Operant Conditioning Paper

Operant Conditioning Vanessa Mejias November 28, 2011 Ross Seligman PSY/390 Operant Conditioning In a world that was ruled by psychoanalytic studies, and Thorndike’s puzzle box to explain behaviorism, B. F. Skinner was a revolutionary in the world of psychology. His studies and reports on operant conditioning has not only survived ridicule and skepticism in his time but has also survived the passage of time and social evolution to incorporate his theories several decades later. By learning from and expanding upon Skinner’s schedule of reinforcement the world of social and academic learning has evolved from a puzzling act to a learned process that could be understood the world over. During his research Skinner developed a theory to modify behavior believing that behavior can be created because of a positive or negative stimulus or environment, instead of just instinctually responding to stimuli, like scratching an itch. While he did not create the foundation of behavior modification, his research allowed him to expand upon already existing theories developed by Pavlov and Thorndike. Skinner’s theory consisted of two types of behavior, respondent and operant behavior (Olsen & Hergerhahn, 2009). To go along with, and help modify unwanted behavior Skinner developed two types of conditioning. Type S also known as respondent conditioning and Type R also known as operant conditioning. Type S conditioning is the equivalent to classic conditioning as described by Pavlov and focuses primarily on the significance of the stimulus creating a preferred response or behavior (Olsen & Hergerhahn, 2009). Whereas type R conditioning is similar to Thorndike’s instrumental conditioning, by focusing upon the response after the stimulus (Olsen & Hergerhahn, 2009). The theory of operant conditioning focuses on the four types of stimuli that can elicit a response. Positive reinforcement is an act that adds to a reinforcement that will emit an increase in behavior, while negative reinforcement is an act that takes away a reinforcement that will create an increase in behavior. Whereas punishment follows the same guidelines with positive and negative punishment however the difference lies in the behavior. While reinforcement will increase behavior punishment is supposed to decrease behavior. Extinction however is the act of eliminating the reinforcement or punishment to eliminate the behavior and go back to the behavior prior to attempted modification. The differences between positive and negative reinforcements are not that profound. In actuality the similarities are sounder than the differences. Reinforcement is the act of increasing behavior, however it is the type of reinforcement used that causes the differences. If positive reinforcement is used then the stimuli will add to the behavior, for instance a dog is told to sit while the trainer pushes down on the hind side. Once the dog sits he or she is given a treat. Again the act is repeated with the same reinforcement given, so in this instance the dog is learning that once the required behavior is preformed it will receive a treat, the treat is adding to the increased and desired behavior. However, in the form of negative reinforcement a stimuli is taken away to increase the desired behavior. For instance, if a child wants a donut but will not eat their food, then the caregiver will take away the donut and tell the child they need to eat their lunch before they have their snack. In this instance the snack is taken away so that the child will increase the behavior of eating what is required before unhealthy foods. Although reinforcement, punishment and extinction all have their uses, it is debatable which is more effective. Skinner determined that punishment was not as effective as reinforcements. However the debate is whether positive or negative reinforcement is more effective. Upon review, it seems that positive and negative reinforcement has the same affect yet need to be administered under different circumstances based upon the behavior required, the environment, personality and cultural influences that play significant parts in an individual’s behavior. Throughout Skinner’s research he created a method in which behavior modification could be observed. This is called a schedule of reinforcement. Although Pavlov started to experiment with partial reinforcement with classical conditioning, it was the comprehensive research that Skinner performed that resulted in the complete understanding and effectiveness of scheduled reinforcement. An example of operant conditioning that uses scheduled reinforcement is toilet training. Toilet training incorporates operant and classical conditioning, however it is through the use of reinforcement that creates a positive outcome. During toilet training the child is introduced to the continuous reinforcement schedule, which means that every time the child controls their bladder and uses the toilet a reinforcement will be given. After a time this schedule can be altered to incorporate the fixed interval reinforcement schedule, what this means is that after a set amount of time the child will use the restroom on their own and receive a reinforcement afterwards, so the child will learn to anticipate the reinforcement prior to the use of the toilet. Once toilet training is complete the child will go from operant conditioning [using the toilet for reward], to classical conditioning [using the toilet to feel relief from the discomfort of a full bladder]. Although Skinner’s methods have been ridiculed and are abstract compared to other behaviorists’ theories, his research has allowed the field of psychology to move onto other avenues of possibilities. Whereas, Thorndike, Hull, Pavlov and other known greats have set the foundation to psychology, it was Skinner’s methods and emphasis on operant conditioning that allowed mankind to evolve in the understanding of behavior in animals and humans alike. As a result of Skinner’s radical views educators, animal trainers, psychologists, and caregivers are given hope that change in one’s behavior is attainable and eliminates the ‘blame’ method of humanity. Skinner’s work defines what it means to be ‘responsible for one’s own actions’. References Olsen, M. , & Hergerhahn, B. R. (2009). An Introduction to Theories of Learning [University of Phoenix Custom Edition eBook]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, PSY390 website. Operant Conditioning Paper Operant Conditioning Berline Jean Baptiste PSY/390 March 4, 2013 Esther Siler-Colbert Abstract When thinking about conditioning in general, one will, most likely, refer to classical, and operant conditioning right away. Furthermore, those who study psychology will associate classical conditioning with Ivan Pavlov who was a famous Russian psychologist and operant conditioning with B. F. Skinner, who was a very influential American psychologist. Even though both types of conditioning differ greatly from each other, they are still equally significant to education.Operant Conditioning If one follows the assumptions of a behaviorist, then not all behavior is genetically determined. Since it is not, it is either a function of responded or operant conditioning. Skinner surely followed the footsteps of