Nature Of Reinforcement Research Articles

“Reinforcement” in Behavior Theory

In its Pavlovian context, "reinforcement" was actually a descriptive term for the functional relation between an unconditional and a conditional stimulus. When it was adopted into operant conditioning, "reinforcement" became the central concept and the key operation, but with new qualifications, new referents, and new expectations. Some behavior theorists believed that "reinforcers" comprise a special and limited class of stimuli or events, and they speculated about what the essential "nature of reinforcement" might be. It is now known that any stimulus can serve a reinforcing function, with due recognition of such parameters as subject species characteristics, stimulus intensity, sensory modality, and schedule of application. This paper comments on these developments from the stand-point of reflex behavior theory.

Self-Examination of Loneliness

A structured group approach for intervention with persons who experience chronic loneliness is described. The major focus of the group experience is that of self-examination. In particular, the following aspects of participants' life experience are examined: the satisfaction of social needs through relationships; the perceived dissatisfaction with one's social relationships; the nature of reinforcement through social relationships; the degree of perceived helplessness; the nature of expectations of self and others; the quality and degree of maintenance factors in loneliness; the relationship between loneliness and depression; and finally, the opportunity for personal growth and creativity in loneliness. The group process and leadership functions which facilitated self-examination are outlined. An evaluation of this time-limited group at its conclusion, indicated that participants were feeling less depressed, more hopeful for the future and more in control of their lives.

The effects of response contingency and reinforcement identity on response suppression by alternative reinforcement

Rats were trained on a multiple schedule in which lever pressing was reinforced in one component and nose poking was reinforced in the other. The reinforcers contingent on the two responses were always different, either corn oil or Noyes pellets. A schedule of alternative reinforcement was superimposed in each component, either presenting the same reinforcer as that contingent on the lever/key, or the alternative reinforcer. When the alternative reinforcers were freely presented on a variable time (VT) schedule, their suppressive effects were substantially larger when the free reinforcer was the same as the reinforcer contingent on the lever/key than when it was different. But when the alternative reinforcers were presented according to a variable-interval schedule for a third response (rod pressing), the differences caused by the nature of reinforcement were greatly reduced and not statistically significant. Similar effects occurred when the alternative reinforcement was presented on a VT schedule but preceded by a signal. The results suggest that the effects of alternative reinforcement cannot be explained solely in terms of relative reinforcement rate.

“Reinforcement” in behavior theory

In its Pavlovian context, "reinforcement" was actually a descriptive term for the functional relation between an unconditional and a conditional stimulus. When it was adopted into operant conditioning, "reinforcement" became the central concept and the key operation, but with new qualifications, new referents, and new expectations. Some behavior theorists believed that "reinforcers" comprise a special and limited class of stimuli or events, and they speculated about what the essential "nature of reinforcement" might be. It is now known that any stimulus can serve a reinforcing function, with due recognition of such parameters as subject species characteristics, stimulus intensity, sensory modality, and schedule of application. This paper comments on these developments from the standpoint of reflex behavior theory.

Effect of Certain Crystalline Substances on Physical Properties of Elastomers I. Stress-Strain behavior

Abstract Crystalline organic compounds containing a β-naphthyl group cause pronounced stiffening of rubber vulcanizates under certain conditions. When these materials are removed by extraction, the reinforcing effect vanishes. Reversibility of this effect indicates that the forces involved are not those associated with primary bonds. Reinforcement by at least one of these materials, PBNA, is obtained with vulcanizates made from various elastomers and vulcanizing agents, and is essentially independent of the state of cure. In some instances about five per cent of PBNA, the most effective of these, produces the same stiffness on first extension as 40 phr carbon black. Any PBNA dissolved in the rubber has no effect on stiffness. Thus, less than three per cent crystalline PBNA may produce an isotropic Young's modulus of about 20 kg/cm2 at room temperature. At higher concentrations of PBNA, strain continues to decrease but hardness does not change proportionally. The temperature coefficient of Young's modulus for PBNA reinforced rubber is negative, like that for vulcanizates containing carbon black. However, the increased solubility of PBNA with rising temperature makes quantitative determination of the temperature coefficient difficult. The PBNA-rubber structure is partly destroyed by repeated extensions to twice the original length. However after 5 extensions a substantial enhancement of modulus remains. Addition of PBNA to a rubber vulcanizate does not affect significantly the glass transition temperature. Though the reversible nature of reinforcement with PBNA strongly suggests a physical mechanism, the stiffening cannot be explained by existing theories of physical reinforcement.

Generalization of expectancy changes as a function of the nature of reinforcement.

Generalization of expectancy changes as a function of the nature of reinforcement.