Jump to content

Intermittent Reinforcement Theory


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Messenger - I think you should focus on your relationship issue in your own thread, not this one. Your problem isn't really relevant to the concept being discussed here.

Posted
ok cobra I'll ask her what she wants but money is not the issue....trust me

 

Yeah, I just used that as an example. Women usually have a list of like 200 things they want all ranked in importance... and the rankings shift daily. So, just try to apply a best fit model. I don't think you have to be perfect, just better than the other guy.

Posted

relax stargazer this s=thread is a spinoff of one of mine

  • Author
Posted
That's exactly right. But I think intermittent reinforcement is more effective in a relationship when it comes to contact, not affection.

 

My previous google searches came up with certain examples that relates to spousal or relationship abuses. Like unexpected abuse from the abuser themselves are rarely predictable, thats why the abused have no expectations or awareness as to when they'll get beaten next. There is an anticipation of the attacks, but the prediction of its exact timing is unexpected. And because of this fact, its very hard for the abused to leave the abuser. Just something I want to throw in here.

Posted
relax stargazer this s=thread is a spinoff of one of mine

 

No it's not, actually. This theory was originally discussed in two of MY threads, and this thread was started by someone other than you on a subject other than your relationship. If you want to discuss your relationship, do so in your threads. I'm asking you to stay on-topic so that I don't have to report you. Please and thank you. :)

 

----

 

Back on-topic...

 

I agree with Florida - Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't work and is pointless if the person you're into isn't into you to begin with. You have to have already gained their attention for your "pellet" before you try to use this form of conditioning.

Posted
I think you guys are missing the point.

 

I've learned about this theory in a lot of different psych classes and have also wondered if it would apply to relationships.

 

Its not about not being too available... a better analogy would be being hot and cold. Usually affectionate in response to affection (hot), but sometimes unaffectionate in response to affection (cold).

 

The idea, in psychology at least, is that such a classical conditioning pattern makes the learned behavior take longer to learn, but once it is learned, it has a much lower rate of extinction.

 

Yes, there are people who do the withholding dance with their affection and it's a very effective method of keeping people interested.

 

You see it in posts here ALL the time.

Posted
I agree with Florida - Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't work and is pointless if the person you're into isn't into you to begin with. You have to have already gained their attention for your "pellet" before you try to use this form of conditioning.

 

I agree - they have to already tasted the pellet and deemed it yummy in order to want more, and to put up with the cold part of the hot and cold.

Posted

Many of you have followed my relationship - I'm thinking it's almost a case study for IR. I can see how Ex used this on me, although unintentionally. Well, maybe not. He does after all train K9 dogs! :laugh::lmao: Do you think he did?

 

He was reliable in certain ways, yet unpredictable at the same time. I never knew when something good was going to happen, or when he'd be cold. I always behaved the same way (pressing the lever) but never knew what I was going to get in return (whether he was going to be moody or affectionate). This kept me on my toes - excited. I can see how that excitement has kept me in many unhealthy relationships though, so I'm not sure it's a good thing.

 

This could also apply to you, Shadow. Your BF doesn't run as hot-cold, making you lose that excitement and anxiety, making you less interested...maybe?

 

I do think it applies both to contact AND affection.

 

How do you think this theory relates to positive/negative reinforcement? There was a segment on the Today Show the other day about training your SO through positive reinforcement...but that was more constant, not intermittent. Hmm...

Posted
I agree - they have to already tasted the pellet and deemed it yummy in order to want more, and to put up with the cold part of the hot and cold.

 

Here's a question: What if the pellet giver isn't all that into the rat?

  • Author
Posted

 

----

 

Back on-topic...

 

I agree with Florida - Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't work and is pointless if the person you're into isn't into you to begin with. You have to have already gained their attention for your "pellet" before you try to use this form of conditioning.

 

Yeah but whos to say if the person in question was really into you to begin with? Say in the beginning he showers you with attention, a phone call here a text there, and then after a date where it seems to be established that the person in question is interested, he stops doing all of the above.I mean the person in question didnt stop all of the above, but he texts you unexpectedly a couple of times. Would this form of conditioning apply to whether they want to gain attention from you?

