Killeen's theory and incentives

[From Rick Marken (960125.1430)]

Bruce Abbott (960125.1600 EST) --

Killeen's theory does NOT assume that incentive deliveries magically produce
keypecking. In fact, he provides a detailed mechanism by which keypecks,
once they occur, would become differentially "incited" by incentive
deliveries, as opposed to such deliveries producing other activities.

Yes. I agree completely. Killeen does provide "a detailed mechanism by which
keypecks, once they occur, would become differentially "incited" by incentive
deliveries". And i seems to me that no mechanism of behavior could be more
precisely the opposite of the mechanism proposed by control theory. Killeen's
theory describes a mechanism by which keypecks are incited (caused) by
incentive deliveries; PCT describes a mechanism by which incentive deliveries
are _controlled_ by keypecks.

So I don't understand why you then say:

The ground for criticizing Killeen's theory lies elsewhere.

Do you mean that the grounds for criticizing Killeen's theory lie elsewhere
than with the mechanism (which you so clearly describe) that he proposes for
how keypecks become differentially "incited" by incentive? If so, how could
this be? If there is evidence for a mechanism by which keypecks become
differentially incited by incentive, then there is evidence _against_ the
existence of a mechanism by which incentive is _controlled_ by keypecks.

As Bill pointed out (960124.1000 MST), however, it's easy to prove that a
mechanism like the one proposed by Killeen (one by which keypecks become
differentially "incited" by incentive) is unnecessary because incentives
_don't_ incite keypecks. Incentives are controlled; they don't "incite".
As Bill said:

To disprove this notion [that incentives incite keypecks], all you have to
do is start giving extra incentives by arbitrarily adding them to the ones
being produced by behavior. If the incentives themselves were the cause of
behavior, more behavior should result. In fact, less behavior will result.

So Killeen's theory can not only be criticized for the inclusion of a
mechanism by which keypecks become differentially "incited" by incentive; it
can be rejected on this basis as well.

Best

Rick

[From Bruce Abbott (960126.1210 EST)]

Rick Marken (960125.1430) --

Bruce Abbott (960125.1600 EST)

Killeen's theory does NOT assume that incentive deliveries magically produce
keypecking. In fact, he provides a detailed mechanism by which keypecks,
once they occur, would become differentially "incited" by incentive
deliveries, as opposed to such deliveries producing other activities.

Yes. I agree completely. Killeen does provide "a detailed mechanism by which
keypecks, once they occur, would become differentially "incited" by incentive
deliveries". And i seems to me that no mechanism of behavior could be more
precisely the opposite of the mechanism proposed by control theory. Killeen's
theory describes a mechanism by which keypecks are incited (caused) by
incentive deliveries; PCT describes a mechanism by which incentive deliveries
are _controlled_ by keypecks.

Yep.

So I don't understand why you then say:

The ground for criticizing Killeen's theory lies elsewhere.

Do you mean that the grounds for criticizing Killeen's theory lie elsewhere
than with the mechanism (which you so clearly describe) that he proposes for
how keypecks become differentially "incited" by incentive?

No. Bill criticizes Killeen's theory on the ground that the theory has NO
mechanism for uniquely linking incentives to keypecks. But it does have
such a mechanism, so the ground for criticizing the theory must lie elsewhere.

As Bill pointed out (960124.1000 MST), however, it's easy to prove that a
mechanism like the one proposed by Killeen (one by which keypecks become
differentially "incited" by incentive) is unnecessary because incentives
_don't_ incite keypecks. Incentives are controlled; they don't "incite".

Fine, that is criticism on "other grounds." Go for it!

So Killeen's theory can not only be criticized for the inclusion of a
mechanism by which keypecks become differentially "incited" by incentive; it
can be rejected on this basis as well.

I think Killeen would disagree on theoretical grounds. If you begin to
offer "free" incentives, you "strengthen" the linkage between the incentives
and the behaviors that immediately preceded those incentives, so that the
incentives begin to "incite" these other activities rather than
lever-pressing. But keypecks continue to be followed on occasion by
incentive delivery as well, so they continue to be "incited," although to a
lesser degree because much of the incited activity is now being expended in
behaviors other than keypecking.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Regards,

Bruce