In Theories of Learning, we are currently discussing punishment and
specifically the concept that while intermittent reinforcement produces
persistent responding, intermittent punishment is not effective in producing
decreased responding. Is this simply because intermittent punishment is
basically experienced as intermittent reinforcement? In other words,
punishment works to reduce a reinforced behavior so it is always opposed by
the reinforcer while reinforcement works to increase a behavior with nothing
else in opposition to it. Is there a better way to explain this phenomenon?
I would say that what is punished is the behavior that occurs just before punishment is delivered. If you used say FR 50 punishment where every 50th response was punished, the other 49 count for food and are not punished so behavior is maintained. I believe Azrin in JEAB in the early 60s used FI and FR pun with VI for food schedules, and got inverted response rate graphs. That is, on FI, the bird slowed down until punishment was delivered and then took off again, until the time for the next punishment approached.
Rip Pisacreta ---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
