Depends on what the user does. Reinforcement (assuming that there’s always -something- reinforcing on the account) is available on a fixed interval schedule — that’s the contingency. However, if other (competing) contingencies contribute to the determination of when the person actually checks their email, the schedule may function for that individual as a variable interval schedule. One way to find out would be to record the rate of the checking response over time. If the rate were steady with no clear pattern, one would classify it as a variable schedule. On the other hand, if the likelihood of a checking (observing) response increased as the time when reinforcement availability approached, it would more like be a fixed (FI) schedule. We’ve got to take into account both the contingency and the behavior of the individual.
On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Carol <[email protected]> wrote: > To add another layer of complexity, what happens when someone's email program > queries the server at a set rate(i.e. every 5 minutes or every 15 minutes, > and so forth depending on the setting)? > > Carol > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Michael Ofsowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The "IF" suggests variable reinforcement rather than fixed or continuous; >> the unpredictability of a rewarding consequence is what makes the schedule >> variable. >> >> The "HOW MANY... I MIGHT" refers to the magnitude of the reinforcer. A >> larger reinforcer is generally more effective than a smaller reinforcer. (A >> beggar asking for spare cash might get a quarter, might get $20.) >> >> Notice what Ken asked: Does the frequency of your behavior change the >> likelihood of getting a reward? If so, then it is a ratio (of actions to >> reward); if not, it is an interval (of time passing before an action can >> elicit a reward). >> >> Can you (or an observer) predict how many times you have to commit the >> behavior before you get a reward? If so, it is fixed or continuous, and if >> not it is variable. >> >> So, checking one's device for a message: everyone has been calling this VI, >> assuming that the rate of checking one's phone cannot change the presence or >> absence of a message. That is true. But as Claudia said, the real world is >> complex: for most teens and 20-somethings, it may be continuous >> reinforcement: the many possible feeds (text, FB, Instawhatever), the >> stimulus of the phone vibrating, make it likely that a person gets a reward >> (a new message) every time the phone is checked. (The thread began wondering >> why one's son would check the phone so soon after getting out of a swimming >> pool. For this kid I would suspect the past history of intervals between >> messages is much shorter than the time spent in the pool; also, the >> magnitude is rather high for many of these kids: social >> inclusion/acceptance/validation, risk of rejection for not replying, etc. If >> those conditions are true, there's good reason to predict the behavior >> following an hour in the pool.) >> >> Think about an old-fashioned land-line: is answering the phone continuously >> reinforced or VI? I'd say S^D is the ringing and answering is the R that is >> rewarded with a voice on the other end (ignore robo calls and caller-ID for >> this example). The S^D is not the phone on the wall (and I don't randomly >> pick up the receiver to see if there's someone on the other end). To set up >> a true VI with the smart phone, one would have to turn off all the >> signalling (rings, vibrations) from the phone. >> >> Now, posting to Instagram, I imagine is rewarded by some returned "like" >> symbol or a written response: you are more likely to have something liked if >> you post more often (unless it's one of those forums where everything is >> liked by someone), so this is VR. (Ignore the behavior of checking the phone >> for replies.) But what R is being rewarded? The act of posting? (You'll do >> it more often.) The aiming of your camera? (You'll take more popular >> pictures.) The generalized exposing your private experiences to the public? >> (You'll become a social media extrovert and smartphone addict like the rest >> of them.) >> >> --> Mike O. >> Monroe Community College >> >> On 7/14/15 1:00 AM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest >> wrote: >>> So because I don’t know IF or HOW MANY responses I MIGHT get from any >>> particular instagram post, I’m on a VI schedule - correct? >>> >>> >>> Michael 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=45930 or send a blank email to leave-45930-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
