Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T09:28:54.367Z 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

Abstract

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

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)