[From Samuel Saunders (951214:1:13:21 )]
Bill Powers (951213.0805 MST)
Another post over which I can't avoid breaking my self-imposed restriction
from commenting ( I am collecting a number of EAB-'reinforcement theory'
versions of the 'basic statements' at least as posed in the context of
schedules, and hope to be ready to summarize soon. I am also still looking
into the details of methodology for schedule work with adult humans. There
is hope that schools in Buffalo will be open in the morning. It is amazing
how much distraction an unexpected change in children's' schedules be).
(1) Any explanation designed to make up for the fact that a basic theory
predicts incorrectly is ugly.
In this case, this statement is an exaggeration at best. In all
formulations that I know of for application of 'reinforcement theory' to
real organisms, it is necessary to consider both cost and benefit. I
will stick to food for the food-deprived in this note. Two popular
sources of cost are frequently mentioned:
1. In order to engage in the target response, it is necessary to forgo
other sources of reinforcement (scratching an itch; meditating on the
implications of PCT; whatever) which are contingent on other behavior which
is incompatible with the target response. The more of the target response
is made, the more loss other reinforcement. No runaway. Empirical
support-adding explicit sources of alternative reinforcement (running
wheels, say) affects rate as expected.
2. Bar pressing, key pecking, and so on are not effortless. In addition,
the unconstrained rate is low, so performing these activities at a
drastically increased rate is a cost, and raising the rate raises the cost.
No runaway. Empirical support- in paired baseline sessions, you see very
little bar pressing and a lot of eating.
The reinforcement runaway is a straw man (or the vision of a sophomore
student who didn't bother to take the advanced course).
ยทยทยท
--------------------------------------------
Hey, you guys are really complicating this problem.
In my posting, I mentioned first that the contingency was there by
definition as far as the experimenter is concerned. It was not clear from
the phrasing of the question whether that was the point of view to which
you referred. (The question asked "how could you demonstrate
empirically..." when, for the experimenter, it is not a matter of
demonstrating empirically but of definition (he built it that way), unless
you meant to question his assertion that the devise actually did what he
claimed it did.)
Back to backgroung mode. I will flesh out details of some of the ways
EAB and 'reinforcement theorists' have formulated the above when I have
done a bit more looking.
//----------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Samuel Spence Saunders,Ph.D.