Talk:Reinforcement/Archive 2

dogs and bathrooms

"a dog uses the bathroom outside" <-- Thanks, this made my day :) --JWSchmidt 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. Made my day,too. I have, however, been dutiful and changed it. John FitzGerald 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Positive Punishment Examples

I came up with more examples of positive punishment: a bee sting, developing cancer from smoking, getting cut through the skin from carelessness with a sharp object, a rash from poison oak or ivy, sending nasty emails, and breaking a bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbsteffen (talk • contribs)

The purpose of the page is not to be exhaustive, it's to provide the most illustrative example. Which would you say out of all of those is the best? WLU 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a trick question – none of them are, because none of them are examples of punishment in the sense in which it should be used in this article. John FitzGerald 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How should they be used in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbsteffen (talk • contribs)

They shouldn't be used at all, because they are not examples of the phenomenon. For example, what response is a bee sting punishing? John FitzGerald 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, they'd be more accurately described as unconditioned responses, gradually the objects/insects would become conditioned stimuli - operant rather than respondant conditioning. WLU 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already found out that "Punishment" should be its own article. Cbsteffen 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen[reply]

Punishment is its own article. WLU 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or Fix Section Entitled Controversies?

I vote that the short section labelled Controversies be removed. It currently reads:

The standard idea of behavioral reinforcement has been criticized as circular, since it appears to argue that response strength is increased by reinforcement while defining reinforcement as something which increases response strength. Other definitions have been proposed, such as F. D. Sheffield's "consummatory behavior contingent on a response," but these are not broadly used in psychology.

The first sentence makes little sense and the reasoning presented seems neither circular nor controversial but rather appears to merely restate the definition of reinforcement in two slightly different ways. If there is any real controversy here, these two sentences did nothing to enlighten me as to its nature.

Please sign your comments. This could be clearer I suppose, and I may have not stated it as accurately as I might have, but it is a criticism which has been made of the concept and therefore should not be removed from the article.

Incidentally, "restating the definition in two slightly different ways" seems to me to be what characterizes circular definitions. One point that might clarify this is Walker's that because the standard definition is circular it cannot account for failure to increase response strength by contingent presentation of a stimulus. Another relevant point is raised in the article – the failure of reinforcers to reliably increase response strength. Food won't reinforce a rat's responses if the rat is sated, for example.

Anyway, I'll do some more research and see if this section can be improved. John FitzGerald 17:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an explanation of the circularity and a reference. I'll try to find a more recent reference, though. John FitzGerald 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh.Pritchard.DBA's edits

I have reviewed your edits and I have questions and comments.

I guess the introduction is a simple matter of wording it right, but i would like to hear your reasons just to clarify my thoughts.
The strength of a reinforcer is dependent on several factors, such as contingency, continguity and reinforcer characteristics. Does it have to come immediately after a behaviour?
I don't get it why you removed escape conditioning, since it's often mentioned in psych classes.
I would keep punishment because the text needs to explain the table. But only briefly.

I'd be happy to discuss it with you!--Janarius (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok:

I reworded examples to be a little more applied (rather than using rats -- I used everyday things)...I also made the dog example simpler...I took out 'likelihood' as that is difficult to measure -- I'm seeing now that I need to change 'future behavior' to 'future frequency' -- and I can source it too (will make it a stronger article)
yes a reinforcer must immediately follow a response -- that's why a paycheck isn't really a reinforcer...the statement one makes to oneself immediately following something they did at work ('That's gonna earn me my paycheck') -- might serve that function...but yes, it must be immediate.
I meant to take out both avoidance and escape...as they're not a new type of conditioning...perhaps we could have them as 'avoidance' or 'escape' subheadings...I'll include them
I'll think on how to incorporate punishment...perhaps as a contrast -- I'll get my About Behavior out and source my statement as well...

Were there other questions that I'm not addressing? I'll be right back and start editing/sourcing things...lemme know when/if you plan to edit.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications and your help! I can see why reinforcers have to come immediately after, I must've been thinking about delayed gratification being related to reinforcement. But I guess it's not case. Perhaps avoidance and escape conditioning can be used as examples of negative reinforcement? In any case, your edits are much appreciated!--Janarius (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schedules of Reinforcement

I see there are multiple merge discussions occuring re: schedules...on one page it was recommended that schedules of reinforcement become its own article...it does seem that that subsection is larger than the rest of the Reinforcement article...what are some comments? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article size policy, I think it looks fine. But if you're planning on expanding to make it into its own article and by merging the other schedules of reinforcement articles into it, sure why not?

