Bliss points vs. minimum needs: Tests of competing motivational models

This paper tests two competing hypotheses concerning the motivational forces underlying concurrent choice behavior: a generalized version of Staddon's minimum-distance hypothesis, which characterizes behavior in terms of minimizing the distance to a “bliss” point, and a generalized minimum-need...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBehavioural processes Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 61 - 77
Main Authors Kagel, John H., Dwyer, Gerald P., Battalio, Raymond C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Shannon Elsevier B.V 01.01.1985
Elsevier
Subjects
Biological and medical sciences
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Personality. Affectivity
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Theories
Human
Models
Motivation
Animal
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This paper tests two competing hypotheses concerning the motivational forces underlying concurrent choice behavior: a generalized version of Staddon's minimum-distance hypothesis, which characterizes behavior in terms of minimizing the distance to a “bliss” point, and a generalized minimum-needs hypothesis, which emphasizes meeting minimum survival requirements first, after which the organism is free to allocate behavior in any fashion desired. The models specify distinctly different preference structures. The generalized minimum-needs hypothesis is shown to provide a superior fit to molar choice data from experiments involving food and fluid consumption.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0376-6357
1872-8308
DOI:10.1016/0376-6357(85)90103-2