Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Learning Theory and Behavior Take Home Exam

Elizabeth Cherson

 

1.  According to Hineline, there are three types of knowing:  knowing that, knowing how and knowing when, which or whether.  Knowing that implies a verbal repertory of tacts.  If asked, the knower could describe whatever “that” refers to.  When one knows that such and such is the case one can describe the relevant relationships.  Such describing can function as discriminandum for a listener’s behavior.  It can also function as discriminandum for oneself as a listener, subsequently setting the occasion for another of one’s repertories.  Such resulting behavior is also known as rule-governed behavior or behavior under discriminative control of events that are specified in formal terms.  The difference between rules as descriptions and rules as operative principles is the same as the difference between how the rules of grammar apply to a native speaker of a language and how they apply to a student of that language.  The second type of knowing, knowing how, is a repertory of what the organism in question can do.  It does not imply a verbal repertory, except in knowing how to read, write or speak.  Knowing how encompasses not only the actions which comprise the repertory, but also the circumstances in which the repertory occurs.  The third type of knowing, knowing when, which or whether, also does not imply a verbal repertory.  It implies sensitivity to spatial, temporal or probabilistic dimensions of the knower’s environment.

 

3.  The five equations described by McDowell are the matching equation, the single hyperbola equation, the quantitative statement of the law of effect, the time allocation matching equation and the single alternative time allocation equation.  The matching equation states that the proportion of responses on one alternative equals, or matches, the proportion of reinforcements obtained from that alternative.  This equation applies to behavior in multi-alternative environments. 

     R1      =         r1                   Equation #1                  R = response rate

  R1+R2           r1+r2                                                      r = reinforcement rate for responding

The single alternative hyperbola equation applies to behavior in single alternative environments were there is only one key to peck or one lever to press.  The two alternatives are instrumental responding (e.g. key pecking) and extraneous responding (e.g. all behavior other than key pecking).  This equation was originally known as the Law of Effect.

     R       =       r                       Equation #2                  Xe = extraneous responding and

   R+Re         r+re                                                                      reinforcement

The quantitative statement of the law of effect expresses the response rate, R, on the instrumental alternative as a function of the reinforcement rate, r, obtained for that responding.  The absolute rate of responding on a single response alternative is a hyperbolic function of the absolute rate of reinforcement obtained for that responding.

R =   kr                                    Equation #3                  k = total amount of responding

        r+re

The time allocation matching equation states that the rate at which behavior occurs is the principle dependent variable in basic behavior analysis.  It also states that matching holds even when behavior is measured in terms of its total duration.

    T     =    r1                           Equation #4                  T = time spent on alternative

T1+T2     r1+r2

Finally, the single alternative time allocation equation states that T represents the total amount of time spent engaged in the instrumental alternative while k represents the total session time.  This equation is derived from the mathematical statements of the matching principle.  It governs behavior in single alternative environments.

T =   kr                                    Equation #5

       r+re

The first equation, the matching equation, is a description of the Generalized Matching Law.  The applied implications for such formulas are that organisms will engage in a behavior that is reinforced more often than they will a behavior that is reinforced less often.  An example of this is that a child who desires attention from his or her parents will engage in screaming and temper tantrum behavior if it garners the reinforcement of his or her parents’ attention more often than shoe tying behavior does.

 

5.  Some types of maladaptive verbal behavior can be viewed as mands, tacts, or intraverbal behavior.  Mands are a verbal response, the form of which controls specific behavior on the part of the listener when a specific even would function as a reinforcer for the speaker.  One kind of maladaptive verbal behavior that can be viewed as a mand is called maladaptive behavior.  It consists of a verbal response that sounds like a tact to the listener, but functions as a mand in that it results in the listener supplying a specific reinforcer to the speaker. This behavior becomes maladaptive when its long term result is the disruption of interpersonal relations.  In order for a maladaptive behavior to continue, it must be reinforced in some manner.  In this case a reinforcer is the specific response on the part of the listener as opposed to a clarification of the environment for the speaker.  This behavior also successfully disallows a “no” response from an unsophisticated listener.  Such success encourages the behavior to be repeated.  Another reinforcer is the learned aversiveness of directly asking for something and not getting it.  This reinforces the disguised nature of the mand.  Another maladaptive verbal behavior that can be viewed as a mand is demanding behavior.  This is when a person directly mands attention, help, praise, money or other reinforcers at a high rate.  The reinforcers for demanding behavior, such as asking for help when the asker is able to perform the task at hand without help, are the attention correlated with the help and the lesser effort the task requires when someone else does the hard part or finishes the task.  

