scholarly journals Reinforcement schedule preference of a raccoon (Procyon lotor)

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen D. King ◽  
Robert W. Schaeffer ◽  
Stephen C. Pierson
Author(s):  
Kurt Brauer ◽  
Max Holzer ◽  
Gert Br�ckner ◽  
Liisa Tremere ◽  
Douglas D. Rasmusson ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 124 (3217) ◽  
pp. 367-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. HERRNSTEIN ◽  
W. H. MORSE

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 4535-4541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kinga Leśniańska ◽  
Agnieszka Perec-Matysiak ◽  
Joanna Hildebrand ◽  
Katarzyna Buńkowska-Gawlik ◽  
Agnieszka Piróg ◽  
...  

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Wade ◽  
Wayne I. Anderson ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kidder

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin M. Leung ◽  
Glen D. Jensen ◽  
Richard P. Tapley

2 groups of 60 rats received either 75 or 285 runs in a runway before being given a choice between freeloading from a dish of pellets in the start box or running the maze for a single pellet. The 285-trial Ss showed less willingness to perform the operant than the 75-trial Ss. This is opposite to what Jensen (1963) had found in the Skinner box. Schedule of reinforcement (100 vs 50%) during training did not significantly affect freeloading scores.


1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1196-1198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Calef ◽  
Richard A. Kaufman ◽  
Ronald N. Bone ◽  
Steven A. Werk

The present experiment investigated the effects of noncontingent nonreinforcement as the aversive event in a CER paradigm. The results showed a significant response-facilitation effect during early training, but none during later training with a high rate-producing, high-density reinforcement schedule. The present results imply that a low rate-producing, high-density reinforcement schedule is not a necessary condition for response facilitation.


2010 ◽  
Vol 166 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kapil ◽  
G. Rezabek ◽  
B. Germany ◽  
L. Johnston

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document