Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):112-113 (2000)
|Abstract||Nevin & Grace's primary argument against theory and research on behavioral momentum is that preference and resistance to change may not covary. The method for evaluating preference and resistance to change seems problematic. Moreover, the theory fails to account convincingly for effects of average overall time to primary reinforcement on choice and preference for unsegmented schedules.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John A. Nevin & Randolph C. Grace (2000). Behavioral Momentum: Empirical, Theoretical, and Metaphorical Issues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):117-125.
Till Grüne-Yanoff, Till Grüne-Yanoff and Sven Ove Hansson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Gryne@Infra.Kth.Se.
K. Geoffrey White & Judy Cameron (2000). Resistance to Change, Contrast, and Intrinsic Motivation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):115-116.
Hernán I. Savastano & Ralph R. Miller (2004). Behavioral Momentum in Pavlovian Conditioning and the Learning/Performance Distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):694-695.
James E. Mazur (2000). Contextual Choice and Other Models of Preference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):108-109.
Ben A. Williams & Matthew C. Bell (2000). The Uncertain Domain of Resistance to Change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):116-117.
John A. Nevin & Randolph C. Grace (2000). Behavioral Momentum and the Law of Effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):73-90.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #201,930 of 549,093 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?