Posted
Yeah but whos to say if the person in question was really into you to begin with? Say in the beginning he showers you with attention, a phone call here a text there, and then after a date where it seems to be established that the person in question is interested, he stops doing all of the above.I mean the person in question didnt stop all of the above, but he texts you unexpectedly a couple of times. Would this form of conditioning apply to whether they want to gain attention from you?

 

I'm not sure...

Posted
Here's a question: What if the pellet giver isn't all that into the rat?

 

The motivations of the pellet giver can vary. Ego, power, back-burner, entertainment until a more interesting rat comes along...

 

Eventually, though, if the pellet giver really isn't all that into the rat, the pellets will stop coming, either abruptly or will taper off until the rat finally gets it that there won't be any more pellets.

Posted
The motivations of the pellet giver can vary. Ego, power, back-burner, entertainment until a more interesting rat comes along...

 

Eventually, though, if the pellet giver really isn't all that into the rat, the pellets will stop coming, either abruptly or will taper off until the rat finally gets it that there won't be any more pellets.

 

Ouch. That's so true is scary and sad. :lmao:

Posted
Yeah but whos to say if the person in question was really into you to begin with? Say in the beginning he showers you with attention, a phone call here a text there, and then after a date where it seems to be established that the person in question is interested, he stops doing all of the above.I mean the person in question didnt stop all of the above, but he texts you unexpectedly a couple of times. Would this form of conditioning apply to whether they want to gain attention from you?

 

Can you rephrase this question? I got lost with who all the persons in question are and which person you're referring to.

Posted
Can you rephrase this question? I got lost with who all the persons in question are and which person you're referring to.

 

In her example, she's asking the same question I did. That perhaps the pellet giver isn't all that into the rat... I think, anyway.

  • Author
Posted
Can you rephrase this question? I got lost with who all the persons in question are and which person you're referring to.

 

Yeah sorry I had a bit of a problem when trying to come up with a clear way of writing it out.

 

Okay the general question is that you can't possibly know how a person feels, right? Say you have person A and B. A showers B with lots of attention from phone calls to texts. It can then be established that A likes B, right? But until the actual meeting of A and B, it can only be applied as an assumption by B. SO they meet up on a date. Now it is then established that both parties are interested. Because A and B are very affectionate. But afterwards, A stops with the attention. B is confused. A most unexpected response from A as A doesn't reply to messages from B, until much later on. But the replies are "unexpected". And then when B replies, no answer again. Would you write this off as an example of intermittent reinforcement, as B never knows when A would reply so then B would continue trying to instigate a response from A- much like the experimental mouse pressing the lever hoping to get a pellet.

Posted
No it's not, actually. This theory was originally discussed in two of MY threads, and this thread was started by someone other than you on a subject other than your relationship. If you want to discuss your relationship, do so in your threads. I'm asking you to stay on-topic so that I don't have to report you. Please and thank you. :)

 

----

 

Back on-topic...

 

I agree with Florida - Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't work and is pointless if the person you're into isn't into you to begin with. You have to have already gained their attention for your "pellet" before you try to use this form of conditioning.

 

I agree with, Star. Start your own thread.

Posted
Yeah sorry I had a bit of a problem when trying to come up with a clear way of writing it out.

 

Okay the general question is that you can't possibly know how a person feels, right? Say you have person A and B. A showers B with lots of attention from phone calls to texts. It can then be established that A likes B, right? But until the actual meeting of A and B, it can only be applied as an assumption by B. SO they meet up on a date. Now it is then established that both parties are interested. Because A and B are very affectionate. But afterwards, A stops with the attention. B is confused. A most unexpected response from A as A doesn't reply to messages from B, until much later on. But the replies are "unexpected". And then when B replies, no answer again. Would you write this off as an example of intermittent reinforcement, as B never knows when A would reply so then B would continue trying to instigate a response from A- much like the experimental mouse pressing the lever hoping to get a pellet.

 

No, actually, I would write that off as A not being into B after the date.

 

If A were to then suddenly shower B with attention, and then pull the withholding routine again, rinse, repeat, then I'd say A was doing the intermittent thing.

Posted
How about this: you live a full life with friends and activities you enjoy -- Hash House Harriers, photography class, softball, sailing lesson, Sierra Club, Young Democrats, whatever -- so that you CAN'T see a new prospect more than once every 5 days or so. As your relationships grow, you do some of those activities less and you integrate your new bf/gf into them if appropriate (i.e. taking her with you for drinks with your teammates after the game).

