Operant Conditioning - Essay Example

Operant Conditioning, its Key Concepts, and How it Works Introduction The first recognition of the phenomenon of conditioning in psychological research involved what is now known in the literature as classical conditioning. The definitive example of this is the Pavlovian response. Dogs salivate when they are eating or anticipating eating. Pavlov conditioned dogs to expect food when a bell was rung, eventually the ringing of the bell was enough to start the dogs salivating. In a human illustration, chemotherapy induces nausea in many patients. For patients who have this response, often the anticipation of chemotherapy, stimuli relating to chemotherapy initiates nausea. The drive to the hospital, the telephone call reminding the patient that chemotherapy is scheduled for tomorrow, can stimulate nausea before the actual physiological trigger, the chemotherapy. This is classical conditioning. Operant conditioning moves one step beyond classical conditioning. It involves learning based on a more complex level of stimuli and consequences. The remainder of this discussion will outline the key concepts in operant conditioning. This portion of the discussion will be based on a brief historical outline of the development of operant conditioning. The final section of the paper will focus on the dynamics – the whys and hows – of operant conditioning. It will also expand the discussion from psychological experimentation to real-life situations and examples. Definition: Operant Conditioning The foundational demonstration of operant conditioning is Thorndikes cat puzzle box. Unlike an involuntary stimuli (a bell) Thorndikes cat was placed in a box which it could only get out of by triggering a door opening device, and it could only get food if it was out of the box. The cat had to learn the stimuli (batting the door latch) to earn the reward of food. This is a critical difference from classical conditioning. The subject, the cat, must learn, the stimuli, opening the latch. In classical conditioning the stimuli (Pavlovs ringing bell) is imposed on the dog it is not learned and salivating is an automatic response. In Thorndikes experiments the cat must learn to open the door by stepping on a pedal to open the door, to attain the reward of food. (See illustration on following page.) Websters Online Dictionary defines operant conditioning as, “conditioning in which an operant response is brought under stimulus control by virtue of presenting reinforcement contingent upon the occurrence of the operant response.” (Websters Online Dictionary, “Operant Conditioning”) Thorndikes Puzzle Box Source: “Thorndikes Puzzle Box”. http://wizpismpd.blogspot.com/p/edward-lee-thorndike.html. Key Concepts Prior to analyzing how operant conditioning works and discussing the variations and developments that have occurred in operant conditioning a selection of key concepts must be understood. First, what is now referred to as operant conditioning Thorndike himself termed, instrumental learning. (Thorndike, 1911) He meant that an animals behaviour was instrumental, or essential, to bringing about the consequence. In the illustration on the preceding page, the behaviour of stepping on the pedal is instrumental in opening the door on the box and making the previously unattainable food, available to be eaten. Thorndike also theorized that instrumental learning was based on the law of effect. In the illustration on the preceding page, based on the law of effect, the cat will learn that stepping on the pedal makes food available and do it with increasing frequency and increasing haste: It will learn the stimuli – stepping on the pedal – and that the stimuli – has a positive consequence – food becomes available. (Passer, Smith, Holt, Bremner, Sutherland and Vliek, 2009) B. F. Skinner elaborated on Thorndikes seminal research later in the twentieth century. Skinner developed a device similar to the Thorndike puzzle box. The Skinner Box used a chamber that included a lever. When the lever was depressed a food pellet (Skinner used rats as his subjects) a food pellet was dropped into the Skinner Box. Subsequently, Skinner devised Skinner Boxes that also resulted in a given action being followed by a negative consequence. Skinner labeled a positive consequence a reward and negative consequences punishment. Skinner introduced the variable of time to the experiments with a cumulative recorder. A cumulative recorder used a roll of paper to keep track of the test subjects behaviour over time. These experiments verified Thorndikes assertion that the test subject did not have a light bulb moment, learn the rewarding behaviour immediately and repeat it in every succeeding experiment. It took time for the research subjects to learn and rely on the rewarding behaviour as the solution to the test. Skinners Cumulative Recorder Source: http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2004/experiments.htm. Dynamics: How it Works Simply put, the law of effect holds that a behaviour that has a positive consequence will be reinforced and become more likely, whereas a behaviour that has a negative consequence will become less likely. In Skinnerian terms these are punishments and rewards. Both Thorndike and Skinner observed that the process of learning was a curve not a simple binary, yes/no experience. It was a process that involved trial and error. The animals did not undertake the instrumental behaviour, learn immediately that it was the key behaviour and repeated it subsequently every time. Even after they invoked a positive response they did not immediately and consistently employ that behaviour in every future test. Nor did they immediately and consistently avoid a negative behaviour that was followed by an aversive outcome or a punishment in every future test. That said, the general principles of the dynamics of operant conditioning can be represented quite simply: If antecedent conditions (A) are present then behaviour (B) will result in consequences (C). In a Skinner Box (A), pressing a button (B) will result in a food reward C. Very importantly, Skinner eventually developed a Skinner Box that could be used with human babies and was able to test the theories that he had developed in experiments with animals as subjects in experiments with babies as subjects. In these experiments he was also able to change the consequences from simple food rewards to more complex emotional rewards such as attention and affection. In went so far as to state that the reward could be as simple as the noise of a rattle and, “the baby will enjoy the experiment.” (Skinner, 1959, p. 418) Returning to the earlier schematic, a bored or lonely baby in a crib (A) will shake a rattle (B) because that creates the reward of an entertaining noise (C). Interestingly, the parent who has learned this lesson is also exhibiting operant conditioning: If a parent does not want to be disturbed by a noisy baby (A) they will place a noise-making toy in the crib (B) so that the baby can play with the noisemaker and not disturb them (C). Thus, operant conditioning can offer rewards to both the baby and the parent or caregiver. Operant conditioning also applies to animal training. It is exactly the way that dogs (and other animals) are taught behaviours or tricks. When I say sit (A), and my dog sits (B) he receives a tasty treat (C). If I say lie down (A) and my dog lays down (B) he receives a tasty treat. This example also can be elaborated on. Eventually a dog owner can substitute the reward of affection, petting or simply saying Good dog. At this point the dog has learned that when I say sit (A) and the dog sits (B) it receives affection and attention. Most importantly, this is also a fundamental principle of child-rearing When a child is playing with other children (A) and they play well with the other children - sharing, cooperating, etc. - (B) they receive the reward of the other children cooperating and sharing with them, and words of affection and encouragement from the parent (and perhaps a reward such as a biscuit or a sweet. (C). As Skinner noted negative rewards can also be incorporated into operant conditioning. A simple illustration is the animal fencing known as electrical fencing. Cattle can be kept in a fenced enclosure that is lightweight (and hence inexpensive) if a slight electrical current is run through the fencing and the cattle become conditioned to avoiding the punishment (discomfort) of a minor electrical shock. If cattle are fenced in (A) and touching the fence results in an uncomfortable shock (B) they will learn to avoid going near to or touching the fence (C). Similar collars are available for dogs that deliver a mild shock if the dog barks. While wearing the collar (A) the dog receives a mild shock if it barks (B) and learns to avoid the behaviour that triggers the punishment (C). Moreover, ideally, with the dog the collar can be removed and the dog continues the learned behaviour of not barking. This final section of the discussion provides insight into the dynamics of operant conditioning and illustrations of how it can be applied over and beyond experiments to real life situations. References “Operant Conditioning” Websters Online Dictionary. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/operant+conditioning?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=operant+conditioning&sa=Search#922. Passer, Michael W., Ronald E. Smith, Nigel Holt, Andy Bremner, Ed Sutherland and Michael Vliek. (2009) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. (4th. ed.). London: McGraw Hill. Skinner, B. F. (1959). Cumulative Record. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies. New York: Macmillan. “Thorndikes Puzzle Box”. http://wizpismpd.blogspot.com/p/edward-lee-thorndike.html. Read More