Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 261-272

  McDevitt, Margaret A ^a   Williams, Ben A ^b  

^a MCDANIEL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Arousal; Changeover behavior; Concurrent schedules; Key peck; Pigeons; Preference; Reinforcer duration

Indexed keywords

EID: 2642563444     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-261     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Belke, T. W. (1992). Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 401-406.
2. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. 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.
4. Findley, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123-144.
5. Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529-530.
6. Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.
7. Gibbon, J. (1995). Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 208-215.
8. Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., Fairhurst, S., & Kacelnik, A. (1988). Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychological Review, 95, 102-114.
9. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
10. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
11. Killeen, P. (1975). On the temporal control of behavior. Psychological Review, 82, 89-115.
12. Killeen, P. R. (1985). Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 407-417.
13. Mark, T. A., & Gallistel, C. R. (1994). Kinetics of matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 79-95.
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. McLean, A. P., & White, K. G. (1983). Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 405-426.
16. Myerson, J., & Miezin, F. M. (1980). The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis. Psychological Review, 87, 160-174.
17. 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.
18. Williams, B. A., & Bell, M. C. (1999). Preference after training with differential changeover delays. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 45-55.
19. Williams, B. A., & Royalty, P. (1989). A test of the melioration theory of matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 99-113.