E. L. Thorndike, who used the term â€Å"of instrumental conditioning instead of operant†. Both, however, believed that animals and humans are capable of more complicated behavior, albe it gradually. According to Skinner, this form of learning was a conditioning one, but one that was of a different kind from the one proposed by Pavlov.For instance, in respondent behavior, one does something in a passive manner to the environment; however, in operant conditioning, one does it because somewhere in the past this kind of behavior was associated with a pleasing outcome or with trying to avoid the occurrence of an unpleasant one. Therefore, quite opposite from what respondent behavior is, this kind of operant is always conditioned. Very important to indicate that the probability of a behavior occurring again, increases or decreases with the merit of its consequences. Clearly, it can be said that one learns to colligate an action to its consequence.The bond between the action and the consequence is referred to as contingency, which further declares one’s behavior in the future (Alloy, Riskind & Manos, 2005). In Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning there are three different terms, which are needed, and they are stimulus, response, and reinforcement, and as acknowledged by Skinner on several occasions, life is full of reinforces. There are different kinds of reinforces too, such as food or sex, to which one responds instinctively. These kinds of reinforces are known as primary reinforces and do not need to be learned.However, one responds mostly to reinforce that were conditioned, referred today to as secondary reinforces (Alloy, Riskind & Manos, 2005). There are three components in operant conditioning named positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment. According to Skinner’s theory, reinforcement is a consequence that will result in a behavior repeating; punishment has the opposite effect. It is very important to know that the terms positive and negative do not refer to something being just pleasant or unpleasant but instead, they indicate if a stimulus was added or taken away.To further simplify, in positi ve reinforcement the behavior is strengthened by adding a stimulus and in negative reinforcement, the behavior is weakened by removing one. Still, it is very important to point out that negative reinforcement is very often confused with punishment. One needs to keep in mind that one kind strengthens behavior, such as the reinforcement, whereas the other one, the punishment, eliminates behavior (Alloy, Riskind & Manos, 2005). It is difficult to define clearly, which reinforcement is the most effective one.Two major factors, the organism itself and the kind of circumstances, come into play when trying to make a decision of this kind. While for some, positive reinforcement may work truly well, for others the effectiveness of a negative reinforcement might do more. In addition, the results one seeks could also influence which one might be the better choice. So for instance, if one is in a restaurant and had a great dinner, he or she will most likely leave a big tip. In this scenario, po sitive reinforcement will most likely have a greater impact than a negative one.However, one would use negative reinforcement when trying to remove something annoying, such as a loud noise. Using a seatbelt in a car will remove the annoying beep noise that is usually there when one is unbuckled. Therefore, using the seatbelt is reinforced because it removes a stimulus. In summary, it can be acknowledge that both kinds of reinforcement are very effective since they increase the chance of a future response. In addition to positive and negative reinforcement, there is also the positive and negative punishment.For instance, positive punishment can be one adding an angry voice to an argument while negative punishment can be removing privileges, which parents often do when trying to punish their children for bad behavior. Once again, what kind of reinforcement, and even punishment, is the most effective, truly depends on different aspects (Schunk, 2008). The use of operant conditioning ca n be very often observed in parents raising their children. The same can be applied to me. I am a mom of two boys, one who is almost two years old and the other who is two months old. They not only differ in their physical appearance but also in their character.It seems while negative reinforcement might work truly well on the 19 months old, it probably would not work well on my two months old when his older. Since my 19 months old is usually very active, behave extremely well, like to read his book, and due his daily learning charts if this would suddenly change, I would try to apply negative reinforcement to shape his behavior. Even though my two months old is not yet old enough to take action towards, but if he starts crying after his diaper has been change and he’s been fed then I will use positive reinforcement to shape his behavior.Knowing my 19 months old, I am assuming the only possible way to shape his behavior and have him read his book and also have him do his dail y learning charts constantly would be by having him spend more time indoors, instead of playing outside. Therefore, the choice to use negative reinforcement is the perfect one for him and for this kind of situation. If he wanted to go outside more and play, he would be able to gain more of this time back by not falling behind. Once doing so, he could go outside again and play with his friends. In this case, good behavior would decrease the time he would have to stay indoors.If my two months old decided not to stop crying and would require some attention, I would use attention to shape his behavior, which in this case would work as a positive reinforcement. Paying attention to him, showing him that I am here even when he is not being held would make him feel more secure and won’t mind lying in his swinger. In addition, depending on the situation, continuous reinforcement might not always be possible. For instance, I might not always have the time to give him all of my attentio n because I do have to share myself between him and my other son.Maybe additional strategies, such as the use of reinforcement schedules, might be necessary. There are four kinds of reinforcement schedules called fixed ratio, variable ratio, fixed interval, and variable interval. In my son’s case, variable ratio might work well. He knows he will get the attention when I can; however, he won’t know when it will happen. However, if both, the positive and negative reinforcement, seem not to work, then there is the possibility of using punishment. In this case, I would take privileges away from both of them so that their behavior can be shaped (Martinez, 2010).References Alloy, L. , B. , Riskind, J. , H. & Manos, M. , J. (2005). Abnormal psychology: Current perspectives (9th. ed. ) New York, NY: The McGraw-Hills Companies Inc. Martinez, M. , E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Olson, M. , H. & Hergenhahn , B. , R. (2009). An Introduction to theories of learning. (8th. Ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Schunk, D. , H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th. ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.