Disequilibrium as an Alternative to Internal States and Affordance

Abstract

Killen and Jacobs (2017) propose a new four-term operant contingency, in which an O (physiological/dispositional/motivational state of the organism) is added to the traditional three-term S-R-S r contingency. This fourth term is added in an attempt to explain changes in responding that may depend on the state of the organism responding for that reinforcer. We propose, instead, that an older model, the disequilibrium model (Timberlake & Farmer-Dougan, 1991), may already account for changes in such changes in responding. Further, the disequilibrium model may also predict the magnitude and direction of changes in responding across changing contexts.While reinforcement theorists ponder the function of the environment, discriminative stimuli, and the reinforcing event itself on the rate, magnitude, and probability of response, applied researchers struggle with finding a parsimonious explanation of reinforcement theory that is both experimentally and ecologically valid. Given the differing theoretical explanations and daunting terminology used to describe reinforcement, discerning an appropriate reinforcement model for an applied setting has become confusing. In our canine research, as well as previous work with humans, we see behaviorists in applied settings struggle with Bsimple^concepts such as the traditional four-square contingency, the Premack principle, and schedules of reinforcement. Indeed, a brief review of talks for the Karen Pryor Clicker Expo 2017, the online Association for Professional Dog Trainers discussion group, or even the BcBA Behavior Analyst Facebook group yields discussions on when to Buse Premack^versus positive reinforcement; how to distinguish

Disequilibrium as Determinant of Reinforcement and Punishment Effects: A Replication

“…This disruption is the disequilibrium that an organism will work to reduce in order to maintain its baseline levels of responding. Maintaining one's baseline levels of responding is to conserve one's behavioral equilibrium, also known as the bliss point of one's time and effort on one or more activities (Allison et al, 1979;Farmer-Dougan et al, 2017).…”

Disequilibrium as Determinant of Reinforcement and Punishment Effects: A Replication

“…Recent research and theory have begged the questions: "Is it time we rethink reinforcement (Baum, 2012(Baum, , 2020; account for organismic variables (Cowie & Davison, 2020;Killeen & Jacobs, 2017); or do away with the notion altogether (Shahan, 2017)?" Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to the reformulation that is Timberlake and Allison's (1974) response deprivation hypothesis (see, Farmer-Dougan et al, 2017, for an exception). Arguably, this rethinking of reinforcement is the most precise and theoretically sound, as it specifies the necessary conditions for reinforcement (and punishment) while testing its explicit assumptions about behavior (Jacobs et al, 2019).…”