Everything You Need to Know About Reinforcement

Maddie Duke (00:06):
Welcome back to another episode of the Boost U podcast. I am so excited to have you here today. And today we have an oldie but a goodie. That's not to say anything about your age, but just about how long it's been since you've been here. It's great to have you back, Corey.
Corey Robertson (00:24):
Thank you for bringing me out of retirement in the podcast community. No, I'm just kidding. I knew what you meant, but I couldn't help but laugh at that. Hey, wait a second. Uh, no, it's always a pleasure to be here. Of course.
Maddie Duke (00:35):
Yes. I'm really excited for this topic today. Like I was just telling you before we started recording, I'm excited to see kind of our students' reactions to this topic. And I think that we have some good content to share. So I hope the students enjoy.
Corey Robertson (00:56):
Yeah, I think reinforcement seems like the most basic of concepts. It's kind of our bread and butter. But it's a lot more complex than people think. And I think the real challenge is identifying and discriminating examples of the different types for test taking purposes. Certainly that's kind of the focus of our series, but also just in life, in application, being able to identify the specific variables that are maintaining behavior is very important to be able to intervene, right? And so it's about understanding how the universe works and how those contingencies develop so that we can affect them, really.
Maddie Duke (01:34):
Definitely. Yeah. I mean, that is what we are trying to do as behavior analysts. So, yeah. I can't remember if I've had you on, since I started with this introduction question that I'm asking all of my guests. Can you share something that you remember about taking the test or a piece of advice for our test takers?
Corey Robertson (01:58):
Sure. But I think, since I've been introduced as an oldie, but a goodie, I'll share with you that when I took my very first BACB exam for my BCaBA certification, and I wanna say that was 2002, if you can believe that. It was a paper and pencil test in a huge room. I was sitting at a table apart from other people, and there were proctors walking the room and all that kind of stuff. So that's what I remember about the test. And I don't really remember my BCBA exam. I think that one was computer based. I'm pretty sure it was computer based, but we still had to wait 45 days for the results in those days. So, I don't remember anything about the test. And, honestly, even if I did, I probably wouldn't share it because the first rule of the BACB certification exam is that you don't talk about the BACB certification exam.
Corey Robertson (02:47):
But, I will say this, that my approach to test taking in general, I think is applicable to the certification exam; and that is to remember that there's an author and a function. So, as I read a question, I just try to remember that somebody wrote that question and they put information in it that was there to guide me. They also maybe put some details in there that are meant to distract me. And my goal is to find the answer that they were trying to get me to demonstrate the skill that they're looking for. So that just is in the back of my mind sometimes when I'm really struggling with something or the wording of something or the answer choices, or I start arguing, 'oh, well, maybe they meant this', and 'this could be an answer if this were the conditions', I just kind of take a step back and say, 'okay, wait, wait, wait, what did the person who wrote this intend for me to do under these circumstances?' And that helps guide me a little bit. So I would share that as a general test taking tip.
Maddie Duke (03:46):
Yeah, no, I love that. I think I initially learned that from you and I've shared it with other students since learning it. I think it's important to remember ChatGPT is not writing these questions. It is an actual person.
Corey Robertson (04:02):
I mean, they might be, but even with that, we have to train AI to include specific elements. And I've spent, at this point, a lot of time writing items and reviewing items and conducting test item analysis. And there are definitely components to a quality question about any concept. There have to be key factors there. And so that's learning to pick up on those and determine those and not over-read into it, right. It's always a problem.
Maddie Duke (04:29):
Yes. Definitely. Speaking of over-reading, let's make people overthink about reinforcement. Let's get into it. So let's start with just our definition. What is reinforcement?
Corey Robertson (04:46):
Yeah. So I always like the word strengthen. Strengthen. Because that's what the word means in any other context, right? If you reinforce a desk, you make it stronger with more materials. If you're a police officer or a soldier and you call for reinforcements, you get strength in numbers. So what does it mean to strengthen behavior? Well, Skinner was observing an increase in the rate of responding over immediately and over time. It's definitely something when you see the reinforcement effect in real time. It's very interesting to see an organism start doing something more just in the moment because of something that just happened, but also a likelihood that that organism would continue to behave that way under similar conditions. And so that's really what we're talking about with the strengthening when it comes to behavior, is to strengthen probability.
