ETA: And it is a cliché that teenagers react to this sort of thing, not by dutifully doing what the behaviorist parents think they are “reinforcing”, but by becoming surly and rebellious. IMHO, the whole reinforcement thing is a crock.
BTW, I see the large letters “～” in the middle of the article. Some sort of font encoding problem?
When “don’t perform the trainer-desired behavior, go buy the reward at the store yourself” becomes an available behavior, it can get reinforced pretty fast.
What does that statement mean? What role does “reinforcement” play in that? Reinforcement, in behavioural theory, takes repetition to develop. How does it account for a person doing something at the first opportunity to do it?
Newly autonomous kid happens to be at the store, and to have money for cookies. Ey buys the cookie because of explicit cookie-getting planning. This is rewarded by a delicious cookie, and “buy cookies” is reinforced. Later, ey does homework, and obtains a cookie, which isn’t much of a reward because ey just ate one. “Do homework” is extinguished.
This describes a process of positive feedback, which predicts that the child will end up compulsively buying cookies at every opportunity. This is not what is generally observed.
ETA: I guess this might be what is going on in cases of OCD, except that the behaviours there, such as compulsive hand-washing, are generally not of a particularly gratifying kind. OCD does not seem to result from superstimuli.
It is a simple truth of economics that what one rewards, one gets more of.
What is extremely hard to do is determine what exactly one is rewarding when one responds positively to a particular behavior. When my toddler asks to be picked up, is he seeking approval, attention, or escape from whatever task I’ve just set for him (e.g. “Sit on the potty chair”). If you don’t carefully determine the function of a behavior, you won’t be able to accurately determine whether your response is reinforcing or punishing. And if you reinforce what you intended to punish, you’ll get more of the behavior instead of less.
To put it slightly differently, one might think that the purpose of teenage rebellion is changing the norms. Or the purpose might be to shock others (and thereby obtain attention). What responses will decrease the frequency of of rebellious behavior depends a great deal on which reason is true in a particular case.
Yes, a behaviorist defines reinforcement as that which increases the frequency of a behavior.
If increased pay does not cause more work, then what reasonable usage says that increased pay is “reinforcing” of work? Increasing pay might be punishing of the behavior “quit and find another job.”
At least among animal trainers, “reinforcement” can refer to things that increase the frequency of a behavior relative to the expected frequency without reinforcement, in addition to relative to the previous frequency. E.g., if I expect to get a behavior less often when I move the animal outside (due to greater distractions), I might bring rewarding treats with me to offset that. The observed frequency of behavior might then be exactly the same between the two trials, but I would still describe the treats as reinforcement.
It seems the same principle applies to increasing pay in order to ensure the same level of work in scenarios where I expect the level of work to otherwise decline (e.g., I expect the animal to quit), so it seems reasonable to me to refer to that increased pay as “reinforcing” of work even if the frequency of work done doesn’t increase.
Yes, reinforcement relates to increased frequency of behavior.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by a different assertion: that trying to predict the response to a disturbance before determining the purpose of the behaviour is analytically confused and certainly a waste of time.
The only difference between us is that you are interpreting simple observations of what people do with a theory that falls apart on close examination, while I am interpreting them with a theory that stands up to close examination.
I’m not sure about the content of our disagreement.
I’m pretty sure that what I mean by “analyze the [amount of] reinforcement of an intervention” is the same as what you mean by “predict the response to a disturbance.”
And I’m almost certain that what I mean by “function of the behavior” is the same thing as you mean by “purpose of the behavior.”
I certainly think that trying to predict the change in frequency of a behavior after a disturbance/intervention before figuring out the purpose of the behavior is foolish on many levels.
But what does “reinforcement” mean then? The word is a description, not an arbitrary proper name, which has a definite meaning in behaviourist psychology. Unless the supposed reinforcement is actually reinforcing something, within the terms of that theory, it isn’t a reinforcement.
Reinforcement and punishment are not what I would call the units of insight of behaviorism. Behaviorism stands for the proposition that behavior modification does not require a self-reflexive cognitive component.
But making those kinds of changes requires a rigorous analysis of the function / purpose of the behavior (escape, attention, etc). The labels “reinforcement” and “punishment” are intend to focus on the key point of behaviorism: Frequency of behavior—without reference to beliefs or feelings—is the only acceptable data.
Once that point is made, I accept that defining “reinforcement” (as stimuli that increase or sustain the frequency of behavior) does not stand on its own as analytically useful in changing behaviors.
Consider the story I heard during a lecture on ABA:
A patient at an in-patient mental health institution was engaging in “garbage talk” that the care providers wanted to extinguish (don’t ask me why this was a priority). They determine that the function of the behavior was attention, and implemented a protocol (i.e. told the staff to stop interacting with the patient when she engaged in garbage talk). This intervention reduced the occurrence of garbage talk around all but one attendant.
When this discrepancy was noticed, the attendant was observed, and “ignoring” was implemented by that attendant as follows:
P: Garbage talk A: I want to warn you that I’ll start ignoring you if you keep doing that. P: Garbage talk. A: Ok, I’m going to start ignoring you. P: Garbage talk. A: I’m currently ignoring you.
Needless to say, that didn’t work at reducing garbage talk. Perhaps if the attendant had worried less about making sure that the patient “understood” the intervention and focused solely on frequency of the behavior, then the attendant wouldn’t have made this mistake.
