CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 220 of the 220 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review of Theory and Research on the Assumptions of Miller'S Response Competition (Conflict) Models: Response Gradients

Heilizer, Fred·1977·The Journal of General Psychology
DOI 10.1080/00221309.1977.9918503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This is a review of published theory and research on the assumptions that underlie Miller's conflict models. Operational distinctions are made between single-goal and multiple-goal conditions and, within the latter, the spatial, temporal, and stimulus dimensions. Major operational divergences in research outcomes are single- vs. multiple-goal conditions and strength-of-pull vs. other measures. Support for Miller's postulate system is equivocal, with considerable support available for several alternate postulates. A preferred interpretation is that response gradients can assume any degree of steepness or generality as a function of several manipulation and selection conditions. One manipulation variable, time before testing, produces flatter gradients which simulate unpracticed time-course effects. A major unfinished research area deals with the summation hypothesis or, more generally, specification of principles of combination for response gradients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00221309.1977.9918503

Cites

220 of 220 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Cross D. V., 1965, Stimulus Generalization
  2. Elder S. T., 1972, Abst. Guide XXth Internat. Cong. Psychol, 499
  3. Hearst E., 1965, Stimulus Generalization
  4. Hoffman H. S., 1965, Stimulus Generalization
  5. Hoffman H. S., 1969, Punishment and Aversive Behavior
  6. Jeffrey W. E., 1962, Child Devel, 33, 865
  7. Kalish H. I., 1969, Learning: Processes
  8. Kelman H. C., 1962, Personality Research
  9. McAllister D. E., 1967, J. Exper. Res. Personal, 2, 180
  10. Miller N. E., 1959, Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 2. General Systematic Formulations, Learning, and Special Processes
  11. Schneirla T. C., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 7
  12. 10.2307/1126329 · DOI
  13. 10.2307/1126793 · DOI
  14. Tempone V. J., 1966, Child Devel, 37, 687
  15. 10.2307/1125906 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 28

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heilizer, F.
Affiliations
DePaul University (US)
Corresponding author
Heilizer, Fred
Venue
The Journal of General Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1977-07
Volume
97
Issue
1
Pages
17-71
ISSN
  • 0022-1309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0888
DOI
10.1080/00221309.1977.9918503
OpenAlex
W1972345507
Cited by
28
References
220
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of General Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
response competition, stimulus dimensions, time-course effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review