Corey Robertson (05:39):
And that's 'cause many people, I think when they first hear reinforcement, they wanna say increase in rate. And that's problematic. It's problematic because rate isn't the only measure by which we can detect a change. In probability, it could be a decrease in latency. If somebody's quicker to do something, then that shows that that's a strong repertoire. The behavior is strong. if the duration is longer, if the intensity is greater, or even just maintaining. If the behavior is strong, it persists. And that doesn't mean it's changing necessarily, but it could just be maintaining at a hardy rate, so to speak. Or duration or latency. So the strengthening, the reinforcement really refers to an increase in the probability that that response is gonna occur under conditions in the future. And I'm very careful in my wording, I'm saying it this way 'cause I'd like to eventually talk about what reinforcement effects, and it isn't the behavior, but when we start, we think about it in those terms. The behavior produces a consequence, and the consequence strengthens the behavior. That's like an introductory level of understanding. And that's okay for right now, I think.
Maddie Duke (06:46):
Definitely. Yes. So then, what is a reinforcer?
Corey Robertson (06:53):
And that's a term that we use for the consequence, the environmental change that functions to change the probability of the behavior, increase the probability. So, it could be a thing, it could be a tangible item, like a skittle or an M&M, or it could be praise, it could be money, it could be attention, it could be a lot of things. It gets weird when we start to talk about negative reinforcement, because in that case, it's really the subtraction of the thing. It's the removal of something that, that we call aversive. Um, and so escape is really the reinforcer in that scenario. But we sometimes talk about the aversive stimulus as the negative reinforcer, right? So loud noise... If removed, it strengthens behaviors that remove a loud noise. We might refer to the loud noise as the negative reinforcer. That's kind of strange though, right? It probably is. I always think of it as the escape from, but it's precisely speaking, it's the energy change that followed behavior that increased the probability of that behavior, would be the definition of the reinforcer.
Maddie Duke (08:04):
And why do you think it's important to understand the difference between reinforcement and reinforcers?
Corey Robertson (08:12):
Well, 'cause reinforcement's the process, right? We're talking about a strengthening over time. Again, digging into detail. There's a function altering effect that's occurring as consequences technically become associated with the antecedents that proceed the responses that produce them. So the reinforcement refers to the process, and the reinforcer would be that discrete environmental change that we're looking to. There's the environmental change that's produced by the response that has strengthened the probability or altered the function of antecedents related to it, or those kinds of things.
Maddie Duke (08:47):
Yes. Makes me think about extinction and how the process and the environmental change have the same name.
Corey Robertson (08:56):
Process versus a procedure. Right? Exactly. Yeah, exactly. And similar, yeah, reinforcement is the process. The reinforcer is the thing. It's just the energy change, the consequence, right?
Maddie Duke (09:07):
Yes. All right, let's get into positive and negative. So what are our types of reinforcement?
Corey Robertson (09:17):
And so this is the first part of the challenge, right, for students is, okay, we learn reinforcement, and we aren't talking about punishment today, but we tend to contrast reinforcement with punishment, because that's the weakening effect. And then we've got this other term that has to do with the nature of the energy change. Reinforcement and punishment refers to the effect on behavior, the function-altering effect, the change in probability. But there's that energy change that we've been talking about, that consequence, that reinforcing consequence will either consist of an additive energy change in which something is added, presented, that kind of thing. Increased in magnitude, intensified, and we refer to those as positive energy changes. And Ialways try to, when I'm talking to parents or students, or other folks use positive and additive together.
Corey Robertson (10:09):
So when you think positive, you should be thinking of a plus sign. We should be thinking of the terminal of a battery. You have to wipe away the value association that we have with positive, where we think of things of good, it's a positive outcome, that means I'm happy with it. Well, that's not what we mean in this regard. It really is just referring to the nature of the flow of energy. And with positive, it's toward, we're adding something. And then the negative is subtractive in nature, withdrawing, turning off the stimulus, offset, stimulus attenuation, turning a dimmer down on a light switch. All of those are subtractive energy changes. And we refer to those as negative, not 'cause they're nasty, not 'cause they're bad, simply because they're subtractive in nature. And then when we throw those together, we start to get our four basic types of consequences, positive reinforcement, positive punishment, negative reinforcement, and negative punishment.
