scholarly journals Drive level and cue utilization in spontaneous alternation

1967 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Franken ◽  
J. Garry Baker
Keyword(s):  
Spontaneous Alternation ◽  
Drive Level ◽  
Cue Utilization

Incidental Cue Utilization as a Function of its Incentive-Produced Validity under Two Levels of Water Deprivation

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 527-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome S. Cohen ◽  
Brian Burtt ◽  
Robert Gates
Keyword(s):  
Water Deprivation ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Drive Level ◽  
Cue Utilization ◽  
Attention Model ◽  
Incentive Value ◽  
Better Than

Moderately (18 hr.) water-deprived rats were able to utilize an incidental cue of floor-texture following learning of brightness of a goal door better than highly water-deprived (23.5 hr.) animals only when water and sucrose liquids were paired with attributes of the new cue. These findings along with results from three subsidiary experiments indicate that drive level influences utilization of incidental cues by determining the differential incentive value of rewards predicted by attributes of those cues. This formulation is contrary to the drive level-focus of attention model of Tolman (1948) and Easter-brook (1959).

scholarly journals The effects of drive level on cues utilized in spontaneous alternation

1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 239-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Franken ◽  
J. Garry Baker
Keyword(s):  
Spontaneous Alternation ◽  
Drive Level

Cue utilization and drive level in albino rats.

1971 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabor A. Telegdy ◽  
Jerome S. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Drive Level ◽  
Albino Rats ◽  
Cue Utilization

Cue utilization in a numerical prediction task

1974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lichtenstein ◽  
Timothy C. Earle ◽  
Paul Slovic
Keyword(s):  
Numerical Prediction ◽  
Cue Utilization ◽  
Prediction Task

Spontaneous Alternation in the Cockroach

1973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Monyok Wilson ◽  
Harry Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Spontaneous Alternation

A Comparative Analysis of Investor and Auditor Materiality Judgments

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Todd DeZoort ◽  
Travis P. Holt ◽  
Jonathan D. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Policy Capturing ◽  
Cue Utilization ◽  
Critical Domain ◽  
Extant Literature

SUMMARY Materiality remains a challenging concept for auditors to implement in practice. The challenges underlying auditor materiality assessments are compounded by the fact that courts, regulation, and professional standards emphasize that materiality should be based on a “reasonable investor” perspective. Despite the investor orientation and ambiguous nature of the “reasonable investor” criterion, the extant literature lacks empirical evidence about investor materiality judgments and decision-making. To address this problem, we model sophisticated and unsophisticated investors' materiality judgments in a policy-capturing study and compare them to experienced auditors charged with assessing materiality from an investor perspective. The results indicate significant differences in materiality judgments, judgment consensus, and cue utilization among the three participant groups. We conclude the paper with discussion of the study's implications, highlighting that the overall results suggest the need for further consideration of ways to help auditors meet standards and expectations in this critical domain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document