Also relevant.
ETA: And it is a cliché that teenagers react to this sort of thing, not by dutifully doing what the behaviorist parents think they are “reinforcing”, but by becoming surly and rebellious. IMHO, the whole reinforcement thing is a crock.
BTW, I see the large letters “～” in the middle of the article. Some sort of font encoding problem?
When “don’t perform the trainer-desired behavior, go buy the reward at the store yourself” becomes an available behavior, it can get reinforced pretty fast.
What does that statement mean? What role does “reinforcement” play in that? Reinforcement, in behavioural theory, takes repetition to develop. How does it account for a person doing something at the first opportunity to do it?
Newly autonomous kid happens to be at the store, and to have money for cookies. Ey buys the cookie because of explicit cookie-getting planning. This is rewarded by a delicious cookie, and “buy cookies” is reinforced. Later, ey does homework, and obtains a cookie, which isn’t much of a reward because ey just ate one. “Do homework” is extinguished.
This describes a process of positive feedback, which predicts that the child will end up compulsively buying cookies at every opportunity. This is not what is generally observed.
ETA: I guess this might be what is going on in cases of OCD, except that the behaviours there, such as compulsive hand-washing, are generally not of a particularly gratifying kind. OCD does not seem to result from superstimuli.
It is a simple truth of economics that what one rewards, one gets more of.
What is extremely hard to do is determine what exactly one is rewarding when one responds positively to a particular behavior. When my toddler asks to be picked up, is he seeking approval, attention, or escape from whatever task I’ve just set for him (e.g. “Sit on the potty chair”). If you don’t carefully determine the function of a behavior, you won’t be able to accurately determine whether your response is reinforcing or punishing. And if you reinforce what you intended to punish, you’ll get more of the behavior instead of less.
To put it slightly differently, one might think that the purpose of teenage rebellion is changing the norms. Or the purpose might be to shock others (and thereby obtain attention). What responses will decrease the frequency of of rebellious behavior depends a great deal on which reason is true in a particular case.
Only if you redefine “what one rewards” to be “more of whatever one gets”.
Does paying a worker more “make” them work more, or work less?
Yes, a behaviorist defines reinforcement as that which increases the frequency of a behavior.
If increased pay does not cause more work, then what reasonable usage says that increased pay is “reinforcing” of work? Increasing pay might be punishing of the behavior “quit and find another job.”
At least among animal trainers, “reinforcement” can refer to things that increase the frequency of a behavior relative to the expected frequency without reinforcement, in addition to relative to the previous frequency. E.g., if I expect to get a behavior less often when I move the animal outside (due to greater distractions), I might bring rewarding treats with me to offset that. The observed frequency of behavior might then be exactly the same between the two trials, but I would still describe the treats as reinforcement.
It seems the same principle applies to increasing pay in order to ensure the same level of work in scenarios where I expect the level of work to otherwise decline (e.g., I expect the animal to quit), so it seems reasonable to me to refer to that increased pay as “reinforcing” of work even if the frequency of work done doesn’t increase.
Yes, reinforcement relates to increased frequency of behavior.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by a different assertion: that trying to predict the response to a disturbance before determining the purpose of the behaviour is analytically confused and certainly a waste of time.
The only difference between us is that you are interpreting simple observations of what people do with a theory that falls apart on close examination, while I am interpreting them with a theory that stands up to close examination.
I’m not sure about the content of our disagreement.
I’m pretty sure that what I mean by “analyze the [amount of] reinforcement of an intervention” is the same as what you mean by “predict the response to a disturbance.”
And I’m almost certain that what I mean by “function of the behavior” is the same thing as you mean by “purpose of the behavior.”
I certainly think that trying to predict the change in frequency of a behavior after a disturbance/intervention before figuring out the purpose of the behavior is foolish on many levels.
But what does “reinforcement” mean then? The word is a description, not an arbitrary proper name, which has a definite meaning in behaviourist psychology. Unless the supposed reinforcement is actually reinforcing something, within the terms of that theory, it isn’t a reinforcement.
Reinforcement and punishment are not what I would call the units of insight of behaviorism. Behaviorism stands for the proposition that behavior modification does not require a self-reflexive cognitive component.
But making those kinds of changes requires a rigorous analysis of the function / purpose of the behavior (escape, attention, etc). The labels “reinforcement” and “punishment” are intend to focus on the key point of behaviorism: Frequency of behavior—without reference to beliefs or feelings—is the only acceptable data.
Once that point is made, I accept that defining “reinforcement” (as stimuli that increase or sustain the frequency of behavior) does not stand on its own as analytically useful in changing behaviors.
Also, stimuli is not the technical word, but I’m not an expert on Applied Behavioral Analysis.
Consider the story I heard during a lecture on ABA:
A patient at an in-patient mental health institution was engaging in “garbage talk” that the care providers wanted to extinguish (don’t ask me why this was a priority). They determine that the function of the behavior was attention, and implemented a protocol (i.e. told the staff to stop interacting with the patient when she engaged in garbage talk). This intervention reduced the occurrence of garbage talk around all but one attendant.
When this discrepancy was noticed, the attendant was observed, and “ignoring” was implemented by that attendant as follows:
Needless to say, that didn’t work at reducing garbage talk. Perhaps if the attendant had worried less about making sure that the patient “understood” the intervention and focused solely on frequency of the behavior, then the attendant wouldn’t have made this mistake.