Maddie Duke (11:05):
Yes. And I do wanna just throw out for the listener, I have an episode on punishment planned and coming. Corey, if you wanna do that one with us. I don't have a guest for it yet.
Corey Robertson (11:19):
Just the flip side of this one, right? Yeah, sure. But, I just wanna put those in some context because the way I approach this as an instructor is I'm thinking about the way that students are learning these things and what they're gonna relate those concepts to and contrast, right? And that's constantly, it seems like what we're learning in behavior analysis is different. Discriminations, oh, here's the term contingency, and here's the term contiguity. They look a lot alike. They're kind of related to each other, but we have to come up with some tricks for keeping 'em apart. And now we've got reinforcement and punishment, and we have to keep those apart. And they mean different things and positive and negative mean different things. But we're linking them on these different concepts all back together, right. To form our understanding of these things.
Maddie Duke (11:59):
Yes, definitely. So what is the difference between positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement? Why is it important to know the difference?
Corey Robertson (12:10):
Great question. And I would probably always start that, answer that question with saying, well, Jack Michaels said it doesn't.
Maddie Duke (12:16):
Right?
Corey Robertson (12:17):
And that's what I'm gonna go with. And for those of you who are not aware, Jack Michaels wrote a book, an article entitled, Positive vs. Negative Reinforcement: A Distinction Which is No Longer Necessary. And in that article, he argued that the distinction was no longer necessary. But here's a great example, I give of it in class, is you walk into a room and you flip on a light switch and the light comes on. And in the future, when you enter a dark room, you're likely to find a switch and flip it in the upper direction. And I ask my students to talk about the effect on behavior first. I teach... That is, well, first thing is what, what happened to the behaviors? Is it strengthened or weakened? And they can look at that example and identify, well, it says that in the future there's a delayed effect, right? You're more likely to flip the switch. So that's a strengthening. Okay? So we know that's reinforcement. And now the question is, well, is it positive or negative? And some students will select negative reinforcement on example, and say that you removed the darkness.
Corey Robertson (13:20):
Right? And other students will select positive reinforcement and say that you added light. And so the question is, well, which is it? And the honest answer has to be both, right? And I think that's the point that Jack Michael was making is it's always both. You're removing darkness and you're adding light, you're removing hunger and you're adding food, right? You're removing isolation and you're adding attention, right? What's the driving factor there? Maybe it doesn't really matter, and I think maybe it doesn't, but the reality is that we still do make the distinction. And so it might matter when we're talking to other people. And more importantly, I think it's important to be able to classify and understand the nature of the consequences that are maintaining the behavior.
Corey Robertson (14:05):
And that's really what it all comes down to, is not the broad categorization, but really identifying the specifics. But by classifying things, we understand them. Right? I need to know what specific breed and and background this dog has before I approach it. But I will make assumptions based on its broader classifications. That's a big dog. I'm gonna be more careful than even if it was a smaller dog. And then I'll learn other details about it, right? So what I teach people is that, what I'm looking for with negative reinforcement is the clear and present aversive stimulus. In that example, I don't say that I'm afraid of the dark, or I'm worried about stubbing my toe, or that I'm experiencing some kind of heightened anxiety because of the dark, and those kinds of things. And all that is relieved by turning on the light.
Corey Robertson (14:51):
The other thing I point out to students is just the way that we talk and also the energy flow. When you say what happens when you flip the switch? People typically don't respond with "dark goes off". They will say, "light comes on". Because darkness isn't an energy, so you're not taking away something, right? You're technically adding light energy. I think in that example, positive reinforcement is more important. When we think of negative reinforcement, it should be in situations of escape or avoidance, right? And the other thing about that is there will be a clear antecedent that evokes the antecedent. And a great example of this is, is when you have a headache and you take pain relievers, early students, some students will make the mistake of saying that that's positive reinforcement.
