reinforcement magnitude
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

70
(FIVE YEARS 2)

H-INDEX

15
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Author(s):  
Erica S. Jowett Hirst ◽  
Claudia L. Dozier ◽  
Jessica F. Juanico ◽  
Bertilde U. Kamana ◽  
Amy M. Harper Briggs


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 879-885
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Gullo ◽  
John B. Saunders

AbstractA coherent framework for addressing risk arising from new technologies is needed. In proposing a framework of broad application and future focus, where empirical evidence is scarce, reliance on strong theory becomes all the more important. Some technologies are more prone to excessive engagement than others (i.e. more addictive). Some users are also more susceptible to excessive engagement than others. Impulsivity theory emphasises the importance of reinforcement magnitude in determining the risk associated with a new technology, and that an individual's sensitivity to reinforcement (reward drive) and capacity to inhibit previously reinforced behaviour (rash impulsiveness) determines their susceptibility to problematic engagement. Online gaming provides a good example of how such theory can be applied to facilitate intervention efforts and develop policy.



2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2&3) ◽  
pp. 221-232
Author(s):  
Katelyn H. Hunt ◽  
Christine E. Hughes ◽  
Raymond C. Pitts


India has the largest road network however the prevailing roads ar structurally inadequate to accommodate the current volume of traffic. Use of geosynthetics is compatible and conjointly effective within the method of up soil properties. the current study conducts experiment on the performance of geotextile (woven and non-woven) as soft subgrade and unbound gravel in unpaved versatile pavement system victimization CA Bearing magnitude relation (CBR) take a look at. Reinforcement magnitude relation comparison of woven and non-woven geotextile reinforcenment supported CMB load penetration take a look at indicates that the performance is improved with the inclusion of geotextile.





Author(s):  
José L. O. Bueno ◽  
Danielle M. Judice-Daher ◽  
Henrique G. Deliberato

Reinforcement omission effects (ROEs) have beeninterpreted as behavioral transient facilitation after nonreinforcement inducedby primary frustration, and/or behavioral transient inhibition afterreinforcement induced by demotivation or temporal control. According to frustrationtheory, the size of the ROEs should depend directly on the reinforcementmagnitude: the behavioral facilitation after thereinforcement omission of larger magnitude should be greater than that observedafter the reinforcement omission of smaller magnitude. However, studiesinvolving operant paradigms have presenteddifficulty to demonstrate this relationship. Thus, the present study aimed toclarify the relationship between reinforcement magnitude and ROEsmanipulating the magnitude linked to discriminative stimuli in a partialreinforcement fixed interval schedule. Rats were trained on a fixed-interval 12 s with limitedhold 6 s signaled schedule in which correct responses were always followed byone of two reinforcement magnitudes (0.5 and 0.05 ml of a 0.15% saccharinsolution). After acquisition of stable performance, the training was changedfrom 100% to 50% reinforcement schedules. The results showed that responserates were higher after omission than after reinforcement delivery. Besides,results showed that response rates were highest after the reinforcementomission of larger magnitude than of smaller magnitude. However, thefindings did not support the hypothesis that the reinforcement omission of largemagnitude induces greater behavioral facilitation than the reinforcementomission of smaller magnitude. The data were interpreted in terms of ROEsmultiple process behavioral facilitation after nonreinforcement and behavioraltransient inhibition after reinforcement.



2011 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Marcilio Judice-Daher ◽  
Tatiane Ferreira Tavares ◽  
José Lino Oliveira Bueno


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett C. Ginsburg ◽  
Jonathan W. Pinkston ◽  
R. J. Lamb


2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan W. Pinkston ◽  
Brett C. Ginsburg ◽  
R. J. Lamb


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 829-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett C. Ginsburg ◽  
Richard J. Lamb


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document