When Jeremy began his freshman year at Palo Alto High School, he was about 5´3˝ and 125 pounds—not exactly NBA material. During his sophomore year, he learned to dunk, and by senior year, he was over 6 feet tall and leading his team to victory in the Division II state championship (Dalrymple, 2012; Tennis, 2012, February 20). Jeremy was a big fish in a small pond—so big that he didn’t need to work very hard to maintain his level of success. However, college recruiters did not observe anything exceptional in his strength or overall athleticism (Viera, 2012, February 12). This may be the reason Jeremy did not receive any athletic scholarship offers from Division I colleges, despite his basketball prowess and 4.2 grade point average (McGregor, 2012, February 15; Spears, 2012, February 18).

Things changed when Jeremy found himself in a bigger pond, playing basketball at Harvard University. That’s when Coach Diepenbrock says the young player began working harder on aspects of practice he didn’t particularly enjoy, such as weight lifting, ball handling, and conditioning. When Jeremy was picked up by the NBA, his diligence soared to a new level. While playing with the Golden State Warriors, he would eat breakfast at the team’s training facility by 8:30 A.M., three and a half hours before practice. “Then, all of sudden, you’d hear a ball bouncing on the floor,” Keith Smart, a former coach told The New York Times (Beck, 2012, February 24, para. 14). Between NBA seasons, Jeremy returned to his alma mater Palo Alto High School to run track workouts with Coach Diepenbrock. He also trained with a shooting coach and spent “an inordinate amount of time” honing his shot, according to Diepenbrock.

Jeremy’s persistence paid off. The once-scrawny scrapper, now 6´3˝ and 200 pounds (ESPN.com, 2015), is exploding with power and agility. According to Diepenbrock, “He has gotten to the point where now, as far as the strength and the athleticism, he is on par—or good enough—with veteran NBA athletes.”

OPERANT CONDITIONING DEFINED What has kept Jeremy working so hard all these years? Psychologists might attribute Jeremy’s ongoing efforts to operant conditioning, a type of learning in which people or animals come to associate their voluntary actions with their consequences. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, the effects of a behavior influence future actions. Think about some of the consequences of Jeremy’s training—short-term results like seeing his free throw shot improve, and long-term rewards like victory, fame, and fortune. How do you think these outcomes might have influenced (and continue to influence) Jeremy’s behavior? Before addressing this question, we need to take a closer look at operant conditioning.

LO 7 Describe Thorndike’s law of effect.

THORNDIKE AND HIS CATS One of the first scientists to objectively study the effect of consequences on behavior was American psychologist Edward Thorndike (1874 –1949). Thorndike’s early research focused on chicks and other animals, many of which he kept in his apartment. But after an incubator almost caught fire, his landlady insisted he get rid of the chicks (Hothersall, 2004). It was in the lab that Thorndike conducted his research on cats. His most famous experimental setup involved putting a cat in a latched cage called a “puzzle box” and planting enticing pieces of fish outside the door. When first placed in the box, the cat would scratch and paw around randomly, but after a while, just by chance, it would pop the latch, causing the door to release. The cat would then escape the cage to devour the fish (Figure 5.2). The next time the cat was put in the box, it would repeat this random activity, scratching and pawing with no particular direction. And again, just by chance, the cat would pop the latch that released the door and freed it to eat the fish. Each time the cat was returned to the box, the number of random activities decreased until eventually it was able to break free almost immediately (Thorndike, 1898).

We should highlight a few important issues relating to this early research. First, these cats discovered the solution to the puzzle box accidentally, while exhibiting their naturally occurring behaviors (scratching and exploring). So, they initially obtained the fish treat by accident. The other important point is that the measure of learning was not an exam grade or basketball score, but the amount of time it took the cats to break free.

