Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T21:42:25.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Operant contingencies and “near-money”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2006

Simon Kemp*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Randolph C. Grace*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We make two major comments. First, negative reinforcement contingencies may generate some apparent “drug-like” aspects of money motivation, and the operant account, properly construed, is both a tool and drug theory. Second, according to Lea & Webley (L&W), one might expect that “near-money,” such as frequent-flyer miles, should have a stronger drug and a weaker tool aspect than regular money. Available evidence agrees with this prediction.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006