On science and the discriminative law of effect

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 85-92

  Davison, Michael ^a   Nevin, John A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

Discriminative law of effect; Replication

Indexed keywords

EID: 14544302175     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2005.27-04     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Alsop, B., & Elliffe, D. (1988). Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 21-36.
2. Bookman, M. A. (1977). Sensitivity of the homing pigeon to an earth-strength magnetic field. Nature, 267, 340-342.
3. Charman, L., & Davison, M. (1982). On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 417-439.
4. Cooper, D. M. (1972). Discrimination performance by morethan-one subject. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
5. Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339-349.
6. Davison, M., & Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 439-482.
7. Elliffe, D., & Alsop, B. (1996). Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 445-463.
8. Graf, P., Squire, L. R., & Mandler, G. (1984). The information that amnesic patients do not forget. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 164-178.
9. Griffin, D. R. (1987). Foreword to papers on magnetic sensitivity in birds. Animal Learning & Behavior, 15, 108-109.
10. Hartry, A. L., Keith-Lee, P., & Morton, W. D. (1964). Planaria: Memory transfer through cannibalism reexamined. Science, 146, 274-275.
11. Keeton, W. T. (1971). Magnets interfere with pigeon homing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 68, 102-106.
12. Logue, A. W., & Chavarro, A. (1987). Effects on choice of absolute and relative values of reinforcer delay, amount, and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 280-291.
13. McConnell, J. V. (1962). Memory transfer through cannibalism in planarians. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 3, 542-548.
14. McLean, A. P., & Blampied, N. M. (2001). Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: Independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration, journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 25-42.
15. McSweeney, F. K. (1975). Concurrent schedule responding as a function of body weight. Animal Learning & Behavior, 3, 264-270.
16. Mora, C. V., Davison, M., Wild, M. J., & Walker, M. M. (2004). Conditioning analysis of magnetoreception and its mechanism in the homing pigeon (Columba livia). Nature, 432, 508-511.
17. Nevin, J. A. (1984). Quantitative analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 421-434.
18. Verhave, T. (1966). The pigeon as a quality control inspector. American Psychologist, 21, 109-115.