Corey Robertson (15:38):
Because when you take the medication, a pill is added to your mouth, right? You add the pills. But if that were true, we would see adding the pills more frequently, right? I like Tic-Tacs, I like Altoids, mints, and I consume them regularly. Just because I want the flavor in my mouth. It's not even really maybe about relieving bad breath. I just, every once in a while it's nice to have an Altoid, you know? But with the pills, that's not the case. You are taking it because there's a headache. There's a clear and present aversive condition. You know, having your hands over your eyes and turning off the light would be probably a better, easier, obvious example of negative reinforcement. Yeah. The bottom line is, it may not matter very much to make the distinction between the energy change as long as you understand what the energy change is that's strengthening the behavior or increasing the probability of the behavior. But we talk, we have to talk to each other and we have to talk to each other in ways that are meaningful and communicate the intent and shared data and things like that. So it's important to understand the difference, broadly speaking, I would say between reward and relief. Maybe in colloquial terms that we could, construe positive and negative reinforcement is we're all out here seeking reward and relief. And so that's really what the thing is. Is this more about something you're getting, or is this about something you're getting rid of? That makes it more likely to happen in the future? That's the distinction.
Maddie Duke (17:07):
Yes. And I think that's important, too. We could talk literally all day about positive and negative reinforcement, and is it important to know? And, but the reality is that the BACB is going to test you on it because it is on the test content outline. And I think that that is a great way to kind of, your reward versus relief example is important for students to understand that conceptually we could talk all day, but for the test, you do need to know.
Corey Robertson (17:42):
It always feels a little strange, focusing on that as the ultimate outcome. Well, for the test, you need to be able to do this because the test is supposed to be testing the things that you're gonna be able to do in the real world. But, that is a factor of being able to classify the nature of the consequences that are increasing behavior because we gotta be able to arrange for them, right? And so there's being able to determine why is the person doing this? What is it that happens? What's going on beforehand? And what's happening afterwards? And what's the nature of the energy change? A case comes to mind. I worked in group homes and we had a young lady who would occasionally attack other people in her group home.
Corey Robertson (18:25):
She'd come out of her room and just start hitting somebody else. And the staff, they could never identify what was going on. There's nothing happening beforehand. She was fine. She was in her room by herself. She was just hanging out. Well, every scenario met that description. This person was not being attended to, was left by themselves, was just sort of 'hanging out' according to staff, right? And then this very surprising behavior curse. And every time the consequence is very similar, two to three staff start attending to that person and talking to her about her behavior and how she can't do that, and why is she doing that? And they put her in "time out". I'm putting two air quotes in there around that, because they sat her down had somebody counseling her, basically. I said, "Well, I hear that nothing's going on beforehand".
Corey Robertson (19:10):
And then it sure seems like there's a lot going on afterwards. So maybe there's a potential that this is being maintained by attention. And maybe the solution might just be to check in with that person. If you haven't seen themin a little while, and you're not sure what's going on, and they're just fine by themselves, go do a status check. Go hang out and see what they're up to and interact with them and talk to them about the activity they're engaging in, and give a little attention. And let's see if that changes some things over time. So it's being able to identify those energy changes and, and how they might lead to, you know, more behavior compared to the antecedent. Right? What happens when the person engages in the response in scenarios, it's all text, right?
Corey Robertson (19:52):
We have to be able to break down... Who is the behaver? Whose focus are we taking? 'Cause other people are gonna be part of their environment, and we need to treat them as such. What is the specific target behavior that we're looking at? What are they doing? Okay, then, is that behavior being strengthened or weakened? Let's categorize it as reinforcement or punishment first, and then eliminate some choices that way. Then we can start to look at the nature of the energy change to determine whether it's subtractive or additive, is it positive or negative reinforcement? And then we can start to look at the other layers that we're getting to here, the other ways that we classify consequences.
Maddie Duke (20:27):
Yeah. Let's get into that. So socially mediated and automatic reinforcement, that's kind of where next classification.
