I was interested in the partial reinforcement thread a few days
ago, but I didn't have time to jump in. I was talking about this
in my learning class the other day when one of my students objected
to the definition of "resistance to extinction." She thought that
a measure of resistance expressed in terms of "the number of
responses emitted" or "the amount of time that responding continued"
missed the point. She suggested that the construct should be defined
as "the number of reinforcements missed during responding on
extinction." If defined this way, she wondered if there would even
be a partial reinforcement effect. An animal with a VR-10
reinforcement history might respond 10 times as much as an animal
with a CRF history, but both might actually miss the same number
of reinforcements. Why would we describe the VR animal as showing
greater resistance to extinction?
Is this a new idea? It is to me, but it makes sense I think. Do
any of you learning experts out there know if measures like this
have been recorded and what the results were?
Thanks,
Tim
--
****************************************************************
Tim Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professor of Psychology phone: 864-833-8349
Presbyterian College fax: 864-833-8481
Clinton, SC 29325
****************************************************************
