First of all, 'functional equivalence' isn't my idea -- Skinner used it, and you can trace it's roots way back. Not a question of justification of ends and means -- just a specific method of defining a behavior in terms of its effect on the environment. There are obviously alternatives which may be more useful in some situations.
Another question is level of analysis. A single discrete response such as a lever or key press is on a more molecular level than a sequence of such responses, such as running down a maze, so the direct comparisons would be lever-press ~ step; fixed ratio ~ maze alley run. So we would analyzed running in a T maze as a complex chain schedule consisting of a first fixed ratio run, then a second fixed ratio under the stimulus control of the choice at the T. You could set up a comparable situation in an operant conditioning chamber with three levers: 1. Press lever 1 x times. 2. Press lever 2 or 3 y times. Shaping: One difference of course is that key and lever pressing are arbitrary responses not in a rat's phylogenetic repertoire (although something like a key peck is in pigeons). You don't have to shape a rat to run, but try just putting a rat in the start box of a maze and see what happens. Usually you start by first putting the rat in the reward box and letting it eat, then putting it just outside the box and letting it enter and eat, and so forth. And as I said, any schedule in a maze would be a higher order schedule -- you could reinforce running the maze on a ratio or interval schedule, the same way that you could reinforce lever pressing on fixed ratios intermittently, where that ratio itself is the unit of behavior. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:12 AM, michael sylvester wrote: > Paul: Your "functionally" equivalence idea seems to be conceptually neat but > the reality is that the only equivalence is that of a reinforcer given > contingent at the end of the run and the bar press.The end may justify the > means,but means may not be equivalent.Another difference I perceive is that > the process of successive approximation must be > used in the bar press paradigm,but maze running is simply a matter of right > or left physical turns. > I am still trying to figure out how the various schedules of reinforcement > would be implemented in the maze running paradigm. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3762 or send a blank email to leave-3762-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
