1. Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Complete
the
table
Diagram
a
performance
management
example
of:
Present
Remove
-­‐Reinforcement
Reinforcer
-­‐Escape
-­‐Punishment
Aversive
-­‐Penalty
condition
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Complete
the
table
What’s
the
common
confusion
between
positive
Traditional
POB
and
negative
reinforcement?
Positive
reinforcer
Positive
reinforcement
Negative
reinforcer
Negative
reinforcement
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Diagram
a
Skinner
box
example
of:
According
to
the
toothpaste
theory,
what
is
wrong
-­‐Reinforcement
with
talking
about
expressing
things?
-­‐Escape
-­‐Punishment
-­‐Penalty
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Diagram
an
everyday
example
of:
-­‐Reinforcement
-­‐Escape
-­‐Punishment
-­‐Penalty

2. Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Diagram
a
performance
management
example
of:
Complete
the
table
Reinforcement
Present
Remove
No
approval
à
say
“please”
à
approval
Reinforcer
Reinforcement
Penalty
Escape
Aversive
look
à
say
“please”
à
no
aversive
look
Aversive
Punishment
Escape
Punishment
condition
No
scolding
à
say
“gimme”
à
scolding
Penalty
Toy
à
say
“gimme”
à
no
toy
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Confusion:
negative
reinforcement
will
decrease
Complete
the
table
behavior
and
positive
reinforcement
will
increase
Traditional
POB
behavior.
Positive
reinforcer
Reinforcer
Positive
Reinforcement
Actual:
positive
and
negative
refer
to
the
addition
reinforcement
(presentation)
or
subtraction
(removal)
of
the
Negative
reinforcer
Aversive
condition
outcome
stimulus.
Negative
Escape
reinforcement
It
does
NOT
refer
to
the
effect
that
the
outcome
has
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
• Beware
of
the
verb
to
express.
Skinner
box
example
of:
• Expressing
implies
that
there
is
bottled
up
Reinforcement
emotion
waiting
to
ooze
out
in
the
form
of
No
water
à
press
lever
à
water
behavior.
Escape
• It
will
lead
you
away
from
the
contingencies
Shock
à
press
lever
à
no
shock
controlling
the
behavior
of
concern.
Punishment
No
shock
à
press
lever
à
shock
Penalty
Food
à
press
lever
à
no
food
Ch
2,
3,
4,
&
5
Everyday
example
of:
Reinforcement
No
friend’s
voice
à
answer
phone
à
friend’s
voice
Escape
Aversive
alarm
à
hit
snooze
à
No
aversive
alarm
Punishment
No
telemarketer
à
answer
phone
à
telemarketer
Penalty
Juice
à
spill
juice
à
no
juice

3. Ch
6
Ch
6
Penalty
versus
extinction.
Penalty
versus
extinction.
Diagram
an
example
from
the
Skinner
box.
Compare
&
contrast.
Ch
6
Ch
6
Penalty
versus
extinction.
Extinction
of
escape
vs.
not
presenting
the
aversive
before
condition.
Diagram
an
example
from
everyday
life.
What’s
the
common
confusion?
Ch
6
Ch
6
Penalty
versus
extinction.
Extinction
of
escape
vs.
not
presenting
the
aversive
before
condition.
Diagram
a
performance
management
example.
What’s
the
difference?
Ch
6
Ch
6
Procedure
Process/Results
Penalty
versus
extinction.
Extinction
What’s
the
common
confusion?
Response
cost
Time-­‐out

