Differential preference was defined by the frequency with which human Ss make switching responses to produce each of two alternative FR contingencies differing only in cost to payoff contingencies of point reinforcements. It was found that humans preferred (switched to) the alternative with the most favorable cost to payoff contingencies, that is, the one which provided the greatest net gain of points.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AyllonT.AzrinN. H.Punishment as a discriminative stimulus and conditioned reinforcer with humans. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1966, 9, 411–419.
2.
CataniaA. C.Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1963, 6, 299–300.
3.
HerrnsteinR. J.Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1961, 4, 267–272.
4.
PremackD.Reinforcement theory. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1965. Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1965. Pp. 123–188.
5.
WeinerH.Some effects of response cost upon human operant behavior. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1962, 5, 201–208.
6.
WeinerH.Operant programming with transistorized digital elements. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1963, 6, 193–195.
7.
WeinerH.Response cost and fixed-ratio performance. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1964, 7, 70–81. (a).
8.
WeinerH.Response cost effects during extinction following fixed-interval performance in humans. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1964, 7, 333–335. (b).
9.
WeinerH.Preference and switching under ratio contingencies with humans. Psychol. Rep., 1966, 18, 239–246.
10.
WeissmanN. W.Latency, rate and switching behavior of monkeys in components of multiple fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Maryland, 1962.
