scholarly journals Timing with opportunity cost: Concurrent schedules of reinforcement improve peak timing

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Sanabria ◽  
Eric A. Thrailkill ◽  
Peter R. Killeen
Keyword(s):  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Concurrent Schedules ◽  
Schedules Of Reinforcement ◽  
Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement

Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement as “Challenges” to Maintenance

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie M. Peterson ◽  
Jessica E. Frieder ◽  
Shawn P. Quigley ◽  
Kathryn M. Kestner ◽  
Manish Goyal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Schedules ◽  
Schedules Of Reinforcement ◽  
Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement

Effect of central 5-hydroxytryptamine depletion on changeover behaviour in concurrent schedules of reinforcement

1999 ◽  
Vol 144 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. S. A. Al-Ruwaitea ◽  
T.-J. Chiang ◽  
M.-Y. Ho ◽  
C. M. Bradshaw ◽  
E. Szabadi
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Schedules ◽  
Schedules Of Reinforcement ◽  
Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement

Establishing Preference for Unreliable Reinforcement in Adults with Dual Diagnoses

2003 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-174
Author(s):  
Ruth Anne Rehfeldt ◽  
Lisette Randich
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Disabilities ◽  
Concurrent Schedules ◽  
Schedules Of Reinforcement ◽  
Dually Diagnosed ◽  
Response Option ◽  
Delay To Reinforcement ◽  
Dual Diagnoses ◽  
Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement

We evaluated the choice responding of three adults dually diagnosed with developmental and psychiatric disabilities using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Specifically, participants were given a choice between a response option resulting in reliable reinforcement and a response option resulting in unreliable reinforcement. Our primary purpose was to shift preference from reliable to unreliable reinforcement via the systematic presentation of stimuli during delay intervals. A second purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of intervening stimuli in shifting preference at differing delay-to-reinforcement intervals. Preference for unreliable reinforcement was first examined in the absence of stimulus presentations during delays, at three different delay values. Next, we aimed to establish preference for unreliable reinforcement by presenting pictures of reinforcers during delays preceding unreliable reinforcement. Preference was again examined at three different delay values. In the absence of stimulus presentations during delays, participants were shown to prefer reliable reinforcement, particularly at the longer delay value. When stimuli were presented during the delays, two of the three participants preferred unreliable reinforcement, particularly the longer the delay value. These results suggest that the presentation of intervening stimuli during delays may help facilitate tolerance for unreliable reinforcement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document