4. Ch
6
PENALTY
Similarities:
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
-­‐Both
result
in
no
reinforcer
No
water
à
press
lever
à
water
-­‐Both
decrease
behavior
Penalty
contingency
Food
à
press
lever
à
no
food
Differences:
__________________________________________________________
-­‐In
penalty,
a
separate
reinforcer
from
the
one
EXTINCTION
maintaining
the
behavior
is
removed.
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
-­‐In
extinction,
the
SAME
reinforcer
that
is
No
water
à
press
lever
à
water
maintaining
the
behavior
is
WITHHELD
(response
Extinction
contingency
has
no
effect)
No
waterà
press
lever
à
no
water
Ch
6
PENALTY
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
Confusion:
No
attention
à
tell
dirty
joke
à
attention
People
think
not
presenting
the
aversive
before
Penalty
contingency
condition
is
extinction
of
escape.
Cute
girl
à
tell
dirty
joke
à
no
cute
girl
_________________________________________________________
EXTINCTION
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
No
attention
à
tell
dirty
joke
à
attention
Extinction
contingency
No
attention
à
tell
dirty
joke
à
no
attention
Ch
6
PENALTY
-­‐In
extinction,
the
response
still
occurs,
but
no
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
longer
produces
the
same
outcome
(has
no
effect).
No
attention
à
walk
in
office
à
attention
-­‐Extinction
of
escape
involves
KEEPING
the
Penalty
contingency
aversive
stimulus
in
place
after
the
Tokens
à
walk
in
office
à
fewer
tokens
response.
_________________________________________________________
-­‐The
aversive
before
condition
is
the
motivating
EXTINCTION
condition.
Without
that,
the
response
will
not
occur
Maintaining
reinforcement
contingency
and
therefore
cannot
be
extinguished.
No
attention
à
walk
in
office
à
attention
Extinction
contingency
No
attention
à
walk
in
office
à
no
attention
Ch
6
Ch
6
Procedure
Process/Results
Extinction
Stop
giving
Response
Confusion:
reinforcer
frequency
People
often
offer
a
penalty
contingency
as
an
decreases
example
of
extinction.
Response
Loss
of
a
Rate
may
cost
reinforcer
decrease
currently
rapidly
possessed
Time-­‐out
Removal
of
Rate
may
access
to
a
decrease
reinforcer
rapidly

5. Ch
7
Ch
7
Differential
reinforcement
vs.
plain-­‐vanilla
Differential
reinforcement
procedure
vs.
reinforcement.
differential
punishment
procedure.
Compare
&
contrast.
Illustrate
the
differences
using
examples
from
the
Skinner
box.
Ch
7
Ch
7
Differential
reinforcement
vs.
plain-­‐vanilla
Differential
reinforcement
procedure
vs.
reinforcement.
differential
punishment
procedure.
Illustrate
the
differences
using
examples
from
the
What’s
the
common
confusion?
Skinner
box.
Ch
7
Differential
escape
vs.
plain-­‐vanilla
escape.
Compare
&
contrast.
Ch
7
Differential
escape
vs.
plain-­‐vanilla
escape.
Illustrate
the
differences
using
examples
from
the
Skinner
box.

6. Differential
rfmt:
Reinforcement
Ch
7
LP
>20g
Water
Similarities:
No
water
-­‐Both
result
in
an
increase
in
responding
LP
<
20g
No
water
Extinction
Differences:
Differential
penalty:
-­‐Differential
reinforcement
includes
a
(Maintaining
rfmt
contingency:
no
water
à
press
lever
à
water)
Penalty
reinforcement
AND
extinction
procedure,
thus
dividing
the
response
class
into
2
sets
of
responses.
LP
<
20g
No
food
-­‐Plain-­‐vanilla
reinforcement
does
not
divide
the
Food
response
class,
but
reinforces
all
responses
that
fall
LP
>
20g
Food
into
that
specific
response
class.
Recovery
Ch
7
Differential
reinforcement:
Confusion:
Reinforcement
Lever
-­‐People
forget
that
there
needs
to
be
a
separate
presses
>20g
Water
reinforcement
contingency
maintaining
the
No
water
response
if
a
penalty
contingency
is
going
to
Lever
suppress
that
bx
above
or
below
a
specific
value.
presses
No
water
<20g
-­‐The
usual
error
is
to
flip
the
outcomes
of
the
diff.
rfmt
procedure
and
believe
that
they
have
Extinction
demonstrated
an
example
of
diff.
penalty.
Plain-­‐vanilla
reinforcement:
No
water
à
press
lever
(any
force)
à
water
Ch
7
Similarities:
-­‐Both
result
in
an
increase
in
responding
Differences:
-­‐Differential
escape
includes
an
escape
AND
extinction
procedure,
thus
dividing
the
response
class
into
2
sets
of
responses.
-­‐Plain-­‐vanilla
escape
does
not
divide
the
response
class,
but
reinforces
all
responses
that
fall
into
that
specific
response
class.
Differential
escape:
Escape
Lever
presses
No
shock
>20g
Shock
Lever
presses
Shock
<20g
Extinction
Plain-­‐vanilla
escape:
Shock
à
press
lever
(any
force)
à
no
shock

7. Ch
8
Ch
8
The
differential
reinforcement
procedure
vs.
the
Variable
outcome
shaping
vs.
fixed
outcome
procedure
of
shaping
with
reinforcement.
shaping.
Compare
and
contrast.
Illustrate
the
differences
between
these
2
procedures
using
a
pair
of
examples
from
the
Skinner
box.
Ch
8
Ch
8
Complete
this
table
The
differential
reinforcement
procedure
vs.
the
Fixed-­‐ Variable-­‐
procedure
of
shaping
with
reinforcement.
outcome
outcome
#
of
outcome
Illustrate
this
relationship
using
a
pair
of
examples
sizes
from
the
Skinner
box.
Regression
to
earlier
levels
Usual
source
of
shaping
Ch
8
Shaping
with
reinforcement
vs.
shaping
with
punishment.
Give
contrasting
Skinner
box
examples
using
force
as
the
response
dimension.
Ch
8
Shaping
with
reinforcement
vs.
shaping
with
punishment.
Compare
&
contrast.

