In search of the neurobiological underpinnings of the differential outcomes effect

2001 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Savage
Keyword(s):  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect

Attentuation of the differential outcomes effect by extraneous reward

2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 7-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Geoffrey White ◽  
Jessica Grace Millar
Keyword(s):  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect

Are positive and negative reinforcement “different”? Insights from a free-operant differential outcomes effect

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Magoon ◽  
Thomas S. Critchfield ◽  
Dustin Merrill ◽  
M. Christopher Newland ◽  
W. Joel Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Negative Reinforcement ◽  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Free Operant ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect

Differential Outcomes Effect in Children and Adults With Down Syndrome

2003 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angeles F. Estévez ◽  
Luis J. Fuentes ◽  
J. Bruce Overmier ◽  
Carmen González
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect

The differential outcomes effect in children with autism

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica McCormack ◽  
Angela Arnold-Saritepe ◽  
Douglas Elliffe
Keyword(s):  
Children With Autism ◽  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect

Improving conditional discrimination learning and memory in five-year-old children: Differential outcomes effect using different types of reinforcement

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 1617-1630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourdes Martínez ◽  
Angeles F. Estévez ◽  
Luis J. Fuentes ◽  
J. Bruce Overmier
Keyword(s):  
Learning And Memory ◽  
Correct Choice ◽  
Training Procedure ◽  
Incorrect Choice ◽  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Differential Outcomes Procedure ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Differential Outcomes Effect ◽  
Gain Loss ◽  
Better Than

Previous studies have demonstrated that discriminative learning is facilitated when a particular outcome is associated with each relation to be learned. When this training procedure is applied (the differential outcomes procedure; DOP), learning is faster and better than when the typical common outcomes procedure or nondifferential outcomes (NDO) is used. Our primary purpose in the two experiments reported here was to assess the potential advantage of DOP in 5-year-old children using three different strategies of reinforcement in which (a) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice (“ + ”), (b) children lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (“ − ”), or (c) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice and lost one following an incorrect choice (“ + / − ”). In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effects of the presence of DOP and different types of reinforcement on learning and memory of a symbolic delayed matching-to-sample task using secondary and primary reinforcers. Experiment 2 was similar to the previous one except that only primary reinforcers were used. The results from these experiments indicated that, in general, children learned the task faster and showed higher performance and persistence of learning whenever differential outcomes were arranged independent of whether it was differential gain, loss, or combinations. A novel finding was that they performed the task better when they lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (type of training “ − ”) in both experiments. A further novel finding was that the advantage of the DOP over the nondifferential outcomes training increased in a retention test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document