At 12:23 PM -0500 10/31/00, Stephen Black wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Kirsten Rewey wrote:
>>
>> Stephen -
>>
>> I'm not an expert in learning, but I think Domjan (1998) has answered the
>> question for you. In his text he states that Jenkins (1962) and Theios
>>(1962)
>> independently tested the effects of CRF after partial reinforcement
>>(PRF) on
>> time to extinguish a behavior. Here are the basics of the design:
>>
>> Group 1: PRF -> CRF -> Extinction
>>
>> Group 2: CRF -> CRF -> Extinction
>>
>> Both Jenkins and Theios found that extinction (to criterion) took longer in
>> Group 1 (with early experience with PRF and recent experience with CRF)
>>than
>> in Group 2 (with no PRF experience).
>>
>
>Thanks, Kirsten but that's not the comparison I'm after
>(confusing, I know). It's
>
>Group 2 PRF -> CRF -> Extinction
>
>Group 2 PRF -> Extinction
>
>It's really an applied psychology question. Suppose you have
>an antsy kid who tantrums whenever he doesn't get his way. The
>parents are inconsistent, and sometimes they give in, sometimes
>not (intermittent reinforcement).
>
>You want to make the kid behave. Which would do it faster:
>
>1) first give in to every tantrum (switch to crf), and then
> begin extinction
>
>or
>
>2) begin extinction immediately
>
>Common sense says that (2) is the only way to go but
>Miltenberger recommends (1) based on the literature he cites.
Personally (and I suspect that Miltenberger would agree) I'd recommend none
of the above.
There are more explicit contingencies (such as differential reinforcement
of incompatible behavior) that would be far faster acting.
The only situation in which I'd rely on simple extinction would be when I
thought that the parents were not capable of implementing anything more
complex. In that case, you still would probably not go for the
interpolated CRF.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *