If you reply to this long (8 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
In response to my SClistserv post "Operational Definitions" [Hake (2011)], Michael Lamport Commons (2011) wrote: "What about reinforcement strength?" I assume Michael is implying that the psychological term "reinforcement strength" is ambiguous in common usage and would benefit from an operational definition. [Please correct me if I'm wrong.] Perhaps experts in "reinforcement strength" or Precision Teaching <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_teaching> could agree (or have agreed) on such a definition. It would appear that Michael is one such. See, e.g., "Biological Determinants of Reinforcement, Vol. 7" [Commons et al. (1988)]. I'm certainly not an expert in "reinforcement," but as a start my search of Google <http://www.google.com/> search for ["reinforcement strength" psychology] (with the quotes ". . . " but without them square brackets [. . . .]yielded 1,101 hits at <http://bit.ly/mRFKdg> on 29 June 2011 15:12-0700. BTW, I noted the following entry on "reinforcement" in the "Dictionary of Biological Psychology" by J.R. Stellar at <http://bit.ly/lQJ87m> [bracketed by lines "SSSSS. . . . "] SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Reinforcement is a term coined by B.F.Skinner (1904-1990) to refer to the property of a STIMULUS in strengthening an operant response made by an organism. An example of a reinforcer would be a food pellet and an example of an OPERANT behaviour would be lever-pressing by a hungry rat. Reinforcement leads to very predictable behaviour such as the pause after reinforcement on a schedule where a rat is given a reinforcement after a fixed interval (see SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT). If the reinforcement is made available on a variable interval schedule, the response rate is steady. Another example, comes from the resistance to EXTINCTION observed in partial schedules of reinforcement versus continuous reinforcement, where every response triggers a reinforcement. Such observations apply equally well to animals and humans, making reinforcement one of the central concepts of PSYCHOBIOLOGY. Skinner originally intend this bond between behaviour and the reinforcing stimulus to be seen as a reflected in operant behaviour in the same way that the bond between a CONDITIONED STIMULUS and UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS in CLASSICAL CONDITIONING is rcflected in the strength of the conditioned stimulus However, this hope was dashed by the ability of the subjects to learn to display low rates of behaviour to a reinforcer, as in the DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF LOW RATES schedule of reinforcement. In current research, some direct studies of the biological basis of reinforcement processes are made, such as in ELECTRICAL BRAIN STIMULATION or in studies involving the SELF-ADMINISTRATION of a DRUG. Often reinforcement is used as a device to get subjects to behave in desired ways for other studies of motor or sensory or cognitive function. Given that reinforcement can elicit instinctive behaviour directly or relation to conditioned stimuli set up in association (even accidentally) with reinforcement, interpretation of when reinforcement is operating can be difficult. For example, is the rate of food response decrease seen after administration of a drug that blocks DOPAMINE receptors due to a loss of reinforcement strength or a motor impairment? In drug reinforcement, an increase in the dose provided in a self-administration situation typically results in a decrease in response rate as the subject attempts to maintain an optimal blood level. This optimal blood level indicates that two forces are acting to constrain behaviour: one which pushes up responding and is probably the reinforcing effects of the drug, and the second which pushes down responding and is probably the aversive or toxic effects of the drug. While methods exist to measure the reinforcing strength of a drug reward, they must be validated against experimental tests. The mistake in generalizing from food 'self-administration' reinforcement (the larger the reinforcement the more the response until satiety) to drug self-administration is an illustration of face-valid intuition-based conclusions. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII) <[email protected]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> <http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com> <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake> REFERENCES Commons, M.L. 2011. "Re: Operational Definitions," post of 29 Jun 2011 15:21:19-0400 t to SClistserv; online at <http://bit.ly/lbSHOO> Commons, M.L., R.M. Church, J.R. Stellar, & A.R. Wagner, eds. 1988. "Biological Determinants of Reinforcement, Vol. 7." Lawrence Erlbaum. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/kB7gOS>. An expurgated version appears to be online at <http://bit.ly/lsjSBh>. Hake, R.R. 2011. "Re: Operational Definitions," post of 29 Jun 2011 10:35:56-0700 to SClistserv; online at <http://bit.ly/mc3yA1>. --- 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=11203 or send a blank email to leave-11203-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
