Testing the linearity and independence assumptions of the generalized matching law for reinforcer magnitude: A residual meta-analysis

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 64-70

  Cording, Jacinta R ^a   McLean, Anthony P ^a   Grace, Randolph C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Concurrent schedules; Generalized matching law; Key peck; Pigeons; Reinforcer magnitude; Reinforcer rate; Residual meta analysis

Indexed keywords

BIRD; DATA SET; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; LINEARITY; MAGNITUDE; META-ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; REINFORCEMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTIVATION; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

COLUMBA;

EID: 79954977770     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alsop B., Elliffe D. Concurrent-schedule performance: effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1988, 49:21-36.
2. Baum W.M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1974, 22:231-242.
3. Baum W.M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1979, 32:269-281.
4. Baum W.M., Rachlin H.C. Choice as time allocation. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969, 12:861-874.
5. Baum W.M., Schwendiman J.W., Bell K.E. Choice, contingency discrimination and foraging theory. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1999, 71:355-373.
6. Berg M.E., Grace R.C. Independence of terminal-link entry rate and immediacy in concurrent chains. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2004, 82:235-251.
7. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S.G., Aiken L.S. Applied Multipleregression/correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 3rd ed.
8. Davison M. Concurrent schedules: interaction of reinforcer frequency and duration. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1988, 49:339-349.
9. Davison M., Hogsden I. Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance: fixed versus mixed reinforcer durations. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1984, 41:169-182.
10. Davison M., Jenkins P.E. Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1985, 13:77-84.
11. Davison M., Jones B.M. A quantitative analysis of extreme choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1995, 64:147-162.
12. Davison M., McCarthy D. The Matching Law: A research Review 1988, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
13. Dunn R.M. Choice, relative reinforcer duration, and the changeover ratio. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1982, 38:313-319.
14. Elliffe D., Alsop B. Concurrent choice: effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1996, 65:445-463.
15. Elliffe D., Davison M., Landon J. Relative reinforcer rates and magnitudes do not control concurrent choice independently. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2008, 90:169-185.
16. Grace, R.C., Hucks, A.D. The allocation of operant behaviour, in: Madden, G.J., Dube, W.V., Hanley, G.P., Hackenberg, T., Lattal, K.A. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis. Washington DC. American Psychological Association (in press).
17. Keller J.V., Gollub L.R. Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1977, 28:145-153.
18. Landon J., Davison M., Elliffe D. Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2003, 79:351-365.
19. Logue A.W., Chavarro A. Effect on choice of absolute and relative values of reinforcer delay, amount, and frequency. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process 1987, 13:280-291.
20. McLean A.P., Blampied N.M. Sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2001, 75:25-42.
21. Mattson K.M., Hucks A.D., Grace R.C., McLean A.P. Signaled and unsignaled terminal links in concurrent chains. I. Effects of reinforcer probability and immediacy. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2010, 94:327-352.
22. Parker S., Casey J., Ziriax J.M., Silberberg A. Random monotone data fit simple algebraic models: correlation is not confirmation. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 104:417-423.
23. Schneider J.W. Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performance. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1973, 20:461-471.
24. Stubbs D.A., Pliskoff S.S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1969, 12:887-895.
25. Sutton N.P., Grace R.C., McLean A.P., Baum W.M. Comparing the generalized matching law and contingency discriminability model as accounts of concurrent schedule performance using residual meta-analysis. Behav. Processes 2008, 78:224-230.
26. Todorov J.C. Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1973, 19:451-458.
27. Todorov J.C., Hanna E.S., Bittencourt de Sa M.C.N. Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: new data with a different procedure. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1984, 41:157-167.
28. Williams B.A. Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. Steven's Handbook of Experimental Psychology 1988, vol. 2:167-244. Wiley, New York. 2nd ed.
29. Williams B.A. Conditioned reinforcement: experimental and theoretical issues. Behav. Anal. 1994, 17:261-285.