Yes, a behaviorist defines reinforcement as that which increases the frequency of a behavior.
If increased pay does not cause more work, then what reasonable usage says that increased pay is “reinforcing” of work? Increasing pay might be punishing of the behavior “quit and find another job.”
At least among animal trainers, “reinforcement” can refer to things that increase the frequency of a behavior relative to the expected frequency without reinforcement, in addition to relative to the previous frequency. E.g., if I expect to get a behavior less often when I move the animal outside (due to greater distractions), I might bring rewarding treats with me to offset that. The observed frequency of behavior might then be exactly the same between the two trials, but I would still describe the treats as reinforcement.
It seems the same principle applies to increasing pay in order to ensure the same level of work in scenarios where I expect the level of work to otherwise decline (e.g., I expect the animal to quit), so it seems reasonable to me to refer to that increased pay as “reinforcing” of work even if the frequency of work done doesn’t increase.
Yes, reinforcement relates to increased frequency of behavior.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by a different assertion: that trying to predict the response to a disturbance before determining the purpose of the behaviour is analytically confused and certainly a waste of time.
The only difference between us is that you are interpreting simple observations of what people do with a theory that falls apart on close examination, while I am interpreting them with a theory that stands up to close examination.
I’m not sure about the content of our disagreement.
I’m pretty sure that what I mean by “analyze the [amount of] reinforcement of an intervention” is the same as what you mean by “predict the response to a disturbance.”
And I’m almost certain that what I mean by “function of the behavior” is the same thing as you mean by “purpose of the behavior.”
I certainly think that trying to predict the change in frequency of a behavior after a disturbance/intervention before figuring out the purpose of the behavior is foolish on many levels.
But what does “reinforcement” mean then? The word is a description, not an arbitrary proper name, which has a definite meaning in behaviourist psychology. Unless the supposed reinforcement is actually reinforcing something, within the terms of that theory, it isn’t a reinforcement.
Reinforcement and punishment are not what I would call the units of insight of behaviorism. Behaviorism stands for the proposition that behavior modification does not require a self-reflexive cognitive component.
But making those kinds of changes requires a rigorous analysis of the function / purpose of the behavior (escape, attention, etc). The labels “reinforcement” and “punishment” are intend to focus on the key point of behaviorism: Frequency of behavior—without reference to beliefs or feelings—is the only acceptable data.
Once that point is made, I accept that defining “reinforcement” (as stimuli that increase or sustain the frequency of behavior) does not stand on its own as analytically useful in changing behaviors.
Consider the story I heard during a lecture on ABA:
A patient at an in-patient mental health institution was engaging in “garbage talk” that the care providers wanted to extinguish (don’t ask me why this was a priority). They determine that the function of the behavior was attention, and implemented a protocol (i.e. told the staff to stop interacting with the patient when she engaged in garbage talk). This intervention reduced the occurrence of garbage talk around all but one attendant.
When this discrepancy was noticed, the attendant was observed, and “ignoring” was implemented by that attendant as follows:
P: Garbage talk A: I want to warn you that I’ll start ignoring you if you keep doing that. P: Garbage talk. A: Ok, I’m going to start ignoring you. P: Garbage talk. A: I’m currently ignoring you.
Needless to say, that didn’t work at reducing garbage talk. Perhaps if the attendant had worried less about making sure that the patient “understood” the intervention and focused solely on frequency of the behavior, then the attendant wouldn’t have made this mistake.
Yes, a behaviorist defines reinforcement as that which increases the frequency of a behavior.
If increased pay does not cause more work, then what reasonable usage says that increased pay is “reinforcing” of work? Increasing pay might be punishing of the behavior “quit and find another job.”
At least among animal trainers, “reinforcement” can refer to things that increase the frequency of a behavior relative to the expected frequency without reinforcement, in addition to relative to the previous frequency. E.g., if I expect to get a behavior less often when I move the animal outside (due to greater distractions), I might bring rewarding treats with me to offset that. The observed frequency of behavior might then be exactly the same between the two trials, but I would still describe the treats as reinforcement.
It seems the same principle applies to increasing pay in order to ensure the same level of work in scenarios where I expect the level of work to otherwise decline (e.g., I expect the animal to quit), so it seems reasonable to me to refer to that increased pay as “reinforcing” of work even if the frequency of work done doesn’t increase.
Yes, reinforcement relates to increased frequency of behavior.
I stand by my core assertion that trying to analyze the reinforcement of an intervention before determining the function of the behavior is analytically confused and probably a waste of time.
I stand by a different assertion: that trying to predict the response to a disturbance before determining the purpose of the behaviour is analytically confused and certainly a waste of time.
The only difference between us is that you are interpreting simple observations of what people do with a theory that falls apart on close examination, while I am interpreting them with a theory that stands up to close examination.
I’m not sure about the content of our disagreement.
I’m pretty sure that what I mean by “analyze the [amount of] reinforcement of an intervention” is the same as what you mean by “predict the response to a disturbance.”
And I’m almost certain that what I mean by “function of the behavior” is the same thing as you mean by “purpose of the behavior.”
I certainly think that trying to predict the change in frequency of a behavior after a disturbance/intervention before figuring out the purpose of the behavior is foolish on many levels.
But what does “reinforcement” mean then? The word is a description, not an arbitrary proper name, which has a definite meaning in behaviourist psychology. Unless the supposed reinforcement is actually reinforcing something, within the terms of that theory, it isn’t a reinforcement.
Reinforcement and punishment are not what I would call the units of insight of behaviorism. Behaviorism stands for the proposition that behavior modification does not require a self-reflexive cognitive component.
But making those kinds of changes requires a rigorous analysis of the function / purpose of the behavior (escape, attention, etc). The labels “reinforcement” and “punishment” are intend to focus on the key point of behaviorism: Frequency of behavior—without reference to beliefs or feelings—is the only acceptable data.
Once that point is made, I accept that defining “reinforcement” (as stimuli that increase or sustain the frequency of behavior) does not stand on its own as analytically useful in changing behaviors.
Also, stimuli is not the technical word, but I’m not an expert on Applied Behavioral Analysis.
Consider the story I heard during a lecture on ABA:
A patient at an in-patient mental health institution was engaging in “garbage talk” that the care providers wanted to extinguish (don’t ask me why this was a priority). They determine that the function of the behavior was attention, and implemented a protocol (i.e. told the staff to stop interacting with the patient when she engaged in garbage talk). This intervention reduced the occurrence of garbage talk around all but one attendant.
When this discrepancy was noticed, the attendant was observed, and “ignoring” was implemented by that attendant as follows:
Needless to say, that didn’t work at reducing garbage talk. Perhaps if the attendant had worried less about making sure that the patient “understood” the intervention and focused solely on frequency of the behavior, then the attendant wouldn’t have made this mistake.