Preference after training with differential changeover delays

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 45-56

  Williams, Ben A ^a   Bell, Matthew C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Changeover delay; Choice; Concurrent schedule; Key peck; Pigeons

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008920899     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-45     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baum, W. M. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 387-403.
2. Belke, T. W. (1992). Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 401-406.
3. Findley, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123-144.
4. Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529-530.
5. Gibbon, J. (1995). Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 208-215.
6. Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., Fairhurst, S., & Kacelnik, A. (1988). Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychological Review, 95, 102-114.
7. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
8. Herrnstein, R. J., & Vaughan, W. (1980). Melioration and behavioral allocation. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior (pp. 143-176). New York: Academic Press.
9. Mark, T. A., & Gallistel, C.R. (1994). Kinetics of matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 79-95.
10. Myerson, J., & Miezin, F. M. (1980). The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis. Psychological Review, 87, 60-174.
11. Rachlin, H., Battalio, R., Kagel, J., & Green, L. (1981). Maximization theory in behavioral psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371-388.
12. Shimp, C. P. (1966). Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 433-455.
13. Shull, R. L., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 517-527.
14. Silberberg, A., Hamilton, B., Ziriax, J. M., & Casey, J. (1978). The structure of choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 368-398.
15. Williams, B. A. (1988). Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 167-244). New York: Wiley.
16. Williams, B. A. (1993). Molar versus local reinforcement probability as determinants of stimulus value. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 163-172.
17. Williams, B. A., & Bell, M. C. (1996). Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 513-526.
18. Williams, B. A., & Royalty, P. (1989). A test of the melioration theory of matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 99-113.
19. Zentall, T. R., Weaver, J. E., & Sherburne, L. M. (1996). Value transfer in concurrent-schedule discriminations by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 24, 401-109.