title: An Analysis of the Impact of Reinforcement on Response Variability on Multiple Behavioural Dimensions

authors: Kong, Xiuyan

subjects: Reinforcing behavioural variability

abstract: A series of four experiments were carried out to examine whether increases in variability in responding on some dimensions of a behaviour as a result of reinforcement generalised to other dimensions of the same behaviour. In Experiment 1, adult participants drew 300 rectangles on a computer screens; variability in the Area, Shape and Location dimensions of the rectangles drawn was measured. One group of participants received reinforcement when they drew rectangles varying on all three dimensions (VAR) using a threshold contingency to determine reinforcement while another group received reinforcement regardless whether they varied on any of the dimensions of the rectangles drawn (YOKE). Results showed that the variability of each dimension, as measured by the U-value, was higher for the VAR group than for the YOKE group. In Experiment 2, three groups of adult participants received reinforcement when they varied on two of the three dimensions of the rectangles drawn. Results showed that reinforcing variability in the Shape and Location dimensions and in the Area and Location dimensions resulted in higher variability in these dimensions compared to the dimension where variability was not directly reinforced, as measured by U-values. However, for the group who received reinforcement when varying in the Area and Shape dimensions, the variability across the three dimensions did not differ. Generalisation of reinforced variability was examined by comparing the variability in dimensions that were not subject to reinforcement for varying from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. For the Shape and Location dimensions, results showed that the variability was higher when the two dimensions occurred with other dimensions that were subject for reinforcement for varying compared to when they occurred with other dimensions that were not required to vary. However, no significant difference was found for the Area dimension. Therefore, there appeared to be generalisation of reinforced variability for only two of these three groups of participants, suggesting the dimensions were not orthogonal. The non-orthogonality of the three dimensions of the rectangles was suggested as a possible confounding variable so that it not be concluded that generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions had been obtained. Experiment 3 used a task with more independent dimensions (Shape, Colour and Pattern) to control for the non-orthogonality issue found in Experiment 2. Adult participants created objects by selecting elements from three dimensions on the computer screen. One group of participants received reinforcement when they varied on the use of elements on all three dimensions using a threshold contingency while the other group received reinforcement independent of the elements chosen. Results showed that the variability in using the elements for all three dimensions was similar between the two groups; whether the group received reinforcement when the dimensions varied did not make a difference. Inspection of the elements selected on each trial revealed that participants from both groups, in general, responded in stereotypic patterns; however, the stereotypy in the responses was not picked up by the measure of U-value. In Experiment 4, a new task asking participants to colour t-shirts on the computer screen was created to examine the effect of reinforcement on the variability in colours used. Adult and adolescent participants were instructed to colour t-shirts on the computer screen in three phases. In Phase 1, no feedback was provided; in Phase 2, positive feedback was provided when participants used a colour they had not used before (including those used in Phase 1); and in Phase 3, no feedback was provided. Results showed that, after reinforcement for using novel colours, participants who used only a small number of colours initially used more colours; however, the increase was not found for participants who initially used a moderate or high number of colours. U-value as the measure of variability was examined by using two sets of simulated data. It was found that highly stereotypic response patterns can result in extremely high U-values. Also, the number of options/categories used affects the values of U, which makes comparisons between groups difficult. Overall, results from these experiments support the notion that the level of variability in responses can be controlled by reinforcement. It is possible that learned variability can generalise over unreinforced dimensions. However, the examination of generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions is not conclusive when the dimensions are interdependent. The results and simulation showed that U-value as a measure of variability needs to be used with caution because it does not capture potential stereotypy in responses and the values of U can be ambiguous.

