Schedules of reinforcement as determinants of human causality judgments and response rates

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 187-195

  Reed, Phil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; REACTION TIME; REINFORCEMENT; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; REACTION TIME; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0035407597     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.27.3.187     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
2. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
3. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlational-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 137-153.
4. Baxter, G. A., & Schlinger, H. (1990). Performance of children under a multiple random-ratio random-interval schedule of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 263-271.
5. Cheng, P. W., & Hollyoak, K. J. (1995). Adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In J.-A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271-302). Cambridge: MIT Press.
6. Cheng, P. W., & Novik, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
7. Cole, M. R. (1994). Response rate differences in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules: An old problem revisited. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 441-451.
8. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
9. Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
10. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137-147.
11. Lea, S. E. G. (1979). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: Optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour, 27, 875-886.
12. Mathews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Unstructured human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 453-467.
13. Morse, W. H. (1966). Intermittent reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 52-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14. Morse, W. H., & Kelleher, R. T. (1970). Schedules as fundamental determinants of behavior. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 139-185). New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
15. Peele, D. B., Casey, J., & Silberberg, A. (1984). Primacy of interresponsetime reinforcement in accounting for rates under variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 149-167.
16. Reed, P. (1989). Influence of interresponse time reinforcement on signalled-reward effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 224-231.
17. Reed, P. (1992). Effect of local context of responding on human causal judgments. Memory and Cognition, 20, 573-579.
18. Reed, P. (1993). Effect of schedule of outcome presentation on human judgments of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 327-345.
19. Reed, P. (1994). Influence of the cost of responding on human causality judgments. Memory and Cognition, 22, 243-248.
20. Reed, P. (1999). Effect of perceived cost on judgments regarding the efficacy of investment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 657-676.
21. Reed, P. (in press). Human response rates and causality judgments on schedules of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation.
22. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In H. A. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning: II. Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton.
23. Shanks, D. R. (1995). Is human learning rational? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 257-279.
24. Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 353-360.
25. Shanks, D. R., & St-John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367-447.
26. Wasserman, E. A., & Neunaber, D. J. (1986). College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15-35.
27. Wearden, J. H., & Clark, R. B. (1988). Interresponse time reinforcement and behavior under aperiodic reinforcement schedules: A case study using computer modelling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 200-211.
28. Zeiler, M. D. (1977). Schedules of reinforcement. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), A handbook of operant behavior (pp. 201-232). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29. Zuriff, G. E. (1970). A comparison of variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 269-274.