Corey Robertson (20:35):
Yeah. And that just points to, "does somebody else have to be there to present the consequence or not?" You know, a lot of our reinforcers, a lot of the resources in the universe have to come to us through somebody else. I need to get mom and dad's attention so they can get me the cookie on the top shelf. I need to get the teacher's attention over here so she can give me relief from this difficult math problem that I'm struggling with. You know, those sorts of things. And then there are lots of reinforcers that we produce ourselves that are a direct result of the behavior. And they're not all sensory. You know, people hear automatic reinforcement, we immediately go to sensory stimulation. When you close a door, it shuts. That's automatic reinforcement too. A baby in a crib will slap a mobile and it starts to move.
Corey Robertson (21:17):
Yeah, maybe there's some sensory input there, but that's not really meaningful because all of our reinforcers are sensory in nature. They all affect our sensory receptors without seeing, hearing, touching, smelling. There are no reinforcers anyway. So, the sensory part isn't really the key. We're just trying to point to whether the person can produce that consequence themselves, because those become more difficult to deal with, you know? How do you address that if the person can always get it, or entertain themselves with self stimulatory behavior or steal food in the middle of the night or whatever it is? So I think that's important to recognize that there's practical automatic reinforcement. We pick up a pencil, it's in our hand, you know, all those different things. And then the sensory forms of it? It feels good. It sounds cool. We do impressions and things like that, or sing songs that we love, because we can hear them at the moment's notice. I don't have to have a radio. I could just sing the song. Right? And so it's just that being able to identify what it is they're getting and how they're getting it, it's a lot more challenging to address behaviors where the person can deliver the reinforcers themselves, right?
Maddie Duke (22:25):
Yeah. And here's a kind of philosophical question. Can something be both socially mediated and automatic?
Corey Robertson (22:37):
I have trouble with conceptualizing something like that? Is there a consequence, an energy change that is both directly result of the person's behavior and it involves somebody else delivering it? I don't know about that. You know, the first thing comes to mind is, 'well, maybe if I love the sound of people screaming and I just reach out and slap you'. Well, I'm producing that, but you have a choice. There is a way that you could learn not to make any sound. Or you maybe you put on padded gear or something and you don't feel it. All of a sudden I can't get that consequence anymore. So I don't think so. I think it's hard to be the result of your own behavior and the result of somebody else's at the same time. That doesn't mean you couldn't come up with one.
Corey Robertson (23:16):
That would be a very complex example. I see that a question up here too, about could something be both positive and negative reinforcement? Probably not the same energy change, but it depends on what we're talking about, right? So, yeah, well, it is the decrease of darkness and the increase of light. So sure. But that's not, that's not really how we would look at that. So I think that would probably not be the case. And again, the socially mediated vs. automatically, it's just, does somebody else have to be there to make it work or not? Which tells us how easy it will be to intervene related to that contingency.
Maddie Duke (23:47):
Yeah. I could see like a learning history related to a single behavior could be both socially mediated and automatic, right? Like when I was a very young child, I wasn't closing my own doors. So, having the door closed was socially mediated as a child. But now closing the door is automatically reinforced because I do it myself.
Corey Robertson (24:14):
Now, that's a, that's a different question. Yes, I definitely agree that a single response topography or even a function might be under the control of socially mediated and automatic contingencies. A hundred percent. And that really goes back to more of like, and then now we start maybe getting into functional analysis, right? And identifying categories of consequences. I give an example of playing guitar. I play guitar and sing a little bit. And I definitely do that for my own benefit. I love to hear the song. I'm learning a new song. Sometimes it brings me joy to play it, especially something challenging. But on the other hand, I play for my friends and my wife and my kids and stuff, and I definitely get some, and under some conditions it's maintained by attention under other conditions it's maintained by automatic contingencies. And, and they definitely move, you know? And that's, I think a lot of what we try to do in our teaching is start off with socially mediated contingencies or maybe at least more contrived socially mediared contingencies. And then we're trying to bring that behavior under the control of the natural contingencies. Sometimes those natural contingencies are still socially mediated, right? But we're trying to... Like, Maddie, you should be closing your door or making your bed or whatever for your own benefit, you know, or something like that. And at first, you're just doing it because, well, it's maybe negative reinforcement for getting nagged at, right? And maybe there's some positive reinforcement there in, well, my parents are happy and proud of me when I do these kinds of things, right? And then eventually it just becomes, it's your own voice in your head, right?
