Re: Differential Reinforcement Discussion

[Guest guest]

Hi and All,

I like to think of differential reinforcement as reinforcing relative to what

you're reinforcing, as to how valuable that is, as a " general " concept,

(extended from the specific, perhaps) where in reality things are not merely

black and white and there is no perfect answer (or behavior) so we reinforce

relative or proportionate to what we are getting and aspiring to? of that

definition (the evolved one?) suits " my " intents and purposes rather well,

and/but I'm not really here to teach (prescribe) definitions, of the way they

used to be? of a history course or something like that, of defining things as a

static, monolithic (proprietary?) thing, that people would want that.

I also borrow from the Oxford English Dictionary's (a former Editor's?) concept

of what a dictionary does or is supposed to do, and that is to describe usage

(of how terms are being used, of taking things where they go?) rather than to

prescribe it. I like to think we're evolving in that respect, where reason would

prevail? I'd like to think.. .

I like where we are taking language for understanding better if not more if you

know what I mean, of the application of Communication if you will?

Thanks for the conversation even if I did think it rather theoretical and not so

practical at first. It is meaningful that we realize that we pretty much are if

not have to be reinforcing relative to how correct, as meaningful, the behavior

is that we are shaping, or compensating for (which should include most of it,

where it is communicating? knowing what that is? as opposed to abuse,

otherwise?) so, differential reinforcement seems the ideal term in that respect

as far as I'm concerned, where you wanted to know.

Mike,

I ABA/J

ABA for Understanding

Establishing my credentials by what I say and do for you? .. . Here's more than

just hoping so! Volunteer, Thereof.

>

>

> Hi,

>

> This is something i have wondered about as well. In my applied work

> with learners who have autism, we talk about providing " differential

> reinforcement/ " in the sense of saving the best/strongest reinforcement

> for the best behavior. So, in learning a new skill, the learner would

> get the stronger reinforcement for increasing levels of independence in

> performing the new skill. I have seen " differential reinforcement "

> defined in this way in books/training manuals on teaching children with

> autism (e.g. A Work in Progress / Leaf and McEachin " provide the

> strongest reinforcers for the best behaviors or performance).. This is

> not however any kind of extinction procedure (at least as far as I

> understand it) since lesser behaviors are still being reinforced /

> albeit with weaker reinforcement.

>

> My confusion comes in when I compare this to the more technical

> definition of differential reinforcement that was taught to me at

> Florida Tech form Dr. ez and I credit this info. to

> ) This is what I learned there from : Differential

> Reinforcement (DR) " consists of 2 operations: reinforcement and

> extinction... If DR consists of reinforcing some responses and not

> reinforcing other responses DR leads to " discrimination " ....If DR

> consists of reinforcing a response when certain stimuli are present and

> not reinforcing the same response when those stimuli are not present,

> DR leads to discrimination.

>

> Both these processes of DR (i.e. differentiation and discrimination

> involve the two operations of reinforcement and extinction. This is

> similar to the way DR is defined in the et.al book as well.

>

> So without getting into DRO, DRI, DRA, DRL for now since I have already

> written too much. I wonder if a new way of using the term " differential

> reinforcement " has come about in applied settings that actually is not

> technically " differential reinforcement " as it is currently defined in

> a more technical sense.

> Perhaps these two ways of using the term DR (ie. 1) using reinforcement

> and extinction, and 2) Providing stronger reinforcement for the best

> behavior and weaker reinforcement for the weaker are really not the

> same process at all. Is there a new way of using the term DR that has

> not made its way into the ABA text books yet or are they one and the

> same thing and i am just not understanding

> something here.

>

>

> Also, I see the point of there being a difference between

> " differentiaLLY reinforcing " and

> " differentiAL reinforcement. This distinction is very helpful to me

> and makes a great deal of sense in helping me discriminate between the

> two (thank you!).

>

> The issue remains however, that some ABA manuals, ABA clinicians,etc

> are using the term " differential reinforcement " when talking about

> " differentially reinforcing " with stronger versus weaker reinforcers.

> The similarity between the two terms for two different behavioral

> principles/methods is probably where the confusion is arising.

>

>

> What do people think?

>

>

> Thanks B-W M.A. Ed BCBA Intern

>