Chapter+11+Learned+Reinforcers+and+Learned+Aversive+Conditions+ANSWERS

** Learned Reinforcers and Learned Aversive Conditions ** ** ANSWERS **
 * Chapter 11 **


 * 1.)** **Extinction of a previously reinforced response** **vs.** **removing the value of learned reinforcers and aversive conditions by stopping the pairing procedure.**


 * a.)** What’s the common confusion?


 * ANSWER:** People often erroneously believe that removing the value of a learned reinforcer is an example of extinction.


 * b.)** Compare and contrast extinction and the removal of the value of a learned reinforcer.


 * ANSWER:**
 * **Similarities:** Both procedures involve breaking a type of pairing.
 * **Crucial Difference:** In an extinction procedure, the immediate pairing of a **RESPONSE** and a **REINFORCER** is broken. However, in removing the value of a learned reinforcer, we are breaking the pairing between a **NEUTRAL STIMULUS** and an **UNLEARNED REINFORCER** (or an //already established learned reinforcer// if we are speaking about a higher-order pairing**)**.


 * c.)** Illustrate the differences between these two procedures with a pair of examples from the Skinner box

**Reinforcement**
 * ANSWER:**

**Extinction**



Pairing procedure used to **ESTABLISH** the dipper click as a learned reinforcer



Breaking the pairing procedure to **REMOVE** the value of the learned reinforcer




 * d.)** Using the examples that you’ve provided, please explain the differences between the two concepts using the terminology that you had provided in your answer to 1b.


 * ANSWER:** In the reinforcement contingency, presentation of the water is contingent upon the lever press response, so in essence, the **//lever press response has been paired with water reinforcement//**. The extinction procedure breaks this pairing between the lever press and the water, and accordingly, the response frequency decreases. Like the reinforcement contingency, a pairing occurs to establish the reinforcing value of the dipper click, however, this pairing is **//between//** //**two stimuli**//: the dipper click (a neutral stimulus), and the water (an unlearned reinforcer). In removing the reinforcing value of the dipper click, the pairing between the presence of the dipper click and the presence of the water is broken; thus the dipper click acquires a neutral value again.


 * NOTE:** (//you do not need to know this for the test, but it provides a rationale for why some people may confuse these two concepts)//

// Removing the value of the learned reinforcer vs. Extinction of the response: //

While breaking the pairing between a learned reinforcer and an unlearned reinforcer **//may lead//** to extinction; performing an extinction procedure **//does not lead//** to the removal of the value of a learned reinforcer.
 * For example:** If you were to stop pairing water with the dipper click, but continue to give Rudolph the dipper click contingent upon lever presses, the lever press would extinguish. However extinguishing the response (i.e. not presenting ANYTHING contingent upon a response; including either the dipper click or water) will not lead to the removal of the reinforcing value from the dipper click. If, after the extinction procedure, the dipper click were to again be presented contingent upon a response (while occasionally being paired with water) it will have retained its reinforcing value.


 * 2.)** **Recovery of a previously punished response vs. removing the value of a learned aversive condition by stopping the pairing procedure.**


 * a.)** Please give an example of a punishment contingency, recovery from punishment, and a pairing procedure illustrating the establishment and removal of aversive value for a neutral stimulus.


 * ANSWER:**



Pairing procedure used to **ESTABLISH** the buzzer as a learned aversive condition

Breaking the pairing procedure to **REMOVE** the value of the learned aversive condition


 * b.)** Using the preceding examples, please discuss the differences between allowing a response to recover and removing the aversive value of a learned aversive condition by stopping the pairing procedure.


 * ANSWER:** As in our previous answer to 1d, withholding response-contingent shock in essence breaks the pairing between it (//a stimulus//) and the lever press //response//; therefore the lever press frequency increases to its level prior to punishment. In contrast, in removing the aversive value of the buzzer, we are breaking the pairing between it and the shock, both of which are **two stimuli**. Thus the buzzer acquires a neutral value again.

Similar to above, while breaking the pairing between a learned aversive condition and an unlearned aversive condition **//may lead//** to recovery; allowing a response to recover **//does not lead//** to the removal of the value of a learned aversive condition.
 * NOTE:** (//you do not need to know this for the test, but it provides a rationale for why some people may confuse these two concepts)//
 * For example:** If you were to stop pairing shock with the buzzer, but continue to present Rudolph with the buzzer contingent upon lever presses, the lever press would recover. However, allowing the response to recover (i.e. not presenting ANYTHING contingent upon a response; including either the buzzer or the shock) will not lead to the removal of the aversive value from the buzzer. If, after recovery, the buzzer were to again be presented contingent upon a response (while occasionally being paired with shock) it will have retained its aversive value.


 * 3.)** Rudolph the rat presses the lever and receives a drop of water. A common confusion (for students, not so much for professionals which you are going to be) is that “Rudolph learns to press the lever, so water is a learned reinforcer. Right?”


 * a.)** Where is it that students are failing to discriminate when they compare the concepts of a reinforcement contingency and a learned reinforcer?


