(Click article titles to download .PDF)<\/p>\n
Heyman, G.M. (1983).\u00a0Maximization theory: Close but no cigar<\/a>. Behavior Analysis Letters, 3, 17-26.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. (1983).\u00a0A cross-situational test of utility theory.<\/a>\u00a0The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 324.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. (1983).\u00a0A parametric evaluation of the hedonic and motoric effects of drugs: Pimozide and amphetamine<\/a>. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 113-122.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. (1982).\u00a0Is time allocation elicited behavior?<\/a>\u00a0In M. Commons, R. Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Vol. 2: Matching and Maximizing Accounts. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Press, 459-490.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. and Bouzas, A. (1980).\u00a0Context dependent changes in the reinforcement strength of schedule-induced drinking<\/a>. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 327-335.<\/p>\n Oscar-Berman, M. and Heyman, G.M. (1980).\u00a0Human neuropsychology: Some differences between Korsakoff and normal operant performance.\u00a0<\/a>Psychological Research, 41, 235-247.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. and Luce, R.D. (1979).\u00a0Operant matching is not a logical consequence of reinforcement rate maximization.<\/a>\u00a0Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 133-140.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. and Luce, R.D. (1979).\u00a0Reply to Rachlin’s comment<\/a>. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 269-270.<\/p>\n Herrnstein, R.J. and Heyman, G.M. (1979).\u00a0Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio?<\/a>\u00a0Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 209-233.<\/p>\n Heyman, G.M. (1979).\u00a0A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent schedules.<\/a>\u00a0Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 41-51.<\/p>\n