Oh, about the section "arbitrary and natural reinforcement", I have a hard time understanding, can you simplify it?--Janarius (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janarius, I'm most likely not going to put a lot of time currently into that article...it just seems that while schedules are important, they're not as important as their space on the page would indicate...but, that's why I'd like to hear discussion on it to determine if that's what consensus is...also, there is the book by the same name for which we could create an article and merge them into it -- its definitely notable on its own, I think. I've edited the arbitrary section -- does that help? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, your edits on the arbitrary section is very good. About the schedules, I'm not sure how much importance we give to schedules or anything. It really depends on how much you know and how you can clearly articulate that knowledge without confusing someone outside of the field. In my case as psych undergrad, it looks okay to me. But it might be different to you. So one of my advice would be not to write anything complicated for an outside reader.--Janarius (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRF

I reverted a few edits, but I didn't know whether to add ip 129.137...'s edit:

"*Continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule is a special form of a fixed ratio. In a continuous reinforcement schedule, reinforcement follows each and every response."

cos it originally said continuous ratio thingy. I don't know what CRF is meant to actually stand for, but just thought I'd mention that good faith edit that was made. londonsista | ^Prod 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another change of definition

I changed the first sentence because response rate is not the only manifestation of reinforcement. As the next sentence or so says, it can be manifested in response latency. Increasing accuracy is another manifestation of reinforcement. Reinforcement increases response strength. So I changed rate to strength. John FitzGerald (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting change Flynneffects (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note some derivations from Skinner

I'll start right off by saying that this is not my particular specialty, but I have been reading up on some common misconceptions regarding the relationship between reinforcement and punishment. The article rightly presents the most commonly-held views, but so doing puts it at odds with Skinner's work.

In particular, the table in the Types of Reinforcement section reflects Azrin's & Holz's (1966) contributions more than Skinner (1938 or 1953). Holth (cited below) lays this out nicely: Skinner did not see punishment as related to reinforcement and therefore would have never present a table like the one in that section of the article. Azrin & Holz felt there was a symmetry between punishment and reinforcement, a relationship that the table captures nicely.

It's not that the table is wrong, but the organization of that section gives the impression that the table reflects Skinner's ideas, when (at least to my cursory reading) it does not. If I'm completely wrong, please tell me (with enough detail to help me correct my mistakes :) ).

Holth, P. (2005). Two Definitions of Punishment. Behavior Analyst Today 6(1), 43-47.

Jmbrowne (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no one brought up any issues with pointing out the derivations (it's been four months now), so I added it with three references. Also, I edited the paragraph that mentioned punishment to be more reinforcement-oriented (since this is an article on reinforcement, but punishment is listed in the table), and moved it before the table. Jmbrowne (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technicality

i see this page has been tagged as too difficult for a layperson. However, no examples of passages that are difficult to understand are provided. It seems to me that an attentive layperson could follow this article easily. I may well be wrong, of course, but we need to see some examples of this hyper-technicality. John FitzGerald (talk)

What is needed is reinforcement fleshed out into real life examples. Psychological manipulation is based on reinforcement theory but there really needs to be some thing bridging the gap. Also of course gambling is a real life example of reinforcement. Also the simple schedules section Reinforcement#Simple_schedules looks qute scary. --Penbat (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PREE

Under "Effects of different types of simple schedules" the article states "Variable schedules produce higher rates and greater resistance to extinction than most fixed schedules. This is also known as the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE)"

At least according to Domjan (2005) "Essentials of conditioning and learning" Gloassary the "partial reinforcement extinction effect" is "greater persistence in instrumental responding after partial (intermittent) reinforcement training than after continuous reinforcement training. Abbreviated PREE" i.e. this is not a difference between variable and fized schedules but between continuous and intermittent schedules.

Unless anyone disagrees, could someone who knows what they are doing move the reference to PREE from its current position and put it after "Partial reinforcement schedules are more resistant to extinction than continuous reinforcement schedules" lower in the same section please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.84 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

too technical?

Reinforcement is a technical term. Why should this page be any simpler than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_first_law#Newton.27s_first_law -florkle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florkle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia going to do with mechanical reinforcement?

There is need to disambiguate mechanical reinforcement from the psychological process. Reinforcement is a large concept beyond psychology. Need to change article to Reinforcement (psychology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.32.213 (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Course Project - Positive and Negative Reinforcement

Hi all - I am working on the "positive and negative" reinforcement section of this page as a part of a psychology capstone course project. Everything that changes is a work in progress, and I am adding 5 new sources to the material in addition to re-ordering the layout and adding some examples of the type of reinforcement. Any suggestions would be much appreciated! Racolepsychcapstone (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current rough draft of the updated article can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Racolepsychcapstone/sandbox Racolepsychcapstone (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Racolepsychcapstone's Progress

Below you will find my peer review for the page as seen in Racolepsychcapstone sandbox:

(A) 4.5

(B) I like that you condensed the main sections for Positive Reinforcement and Negative Reinforcement, transferring to the end of the section some of the the more confusing aspects of the material. This revised format allows readers to fully grasp/comprehend the basic concepts before moving on to more complex and nuanced examples.

I also like the distinction you included between the "mathematical" and "emotional" definitions of the terms positive and negative. This was a concise and simple way to illuminate a confusing concept.

