Literature DB >> 12017966

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules.

Matthew C Bell1, Ben A Williams.   

Abstract

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which separate concurrent schedules were presented in the two components of the schedule. During one component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 80-sec schedules operated. In the second component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 20-sec schedules operated. After stable baseline performance was obtained in both components, extinction probe choice tests were presented to assess preference between the variable-interval 40-sec schedules from the two components. The variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 80-sec schedule was preferred over the variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 20-sec schedule. The subjects were also exposed to several resistance-to-change manipulations: (1) prefeeding prior to the experimental session, (2) a free-food schedule added to timeout periods separating components, and (3) extinction. The results indicated that preference and resistance to change do not necessarily covary.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12017966     DOI: 10.3758/bf03192907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Learn Behav        ISSN: 0090-4996


  23 in total

1.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.

Authors:  M FLESHLER; H S HOFFMAN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1962-10       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  On the law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies.

Authors:  A McLean; J Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Inverse relations between preference and contrast.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules.

Authors:  P Killeen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Transfer tests of stimulus value in concurrent chains.

Authors:  R Grace; H Savastano
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior?

Authors:  J A Nevin; L D Smith; J Roberts
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Pavlovian contingencies and resistance to change in a multiple schedule.

Authors:  M Bell
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Kinetics of matching.

Authors:  T A Mark; C R Gallistel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1994-01

10.  The role of probability of reinforcement in models of choice.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  3 in total

1.  Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Resistance to extinction and relapse in combined stimulus contexts.

Authors:  Christopher A Podlesnik; John Y H Bai; Douglas Elliffe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Differential reinforcement and resistance to change of divided-attention performance.

Authors:  Christopher A Podlesnik; Eric Thrailkill; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.986

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.