Abstract
Behavior under baseline conditions in which the contingency is absent can shed some light on the individual's performance under a schedule, but is insufficient as a basis for prediction of performance. This insufficiency of the baseline data runs counter to a recent formalization of the relational principle of reinforcement (Donahoe, 1977). A more satisfactory predictive model must incorporate not only the baseline level of the instrumental response and that of the contingent response, but also the schedule requirements, the character of each response in relation to the other, and the behavior required in simply switching from each to the other.
Keywords: reinforcement, Premack's principle, conservation, response deprivation, matching, facilitation, suppression
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Allison J. Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression, and conservation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Mar;25(2):185–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Donahoe J. W. Some implications of a relational principle of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Mar;27(2):341–350. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberger R., Karpman M., Trattner J. What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation? J Exp Psychol. 1967 Jul;74(3):342–350. doi: 10.1037/h0024719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]