text: An Analysis of the Impact of Reinforcement on Response Variability on Multiple Behavioural Dimensions A series of four experiments were carried out to examine whether increases in variability in responding on some dimensions of a behaviour as a result of reinforcement generalised to other dimensions of the same behaviour. In Experiment 1, adult participants drew 300 rectangles on a computer screens; variability in the Area, Shape and Location dimensions of the rectangles drawn was measured. One group of participants received reinforcement when they drew rectangles varying on all three dimensions (VAR) using a threshold contingency to determine reinforcement while another group received reinforcement regardless whether they varied on any of the dimensions of the rectangles drawn (YOKE). Results showed that the variability of each dimension, as measured by the U-value, was higher for the VAR group than for the YOKE group. In Experiment 2, three groups of adult participants received reinforcement when they varied on two of the three dimensions of the rectangles drawn. Results showed that reinforcing variability in the Shape and Location dimensions and in the Area and Location dimensions resulted in higher variability in these dimensions compared to the dimension where variability was not directly reinforced, as measured by U-values. However, for the group who received reinforcement when varying in the Area and Shape dimensions, the variability across the three dimensions did not differ. Generalisation of reinforced variability was examined by comparing the variability in dimensions that were not subject to reinforcement for varying from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. For the Shape and Location dimensions, results showed that the variability was higher when the two dimensions occurred with other dimensions that were subject for reinforcement for varying compared to when they occurred with other dimensions that were not required to vary. However, no significant difference was found for the Area dimension. Therefore, there appeared to be generalisation of reinforced variability for only two of these three groups of participants, suggesting the dimensions were not orthogonal. The non-orthogonality of the three dimensions of the rectangles was suggested as a possible confounding variable so that it not be concluded that generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions had been obtained. Experiment 3 used a task with more independent dimensions (Shape, Colour and Pattern) to control for the non-orthogonality issue found in Experiment 2. Adult participants created objects by selecting elements from three dimensions on the computer screen. One group of participants received reinforcement when they varied on the use of elements on all three dimensions using a threshold contingency while the other group received reinforcement independent of the elements chosen. Results showed that the variability in using the elements for all three dimensions was similar between the two groups; whether the group received reinforcement when the dimensions varied did not make a difference. Inspection of the elements selected on each trial revealed that participants from both groups, in general, responded in stereotypic patterns; however, the stereotypy in the responses was not picked up by the measure of U-value. In Experiment 4, a new task asking participants to colour t-shirts on the computer screen was created to examine the effect of reinforcement on the variability in colours used. Adult and adolescent participants were instructed to colour t-shirts on the computer screen in three phases. In Phase 1, no feedback was provided; in Phase 2, positive feedback was provided when participants used a colour they had not used before (including those used in Phase 1); and in Phase 3, no feedback was provided. Results showed that, after reinforcement for using novel colours, participants who used only a small number of colours initially used more colours; however, the increase was not found for participants who initially used a moderate or high number of colours. U-value as the measure of variability was examined by using two sets of simulated data. It was found that highly stereotypic response patterns can result in extremely high U-values. Also, the number of options/categories used affects the values of U, which makes comparisons between groups difficult. Overall, results from these experiments support the notion that the level of variability in responses can be controlled by reinforcement. It is possible that learned variability can generalise over unreinforced dimensions. However, the examination of generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions is not conclusive when the dimensions are interdependent. The results and simulation showed that U-value as a measure of variability needs to be used with caution because it does not capture potential stereotypy in responses and the values of U can be ambiguous.

year: 2016

title: Fresh moves dance festival

authors: Cheesman, Sue

abstract: Fresh Moves Dance Festival is an independent local initiative held in the Bay of Plenty region of New Zealand. In 2021 Fresh Moves reached a 20-year milestone. Part of a larger research inquiry which chronicles the festival’s journey through the years and seeks to understand how such an initiative has been sustained over time, this article presents a snapshot of the initiative. This snapshot describes some of the history, successes, challenges and plans for future development of this initiative. As a dance educator, observer and member of the expert panel of Fresh Moves Dance Festival, I find the festival provides much food for thought about our own practice and community connections through dance education.

text: Fresh moves dance festival Fresh Moves Dance Festival is an independent local initiative held in the Bay of Plenty region of New Zealand. In 2021 Fresh Moves reached a 20-year milestone. Part of a larger research inquiry which chronicles the festival’s journey through the years and seeks to understand how such an initiative has been sustained over time, this article presents a snapshot of the initiative. This snapshot describes some of the history, successes, challenges and plans for future development of this initiative. As a dance educator, observer and member of the expert panel of Fresh Moves Dance Festival, I find the festival provides much food for thought about our own practice and community connections through dance education.