The cats’ behavior, Thorndike reasoned, could be explained by the law of effect, which says that a behavior (opening the latch) is more likely to happen again when followed by a pleasurable outcome (delicious fish). Behaviors that lead to pleasurable outcomes will be repeated, while behaviors that don’t lead to pleasurable outcomes (or are followed by something unpleasant) will not be repeated. The law of effect is not limited to cats. When was the last time your behavior changed as a result of a pleasurable outcome?

Most contemporary psychologists would call the fish in Thorndike’s experiments reinforcers, because the fish increased the likelihood that the preceding behavior (escaping the cage) would occur again. Reinforcers are consequences that follow behaviors, and they are a key component of operant conditioning. Our daily lives abound with examples of reinforcers. Praise, hugs, good grades, enjoyable food, and attention are all reinforcers that increase the probability the behaviors they follow will be repeated. Through the process of reinforcement, targeted behaviors become more frequent. A child praised for sharing a toy is more likely to share in the future. A student who studies hard and earns an A on an exam is more likely to prepare well for upcoming exams.

SKINNER AND BEHAVIORISM Some of the earliest and most influential research on operant conditioning came out of the lab of B. F. Skinner (1904 –1990), an American psychologist. Like Pavlov, Skinner had not planned to study learning. Upon graduating from college, Skinner decided to become a writer and a poet, but after a year of trying his hand at writing, he decided he “had nothing to say” (Skinner, 1976). Around this time, he began to read the work of Watson and Pavlov, which inspired him to pursue a graduate degree in psychology. He enrolled at Harvard, took some psychology classes that he found “dull,” and eventually joined a lab in the Department of Biology, where he could study the subject he found most intriguing: animal behavior.

Skinner was devoted to behaviorism, the scientific study of observable behavior. Behaviorists believed that psychology could only be considered a “true science” if it was based on the study of behaviors that could be seen and documented. In relation to learning, Skinner and other behaviorists proposed that all behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are shaped by factors in the external environment.

LO 8 Explain shaping and the method of successive approximations.

SHAPING AND SUCCESSIVE APPROXIMATIONS Building on Thorndike’s law of effect and Watson’s approach to research, Skinner demonstrated, among other things, that rats can learn to push levers and pigeons can learn to bowl (Peterson, 2004). Since animals can’t be expected to immediately perform such complex behaviors, Skinner employed shaping, the use of reinforcers to change behaviors through small steps toward a desired behavior (see Infographic 5.2 below). Skinner used shaping to teach a rat to “play basketball” (dropping a marble through a hole) and pigeons to “bowl” (nudging a ball down a miniature alley). As you can see in the photo on page 187. Skinner placed animals in chambers, or Skinner boxes, which were outfitted with food dispensers the animals could activate (by pecking a target or pushing on a lever, for instance) and recording equipment to monitor these behaviors. These boxes allowed Skinner to conduct carefully controlled experiments, measuring activity precisely and advancing the scientific and systematic study of behavior.

INFOGRAPHIC 5.2

INFOGRAPHIC 5.2

Collection of four raw grains (broomcorn millet, wheat, rye, and sunflower seeds), Shutterstock; Gray dove on a white background, Shutterstock; Ping pong; Shutterstock; Greek salad, Shutterstock; Boy with salad; Thinkstock; Two pigeons play a version of ping pong, Yale Joel/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images; Pigeons © Zoonar GmbH/Alamy.

How in the world did Skinner get pigeons to bowl? The first task was to break the bowling lessons into small steps that pigeons could accomplish. Next, he introduced reinforcers as consequences for behaviors that came closer and closer to achieving the desired goal—bowling a strike! Choosing the right increments for the behaviors was crucial. If his expectations started too high, the pigeons would never be given any reinforcers. If his expectations were too low, the pigeons would get reinforcers for everything they did. Either way, they would be unable to make the critical connection between desired behavior and reward. So Skinner devised a plan such that every time the animals did something that brought them a step closer to completing the desired behavior, they would get a reinforcer (usually food). The first reward might be given for simply looking at the ball; the second for bending down and touching it; and the third, for nudging the ball with their beaks. Since each incremental change in behavior brings the birds closer to accomplishing the larger goal of bowling, this method is called shaping by successive approximations. By the end of the experiment, the pigeons were repeatedly driving balls down miniature alleys, knocking down pins with a swipe of the beak (Peterson, 2004).

