Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 535

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1

Open access
Chung, Shin‐Ho, Herrnstein, R. J.·1967·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Abstract

Pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food reinforcement on equated aperiodic schedules. The distribution of responding at the two keys was studied as reinforcement was delayed for various durations. The relative frequency of responding at each key was shown to match the relative immediacy of reinforcement, immediacy defined as the reciprocal of the delay of reinforcement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-67

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 535

Metadata

Authors
Chung, S., & Herrnstein, R. J.
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1967-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
67-74
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
OpenAlex
W2085974327
Cited by
535
References
0
FWCI
6.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1901/jeab.1967.10-67
The paper
Chung, S., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1967). CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1967.10-67

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.