Literature DB >> 16812271

On the analysis of studies of choice.

E Mullins, C C Agunwamba, A J Donohoe.   

Abstract

In a review of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice, Baum (1979) concluded that whereas undermatching was most commonly observed for responses, the time measure generally conformed to the matching relation. A reexamination of the evidence presented by Baum concludes that undermatching is the most commonly observed finding for both measures. Use of the coefficient of determination by both Baum (1979) and de Villiers (1977) for assessing when matching occurs is criticized on statistical grounds. An alternative to the loss-in-predictability criterion used by Baum (1979) is proposed. This alternative statistic has a simple operational meaning and is related to the usual F-ratio test. It can therefore be used as a formal test of the hypothesis that matching occurs. Baum (1979) also suggests that slope values of between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. It is argued that the establishment of a fixed interval as a criterion for determining when matching occurs, is inappropriate. A confidence interval based on the data from any given experiment is suggested as a more useful method of assessment.

Year:  1982        PMID: 16812271      PMCID: PMC1333145          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  2 in total

1.  Time allocation and negative reinforcement.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1973-11       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 2.468

  2 in total
  8 in total

1.  Matching theory in natural human environments.

Authors:  J J McDowell
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  1988

2.  Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers.

Authors:  D Elliffe; B Alsop
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules.

Authors:  R Taylor; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law.

Authors:  J H Wearden
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules.

Authors:  F K McSweeney; C L Melville; M A Buck; J E Whipple
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules.

Authors:  A P McLean; K G White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Matching, statistics, and common sense.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Matching since Baum (1979).

Authors:  J H Wearden; I S Burgess
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 2.468

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.