Successive approximations can also be used with humans, who are sometimes unwilling or unable to change problematic behaviors overnight. For example, psychologists have used successive approximation to change truancy behavior in adolescents (Enea & Dafinoiu, 2009). The truant teens were provided reinforcers for consistent attendance, but with small steps requiring increasingly more days in school.

It is amazing that the principles used for training animals can also be harnessed to keep teenagers in school. Is there anything operant conditioning can’t accomplish?

THINK again

These examples involve researchers deliberately shaping behaviors with reinforcers in a laboratory setting. Many behaviorists believe behaviors are being shaped all of the time, both in and out of the laboratory. What factors in the environment might be shaping your behavior?

Both operant and classical conditioning are forms of learning, and they share many common principles (Table 5.2). As with classical conditioning, behaviors learned through operant conditioning go through an acquisition phase. Jeremy Lin learned to dunk a basketball when he was a sophomore in high school. The cats in Thorndike’s experiments learned how to escape their puzzle boxes after a certain number of trials. In both cases, the acquisition stage occurred through the gradual process of shaping. Behaviors learned through operant conditioning are also subject to extinction—that is, they may fade in the absence of reinforcers. A rat in a Skinner box eventually gives up pushing on a lever if there is no longer a reinforcer awaiting. But that same lever-pushing behavior can make a sudden comeback through spontaneous recovery. After a rest period, the rat returns to his box and reverts to his old lever-pushing ways.

With operant conditioning, stimulus generalization is seen when a previously learned response to one stimulus occurs in the presence of a similar stimulus. A rat is conditioned to push a particular type of lever, but it may push a variety of other lever types similar in shape, size, and color. Horses also show stimulus generalization. With successive approximations using a tasty oat-molasses grain reinforcer, a small sample of horses learned to push on a “rat lever” with their lips in response to the appearance of a solid black circle with a 2.5-inch diameter. After conditioning, the horses were presented with a variety of black circles of different diameters; demonstrating stimulus generalization, they pressed the lever most often when shown circles close in size to the original (Dougherty & Lewis, 1991).

Stimulus discrimination is also at work in operant conditioning, as organisms can learn to discriminate between behaviors that do and do not result in reinforcement. With the use of reinforcers, turtles can learn to discriminate among black, white, and gray paddles. In one study, researchers rewarded a turtle with morsels of meat when it chose a black paddle over a white one; subsequently, the turtle chose the black paddle over other-colored paddles (Leighty et al., 2013).

Stimulus discrimination even applies to basketball players. Jeremy Lin certainly has learned to discriminate between teammates and opponents. It’s unlikely he would get reinforcement from the crowd if he mistook an opponent for a teammate and passed the ball to the other team. Making a perfect pass to a teammate, on the other hand, would likely earn approval. This brings us to the next topic, positive reinforcement, where we start to see how classical and operant conditioning differ.

LO 9 Identify the differences between positive and negative reinforcement.

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT With operant conditioning, an organism learns to associate voluntary behaviors with their consequences. Any stimulus that increases a behavior is a reinforcer. What we haven’t addressed is that a reinforcer can be something added or something taken away. In the process of positive reinforcement, reinforcers are presented (added) following the targeted behavior, and reinforcers in this case are generally pleasant (see Infographic 5.3 on page 199). By presenting positive reinforcers following a target behavior, we are increasing the chances that the target behavior will occur again. If the behavior doesn’t increase after the stimulus is presented, that particular stimulus should not be considered a reinforcer. The fish treats that Thorndike’s cats received immediately after escaping the puzzle box and the morsels of bird feed that Skinner’s pigeons got for bowling are examples of positive reinforcement. In both cases, the reinforcers were added following the desired behavior and were pleasurable.

