# Reinforcement Theory: As You Like It

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reinforcement-theory-as-you-like-it/9697>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [June 20, 1995, 5:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reinforcement-theory-as-you-like-it/9697 "1995-06-20T17:28:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 1995, 5:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reinforcement-theory-as-you-like-it/9697/1 "1995-06-20T17:28:49Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (950620.1030) --

I think it is significant that reinforcement theorists must develop a new  
version of their theory each time a new behavioral situation is described.  
For example, in a simple operant conditioning experiment, the occurance of  
food following a bar press is considered a reinforcement. I have never heard  
reinforcement described as the change from "no food" to "food". So, when I  
developed the E. coli demo it seemed reasonable to assume that the direction  
of movement following a press was the reinforcement; like the food in the  
basic operant conditioning experiment, direction of movement is a direct  
result of a response. But, in order to make the reinforcement model of E.  
coli behavior work, it was necessary to redefine reinforcement as \_change\_ in  
the direction of movement after a press; change toward the target was the  
reinforcement.

It is also sometimes necessary to change what was considered a non-reinforcer  
or punisher in certain experiments. This is what happened in the first  
version of my R. coli demo. In that demo, a press leading to a change from  
non-target to target is considered a reinforcer but a change from one non-  
target to another could not be considered a punishment because, if it were,  
the reinforcement model wouldn't work.

The events that are considered reinforcement, punishments, etc must be  
changed to account for behaviors in different situations because the behavior  
of the reinforcement model is determined by the situation. The model will  
only work (account for the actual behavior observed) if the modeller can pick  
out aspects of the environment that will produce the right behavior. This, of  
course, means that the reinforcement model cannot fail as long as one can  
find appropriate environmental inputs (appropriate consequences of  
responding) for the model.

Martin Taylor (950620 11:10) has noticed this characteristic of reinforcement  
theory. He asks:

> wouldn't maintenance of the direction of the cursor away from the target be  
> negative reinforcement, and maintenance of its direction toward the target  
> be positive reinforcement?

(I presume Martin is referring to the \_occurance\_ (not maintanance) of a  
particular direction of cursor movement). I understand Martin's puzzlement.  
But I have gotten used to the idea that reinforcement theorists identify  
events as reinforcers, punishers, etc. as necessary to produce the intended  
results. The direction of movement of the cursor after a press is considered  
a positive or negative reinforcer, a punishment or a non-reinforcer depending

> Your original E. coli demo may not have done what you wanted it to do, but  
> I think your approach was a good one--finding the simplest example of  
> goal-oriented behavior that could not be accounted for by reinforcement  
> theory.

I can now see that there is probably no way to show that goal-oriented  
behavior cannot be accounted for by reinforcement theory. As long as you can  
come up with some aspect of the environment that covaries along with the  
behavior being produced you can let that aspect of the environment increase  
of decrease the probability of response, as necessary, to get the result you  
want.

This is the "power of reinforcement theory" to which Bill Powers  
(950617.IHateToSay) described. But I think reinforcement theory only has this  
power (to account for any behavior) as long as behavior is delt with in terms  
of probabilities of response. Obviously, reinforcement theory could not  
account for the quantitative details of the typical compensatory tracking  
experiment.

Of course, the power of reinforcement theory exposes its basic flaw. The  
power of reinforcement theory is achieved by looking for aspects of the  
environment that can account for the behavior we see. But this means that the  
same aspect of the environment must be treated as a reinforcer in some  
circumstances and a non-reinforcer or punisher in others. Since the theory  
provide no independent means of measuring the reinforcingness or  
punishingness of the environment, we are free to ascribe these changing  
characteritics to the environemnt as necessary to explain behavior. This  
is not science; it is tautology.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> on whether considering it so contributes to the appropriate behavior of the model. So, in answer to Gary Cziko (950614.1920 GMT) who said:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Leach1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bill\_Leach1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Leach1)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 1995, 5:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/reinforcement-theory-as-you-like-it/9697/2 "1995-06-21T05:36:06Z")

</div>

\<[Bill Leach 950621.01:32 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

> [From Rick Marken (950620.1030) --

Sounds almost like an unconscious search for the controlled variable to  
me! 🙂

-bill