Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
Psychology for Dummies (28 page)
When a consequence of an action or event increases the probability that the event or action will happen again, we call that consequence a
reinforcer.
It’s like a reward, and we know that when we’re rewarded, we often do what we were rewarded for again. Operant conditioning is all about the effects that reinforcers have on behavior.
B. F. Skinner, one of the most famous behavioral psychologists, followed in Thorndike’s footsteps in using animals to investigate operant conditioning. He constructed a box with a lever inside called a
Skinner box.
When an animal pressed the lever, a food pellet fell out of a feeder into the box. Skinner wanted to see if rats placed in the box could learn to press the lever in order to receive the food.
This task was a lot harder than one might think. Rats aren’t used to pressing levers to get food. Skinner had to facilitate the process a little bit with a procedure known as
shaping,
rewarding successful approximations to the goal. Skinner rewarded the rats with food for performing a behavior that was close to, but not exactly, the required response. Shaping was done gradually so that the rats eventually got to the point where they pressed the bar and received their reinforcers of food. After the rats got the hang of it, they learned to press the bar for food the same way Thorndike’s cats learned to open the door. The idea behind the actions was the same as well. The rats learned because the reward of the food “taught” them how to press the bar.
Thorndike’s cats and Skinner’s rats learned because they were rewarded with food. Food is a powerful reward for animals, but is just one type of reinforcer. Anything that increases the likelihood that a behavior will occur again can be used as a reward or reinforcer. It could be food, money, recess, or vacations.
There are two basic types of reinforcement:
Positive reinforcement
is the use of any reinforcer that increases the likelihood that a behavior will occur again.
Negative reinforcement
occurs when the removal of noxious stimuli leads to an increased likelihood that a behavior will occur again.
Again, the basic idea of operant conditioning is that behaviors that are reinforced (either positively or negatively) are more likely to occur again. But is this true for all reinforcers? Are all reinforcers created equal? If Skinner gave the rats five dollars each time they pressed the lever, would they still have learned the response? Probably not. Differences between reinforcers exist and determine the impact that the reinforcers have on responses. Not all consequences are rewarding or reinforcing.
Two types of positive reinforcers are effective:
Primary reinforcers
are rewards that don’t require shaping or prior training to be effective. Examples may be food or pleasurable physical sensations. David Premack in 1971 came up with the interesting idea that primary reinforcers can be identified by looking at what people spend most of their time doing. If they spend a lot of time watching television, riding bikes, or sleeping, these activities may be considered primary reinforcers. His
Premack principle
states that high probability responses can be used to reinforce lower probability responses. This is like using ice cream to get your child to eat his or her vegetables. If they want the ice cream (high probability response), they’ll eat their vegetables (low probability response).
Secondary reinforcers
are things that become reinforcing through experience and learning. This result happens by associating the secondary reinforcer with a primary reinforcer by using the same principles as classical conditioning (see Chapter 8). Dolphin trainers blow a whistle as they reward the dolphins with fish. Eventually, the dolphins associate the whistle with food, and the whistle is reinforcing in and of itself. According to David Lieberman, some have argued, however, that the whistle is just a signal and not a substitute for the food. Research is still inconclusive on this issue.
After we figure out what someone or something considers reinforcing, we can set out to influence its behavior by rewarding it for performing the appropriate responses. For example, consider an office manager who is having a difficult time getting her employees to come back from lunch on time. What can she do? First, she has to figure out what is reinforcing for this group or for each individual. Then, she has to start rewarding anyone who performs the desired behavior, coming back from lunch on time. She could give them little gifts, money, or smiley-face stickers.
Back to negative reinforcement for a second. This one confuses a lot of people. How can taking something away or removing a noxious stimulus increase the probability of a behavior? Have you ever had a new puppy in your home or apartment that wouldn’t stop whining while you were trying to sleep? If you kept it in another room or in the garage, you probably got up and went out to see what the problem was. What happened when you went to the puppy? It stopped crying. If you then went back to bed, I bet the crying woke you ten minutes later.
The problem is that
your
behavior is under the control of negative reinforcement. The puppy’s whining is a noxious (and annoying) stimulus. When you go to the garage, the whining stops, increasing the likelihood that you’ll keep going to the garage every time the puppy whines. You’re being negatively reinforced for going to the garage — not to mention that your puppy got positively reinforced for whining! Who’s in control of the situation, the puppy or you? In the office manager example, if the boss yells at the employees every time they return late from lunch, they may start to come back on time just to get the manager off of their cases. This is another example of negative reinforcement.
What if the office manager waits until the end of the year at the office Christmas party to reinforce the timely workers? Chances are they would have forgotten all about the incidents and accepted the gift, while not experiencing any its reinforcing effects.
Research by G. R. Grice and K. W. Spence has shown that reinforcement must occur immediately, or as quickly as possible, following the desired response. If you wait too long, the connection between the response and the reinforcing consequence is lost. Thorndike’s cats would have never gotten out of those crates if they were given a food voucher to be redeemed on their next visit to Cat Food Deluxe.
Both positive and negative reinforcements are consequences that are more likely to increase behavior. But what about that other consequence,
punishment?
Punishment is any consequence that decreases the likelihood of a response. One type of punishment is straightforward — the introduction of something noxious or aversive. Another type of punishment,
negative punishment,
involves removing something reinforcing, like taking a child’s bicycle away.
We use punishment to influence people’s behavior all the time. The office manager from the reinforcement example could have just punished her employees for being late. Parents punish children. Courts punish convicted criminals. Credit card companies punish people for late payments. Punish- ment is all around us.
I know that many of us use punishment. I also know that people criticize a lot of new parents for never punishing their children as an explanation for poor behavior. “What that kid needs is a good whipping.” Modern parents sometimes rebut with a statement that punishment doesn’t work. Does it?
Punishment in fact can be a very potent and effective means for suppressing behavior, but keep a few things in mind.
Punishment should be the least intense form necessary to produce the desired response. Punishment shouldn’t be too mild, though, because if you try to increase it gradually, the recipient may get used to each subsequent increase. Intense punishment is problematic as well. In order for punishment to be effective over a long period of time, you have to increase its intensity.
To be effective, punishment has to occur as close in time as possible to the response being punished. If I wait three weeks to punish my children for breaking the lamp, they’re going to be completely clueless as to why I am punishing them, and it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever.
Punishment should also be firm, consistent, and accompanied with clear explanations of why the punishment is being administered.
Of course, a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of inflicting pain or suffering on another person in order to alter their behavior. The use of punishment can have some negative consequences:
Fear may result. When people are effectively punished, they may learn to anticipate future punishment, and they may develop severe anxiety while waiting for the next shoe to drop. This can have a disruptive effect on their lives, sometimes leading to avoidance and apathy.
Aggression can be another unfortunate consequence of punishment. I’ve worked in both jails and prisons, and I’ve seen men become angrier, more aggressive, and even fearful as a result of the harsh conditions that they face while incarcerated. When the time comes for them to be released and face the world in a reformed manner, they have become dysfunctional and institutionalized, often unable to make the transition to the outside world.