There were also many potential positive reinforcers driving Jeremy Lin. The praise that his coaches gave him for passing a ball to a teammate would be an example of positive reinforcement. Back in high school, Coach Diepenbrock rewarded players with stickers to provide feedback on their performance (“kind of middle schoolish,” he admits, but effective nonetheless). Jeremy averaged the highest sticker score of any player ever. Did the sticker system have an effect on Jeremy’s behavior? Coach Diepenbrock cannot be certain, but if it did, seeing his sticker-filled poster would have served as a positive reinforcer for him to practice.

You may be wondering if this approach could be used in a college classroom. The answer would inevitably depend on the people involved. Remember, the definition of a positive reinforcer depends on the organism’s response to its presence (Skinner, 1953). You may love getting stickers, but your classmate may be offended by them.

Keep in mind, too, that not all positive reinforcers are pleasant; when we refer to positive reinforcement, we mean that something has been added. For example, if a child is starved for attention, then any kind of attention (including a reprimand) would be experienced as a positive reinforcer. Every time the child misbehaves, she gets reprimanded, and reprimanding is a form of attention, which the child craves. The scolding reinforces the misbehavior.

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT We have established that behaviors can be increased or strengthened by the addition of a stimulus. But it is also possible to increase a behavior by taking something away. Behaviors can increase in response to negative reinforcement, through the process of taking away (or subtracting) something unpleasant. Skinner used negative reinforcement to shape the behavior of his rats. The rats were placed in Skinner boxes with floors that delivered a continuous mild electric shock—except when they pushed on a lever. The animals would begin the experiment scampering around the floors to escape the electric current, but every once in a while they would accidentally hit the lever and turn off the current. Eventually, they learned to associate pushing the lever with the removal of the unpleasant stimulus (the mild electric shock). After several trials, the rats would push the lever immediately, reducing their shock time.

Think about some examples of negative reinforcement in your own life. If you try to drive your car without your seat belt, does your car make an annoying beeping sound? If so, the automakers have employed negative reinforcement to increase your use of seat belts. The beeping provides an annoyance (an unpleasant stimulus) that prompts most people to put on their seat belts (the desired behavior increases) to make the beeping stop, and thus remove the unpleasant stimulus. The next time you get in the car, you will be faster to put on your seat belt, because you have learned that buckling up immediately makes the annoying sound go away. For another example of negative reinforcement, picture a dog that constantly begs for treats. The begging (an unpleasant stimulus) stops the moment the dog is given a treat, a pattern that increases your treat-giving behavior. The problem is that the dog’s begging behavior is being strengthened through positive reinforcement; the dog has learned that the more it begs, the more treats it receives.

Notice that with negative reinforcement, the target behaviors increase in order to remove an unwanted condition. Returning to our example of Jeremy Lin, how might a basketball coach use negative reinforcement to increase a behavior? Of course, the coach can’t build an electric grid in the flooring (as Skinner did with his rats) to get his players moving faster. He might, however, start each practice session by whining and complaining (a very annoying stimulus) about how slow the players are moving. But as soon as their level of activity increases, he stops his annoying behavior. The players then learn to avoid the coach’s whining and complaining simply by running faster and working harder at every practice. Thus, the removal of the annoying stimulus (whining and complaining) increases the desired behavior (running faster). Keep in mind that the goal of negative reinforcement is to increase a desired behavior. Try to remember this when you read the section on punishment.

