Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:47:11.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What behavers do

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Michael D. Zeiler
Michael D. Zeiler
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 39322. Psymdz@unix.cc.emory.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is schedule theory necessary? Or is Killeen (1994a) explaining clever laboratory contrivances that have no necessary relevance to understanding the role of behavior in life? We still await a psychological correspondence principle that can establish a sound basis for this elegant and essentially biological theory of reinforcement schedules.

Type
Continuing Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 19 , Special Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 549 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolles, R. C. (1994) The response problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 135–136. [MDZ]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killeen, Peter R. (1994a) Mathematical principles of reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 105–172. [PRK, MDZ]Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1950) Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review 57: 193–216. [PRK]Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1969) Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [PRK]Google Scholar
Timberlake, W. (1994) Animal-centered models of reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 153–154. [MDZ]Google Scholar