| Abstract: | Although the Associative Learner (AL) theory advocated by C. P. Shimp et al (see record 1990-21730-001) can simulate several features of human and nonhuman performance in free-operant situations, it fails to account for many of the findings that are theoretically most powerful. It underestimates the sensitivity of behavior to relative reinforcement rate and totally omits any role for incentive variables such as amount and delay of reinforcement. At present, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to serve as an adequate alternative to R. J. Herrnstein's (see PA, Vol 44:10034; see also 1961) matching theory as a general account of behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
