Reply to Rachlin’s comment
- 1 June 1979
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Learning & Behavior
- Vol. 7 (2), 269-270
- https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03209284
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comment on Heyman and Luce: “Operant matching is not a logical consequence of maximizing reinforcement rate”Learning & Behavior, 1979
- IS MATCHING COMPATIBLE WITH REINFORCEMENT MAXIMIZATION ON CONCURRENT VARIABLE INTERVAL, VARIABLE RATIO?1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1979
- A MARKOV MODEL DESCRIPTION OF CHANGEOVER PROBABILITIES ON CONCURRENT VARIABLE‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1979
- MATCHING AND CONTRAST ON SEVERAL CONCURRENT TREADLE‐PRESS SCHEDULESJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975
- CHOICE BETWEEN CONCURRENT SCHEDULES1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973
- PERFORMANCE IN CONCURRENT INTERVAL SCHEDULES1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972
- CHOICE, RATE OF REINFORCEMENT, AND THE CHANGEOVER DELAY1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970
- CONCURRENT RESPONDING WITH FIXED RELATIVE RATE OF REINFORCEMENT1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969
- CHOICE AS TIME ALLOCATION1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969