LO 10 Distinguish between primary and secondary reinforcers.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REINFORCERS There are two major categories of reinforcers: primary and secondary. The food with which Skinner rewarded his pigeons and rats is considered a primary reinforcer (innate reinforcer), because it satisfies a biological need. Food, water, and physical contact are considered primary reinforcers (for both animals and people) because they meet essential requirements. Many of the reinforcers shaping human behavior are secondary reinforcers, which means they do not satisfy biological needs but often derive their power from their connection with primary reinforcers. Although money is not a primary reinforcer, we know from experience that it gives us access to primary reinforcers, such as food, a safe place to live, and perhaps even the ability to attract desirable mates. Thus, money is a secondary reinforcer. The list of secondary reinforcers is long and varied, because different people find different things and activities to be reinforcing. Listening to music, washing dishes, taking a ride in your car—these would all be considered secondary reinforcers for people who enjoy doing them. Ready for a tongue twister? A reinforcer is only a reinforcer if the person receiving it finds it reinforcing. In other words, the designation of a reinforcer depends on its ability to increase a target behavior.

Secondary reinforcers are evident in everyday social interactions. Think about how your behaviors might change in response to praise from a boss, a pat on the back from a coworker, or even a nod of approval from a friend on Facebook or Instagram. Yes, reinforcers can even exert their effects through the digital channels of social media.

SOCIAL MEDIA and psychology

Now that we have a basic understanding of operant conditioning, let’s take things to the next level and examine its guiding principles.

LO 11 Describe continuous reinforcement and partial reinforcement.

A year after graduating from Stanford, Ivonne returned to New York City and began looking for a new activity to get her outside and moving. She found the New York Road Runners Club, which connected her with an organization that supports and trains runners with all types of disabilities, including paraplegia, amputation, and cerebral palsy. Having no running experience (apart from jogging on a treadmill), Ivonne showed up at a practice one Saturday morning in Central Park and ran 2 miles with one of the running club’s guides. The next week she came back for more, and then the next, and the next.

CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT When Ivonne first started attending practices, her teammates promised to buy her hot chocolate whenever she increased her distance. “Every time they would try to get me to run further, they’d say, ‘We’ll have hot chocolate afterwards!’” Ivonne remembers. “They actually would follow through with their promise!” The hot chocolate was given in a schedule of continuous reinforcement, because the reinforcer was presented every time Ivonne ran a little farther. Continuous reinforcement can be used in a variety of settings: a child getting praise every time he does the dishes; a dog getting a treat every time it comes when called. You get the commonality: reinforcement every time the behavior is produced.

PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT Continuous reinforcement comes in handy for a variety of purposes and is ideal for establishing new behaviors during the acquisition phase. But delivering reinforcers intermittently, or every once in a while, works better for maintaining behaviors. We call this approach partial reinforcement. Returning to the examples listed for continuous reinforcement, we can also imagine partial reinforcement being used: The child gets praise almost every time he does the dishes; a dog gets a treat every third time it comes when called. The reinforcer is not given every time the behavior is observed, only some of the time.

Early on, Ivonne received a reinforcer from her training buddies for every workout she increased her mileage. But how might partial reinforcement be used to help a runner increase her mileage? Perhaps instead of hot chocolate on every occasion, the treat could come after every other successful run. Or, a coach might praise the runner’s hard work only some of the time. The amazing thing about partial reinforcement is that it happens to all of us, in an infinite number of settings, and we might never know how many times we have been partially reinforced for any particular behavior. Common to all of these partial reinforcement situations is that the target behavior is exhibited, but the reinforcer is not supplied each time this occurs.

The hard work and reinforcement paid off for Ivonne. In 2003 she ran her first marathon—New York City—and has since competed in more than a dozen others.

PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT When Skinner put the pigeons in his experiments on partial reinforcement schedules, they would peck at a target up to 10,000 times without getting food before giving up (Skinner, 1953). According to Skinner, “Nothing of this sort is ever obtained after continuous reinforcement” (p. 99). The same seems to be true with humans. In one study from the mid-1950s, researchers observed college students playing slot machines. Some of the slot machines provided continuous reinforcement, delivering pretend coins every time students pulled their levers. Others followed partial reinforcement schedules, dispensing coins only some of the time. After the students played eight rounds, all of the machines stopped giving coins. Without any coins to reinforce them, the students stopped pulling the levers—but not at the same time. Those who had received coins with every lever pull gave up more quickly than did those rewarded intermittently. In other words, lever-pulling behavior was less likely to be extinguished when established through partial reinforcement (Lewis & Duncan, 1956). Psychologists call this phenomenon the partial reinforcement effect: Behaviors take longer to disappear (through the process of extinction) when they have been acquired or maintained through partial, rather than continuous, reinforcement.

