Analysis Study of Operant Conditioning - Essay Example

Analysis Study of Operant Conditioning Overview In their article d The Role of First Impression in Operant Learning, Shteingart, Neiman and Loewenstein (2012) seek to further explore operant learning. By definition, operant learning is a mode of modifying behavior in which the likelihood of a particular behavior can be affected positively or negatively. This effect can be achieved by reinforcing a negative or positive behavior each time the target behavior is exhibited so in the long run, the displeasure or pleasure of the reinforcement is associated with the subject. In their study, the authors are examining the effect of first experience on behavior, and how this in turn affects operant conditioning. The study largely adhered to Thorndike’s law of effect which showed that upon exposure to some form of enforcement, an organism is bound to react differently: if the reinforcement produces a pleasurable outcome, the likelihood of the resulting behavior to be repeated increases. Pervasively, if the outcome of reinforcement is negative, then lower the chances of the resulting behavior to be repeated occur. They define this occurrence as outcome primacy. Similarly, their study sought to determine whether a first experience had any lasting and substantial effect on the behavior of the participants. In conducting the study, one experiment was applied in which about 200,000 choices were analyzed in repeated-choice setting. At the end of the study, the authors found out that indeed, first experience has a substantial and lasting effect on the behavior of the participants. In it, outcome primacy seemed to have a big effect on the participants’ underestimation of small probabilities by enforcing an underweighing of rare events. The relationship of their study with operant conditioning is that they were investigating first experience (enforcement) and how it impacted on participants’ behavior (modification) which led to underestimating of small probabilities (reaction). Purpose The in-depth hypothesis of the study, of course guided by Thorndike’s law of effect, the authors set out to examine human behavior with regards to how it was affected (shaped) by initial conditions. The aim was to expose the participants to normal (initial) conditions and thereafter introduce a form of new experience. Thereafter, they would be able to tell the kind of effect that this would have on the participants with regards to how they shaped their subsequent reactions henceforth. Better put, the purpose of the study was to tell whether Thorndike’s results from experimenting with the cats would be evident in the study, that is; would the participants’ future actions are dependent on the experience they first had with something? In real life, this experiment would be examining whether humans learn from experience, and whether this experience is used in determining future actions, thus collectively affect their behavior. Method To conduct the experiment, Shteingart, Neiman and Loewenstein (2012) applied the following method: they went for 200 Israeli participants who were students. Half of them were in a “competition” session while the other half was in an “estimation” session. Before the experiment began, all the participants were awarded with $11.40 (40 Israeli Shekels) as a token of appreciation for participating. They were told that they would either lose or gain more money depending on how they conducted their participation. The idea was to play games on a computer screen. Two unmarked buttons would appear on the computer screen and each participant would choose one of them. Upon their choosing, the reward or punishment represented by the button would be revealed and used in determining what each participant would take home. The two buttons were marked as risky or safe (known only to the experimenters). The safe button had a lower payoff sum, while the risky button had a high payoff. All through the experiment, the examiners would be recording the first choice of button press by the participants and most importantly the outcome of their presses. After each press, the buttons would be re-arranged so that location and button type were not determining factors. Most importantly, the choice of button press after the first outcome was critically recorded (with regards to how the rest of the button presses were done). This method would tell the resulting reactions or choices resulting after either pressing the “risky” or “safe” button for the first time. Each participant was allocated 40 minutes on average. Results/ outcomes At the end of the experiment, the authors found out that depending on the outcome of the first button press, the participants’ next moves were determined. This is what they termed as outcome primacy. In the outcome primacy, it was evident that if the participants underestimated the value of the risky button, they avoided in the preceding button presses. Concisely, if their first reward showed up as a risky outcome or the risky alternative, they tended to avert the “risky” choice thus risk-aversion. On the other hand, if the “safe” alternative posed off as less risky although with lower payoffs, most of them went for the safer button press in most of their preceding press. Better put, if one felt their first press was a “loss”, they would try and avoid the riskier option. If they felt their first press was “easy”, they were likely to risk higher in a bid to earn more or higher payoffs. As such, depending on the outcome, the participants either fell into a risky or risk-aversive category. Reaction From a personal perspective, this study was simply an advanced form of Thorndike’s experiment only that this time, more complex factors were tested. In Thorndike’s version of testing operant conditioning, the cats were exposed to physical enforcements and the results were analyzed physically. I however find this study more detailed and more accurate in that one, a fair number of participants was involved meaning the results would provide credible results. This would not be the case with using few participants. Second, the results were more cognitive-oriented in that by utilizing the idea of pressing buttons, the participant’s reactions would be determined by the brain, and that would be sufficient to examine the cognitive aspects of human with regard to experience. Finally, the concept of emphasizing on and recording the pre-press moment and the first button press meant that it was possible to compare the initial conditions and the reactions (modified behavior). In it, it would be revealed how the participants went about pressing the buttons after the outcome of the first press. Generally, the study chose an effective way of examining outcome primacy which in layman’s language is simply, “how humans learn from past experiences, and how these past actions influence their future behavior”. As such, the findings that human behavior is indeed affected by their [first] experience with something are indeed justified by the way this study was conducted. Collectively, the entire study makes the article an informative and commendable piece of knowledge applicable in furthering the understanding of psychology. Application The findings in the study justified the fact that depending on a person’s first encounter with a form of stimuli, their future interaction with the same is determined. In the light of this, people should always consider what effects that their words or actions may have on vulnerable others and in its limit or expand on what they do. If the effects are bound to be negative, then they limit their actions, if the effects are bound to be positive, they can expound on them. In real life application, teachers or parents should evaluate their teachings on matters such as introducing sex education to children. If they paint a negative picture of the matter in them, then it may impact negatively on them in the future since they will always react negatively. As such, their approach to the matter must be carefully crafted to avoid such. Limitations The study appears perfect, but for a slight flaw that shows in the interpretation of the results. The authors conducted the study alright and stated the effect of the first button press on the preceding actions of the participants in choosing their buttons. They do not however provide a sufficient explanation for this. Rather than just post the results, they should have provided an in-depth explanation of how this process is more cognitive than it is a physical occurrence. Improvements In the event that I was to replicate the experiment, I would change two things. First, I would increase the sample size, meaning I would have more participants taking part in a wider variety of experiments. This would not only make the experiment more accurate, but also bring together more findings derived from multiple experiments for comparison and evaluation. Second, I would provide a better explanation of how “experience” comes about in the human brain, and expound more on the outcome primacy (how experience works through caution or motivation) in influencing future human actions. Future research Having answered the query as to whether first experience has an effect on the subsequent on human behavior, the other research that needs to be implemented is one examining the dualism of experience. This is based on the fact that depending on one’s encounter with something, they either fear or get encouraged in their future actions. In short, the research should be based off the query, “how does experience influence future human behavior?” References Shteingart, H., Neiman, T., & Loewentein, Y. (2012). “The Role of First Impression in Operant Learning”. Journal of Experimantal Psychology, 142 (2): 476-488. Read More