Corey Robertson (25:41):
Maybe. Or it's just like, I like the way my bed looks when I come in at the end of the day and it's clean. So it started off being the behavior was established under socially mediated contingencies, but then faded to maybe those automatic contingencies... The site of the bed being made is what reinforces you making it now, right? Same thing with work product, right? We gotta get feedback on our work products at first, right? Whatever it is, a report that we write for our supervisor, right? We're getting that feedback and that's shaping our behavior, but eventually we recognize the product of our own behavior. This report does not, does not look good. I need to revise it, and I can do that myself. That's now an automatic contingency, you know?
Maddie Duke (26:19):
Yeah. That makes me think of some other philosophical questions that would just be confusing for our students, but I think are interesting. So we'll just move past that.
Corey Robertson (26:32):
You're in that wonderful phase of just being like, just post-graduation right now, where some of these things really start to get bigger. And we're also kind of working in academia now too, right? So yeah, we definitely have the stuff, the minimum stuff that we learn, and then we gotta go apply it, and then we have a little time and energy and the skillset, right? To really start blowing our own minds. A hundred percent. I feel that.
Maddie Duke (26:52):
So the last kind of classification of reinforcement and reinforcers is unconditioned and conditioned and generalized reinforcers. So what are these?
Corey Robertson (27:06):
Yeah. And I think, at least in our program, students tend to confuse these a little bit or the way that we use these terms. And I feel like it's because they learn respondent conditioning first. And the way that we use those terms is a little bit different. We talk about conditioned stimuli, conditioned responses, and then we start talking about operant behavior. And conditioning does mean learned, but at the stage that we're going into operant behavior, it's all because of individual learning history, right? And so the conditioning and unconditioning actually refer to the consequences themselves. And the way I summarize, it's basically just... Was it inherently, innately punishing or reinforcing or not did it have to acquire those properties? So, we come hardwired to be sensitive to food and water, oxygen, temperature extremes, pain... All of those things we are just hardwired to be sensitive to as reinforcers and punishers, right?
Corey Robertson (28:05):
Any behavior that produces food is likely to be strengthened, especially when we haven't had food in a while. Behaviors that lead to the relief of pain are likely to be strengthened under most circumstances. We don't have to learn that pain is a bad thing. We learn not to do behaviors that produce pain, right? Or we learn to avoid things, like a hot stove, but the hot stove itself didn't have to be paired with anything to be a punisher the first time. And so that's all that really refers to. So our unconditioned reinforcers again, are gonna be things like food, water, sexual stimulation, things like that. Our punishers are going to be pain and discomfort, those kinds of things. And all the rest of the stuff has to be paired. Attention has to be paired. I think it's paired very early with food, whether you're bottle or breastfed, right?
Corey Robertson (28:50):
Immediately, someone's making eye contact with you and good things are happening. And so there's sort of a very early association between eye contact and other kinds of reinforcers for a lot of people. As we know, not everybody develops that easily -- social praise and disapproval. A 2-year-old doesn't care if you're disappointed in them. That doesn't mean anything, but say that to a 25-year-old... "Oh gosh, mom's disappointed." Oh no, that's worse than if you were angry at me, right. Praise, you know, all those other things, all those tokens and all those wonderful things are conditioned reinforcers. They mean things to us after our learning history establishes.
Maddie Duke (29:28):
Yes. So that's unconditioned and conditioned, but what about generalized reinforcers?
Corey Robertson (29:37):
Oh, well, yeah. So generalized reinforcers have typically been associated with other reinforcers, such that they tend to be suitable for a wide range of topographies. Right? So a great example... First I think the generalized conditioned reinforcer people think of are tokens. And token economies, those tokens can consist of lots of different things, stickers points, all those things are also similar. They're things that we trade in for those tangible reinforcers. But praise is another great example of a generalized conditioned reinforcer. It's been paired with so many other things. You know, "good job, here's an M&M", "good job, here's your allowance". "Good job, here's your paycheck". "Oh, great interview, here's a job." You know, all those kinds of things such that, it pretty much can, for most people will reinforce a lot of different behavior the first time.