year: 2022-08-03

title: Te Kāuta

authors: Roa, Raukura

subjects: Kōrero paki

abstract: He rite tonu tā mātou hokihoki ki te take o Pirongia maunga, ki te tutungi i te ahi kā i Pūrekireki Marae. Ia wā ka hoki mātou ki tēnei o ngā marae, ka hīkaka taku ngākau, i te mea, ko taku mahi i reira, he tiaki ahi. Ao noa, pō noa, ko au te kaiwhakatutungi i te ahi o te kāuta, kei kewa. Ko te ahi o te kāuta o Pūrekireki marae, he ahi nui, he ahi kaitā. E ono tāngata pea ka uru ki te rua o te ahi nei. Nō reira, ko taku mahi i te rā, he kohi rākau i waho, he tapahi wahie, he whakamaroke anō hoki i te wahie, inā mākū i te ua. I ngā pō, kia hoki rā anō te iwi ki te moe, ko tāku, he noho ki roto i te kāuta me te tutungi ahi, kia wera tonu ai te wai mō āpōpō. Kei pōhēhē mai, he mahi mokemoke tēnei! Ehara! Ia pō, ka noho mai aku kuia ki taku taha ki te pahupahu. He nui ngā akoranga me ngā mātauranga i tuku iho mai ki a au i roto i tērā kāuta, i te taha o tērā ahi. Me uaua ka kitea tēnei momo ahi kaitā i ngā marae i ēnei rā. Kāore e whakaaengia ana e ngā ture Pākehā ngā ahi kaitā, pēnei nei te rahi, i roto i ngā kāuta o ngā marae; ‘Health and Safety Standards’ tā rātou i whakatau ai. Nō reira, i karangangia e taku pāpā tētehi hui ki te marae kia wānangahia te whakahōutanga o tō mātou kāuta. Nō taku rongotanga ake i te kaupapa o tēnei hui, ka tangi taku ngākau ki tō mātou kāuta. Nō reira, i whakarite ahau kia haere i tana taha.

text: Te Kāuta He rite tonu tā mātou hokihoki ki te take o Pirongia maunga, ki te tutungi i te ahi kā i Pūrekireki Marae. Ia wā ka hoki mātou ki tēnei o ngā marae, ka hīkaka taku ngākau, i te mea, ko taku mahi i reira, he tiaki ahi. Ao noa, pō noa, ko au te kaiwhakatutungi i te ahi o te kāuta, kei kewa. Ko te ahi o te kāuta o Pūrekireki marae, he ahi nui, he ahi kaitā. E ono tāngata pea ka uru ki te rua o te ahi nei. Nō reira, ko taku mahi i te rā, he kohi rākau i waho, he tapahi wahie, he whakamaroke anō hoki i te wahie, inā mākū i te ua. I ngā pō, kia hoki rā anō te iwi ki te moe, ko tāku, he noho ki roto i te kāuta me te tutungi ahi, kia wera tonu ai te wai mō āpōpō. Kei pōhēhē mai, he mahi mokemoke tēnei! Ehara! Ia pō, ka noho mai aku kuia ki taku taha ki te pahupahu. He nui ngā akoranga me ngā mātauranga i tuku iho mai ki a au i roto i tērā kāuta, i te taha o tērā ahi. Me uaua ka kitea tēnei momo ahi kaitā i ngā marae i ēnei rā. Kāore e whakaaengia ana e ngā ture Pākehā ngā ahi kaitā, pēnei nei te rahi, i roto i ngā kāuta o ngā marae; ‘Health and Safety Standards’ tā rātou i whakatau ai. Nō reira, i karangangia e taku pāpā tētehi hui ki te marae kia wānangahia te whakahōutanga o tō mātou kāuta. Nō taku rongotanga ake i te kaupapa o tēnei hui, ka tangi taku ngākau ki tō mātou kāuta. Nō reira, i whakarite ahau kia haere i tana taha.

year: 2016