 All right, so last time we talked all about the basic definitions of discrimination training. We talked about behavior being under stimulus control. That means the behavior is more likely in the presence of a discriminative stimulus than the app since it kind of changes the probability of the response. We talked about discriminative stimulus itself, which is a stimulus that's present when reinforcement is available for a response. And S delta is a stimulus that's present when the response will not contact reinforcement or when extinction will occur. And a discriminative stimulus for punishment is a stimulus that's present when punishment is going to occur if you emit a particular response, sort of like a cop waiting in a speed trap. The last thing we ended on was talking about discriminated behavior. We say that that behavior that is more likely to occur in the presence of a stimulus, a discriminative stimulus, is a discriminated behavior or a discriminated response. So a behavior that likely only occurs in the presence of that particular set of circumstances. But when we're talking about these words, when we keep using the expression discrimination, it's really important to kind of delineate what that means or discriminate how the language that we use in ABA differs from everyday language. So in behavior analysis, when we talk about fostering a discrimination or telling the difference between, we really mean behaving differently in the presence of this stimulus than that stimulus. So if I were to present you, for instance, with two different items, and I were to say, what is the color of this item, what is the color of that item, which one of these is red, right? If you are more likely to select this as the red item, then we kind of see that you're telling the difference between them. And when you reliably select this as the red item, no matter which side I place it on, right, you're demonstrating a discrimination between the colors that I'm presenting you. Other examples that this could be, for instance, taking an umbrella with you on days when the weather is overcast, it might even be like, how do you get around on campus? Well, you know that when you're in this parking lot, go left to go to the dormitory, go right to go to the library, so you're making that choice there. And you choose to go one direction under certain stimulus circumstances. You choose to go a different direction under different stimulus circumstances. This discrimination language used in behavior analysis is very value neutral. It simply refers to making a choice based on the amount of available reinforcement, right? In the presence of a discriminative stimulus, we emit the response because it will contact reinforcement. In everyday language, discrimination means something very, very different. When we talk about discrimination in everyday English, we're talking about a preferential treatment given to certain groups of people based on some characteristic that they have. So this could be, for instance, gender or sex or sexual orientation. This could be a person's age or their skin color. It might even be their religion. So we kind of see an echo of behavior analysis there because when we talk about everyday discrimination, when we talk about treating people differently by some immutable characteristic that they cannot control, we're essentially kind of saying we're treating people differently based on that characteristic. So based on that particular stimulus that they possess or that they embody, we treat them differently than others. Remember that in behavior analysis, discrimination is not a value-laden word. It's simply meant to indicate that there's a delineation or a separation. There's a telling the difference between. It's not meant to indicate in any way that something bad is happening. Some examples, some everyday examples of discriminations might be, for instance, when you're driving and you're presented with the light on top or the light that is red, if you're colorblind, you may not be able to easily discriminate the colors. You know the light on top typically tends to be red and that one means you need to stop. But when you're driving, right, you've got the same environmental stimuli. You've got the lights are present. In this case, the green light is on and this communicates to you that you should go. If you were to emit the other responses there. So if you have a red light and you drive through, the red light is an S-delta or even an SP for driving through the light. If you do that, punishment is available. Either in the form of an accident or in the form of a ticket. Vice versa, if you stop at a green light, you're likely to contact some averse of social consequences because people are going to tell you about yourself when you stop at a green light. So we see that there's an element of discrimination there. You're telling the difference between in the presence of a red light. Red light is a discriminative stimulus for stopping. The red light is an S-delta for driving through. So two different responses. That's a complex discrimination in the presence of a green light. That's a discriminative stimulus to drive. If you drive through a green light, reinforcement is available. If you stop at a green light, punishment is available. So green is an SP or discriminative stimulus for punishment for stopping. I like to ask students when we're in the face-to-face course, you know, what does the yellow light communicate to you? And it's always really funny to see the difference between folks. Some folks will be like, it means slow down or express caution. Like, don't go crazy. Don't go very fast. And other students will shout, it means go faster so that you can get through the light before the light changes. So it's always interesting to see how people respond to those differently. Another example of everyday discriminative stimuli could be, for instance, the signage that goes on restrooms. There are very different consequences for walking into a restroom with the shape here that has this little cape behind the figure, as opposed to the one that doesn't. So if I, because I appear, you know, to the audience as a very female individual, if I walk into the men's room, there's going to be some uncomfortable responses. People are probably going to stare. Maybe they'll ask me to leave. So if I make the wrong choice here, if my behavior is not under stimulus control and I am equally likely to go into either restroom, I might face some consequences. Remember, we learn these through experience. Let's do a couple of vignettes. So if I were to present to you the question, what is five