 * ANSWER:** The students are identifying a pairing, but they are failing to discriminate between a pairing of a learned reinforcer and an unlearned reinforcer (two stimuli) and a response and a reinforcing outcome. What is learned in this example is the //response//, not the reinforcer. Water will be a reinforcer for Rudolph regardless of whether it is presented contingent upon lever presses.


 * 4.)** The motivating operation for a learned reinforcer.


 * a.)** What is the common confusion?


 * ANSWER:** People erroneously assume that a motivating operation performed on the //learned reinforcer// is sufficient to affect learning and performance. For example, people think that deprivation of a learned reinforcer will improve learning and performance.


 * b.)** What is the correct assumption?


 * ANSWER:** Only motivating operations performed on the //unlearned reinforcer// paired with the learned reinforcer will affect learning and performance. Therefore, only deprivation of the unlearned reinforcer will affect learning and performance when a learned reinforcer is used to reinforce behavior.


 * c.)** Therefore, is it possible to satiate on learned reinforcers?


 * ANSWER:** No, it is NOT possible to satiate on learned reinforcers. Satiation can only occur with the unlearned reinforcers that the learned reinforcers are paired with.


 * d.)** Please give an example of a reinforcement contingency in which a learned reinforcer is used.


 * ANSWER:**


 * e.)** Discuss why a motivating operation performed on this learned reinforcer would not affect learning and performance.


 * ANSWER:** Motivating operations act upon the relative difference between the before and after conditions. In this example, Rudolph could be deprived of dipper clicks for a week, and the reinforcing effectiveness of the dipper click would not increase. The relative difference between not having received a dipper click and receiving one after the lever press will not be affected by “dipper click deprivation." However, depriving Rudolph of //water// (the unlearned reinforcer) **does** increase the relative difference between not having received water lately and receiving water after the lever press. AND since the dipper click has been paired with water, **deprivation of water** will also increase the relative difference between the before condition of not having heard a dipper click lately and hearing one after pressing the lever.


 * 5.)** Hedonic and instrumental learned reinforcers.


 * a.)** Briefly describe the Zimmerman and Hanford experiment.


 * ANSWER:** The experimenters paired neutral stimuli (click, sight of feeder, termination of the Skinner box light and the key-peck light) with food to establish the neutral stimuli as learned reinforcers (this pairing was presented to the pigeon regardless of responding). They then attempted to shape a pigeon's key pecking response using only the non-food stimuli (//food was still presented, but only non-contingently on the key peck response//). The results showed that the pigeon’s key-pecking response was able to be shaped simply with contingent presentation of the non-food stimuli. In other words, the formerly neutral stimuli were demonstrated to have changed value and had become learned reinforcers for the pigeon, and thus were capable of being used to reinforce and maintain behavior.


 * b.)** How does this relate to hedonic learned reinforcers?


 * ANSWER:** Hedonic reinforcers are reinforcers that do not lead to backup reinforcers. In the Zimmerman and Hanford experiment, the non-food stimuli acquired a reinforcing value, and as a reinforcer would be classified as hedonic (as opposed to instrumental). This is because the non-food stimuli maintained the key-peck response EVEN THOUGH the pigeon never received any food for pecking the key. //Remember, food was presented only non-contingently.// There was never any pairing of the actual unlearned reinforcer with the key-peck response and yet the key-peck response still came under control of the learned reinforcer. This experiment essentially demonstrates the significant influence that hedonic learned reinforcers can have in controlling our behavior.


 * c.)** Bringing this concept back to the everyday world, how does the smile from a passing stranger illustrate the concept of a hedonic learned reinforcer?


 * ANSWER:** The smile from a passing stranger is a hedonic learned reinforcer because it reinforces our behavior even though by itself, the smile does not lead to backup reinforcers. In other words, the stranger's smiling will increase my smiling to other passing strangers in the night even though receiving that stranger’s smile will not result in my receiving any other reinforcing stimuli.


 * d.)** Similarly, how does the finger from a passing stranger illustrate a hedonic aversive condition?


 * ANSWER:** Having a passing stranger flip the bird after I’ve greeted them with a warm smile is a hedonic aversive condition because by itself, it will not lead to any backup aversive outcomes. In other words, the rudeness of the stranger will punish my smiling to strangers even though their rudeness will not result in any other aversive outcomes.


 * Common Confusion: Hedonic vs. Instrumental Reinforcers**

Hedonic reinforcers do not lead to any back up reinforcers and can be learned (i.e. a smile) or unlearned (i.e. water); Instrumental reinforcers are learned reinforcers which lead to back up reinforcers (i.e. fork, pen, remote)

Instrumental reinforcers can become hedonic reinforcers when we remove their functional value (i.e. a stamp (instrumental) can become a hedonic reinforcer if it is part of a "stamp collection" and not used for mailing letters.)

Another note to think about: Why are some stimuli hedonic (such as the non-food stimuli in the Hanford and Zimmerman experiment) and some stimuli are not (such as a dipper click that is a learned reinforcer to a rat in a skinner box)?