Remember, partial reinforcement works very well for maintaining behaviors, but not necessarily for establishing behaviors. Imagine how long it would take Skinner’s pigeons to learn the first step in the shaping process (looking at the ball) if they were rewarded for doing so only 1 in 5 times. The birds learn fastest when reinforced every time, but their behavior will persist longer if they are given partial reinforcement thereafter. Here’s another example: Suppose you are housetraining your puppy. The best plan is to start the process with continuous reinforcement (praise the dog every time it “goes” outside), but then shift to partial reinforcement once the desired behavior is established.

LO 12 Name the schedules of reinforcement and give examples of each.

Skinner identified various ways to administer partial reinforcement, or partial reinforcement schedules. As often occurs in scientific research, he stumbled on the idea by chance. Late one Friday afternoon, Skinner realized he was running low on the food pellets he used as reinforcers for his laboratory animals. If he continued rewarding the animals on a continuous basis, the pellets would run out before the end of the weekend. With this in mind, he decided only to reinforce some of the desired behaviors (Skinner, 1956, 1976). The new strategy worked like a charm. The animals kept performing the target behaviors, even though they weren’t given reinforcers every time.

Clearly partial reinforcement is effective, but how exactly should it be delivered? Four different reinforcement schedules can be used: fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval (Figure 5.3).

FIXED-RATIO SCHEDULE In some situations, the best approach to reinforcement is a fixed-ratio schedule. With this arrangement, the subject must exhibit a predetermined number of desired responses or behaviors before a reinforcer is given. A pigeon in a Skinner box may have to peck a spot five times in order to score a delicious pellet (5:1). A third-grade teacher might give students prizes when they pass three multiplication tests (3:1). Generally, the fixed-ratio schedule produces a high response rate, but with a characteristic dip immediately following the reinforcement. Pigeons rest briefly before pecking away at the target again, and students take a short break before studying for another multiplication test.

VARIABLE-RATIO SCHEDULE Other times, it is best to use reinforcement that is unpredictable. In a variable-ratio schedule, the number of desired responses or behaviors that must occur before a reinforcer is given changes across trials. (This number is based on an average number of responses to be reinforced.) If the goal is to train a pigeon to peck a spot on a target, a variable-ratio schedule can be used as follows: Trial 1, the pigeon gets a pellet after pecking the spot twice; Trial 2, the pigeon gets a pellet after pecking the spot once; Trial 3, the pigeon gets a pellet after pecking the spot three times; and so on. In the third-grade classroom, the teacher might not tell the students how many tests they will need to pass to get a prize. She may give a prize after two tests, then the next time after seven tests. This variable-ratio schedule tends to produce a high response rate (pecking and studying in our examples) and behaviors that are difficult to extinguish because of the unpredictability of the reinforcement schedule.

FIXED-INTERVAL SCHEDULE In some cases, it might be important to focus on the interval of time between reinforcers, as opposed to the number of desired responses. In a fixed-interval schedule, the reinforcer comes after a preestablished interval of time; a reinforcer is given for the first target behavior after that period has elapsed. If a pigeon is on a fixed-interval schedule of 30 seconds, it can peck at the target as often as possible once the interval starts, but it will only get a reinforcer following its first response after the 30 seconds has ended. If the third graders are on a fixed-interval schedule of 1 week, the teacher gives prizes only on Fridays for children who do well on their math quiz that day; it doesn’t matter how they performed on other math quizzes earlier that week. With this schedule, the target behavior tends to increase as each time interval comes to an end. The pigeon pecks the spot more often when the time nears 30 seconds, and the students study harder as Friday approaches.

