
Psx:a,ho);, ,re2.., 1960, 6, 227-234 ..
.
.
Osgood, C .l!l ... M.,et.hod and t,llfO;f;t in ,e]'24t~i-~tal l:tax;oholoii·
&ew York .. oxford Pre$&, l~Sl. ·
·
Paul,
c .. llffe~ts Qf 0Vtarl•amin'" upon tsinqle habit. :reversal in t'ata. J.. trlXP. Psycnol .. , 1965, 6'J, 6S-7 2.
Pubols, :a .. a., Jr.., '.t'he facilitation of visual and tlpatial.l.
disari¥ain$tion reve.r!lal by overlearning. ~·· (,!OrAE•
l?,Pxsi·~l.
>?sz<,tho:t.., 1'356, 49, 243-249.
Reid, L.S .. The development of noncollt.i.nuit.y behavior
t.hrouqh Qont.inuity learning .. J. fiXP,•, Psxohol .. ,
1953, 46, 107-112.
R~stle,
-
th~ory
l.95S~ 62,
F .. , A
rev.-,
.
of. di&!O):imination
l~~u:ning. ~sx;oh9~ ..
ll-1!1 ..
Robinson, E .. S .. '.Ph$ similarity factor in retxoaat:lot'h
1Uta\i,r., j .. ,J?e;xchol-•• 1927, 39, 297-312.
1'heiik)S, J. 'th~ ta.at:'hemat.ical structure of reversal. lea:rnill..,
in -. shock··esea,p:e tf·ma~h1U ovfu:t.%'ainin9' and •ucoessiv.r$vereal$.. J -:,, math. ~s;tahol,.. l S'!h 2, 26-S2 ..
Tighe, T 4 J
ff·
R~versal
and
no~reversal
shift in monk$ys ..
J. COttl2• !hlf.!e>l,• P$%9h9~·• 1~&4, 58 (2), 324•326.
Winer, 8 .. 3.
-~~ti1Sr~;t.e-,l. !rinp~J!les i~ exeri.nta~
desil!•
McGraw-'Bill, 1.962 ..
Wort.z, a.c .. & McTEH~* A. . c. s~·R :relation$hip• and transfer
of t.rauinq .. J. l!!•:t.~holH 1965, 60, 277-262.
4$
Zeaman,
l),.
#
tardat.~
& :HouaH~t, B10J,. The role r>f attention in re-
discrimination..
:tn
N~a
.
Ellis (Bd .. )
amdbook .<:rf ll'lental ,defici.enox, 1963, New Yorkt
McGraw-Bill, 159·~223.