            Some forms of maladaptive behavior can also be viewed as tacts.  A tact is a controlling relation between specific antecedent stimulus events and specific forms of verbal behavior.  Poor observation is an example of such maladaptive behavior.  This is when someone is unable to adequately or accurately describe events in the environment.  The reinforcement for this behavior comes from the verbal community for verbal behavior that “interprets” empirical events or summarizes relations among them.  Another form of maladaptive behavior that can be viewed as a tact is metonymic tacting.  This occurs when a stimulus acquires control over the response because it frequently accompanies the stimulus upon which reinforcement is normally contingent.  This may occur because such responses have been actively and differentially reinforced.  Metonymic tacting is also negatively reinforced by avoidance of searching questions.  It is positively reinforced by elicited sympathy and attention through labeling of negative feelings.  Lying is another maladaptive behavior that can be viewed as a tact.  This verbal behavior sounds to the listener as if certain environmental events occurred and, having occurred, enter (albeit delayed) into the control of a specific verbal response.  Essentially, the speaker’s response sounds like a recalled tact.  A reinforcement for lying can be avoiding censure, as lying is typically an avoidance behavior.  Denial is the final maladaptive behavior that can be viewed as a tact.  Denial is when the person cannot respond verbally to a certain event while he or she can respond verbally to the same kind of event under other conditions.  The events or relationship the person fails to tact (denies) has an emotional effect on the person which is not recognized by him or her as a relating to the events.  Denial behavior is reinforced by avoiding the punishment inherent in tacting a fearful event.  Usually the person has few or no readily available responses to deal with the situation if it were recognized.  Accurate tacting would not only generate emotional responses like anger and depression, but also fear or terror of a future for which the person is poorly prepared.

            Some maladaptive behavior can also be viewed as intraverbal behavior.  Intraverbal behavior is verbal behavior under antecedent control of other verbal behavior in which the two verbal responses do not have a point to point correspondence.  Obsessing is an example of maladaptive behavior that can be viewed as intraverbal behavior.  Obsessing is defined as a high rate of intraverbal behavior that seems to go no where.  The reinforcer for this behavior is that it allows the obsessor to avoid acting or dealing with the environment that presents the problem.  Another behavior that could be viewed as intraverbal is simple response bias.  This behavior consists of statements such as “I’m no good,” or “I’ll never do anything right.” The positive reinforcer for this behavior is in the form of enumeration of the person’s assets by his or her listeners.

 

4.  The difficulties in distinguishing between negative and positive reinforcement lie within the language and definition of the terms themselves.  Negative reinforcement is defined as the response-produced termination of negative reinforcers.  A reinforcer is negative if its removal increases responding that terminates or postpones it.  Positive reinforcement is the response-produced presentation of positive reinforcers.  A reinforcer is positive if its presentation increases responding that produces it.  Since reinforcement refers to the operation of removal or presentation of reinforcers, it is easily confused with the reinforcers themselves, which are the actual stimuli.  The usage of the terminology “positive” and “negative” can also be confusing as the terms only refer to the addition or subtraction of stimuli, not to the “goodness” of the stimuli.  According to Catania, the best way to differentiate which relation is operating is to examine whether or not the stimulus is present or absent when the reinforced response is emitted.  In positive reinforcement, the reinforcer is absent when the reinforced response is emitted.  After the response, the reinforcer is presented and occasions other responses.  In negative reinforcement, however, the negative reinforcer is present before the reinforced response is emitted; only after the response is it removed.  This method is suitable to escape, as opposed to avoidance because an organism can escape from aversive circumstances that already exist, but it avoids potential aversive circumstances that haven’t happened yet.  As explained above, in order for reinforcement to be considered negative, the reinforcer is present before the reinforced response is emitted, ruling out any possibility that avoidance might be suitable.