 

If you live a full life, dating will be intermittent. It HAS TO BE. But if you are looking at the calendar thinking "ok, I've got nothing going on these next 5 days, but I need to wait wait wait or she'll lose interest" I'd say that your relationship is unlikely to succeed. However, if you look at your calendar and think "I'm busy 3 of the next 5 nights, and I'd like a night to myself, but I really liked this girl; I've always wanted to see this jazz band play on Thursday, I am free then, I'll ask her."

 

If you get caught up in strategy, the relationship won't feel organic. It won't be natural. It is wise to space the first few dates but it should feel natural in doing it, not some kind of plot.

 

 

I think Oppath has got it nailed.

  • Author
Posted
No, actually, I would write that off as A not being into B after the date.

 

If A were to then suddenly shower B with attention, and then pull the withholding routine again, rinse, repeat, then I'd say A was doing the intermittent thing.

 

You described this in a previous response as "hot and cold". But would you say the different between "quoted above" as a very thin line? And why the cold effect anyways? wouldn't it just eventually lead to " not interested" later on?

Posted
You described this in a previous response as "hot and cold". But would you say the different between "quoted above" as a very thin line? And why the cold effect anyways? wouldn't it just eventually lead to " not interested" later on?

 

In your scenario above, it's hot, and then always cold, no more hot. Once A and B met, A lost interest and was always cold. There was never a return to hot.

 

As to why the hot and cold, it's as I said to Star, the motivations vary, but it's basically that they aren't that into the rat and drop the pellets every now and then to keep them around for an ego boost, or to have someone (sex) until they find someone better, or they get into the power trip of having someone at their beck and call when they feel like calling (sex or more ego boost). That sort of thing.

Posted (edited)
Many of you have followed my relationship - I'm thinking it's almost a case study for IR. I can see how Ex used this on me, although unintentionally. Well, maybe not. He does after all train K9 dogs! :laugh::lmao: Do you think he did?

 

He was reliable in certain ways, yet unpredictable at the same time. I never knew when something good was going to happen, or when he'd be cold. I always behaved the same way (pressing the lever) but never knew what I was going to get in return (whether he was going to be moody or affectionate). This kept me on my toes - excited. I can see how that excitement has kept me in many unhealthy relationships though, so I'm not sure it's a good thing.

 

This could also apply to you, Shadow. Your BF doesn't run as hot-cold, making you lose that excitement and anxiety, making you less interested...maybe?

 

I do think it applies both to contact AND affection.

 

How do you think this theory relates to positive/negative reinforcement? There was a segment on the Today Show the other day about training your SO through positive reinforcement...but that was more constant, not intermittent. Hmm...

 

It's possible. At the beginning he was very flakey -- so he may have been intermittently reinforcing me. I was VERY into him back then. Now he's more consistent and I'm less into him. Hmm...

Edited by shadowplay
Posted
I think you guys are missing the point.

 

I've learned about this theory in a lot of different psych classes and have also wondered if it would apply to relationships.

 

Its not about not being too available... a better analogy would be being hot and cold. Usually affectionate in response to affection (hot), but sometimes unaffectionate in response to affection (cold).

 

The idea, in psychology at least, is that such a classical conditioning pattern makes the learned behavior take longer to learn, but once it is learned, it has a much lower rate of extinction.

 

This is like that theory that you should be an ******* 50% of the time and be a nice person 50% of the time in order to get a person really into you.

Posted

I agree with blind_otter in that this type of thinking seems like the infamous "*******" theory. Be a complete ass half the time, and nice the other half and you'll have people trailing after you. Not only do I not live by that theory, but I don't want to. Why people feel comfortable treating their SO like crap is beyond me. Even if that did mean I would have people falling at my feet, I don't wanna' treat people in that way. I'd rather be single and kind-hearted than with someone and mean-spirited.

Posted (edited)

I think you can practice IR in a more subtle way without ever treading into ******* territory. One way is not always being available (presumably because you have other things going on in your life), not always answering calls or initiating contact. Anyway, I think indifference is more effective than a-holeness. People are more likely to get incensed and fed up with a-hole behavior.

Edited by shadowplay
×
×
  • Create New...