VARIABLE-INTERVAL SCHEDULE In a variable-interval schedule, the length of time between reinforcements is unpredictable. In this schedule, the reinforcer comes after an interval of time goes by, but the length of the interval changes from trial to trial (within a predetermined range based on an average interval length). As with the fixed-interval schedule, reinforcement follows the first target behavior that occurs after the time interval has elapsed. Training a pigeon to peck a spot on a target using a variable-interval schedule might include the following: Trial 1, the pigeon gets a pellet after 41 seconds; Trial 2, the pigeon gets a pellet after 43 seconds; Trial 3, the pigeon gets a pellet after 40 seconds; and so on. In each trial, the pigeon is rewarded for the first response it makes after the interval of time has passed (which varies from trial to trial). The third-grade teacher might think that an average of 4 days should go by between quizzes. So, instead of giving reinforcers every 7 days (that is, always on Friday), she gives quizzes separated by a variable interval. The first quiz might be after a 2-day interval, the next after a 3-day interval, and the students do not know when to expect them. The variable-interval schedule tends to encourage steady patterns of behavior. The pigeon tries its luck pecking a target once every 40 seconds or so, and the students come to school prepared to take a quiz every day (their amount of study holding steady).

So far, we have learned about increasing desired behaviors through reinforcement, but not all behaviors are desirable. Let’s turn our attention to techniques used to suppress undesirable behaviors.

In contrast to reinforcement, which makes a behavior more likely to recur, the goal of punishment is to decrease or stop a behavior (Infographic 5.3). Punishment is used to reduce unwanted behaviors by instilling an association between a behavior and some unwanted consequence (for example, between stealing and going to jail, or between misbehaving and a spanking). Punishment isn’t always effective, however; people are often willing to accept unpleasant consequences to get something they really want.

INFOGRAPHIC 5.3

INFOGRAPHIC 5.3

Red sports cars, © lenka - Fotolia.com; Police officer writing a ticket, © Lisa F. Young - Fotolia.com; Flags, © FreeSoulProduction - Fotolia.com; Green Traffic Light, Thinkstock; Red Traffic Light, Thinkstock; Wrench, Thinkstock; Green highway sign isolated, Thinkstock; Speed limit road sign with post and different numbers, © Thomaspajot/Dreamstime.com; Red flashing light on a white background, © Fotovika/Dreamstime.com; Trophy, Comstock/Thinkstock; Falling money, istockphoto/Thinkstock; Vector design set of racing flags, freesoulproduction/Shutterstock.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT There are two major categories of punishment: positive and negative. With positive punishment, something aversive or disagreeable is applied following an unwanted behavior. For example, getting a ticket for speeding is a positive punishment, the aim of which is to decrease driving over the speed limit. Paying a late fine for overdue library books is a positive punishment, the goal of which is to decrease returning library books past their due date. In basketball, a personal foul (for example, inappropriate physical contact) might result in positive punishment, such as a free throw for the opposing team. Here, the addition of something aversive (the other team getting a wide open shot) is used with the intention of decreasing a behavior (pushing, shoving, and the like).

The goal of negative punishment is also to reduce an unwanted behavior, but in this case, it is done by taking away something desirable. A person who drives while inebriated runs the risk of negative punishment, as his driver’s license may be taken away. This loss of driving privileges is a punishment designed to reduce drunken driving. If you never return your library books, you might suffer the negative punishment of losing your borrowing privileges. The goal is to decrease behaviors that lead to lost or stolen library books. What kind of negative punishment might be used to rein in illegal conduct in basketball? Just ask one of Jeremy Lin’s former teammates, superstar Carmelo Anthony, one of many players suspended for participating in a 2006 brawl between the Knicks and the Denver Nuggets. Anthony, a Nuggets player at the time (how ironic that he was later traded to the Knicks), was dealt a 15-game suspension (and no salary for those games not played) for slugging a Knicks player in the face (Lee, 2006, December 19). Anthony’s suspension is an example of negative punishment, because it involves subtracting something desirable (the privilege to compete and his salary for those games) to decrease a behavior (throwing punches on the court).