times five? This particular question is a discriminative stimulus for one response and one response only. This question sets the occasion for you to give one response, which is the answer 25. So you would admit the verbal response 25. And the reinforcer in this case would be me saying, yes, exactly. That's correct. Now we would say that stimulus control is demonstrated when the learner is much more likely to say 25 in the presence of that question than when they give me any other number. Remember, because stimulus control means that a behavior is much more likely in the presence of the stimulus than in its absence. And it kind of drowns out all of the other responses. This question would be an S delta for any other number. So if I said what's five times five and you say 42, that answer would not contact reinforcement, but be careful because stimuli are not one-dimensional. Stimuli don't serve only one purpose. Their stimulus properties can vary as a function of the contact. So if I'm presenting you, for instance, with this letter, I'm presenting you with a shape on screen. And I were to change the antecedents for your response. If I were to say, for instance, what color is this letter? You would give me a very different behavior. You would probably say something like blue or Robin's egg or something like that. You would give me a very different response to the question, what color is this? Then you would give me if I said, what letter is this? If I were to say, what letter is this? That's a different SD. And you'd give me a different response if your behavior is under stimulus control. So be careful that stimuli aren't just magical. They don't just pull responses out of people. They don't just have one function. They have multiple functions based on the discriminative stimuli that are present, the context of the question, the context of the stimulus and under what circumstances you're looking at the stimulus. We'll do a couple of other stimulus control examples. So imagine that you make a new friend, Suzanne, you see her again on the quad. So the SD in this case is you're, you know, physically on the quad. And then now she's present. She is a stimulus that is present in your environment. So if you want to hang out with your friend, Suzanne, you might call out to Suzanne like, hey, Suzanne, I see you. And the response there would be potentially her stopping and making contact with you. We see stimulus control demonstrated when you're more likely to call her by her name than any other name. So for instance, you call her Suzanne, not hey Janet or hey Steve or whatever. Cognitive psychologists would call that remembering, right? We see that under those circumstances, you omitted the response that would contact reinforcement. You remember her name or rather your behavior is under stimulus control. The presence of your friend is an S delta for other names. So calling her Francine or Suzanne or no, Suzanne is her name, excuse me. Calling her Francine or Steve or hey, you may not contact reinforcement. Now, Suzanne is the stimulus that is present when you emit the response. That's the difference between an SD and an EO. The SD tells you where to emit the response. It tells you that reinforcement is available. The establishing operation changes the value of that reinforcer, right? Establishing operations increase the value of the reinforcer. An abolishing operation decreases the value of the reinforcer. So let's do this again, but let's add in that fourth term, the motivating operation. In this case, you've got that same person, Suzanne, but your friend accidentally picked up your wallet when you guys were having lunch together and she walked away with your wallet, but you need your wallet because it's got your wolf card in it, right? So now you see Suzanne on the quad. She's still the SD, but now it's much more important to get your wallet back from her. So you may be much more likely to give out a really big response, like really shout her name. This changes the value of her as a reinforcer. And that discriminated response is still calling her Suzanne, but her having your wallet makes the reinforcer much more powerful because you got to get it, got to get that wallet back. So Suzanne turns, she sets the occasion for you to ask you for her wallet. This is an establishing operation. What about circumstances that would decrease the likelihood that you want to talk to Suzanne? So remember, abolishing operations decrease the likelihood that you will want to contact that reinforcer. Imagine instead that your friend Suzanne and you work together on an assignment. She copied your homework. Now you've both gotten in trouble for unauthorized work together, maybe plagiarism. You had to go to the Dean of Students Office to do a bunch of work. Well, now you see Suzanne. That part of your learning history, getting in trouble for being around Suzanne, her getting in trouble with the Dean of Students Office, could dramatically change the value of her or anything she can do for you as a reinforcer. Now I haven't filled in the behavior here because people may respond differently. Some people may say, okay, seeing Suzanne increases the likelihood that I'm just going to ghost her. I'm going to walk past her and just ignore her, right? So the discriminated behavior in that case would be maybe changing direction or kind of covering your face or pretending that you're on your phone and not seeing her. And that increases the negative reinforcing value of not having to talk to her because it allows you to escape or avoid her. Some other folks that I presented this scenario to have said, oh no, Suzanne and I need to have a conversation. So in this case, it doesn't actually decrease the value of Suzanne as a reinforcer. Instead, you might increase the value of confronting her and starting a fight in the quad as a potential response. So it really depends on the learning history of the organism, how they're going to respond to the situation. But remember that an establishing operation increases the value of a reinforcer and abolishing operation decreases the value of the reinforcer. And you just have to look to see what it's going to do in these different contexts. We talk about reinforcer value as being separate from where and when you emit the response. Where and when you emit the response is the SD. The value of the reinforcer is the establishing or abolishing operation. So these are just some examples. Let me know if you guys have any questions. And coming back, we'll talk a little bit about cognition and how stimulus control is related to the psychological concept of cognition.