Corey Robertson (30:25):
Right. It's already established. And you tend not to get satiated on it. I always joke with my students there's never gonna be a time that I get tired of students telling me, "Hey, I really appreciate the way you taught that". Or, "Hey, Corey, great job". It has never yet to come to somebody introduces themselves to me at a conference and they say, "Ah, I've heard it, if I have to hear that again, I'll be sick of it". No, no, no. Never get tired of that. But, you gotta get there, those are great reinforcers if you have them, but it takes awhile to get there. But, the generalized just means it's gonna be applicable to a variety of responses across a variety of conditions.
Corey Robertson (31:01):
Very often they're portable, which is nice, they're not contingent upon a specific location or things like that or setting. So can something be a conditioned reinforcer in a generalized reinforcer? Yes. Well, that's a good question. I would imagine that there are probably some unconditioned reinforcers that function as generalized reinforcer. Food is probably a big one. I would say probably food can generalize all across a lot of response topographies. But yes, most generalized reinforcers are gonna be condition reinforcers. That's the beauty of them, is that they've been paired with enough things to have the value of those different things.
Maddie Duke (31:38):
Yes, definitely. I think we've covered everything. Do you have anything... Kind of last thoughts that you think students need to know about reinforcement?
Corey Robertson (31:54):
I don't think so. Especially just these classifications. The other thing... I know we've talked in the past about functional analysis and assessment and things like that. And there's certainly a related concept here. And I just want that to be that. Even as we learn to focus on these categorizations, it can become very easy for us to then get lazy in our language and then maybe even lazy in our analysis ultimately with these. And many students will learn like the four functions of behavior, right. And immediately SEAT, comes to mind, what is it? Sensory, escape attention, tangible... That is very simplistic. And when we talk about just attention, for example, what kind of attention is a big question. Attention from whom is a big question. What intensity of intention?
Corey Robertson (32:41):
Because "good job, Johnny" is not gonna cut it. You know, when it's compared to "what are you doing out of your seat again, Elizabeth", that kind of thing, right. Obviously there's a difference there, we're always getting at these specifics. We really wanna understand the conditions under which that behavior is emitted so that we can make predictions and then influence those environmental variables to affect the change that we're looking for. So, I know sometimes we can, as students get bogged down in the, what's the test taking strategy? What are the steps I need to take to read the scenario? And those are good steps, but it's taking that to the next level and applying it in applied settings. You know, so as you're studying and you're viewing, don't just look at scenarios and examples and try to apply these skills. Look at the behavior of your clients and have those conversations with your supervisor and say, "Well, what kind of consequences is that?" And, "what what led to the person doing this and how might we change this conceptually?" And have those kinds of conversations as well. And it will help you generalize these skills beyond the exam and into practice
Maddie Duke (33:43):
And look at your own behavior, too. I was just talking to somebody who had just watched a CE and the presenter had talked about behavior that they, of their own that they wanted to change and they kind of talked about the process for that. You can change your own behavior, too. It's just manipulating consequences and you know how to do that, too.
Corey Robertson (34:04):
It's a lot harder 'cause you can cheat, you understand yourself, but I agree with that. On that note, I would always say, if it's worth change, it's worth taking data on. So we're gonna cross it the bridge into self-improvement. If you folks are still thinking about your New Year's resolutions, get your data sheets out. That's my problem right now. I'm not taking data on on how much I'm not walking, but if I had to look at those zeros, I would probably be more motivated.
Maddie Duke (34:28):
Yes. Well thank you so much for having this conversation. I think it's been great. I hope our students enjoy.
Corey Robertson (34:38):
Me too. It's great being here and maybe we'll get to chat and talk this way about the punishment in the near future. Who knows?
Maddie Duke (34:42):
Yes, definitely. Alright, to the listener, thank you so much for being here and we will see you in our next episode.