These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? Timberlake W; Lucas GA J Exp Anal Behav; 1985 Nov; 44(3):279-99. PubMed ID: 4086972 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bridging the gap between laboratory and applied research on response-independent schedules. Ingvarsson ET; Fernandez EJ J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jan; 56(1):55-77. PubMed ID: 36440664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons. Cohen SL; Riley DS; Weigle PA J Exp Anal Behav; 1993 Sep; 60(2):255-91. PubMed ID: 8409822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Non-contingent positive and negative reinforcement schedules of superstitious behaviors. Bloom CM; Venard J; Harden M; Seetharaman S Behav Processes; 2007 May; 75(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 17353100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Is superstitious behavior more easily acquired by negative reinforcement schedules than positive reinforcement schedules? Examinations of the polarity and the duration of a consequence]. Hori M; Numata K; Nakajima S Shinrigaku Kenkyu; 2014 Feb; 84(6):625-31. PubMed ID: 24669504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of delay of reinforcement on superstitious inferences. Rudski JM Percept Mot Skills; 2000 Jun; 90(3 Pt 1):1047-58. PubMed ID: 10883796 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. From superstitious behavior to delusional thinking: the role of the hippocampus in misattributions of causality. Brugger P; Dowdy MA; Graves RE Med Hypotheses; 1994 Dec; 43(6):397-402. PubMed ID: 7739412 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effects of ratio and interval schedules on the location variability of pecking responses in pigeons: Application of Bayesian statistical model. Kono M; Tanno T Behav Processes; 2020 Mar; 172():104059. PubMed ID: 31954811 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prisoner's dilemma and the free operant: John Nash, I'd like you to meet Fred Skinner. Keller JV J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Nov; 120(3):320-329. PubMed ID: 37464552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking. Fenner D J Exp Anal Behav; 1980 Jul; 34(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 16812174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of reinforcement history on responding under progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Cohen SL; Pedersen J; Kinney GG; Myers J J Exp Anal Behav; 1994 May; 61(3):375-87. PubMed ID: 8207352 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Magazine approach during a signal for food depends on Pavlovian, not instrumental, conditioning. Harris JA; Andrew BJ; Kwok DW J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2013 Apr; 39(2):107-16. PubMed ID: 23421397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An analysis of coordinated responding of pigeons. Katz BR; Lattal KA J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Mar; 121(2):201-217. PubMed ID: 38172078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Information preferences across species: Pigeons, rats, and dogs. Jackson SM; Lo GK; MacPherson K; Martin GK; Roberts WA Behav Processes; 2020 Jan; 170():104016. PubMed ID: 31785322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Beyond the breakpoint: reinstatement, renewal, and resurgence of ratio-strained behavior. Kincaid SL; Lattal KA J Exp Anal Behav; 2018 May; 109(3):475-491. PubMed ID: 29733434 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]