FIXED‐INTERVAL PERFORMANCE AND SELF‐CONTROL IN CHILDREN
Open accessAbstract
Operant responses of 16 children (mean age 6 years and 1 month) were reinforced according to different fixed‐interval schedules (with interreinforcer intervals of 20, 30, or 40 s) in which the reinforcers were either 20‐s or 40‐s presentations of a cartoon. In another procedure, they received training on a self‐control paradigm in which both reinforcer delay (0.5 s or 40 s) and reinforcer duration (20 s or 40 s of cartoons) varied, and subjects were offered a choice between various combinations of delay and duration. Individual differences in behavior under the self‐control procedure were precisely mirrored by individual differences under the fixed‐interval schedule. Children who chose the smaller immediate reinforcer on the self‐control procedure (impulsive) produced short postreinforcement pauses and high response rates in the fixed‐interval conditions, and both measures changed little with changes in fixed‐interval value. Conversely, children who chose the larger delayed reinforcer in the self‐control condition (the self‐controlled subjects) exhibited lower response rates and long postreinforcement pauses, which changed systematically with changes in the interval, in their fixed‐interval performances.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Imprecision in interval timing is correlated with impulsive choice and with delay discounting.
“The empirical observation that imprecision in interval timing is correlated with impulsive choice (Darcheville, Rivière, & Wearden, 1992; Marshall, Smith, & Kirkpatrick, 2014) and delay discounting (McClure, Podos, & Richardson, 2014)”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as Darcheville et al., 1992
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Darcheville, J. C., Rivière, V., & Wearden, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Darcheville, J. C.
- ORCID
- Wearden, J. H.
- Venue
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-199
- ISSN
- 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3711
- PMC
- PMC1323121
- OpenAlex
- W2076077412
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- fixed-interval schedules, self-control, children, delay discounting, reinforcer delay, post-reinforcement pause, response rate, impulsivity, individual differences, operant behavior
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child, Preschool, Conditioning, Operant, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Individuality, Internal-External Control, Male, Reinforcement Schedule
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