(C) I saw that the examples you used were mostly already provided in the original article. There is one example that you might want to revise in order to better illustrate your point. In the last section, the third bulleted item, beginning with, "The increase in behavior is ..." is a little confusing. Is this example attributing the increase in behavior to the slap? I think I understand the point that is being made, but am not positive. Is the point that you are trying to make (again, I know this was the original example) that sometimes stimuli intended to decrease behavior may actually increase it? If so, maybe use an example that does not include physical abuse. There may be situations when this phenomenon occurs, but it just uncomfortable. Perhaps using the example of detention, which is intended as a positive punishment to decrease bad behavior can actually increase bad behavior (because the student sees it as an opportunity to get out of class). Thus, what may be seen as positive punishment is actually a positive reinforcer.

(D) Areas of improvement: I am sure you will do this when the material is transferred to the main page, but hyperlink key terms, such as "operant conditioning" and "punishment" to their respective wikipages. Additionally, these are minor edits just to help the reader with the flow of the page. After the Brief History section, I would create a heading for the short paragraph following, which essentially provides an overview of the following sections. I suggest this just to indicate the end of the history and beginning of a new section. Also, it may improve the aesthetics of the page to bullet point the examples in each section.(?)

(E) 4. - I think one more read through will catch any awkward sentences and small wikiproblems.

Great job so far :) HayRayLee (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Draft of the "Positive and Negative Reinforcement" section

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Davidson College/Issues in Psychology section C (2013 Q1)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Hi all - I have been working on the Positive and Negative section of the Reinforcement page for a class project, and the link to my final edits is below. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Racolepsychcapstone/sandbox Racolepsychcapstone (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

example on multiple superimposing concurrent schedules

"For example, a high school senior could have a choice between going to Stanford University or UCLA, and at the same time have the choice of going into the Army or the Air Force, and simultaneously the choice of taking a job with an internet company or a job with a software company. That is a reinforcement structure of three superimposed concurrent schedules of reinforcement."

I might not get it, but as it seems this is a poor example. They are only superimposing reinforcers of any interest if the same kind of action triggers each, right? but there is no single action which leads one to choose university, army branch and employer in a single go. I thought the example of the dog/spouse-attack was a good one. but this one not so much. sorry, i don't have an idea for an alternative.--DLommes (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Operant Conditioning

This article has a HUGE overlap with the page on Operant Conditioning, and the two should be combined. Db4wp (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operant conditioning is a paradigm that includes the consideration of antecedent events that acquire discriminative properties (discriminative stimuli), along with punishment - reinforcement is not the same thing as operant conditioning, it is just one component of it - sort of like the cardiovascular system just being one component of the biological systems that keep humans functioning. Wolololol (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Wolololol[reply]

Certainly not combine, this article is long enough. I think its more an issue of stripping out duplicated text in both articles. Incidentally Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcement.3B_schedules is very long and looks scarily complicated. I think it should be a separate article with just a summary here.--Penbat (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reinforcement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040609053011/http://www.behavior.org/journals_BP/2000/JackMichael.pdf to http://www.behavior.org/journals_BP/2000/JackMichael.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

This article seems to be lacking in theory. Anyone out there able to add some information on theories of reinforcement?

Premack principle would fit nicely under this, along with response-strength theory (and Skinner's definition of reinforcement) and the increasing movement towards signalling theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.215.99 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead accuracy problems

The following accuracy claim from User:Rutgers nb (talk) was moved from the article:

[The lead] has serious problems and needs to be redone from scratch! Definitions and language are not in line with Behaviorism

–Gladamas (talk · contribs) 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! Reinforcement is defined by the effect on the behavior, which is an increase in the probability of the behavior occurring again. Punishment and extinction go the opposite way... 2601:204:4000:330:D00E:5A5:4089:936C (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcement peer review

The structure of this article is very neat. Connecting theorist to the practice as well as imagines to show examples was a great touch. Your article gives a great insight to reinforcement and examples to go along with multiple types of reinforcement. AmariHau (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-regulation?

Regarding the following:

The model of self regulation which has three main aspects of human behavior which are self awareness, self reflection and self regulation. Reinforcements traditionally align with self regulation.

There are no references given, and references most certainly are needed here. I fail to see the connection between self-regulation and other theories of mind/ mentalistic concepts, and concepts derived through empirical investigation like reinforcement. I am a behaviorist, I have a certification in the field, and over 10 years of field experience and I have never heard these terms used in this context before (this is mindfulness/ cognitivist stuff). If no reference or rationale can be provided on WHY "reinforcements" align with self-regulation this should be removed and Ill attempt to do so unless someone can object or tell me why I shouldnt.

BLSchooley (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article, particularly in its attempts to explain reinforcement as the result of mental states, is profoundly ignorant of what reinforcement is. Not surprising for an article whose definition of reinforcemen is taken from something called Academy of Management Executive. Like you I thought I'd try to fix it, but when I found that even the section on reinforcement in the article about B. F. Skinner is wrong I decided the job was hopeless. John FitzGerald (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Academy of Management Executive is not mentioned in the reference, John FitzGerald (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristopherH13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ChristopherH13 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]