ch.10 Choice, Matching, and Self-Control

*Intervention design for worksheet AB, ABC, Changing Criterion defs are in ch.2

Behavioral function of problem behavior- why do u do the problem behavior ( ex: why do u sleep in )

Introduction

• Choice/ Matching

  • Concurrent Schedules

  • The Matching Law

  • Deviations from Matching

  • Matching and Melioration

• Self control

  • Skinner on Self-Control

  • Self-Control as a Temporal Issue

  • Mischel’s Delay of Gratification Paradigm

  • Ainslie-Rachlin Model of Self-Control

  • Small-but-Cumulative Effects Model

(Concurrent Schedules)

• Simultaneous presentation of two or more independent schedules; each leading to reinforcer

• You can (choose) between responding on one schedule vs another

• Systematic!

(Matching law)

• Underlies various aspects of human social interaction

• Proportion of (responses)emitted on particular schedule matches

• proportion of (Reinforcers) obtained on that same schedule

• Predicts consistent relationship between proportion of reinforcers obtained on certain alternative and the proportion of responses emitted on that alternative

Deviations from Matching

• (undermatching)–proportion of responses on richer schedule versus poorer schedule less different than would be predicted by matching

• Very common

• Little cost for switching from one schedule to another (example = food right next door)

• (Changeover Delay) (COD)

• Overmatching–proportion of responses on (richer) schedule versus (Poorer) schedule is more different than would be predicted by matching

• Cost to move from one alternative to another is very high. (Example = buying new phone for a cell phone plan)

• Bias can measure (preference).

• Operant behavior should often be viewed in context.

Matching and Melioration

• “Leveling-out” process

  • (maximization)(optimization ) Theory–maximizes one’s overall level of reinforcement Vs.

• (melioration) Theory–distribution of behavior in choice situation shifts toward those alternatives that have higher value, regardless of long-term effect on overall amount of reinforcement

• BUT

• Alternative may not require as much responding as one is distributing toward it to obtain all available reinforcers

  • Example = studying enjoyable courses vs. ones that require the most work

• Overindulgence in highly reinforcing alternative can often result in long-term habituation, thus reducing its value as reinforcer

  • Example = getting all “A”s reduces value of each A-grade

• Behavior is too strongly governed by immediate consequences as opposed to delayed consequences

  • Example = studying something you like vs. grade at the end of the semester

(Self Control)

• Circular reasoning in the concept of willpower

  • What does this alone tell you about why Sam was able to stop smoking?

    • “Sam quit smoking. He must have a bit of willpower “

    • “How do you know he has a lot of willpower”

    • “Well, Be quit smoking, didn’t he?”

Skinner on Self-Control

• Self-Control is not willpower but conflicting outcomes

• Two types of responses: a) (controlling) response alters frequency of controlled response, b) (physical restraint) manipulates environment to prevent occurrence

  • (Depriving and satiating) –utilize motivating operations of deprivation and satiation to alter extent to which certain event can act as reinforcer

  • (Doing something else ) –prevent engaging in certain behaviors by performing alternate behavior

  • (Self Reinforcement/ Punishment) –reinforce your own behavior. Less likely to produce consequences for yourself; use social consequences to keep accountable

Self-Control as a Temporal Issue

• Behavior more heavily influenced by immediate rather than delayed consequences

• Later consequences less certain than sooner consequences

• (delay of Gratification) –choosing a larger later reward over smaller sooner reward

• vs.

• (Impulsiveness) –choosing smaller sooner over larger later reward

• Example = choosing not to smoke leads to both smaller sooner punisher in the form of withdrawal symptoms and larger later reward in the form of improved health

Mischel’s Delay of Gratification Paradigm

• Study of self-control using children, pretzels, and marshmallows

• Extent to which children avoided (Paying attention )to reward had significant effect on their resistance to temptation

• Manner in which children (thought about )rewards made a difference (example = viewing marshmallows as clouds)

• Children who devised tactics enabling them to wait for preferred reward were, at 17 years of age, more “cognitively and socially competent”

(Ainslie-Rachlin )model of self- control

• Preference between smaller (sooner/larger) later rewards can shift over time

• Example = morning plans vs. afternoon realities

• Value of reward (increases) more sharply as delay (decreases)/reward becomes imminent

• And:

• (innate)differences in impulsivity

• (individual)differences in impulsivity

• Less impulsivity when (older)

• Less impulsivity after (experience)

• Availability of other reinforcement reduces impulsiveness

• Maintain responding for distant goal by setting up explicit series of subgoals

• Relative values of (smaller sooner )reward (SSR) and (larger Later)reward (LLR) as time passes

• Value of LLR will remain (higher)than value of SSR even as SSR becomes (imminent)

Making a (commitment)((precommitment) Response

• Carried out at early point in time

• Serves either to (eliminate)or greatly (reduce)the value of upcoming temptation

(Small but cumulative)effects model

• Each individual choice on self-control task has (small but cumulative effect )on our likelihood of obtaining desired long-term outcome; helps explain why self-control is difficult

• Example = “Hey, it’s been a tough day, so why not indulge just this once?”

• To improve self-control:

  • Make salient that individual choices are not (isolated events), but rather (parts of a whole)

  • Have a (relapse prevention) plan

  • Establish rules that clearly distinguish between (acceptable) and (unacceptable)behaviors