This page holds a finished PSYC-110N Week 3 reinforcement analysis, labeled from direction and operation rather than from tone, with the extinction forecast the assignment usually wants. Searches like "psyc 110n week 3 assignment example", "psyc110n week 3 sample" and "psyc-110n week 3 example" land here.
What a finished PSYC-110N Week 3 reinforcement analysis looks like
Shorter than it looks, often under three pages, and organized around a behavior rather than around a person. The opening paragraph defines the behavior in countable form, which is the sentence the whole analysis rests on: pressing the snooze button, checking the vending machine, raising a hand. A second paragraph gives the arrangement, what was already there and what changed. The middle carries the labeling, and a good example shows the two questions being answered separately before any term is applied. The last section is the forecast, usually about what happens when the arrangement stops paying. Examples run with small, unglamorous behaviors on purpose, since a countable one leaves nothing to argue about.
How a PSYC-110N Week 3 example is structured
The analysis works outward from the behavior. First it is defined so that two observers watching the same afternoon would produce the same tally, which rules out anything described as an attitude or a mood. Second, the arrangement around it is set down: what preceded the behavior, what followed it, and how reliably. Third, the two labeling questions are put in writing one at a time, whether something was added or taken away and whether the behavior became more frequent or less, and only afterward is one of the four operant terms applied. Fourth, the analysis names the schedule the arrangement amounts to, because a reinforcer delivered every time and one delivered unpredictably forecast different things. The close states what should happen when delivery stops, including the rise before the fall.
Defining the behavior so it can be counted
One sentence naming something two people watching the same afternoon would tally identically. Everything after it depends on that line, and a vague behavior is where most of these analyses come apart.
What was added and what was taken away
The arrangement is set down with timing attached: what came before, what followed, and how consistently. Without timing there is no way to show the connection was contingent at all.
Two questions, then the label
Direction of change and operation performed are answered separately in writing. Only when both have answers does one of the four operant terms get used, and the order is marked.
Why negative reinforcement is not punishment
The negative names a removal, not an unpleasant experience. This single confusion accounts for more lost points in Week 3 than every other error in the assignment combined.
The schedule and the extinction forecast
How reliably the consequence arrived decides how long the behavior survives without it. The forecast names that, and names the temporary increase that normally comes before the decline.
Where marks go in PSYC-110N Week 3
Almost every deduction here traces back to a label chosen from tone. Something unpleasant is read as punishment, relief is read as a reward, and negative reinforcement is treated as a synonym for both, when the negative refers only to something being taken away. The next loss is a behavior defined so loosely that no tally is possible, since an analysis of somebody being lazier cannot show a direction of change. After that comes the arrangement given without timing, leaving no way to tell whether what followed was contingent on the behavior or merely nearby. Marks also go for skipping the schedule, which is what the forecast needs, and for a closing prediction that ignores the burst of behavior an interrupted arrangement usually produces first.
Get a PSYC-110N Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the week's assignment instructions and the rubric your section posted, and a PSYC-110N Week 3 analysis is written to them, the behavior defined in countable form and the labeling shown one question at a time, back in 24-48h with the first one free. Bring your own episode and it is built on that.
PSYC-110N Week 3 questions, answered
Does the analysis need real numbers?
Not usually, but it needs a behavior that could have been counted. Saying the behavior happened most mornings and then hardly at all is enough to show a direction, which is what the labeling depends on. Invented precise counts are worse than none, because a figure nobody recorded will not survive a follow-up question from an instructor.
Is negative reinforcement just another name for punishment?
No, and the classroom will keep testing this. The two words in each label answer different questions: the first says whether something was added or taken away, the second says whether the behavior became more or less frequent afterward. Negative reinforcement removes something and the behavior increases. Punishment, either kind, ends with the behavior decreasing. Direction decides which family the episode belongs in.
What if the behavior went down rather than up?
Then the analysis is still complete, it just lands in a different pair of labels. A decrease with something added and a decrease with something removed are both usable, and neither is a weaker paper. What would be a problem is an episode where the behavior did not change at all, since there is no direction to explain and the forecast has nothing to work from.