Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Herrnstein, D. Loveland (1974)
Hunger and contrast in a multiple schedule.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 21 3
W. Baum (1972)
Choice in a continuous procedurePsychonomic Science, 28
G. Reynolds (1963)
On some determinants of choice in pigeons.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 6
R. Shull, S. Pliskoff (1967)
Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 10 6
R. Herrnstein (1961)
Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 4
E. Fantino, N. Squires, Nicola Delbrück, Christa Peterson (1972)
Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 18 1
P. Killeen (1972)
The matching law.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 17 3
C. Shimp, K. Wheatley (1971)
Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 15 2
J. Findley (1958)
Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1 2
W. Baum, H. Rachlin, H. Rachlin (1969)
Choice as time allocation.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 12 6
A. Brownstein, S. Pliskoff (1968)
Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 11 6
Peter Killeen (1972)
A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 18 1
D. Stubbs, S. Pliskoff (1969)
Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 12 6
V. Hollard, M. Davison (1971)
Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 16 3
S. Stevens (1957)
On the psychophysical law.Psychological review, 64 3
(1968)
MULTIPLE SCHEDULES: EFFECTS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENTS BETWEEN COMPONENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BETWEEN COMPONENTS1
R. Herrnstein (1970)
On the law of effect.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 13 2
Staddon Staddon (1968)
Spaced responding and choice: a preliminary analysisJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11
William Baum (1973)
Time allocation and negative reinforcement.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 20 3
J. Todorov (1972)
Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 17 1
Charles LaBounty, G. Reynolds (1973)
An analysis of response and time matching to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 19 1
(1968)
Rates and patterns of responding with concurrent fixed - interval and variable - interval reinforcement
A. Trevett, M. Davison, R. Williams (1972)
Performance in concurrent interval schedules.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 17 3
(1968)
A re-examination of performance
H. Rachlin (1971)
On the tautology of the matching law.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 15 2
Data on choice generally conform closely to an equation of the form: log(B1/B2) = a log(r1/r2) + log k, where B1 and B2 are the frequencies of responding at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the obtained reinforcement from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and k are empirical constants. When a and k equal one, this equation is equivalent to the matching relation: B1/B2 = r1/r2. Two types of deviation from matching can occur with this formulation: a and k not equal to one. In some experiments, a systematically falls short of one. This deviation is undermatching. The reasons for undermatching are obscure at present. Some evidence suggests, however, that factors favoring discrimination also favor matching. Matching (a = 1) may represent the norm in choice when discrimination is maximal. When k differs from one, its magnitude indicates the degree of bias in choice. The generalized matching law predicts that bias should take this form (adding a constant proportion of responding to the favored alternative). Data from a variety of experiments indicate that it generally does.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 1974
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.