When this behaviorist taught schedules of reinforcement, I characterized them as a factor involved in the nature of multiply determined behavior (e.g., one can see evidence of the effects of both interval and ratio contingencies in the behavior of catching a bus (or a bass ;-)). Similarly -- pure fixed schedules are uncommon in the real world (and hard to achieve even in the lab!). So again, it's a question of do we see the post reinforcement pauses characteristic of fixed schedules, accompanied by a fairly narrow range of variation, or is the response rate even enough to characterize the example as a variable schedule.
And one can see the effects of an operant contingency even if the details are too messy to ascribe a specific schedule. The most one may be able to determine as a response rate differential. And of course teaching ALL the schedules of reinforcement would be a graduate seminar starting with Ferster and Skinner (1957) updated by the subsequent literature. ALL science involves simplification; isolating variables. The identification of the Higgs Boson is the ultimate simplification. And finally, simplification becomes oversimplification when relevant variables are left out without being identified; misinformation when inaccurate predictions result. And the above is an oversimplification, but not misinformation ;-) On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Mike Palij wrote: > I always cringe when someone suggests a "real life" example of operant > conditioning because life is not a "Skinner box" where the "Grand > Researcher" maintains a particular schedule of reinforcement for specific > behaviors or chains of behaviors. Trying to explain why a behavior > occurs or is maintained requires one to know *all* of the schedules > of reinforcement that are operating and in real life these schedules can > be quite complex, possibly with concurrent schedules with variable > modes (i.e., ratio and interval) of reinforcement. I can understand > why some people might want to oversimplify situations and to present > it as a simple example but this would be misleading. I suggest taking > at look at the following article for an example of the issues involved: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jeab.1992.57-317/abstract > And one can get the article here: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323233/pdf/jeabehav00010-0080.pdf > > I leave it to Tipsters to decide when "oversimplification" becomes > "misinformation". > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 05:51:00 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: > I agree but I would choose to take the illustration a bit further, even for > intro students, to note that what might be intended as extinction can, when > it > fails, produce a more extinction-resistant strain of reinforcement. > Rick > > Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives > thought > to his steps." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Britt [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:14 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Funny Example of Extinction > > It seems that whenever a post appears on TIPS about behavioral principles - > such as my own regarding the Family Guy YouTube video - there is a back and > forth about which aspect of behavioral theory the idea represents. It makes > you want to not post anything on TIPS that is behaviorally related just to > avoid these kinds of back and forths in which, in the end, it's hard to know > what to think anymore (I'm sure there's an example of a behavioral principle > at > work right there - but I don't want to go into that). > > So let me ask this: can we agree that the video (http://youtu.be/aOLxQGLJouI) > could be used in an introductory psychology class as an example of how a > mother > who wants to take a nap is attempting to extinguish her child's interruption > behavior by not responding to it (i.e, reinforcing it)? > > Yes, her attempt fails in the end when she clearly and understandably loses > patience with the child, but that just shows how difficult the extinction > process can be. > > Could the video serve as a (funny) illustration of the extinction process? > > Remember - we're talking about introductory psychology students - many of > whom > will not go on to become psychology majors. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- 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=29096 or send a blank email to leave-29096-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
