Abstract
Humans prefer (conditioned) rewards that follow greater effort (Aronson & Mills, 1959). This phenomenon can be interpreted as evidence for cognitive dissonance (or as justification of effort) but may also result from (1) the contrast between the relatively greater effort and the signal for reinforcement or (2) the delay reduction signaled by the conditioned reinforcer. In the present study, we examined the effect of prior force and prior time to produce stimuli associated with equal reinforcement. As expected, pressing with greater force or for a longer time was less preferred than pressing with less force or for a shorter time. However, participants preferred the conditioned reinforcer that followed greater force and more time. Furthermore, participants preferred a long duration with no force requirement over a shorter duration with a high force requirement and, consistent with the contrast account but not with the delay reduction account, they preferred the conditioned stimulus that followed the less preferred, shorter duration, high-force event. Within-trial contrast provides a more parsimonious account than justification of effort, and a more complete account than delay reduction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alessandri, J., Darcheville, J.-C., & Zentall, T. R. (2008). Cognitive dissonance in children: Justification of effort or contrast? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 673–677.
Arantes, J., & Grace, R. C. (2008a). Contrast and value: Beyond the work ethic effect. A reply to Zentall (2008). Learning & Behavior, 36, 26–28.
Arantes, J., & Grace, R. C. (2008b). Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learning & Behavior, 36, 1–11.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.
Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). “Work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 100–106.
Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2002). Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 64–74.
DiGian, K. A., Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Reinforcers that follow a delay have added value for pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 889–895.
Fantino, E., & Abarca, N. (1985). Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 8, 315–330.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Friedrich, A. M., Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement. Learning & Behavior, 33, 337–342.
Friedrich, A. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2004). Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behavioral Processes, 67, 405–415.
Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour, 63, 245–250.
Klein, E. D., Bhatt, R. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2005). Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 335–339.
Lawrence, D. H., & Festinger, L. (1962). Deterrents and reinforcements: The psychology of insufficient reward. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.
Moore, J., & Fantino, E. (1975). Choice and response contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 339–347.
Pompilio, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2005). State-dependent learning and suboptimal choice: When starlings prefer long over short delays to food. Animal Behaviour, 70, 571–578.
Pompilio, L., Kacelnik, A., & Behmer, S. (2006, March 17). Statedependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science, 311, 1613–1615.
Singer, R. A., Berry, L. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2007). Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 275–285.
Singer, R. A., & Zentall, T. R. (2008). Effect of prior effort on reward value in pigeons. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Vasconcelos, M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2008). Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast. Learning & Behavior, 36, 12–18.
Vasconcelos, M., Urcuioli, P. J., & Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2007). Failure to replicate the “work ethic” effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 383–399.
Zentall, T. R. (2008). Within-trial contrast: When you see it and when you don’t. Learning & Behavior, 36, 19–22.
Zentall, T. R., Clement, T. S., Friedrich, A. M., & DiGian, K. A. (2006). Stimuli signaling reward that follow a less-preferred event are themselves preferred: Implications for cognitive dissonance. In E. A. Wasserman & T. R. Zentall (Eds.), Comparative cognition: Experimental explorations of animal intelligence (pp. 651–667). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zentall, T. R., & Singer, R. A. (2007). Within-trial contrast: Pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than less aversive event. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 131–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alessandri, J., Darcheville, JC., Delevoye-Turrell, Y. et al. Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay. Learning & Behavior 36, 352–358 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.4.352
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.4.352