Punishment may be useful for the purposes of basketball, but how does it figure into everyday life? Think about the last time you tried using punishment to reduce unwanted behavior. Perhaps you scolded your puppy for having an accident, or snapped at your housemate for leaving dirty dishes in the sink. If you are a parent or caregiver of a young child, perhaps you have tried to reign in misbehavior with various types of punishment, such as spanking.

CONTROVERSIES

LO 13 Explain how punishment differs from negative reinforcement.

PUNISHMENT VERSUS NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT Punishment and negative reinforcement are two concepts that students often find difficult to distinguish (Table 5.3; also see Infographic 5.3 on p. 199). Remember that punishment (positive or negative) is designed to decrease the behavior that it follows, whereas reinforcement (positive or negative) aims to increase the behavior. Operant conditioning uses reinforcers (both positive and negative) to increase target behaviors, and punishment to decrease unwanted behaviors.

If all the positives and negatives are confusing you, just think in terms of math: Positive always means adding something, and negative means taking it away. Punishment can be positive, which means the addition of something viewed as unpleasant (“Because you made a mess of your room, you have to wash all the dishes!”), or negative, which involves the removal of something viewed as pleasant or valuable (“Because you made a mess of your room, no ice cream for you!”). For basketball players, a positive punishment might be adding more wind sprints to decrease errors on the free throw line. An example of negative punishment might be benching the players for brawling on the court; taking away the players’ court time to decrease their fighting behavior.

Apply This

Students sometimes have trouble differentiating classical and operant conditioning (Figure 5.4). After all, both forms of conditioning—classical and operant—involve forming associations. In classical conditioning, the learner links different stimuli; in operant conditioning, the learner connects her behavior to its consequences (reinforcement and punishment). Another key similarity is that the principles of acquisition, stimulus discrimination, stimulus generalization, extinction, and spontaneous recovery apply to both types of conditioning.

But there are also key differences between classical and operant conditioning. In classical conditioning, the learned behaviors are involuntary, or reflexive. Ivonne cannot directly control her heart rate any more than Pavlov’s dogs can decide when to salivate. Operant conditioning, on the other hand, concerns voluntary behavior. Jeremy Lin had power over his decision to practice his shot, just as Skinner’s pigeons had control over swatting bowling balls with their beaks. In short, classical conditioning is an involuntary form of learning, whereas operant conditioning requires active effort.

Another important distinction is the way in which behaviors are strengthened. In classical conditioning, behaviors become more frequent with repeated pairings of stimuli. The more often Ivonne smells chlorine before swim practice, the tighter the association she makes between chlorine and swimming. Operant conditioning is also strengthened by repeated pairings, but in this case, the connection is between a behavior and its consequences. Reinforcers strengthen the behavior; punishment weakens it. The more benefits (reinforcers) Jeremy gains from succeeding in basketball, the more likely he will keep practicing.

Often classical conditioning and operant conditioning occur simultaneously. A baby learns that he gets fed when he cries; getting milk reinforces the crying behavior (operant conditioning). At the same time, the baby learns to associate milk with the appearance of the bottle. As soon as he sees his mom or dad take the bottle from the refrigerator, he begins salivating in anticipation of gulping it down (classical conditioning).

Classical and operant conditioning are not the only ways we learn. There is one major category of learning we have yet to cover. Use this hint to guess what it might be: How did you learn to peel a banana, open an umbrella, and throw a Frisbee? Somebody must have shown you.

Question 1

Question 2

1. classical conditioning.

2. an unconditioned response.

3. an unconditioned stimulus.

4. stimulus generalization.

Question 3

1. positive punishment

2. negative punishment

3. positive reinforcement

4. negative reinforcement

Question 4

Question 5