8. Fixed
Reinforcement
Variable Reinforcement
Similarities:
outcome
outcome
-­‐Both
include
concurrent
rfmt
&
extinction
contingencies.
shaping
10g
LP
1
shaping
10g
LP
2
drops
drop
-­‐The
results
of
both
are
that
a
response
will
increase
at
15g
LP
of
15g
LP
3
drops
some
value(s)
along
one
dimension
and
decrease
at
some
water
No
20g
LP
No
20g
LP
4
drops
value(s)
along
another
dimension.
water
water
Differences:
-­‐In
diff.
rfmt,
there
is
only
one
distinction
made
along
relevant
response
dimension.
5g
LP
No
5g
LP
1
drop
water
-­‐In
shaping,
there
are
several
distinctions
made.
10g
LP
10g
LP
2
drops
-­‐In
diff.
rfmt,
both
responses
must
occur
regularly
at
the
3
drops
beginning
of
the
procedure.
15g
LP
15g
LP
-­‐In
shaping,
only
the
initial
response
must
occur
regularly
at
the
beginning
of
the
procedure.
Extinction
Extinction
Ch
8
Diff.
rfmt
Shaping
Complete
this
table
Reinforcement
w/rfmt
Reinforcement
Fixed-­‐ Variable-­‐
LP
10g
LP
>20g
outcome
outcome
Water
15g
LP
Water
#
of
outcome
One
Many
No
No
20g
LP
water
sizes
water
Regression
to
No
reinforcers
Weaker
LP
No
5g
LP
No
earlier
levels
reinforcers
<20g
water
water
Usual
source
Performance
Nature
10g
LP
of
shaping
manager
15g
LP
Extinction
Extinction
Shaping
Reinforcement
Shaping
w/
Punishment
w/rfmt
punishment
10g
LP
5g
LP
Water
Shock
15g
LP
10g
LP
20g
LP
15g
LP
No
water
No
shock
5g
LP
No
10g
LP
No
15g
LP
water
15g
LP
shock
20g
LP
20g
LP
Extinction
Recovery
Ch
8
Similarities:
-­‐Both
have
same
terminal
response
(e.g.,
20g
LP)
Differences:
-­‐Shaping
w/reinforcement
reinforces
ONLY
those
responses
that
more
closely
approximate
the
terminal
response.
-­‐Shaping
w/punishment
punishes
ALL
responses
EXCEPT
those
that
more
closely
approximate
the
terminal
response.

9. Ch
9
Ch
9
Define
learning
&
performance.
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
learning.
What
were
the
independent
and
dependent
variables?
Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
learning.
effect
on
learning.
How
were
the
2
groups
of
rats
divided?
What
were
the
results
of
the
experiment?
Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
learning.
effect
on
learning.
Describe
the
procedure
used
in
the
experiment.
What
is
the
significance
of
the
results
of
this
experiment
with
respect
to
MOs?
Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
learning.
effect
on
performance.
Why
was
only
one
lever
press
used?
How
were
the
2
groups
of
rats
divided?

10. Ch
9
Ch
9
Independent
variable:
amount
of
time
that
the
Learning:
how
well
or
fast
a
response
is
performed
rats
were
deprived
on
MONDAY.
only
when
the
MO
is
in
place
before
the
first
contact
with
the
contingency
surrounding
that
Dependent
variable:
the
latency
of
their
response
response.
on
TUESDAY.
Performance:
how
well
or
fast
a
response
is
performed
when
the
MO
is
in
place
after
the
first
contact
with
the
contingency
surrounding
that
response.
Ch
9
Ch
9
The
rats
that
were
deprived
for
24
hours
on
One
group
was
24-­‐hour
water
deprived
on
Monday
demonstrated
a
shorter
latency
for
their
Monday.
lever
press
on
Tuesday
than
did
the
rats
that
were
deprived
for
6
hours.
The
other
group
was
6-­‐hour
water
deprived
on
Monday.
Ch
9
Ch
9
These
results
illustrate
the
MO’s
effect
on
learning.
Monday:
the
2
groups
were
deprived
for
24
hours
and
6
hours,
respectively.
The
rats’
lever
press
Because
the
lever
press
had
never
been
reinforced
behavior
was
reinforced
only
once.
before
the
IV
(deprivation
level)
was
implemented,
we
can
be
confident
that
increasing
the
level
of
Tuesday:
Both
groups
were
deprived
for
24
hours,
deprivation
can
increase
the
amount
of
learning
and
the
rats’
lever
press
was
again
reinforced
only
obtained
during
a
single
exposure
to
the
once.
Latency
of
their
response
was
measured.
contingency.
Ch
9
Ch
9
One
group
was
24-­‐hour
water
deprived
on
Only
one
lever
press
was
used
in
order
to
eliminate
Tuesday.
and
confounding
variables
such
as
extra
learning
opportunities
and/or
extinction.
The
other
group
was
6-­‐hour
water
deprived
on
Tuesday.

11. Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
performance.
effect
on
performance.
Describe
the
procedure
used
in
the
experiment.
What
is
the
significance
of
the
results
of
this
experiment
with
respect
to
MOs?
Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
performance.
What
does
Michael
(1982)
say
is
the
MO’s
effects
on
learning?
Why
was
only
one
lever
press
used?
Ch
9
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
performance.
What
does
Michael
(1982)
say
is
the
MO’s
effects
on
performance?
What
were
the
independent
and
dependent
variables?
Ch
9
Explain
the
experiment
that
illustrates
the
MO’s
effect
on
performance.
What
were
the
results
of
the
experiment?

12. Ch
9
Ch
9
These
results
illustrate
the
MO’s
effect
on
Monday:
the
2
groups
were
deprived
for
24
hours.
performance.
The
rats’
lever
press
behavior
was
reinforced
only
once.
Because
the
IV
(deprivation
level)
was
modified
after
the
rats
had
been
exposed
to
the
contingency,
Tuesday:
the
2
groups
were
deprived
for
24
hours
we
can
be
confident
that
increasing
the
level
of
and
6
hours,
respectively,
and
the
rats’
lever
press
deprivation
will
increase
the
quality
of
that
was
again
reinforced
only
once.
Latency
of
their
performance.
response
was
measured.
Ch
9
Ch
9
Michael
(1982)
says:
Only
one
lever
press
was
used
in
order
to
eliminate
and
confounding
variables
such
as
extra
learning
MOs
serve
to
increase
the
reinforcing
effectiveness
opportunities
and/or
extinction.
of
a
stimulus,
event,
or
condition.
Ch
9
Ch
9
Michael
(1982)
says:
Independent
variable:
amount
of
time
that
the
rats
were
deprived
on
TUESDAY.
MOs
serve
to
increase
the
frequency
of
the
type
of
behavior
consequated
by
a
stimulus,
event,
or
Dependent
variable:
the
latency
of
their
response
condition.
on
TUESDAY.
Ch
9
The
rats
that
were
deprived
for
24
hours
on
Tuesday
demonstrated
a
shorter
latency
for
their
lever
press
than
did
the
rats
that
were
deprived
for
6
hours.

13. Ch
11
Ch
11
Extinction
of
a
previously
reinforced
response
vs.
A
common
confusion
is
that
“Rudolph
learns
to
removing
the
value
of
learned
reinforcers
and
press
the
lever,
so
water
is
a
learned
reinforcer.
aversive
conditions
by
stopping
the
pairing
Right?”
procedure.
Where
is
it
that
students
are
failing
to
discriminate
What’s
the
common
confusion?
when
they
compare
the
concepts
of
a
reinforcement
contingency
and
a
learned
reinforcer?
Ch
11
Ch
11
Extinction
of
a
previously
reinforced
response
vs.
The
motivating
operation
for
a
learned
reinforcer.
removing
the
value
of
learned
reinforcers
and
aversive
conditions
by
stopping
the
pairing
What
is
the
common
confusion?
procedure.
Compare
&
contrast.
Ch
11
Ch
11
Extinction
of
a
previously
reinforced
response
vs.
The
motivating
operation
for
a
learned
reinforcer.
removing
the
value
of
learned
reinforcers
and
aversive
conditions
by
stopping
the
pairing
What
is
the
correct
assumption?
procedure.
Illustrate
the
differences
between
these
2
procedures
with
a
pair
of
examples
from
the
Skinner
box.
Ch
11
Ch
11
Recovery
of
a
previously
punished
response
vs.
The
motivating
operation
for
a
learned
reinforcer.
removing
the
value
of
learned
aversive
conditions
by
stopping
the
pairing
procedure.
Is
it
possible
to
satiate
on
learned
reinforcers?
Illustrate
the
differences
between
these
2
procedures
with
a
pair
of
examples
from
the
Skinner
box.