第46章
What behavioral outcomes might we expect to see with children in such a
situation?
3. Given that “little Albert” was removed from Watson’s experiment before his having been
desensitized, how might his conditioned fear manifest itself in “big Albert”?
4. Discuss with the class instances in which secondary gains can provide reinforcement for
behaviors that may be irrational and self-defeating.
5. Discuss examples of the principle of observational learning in the animal kingdom.
SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURE MATERIAL
A Summary of Some Interesting Aspects of Classical
Conditioning
1. Any stimulus we can perceive has the potential to become a conditioned stimulus.
2. Perception of the CS can take place below the level of conscious awareness.
3. Any response we make naturally can come to be elicited by a learned signal.
4. These responses can be highly specific and simple (such as a muscle twitch or part of a
brain wave pattern) or general and complex (such as sexual arousal or fear).
5. The conditioned response can be a response of our skeletal muscles or visceral organs or
even a “private” response (such as thoughts and feelings).
6. With a powerful original UCS, conditioning may take place in only one trial in which the
UCS is paired with a CS.
7. Stimuli quite different from the original CS can control the appearance of the conditioned
response through higher-order conditioning.
8. Depending on the strength of the CR and the nature of the conditioning process, some
learned responses resist extinction and may endure for a lifetime.
Taken together, these principles reveal the remarkable adaptability of organisms to learned
conditioned associations, but they also are somewhat disturbing. It is obvious that inappropriate
conditioning that is not in our best interest also takes place. Examples of such inappropriate
conditioning include the learning of persistent irrational behaviors, superstitions, and conditioned
addictions.
The Effects of Corporal Punishment
The use of punishment in the control of human behavior is not merely a matter of deciding whether
it works; aside from the psychological questions involved in punishing people for “undesirable
behavior,” there are moral and legal issues to be considered. Corporal punishment is defined in
educational terms as the inflicting of pain by a teacher or school official on the body of a student as
115
PSYCHOLOGY AND LIFE
a penalty for doing something that is disapproved of by the punisher. This includes confinement in
an uncomfortable space, forced eating of noxious substances, and standing for long periods. The
four most common justifications for using corporal punishment are the following:
1. It is a proven and effective method for changing undesirable behavior
2. It develops a sense of personal responsibility
3. It teaches self-discipline
4. It instills moral character
Punishment, however, does not accomplish any of these goals. Target behaviors are suppressed
only when the punishment is severe and repeated, and only then in the presence of the person that
delivers the punishment. Further, the “side effects” of aversive control include such issues as the
development of a generally negative attitude toward school or learning, avoidance of the teacher,
truancy, blind obedience to authority, vandalism, and learning to use violence against younger or
weaker students.
In addition, punishment may be counterproductive. In a study of the spontaneous use of
punishment by teachers, two children from each of five classes were observed for a four-month
period. These children had a high frequency of classroom behavior for which their teachers
reprimanded them loudly in the presence of the class. The reprimands were not effective in
reducing the frequency of the disruptive behavior. During phase 2 of the study, teachers were asked
to switch to “soft” reprimands, audible only to the child being reprimanded. In almost all cases,
disruptive behavior decreased when soft reprimands were used.
In phase 3 of the above study, when loud reprimands were reinstated, there was an increase in
frequency of disruptive behavior. In phase 4, to demonstrate convincingly the counter productivity
of loud, public reprimands and the effectiveness of soft ones, soft personal ones were again used by
the teachers. Disruptive behavior declined in virtually all cases where the teacher used a soft,
personal reprimand intended only for the ears of the relevant student, rather than a public
pronouncement to the student’s peers (O’Leary, Kaufman, Kass, & Drabran, 1970).
There are many alternatives to the use of physical punishment in the classroom. “Time-out rooms”
and denial of class privileges can be effective aversive control tactics. Private conferences with
“disruptive” students can also be used effectively. Class discussion of acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors and shared responsibility for discipline help create a democratic class atmosphere. In
addition, more interesting curricula and better preparation for teachers in managing children with
the use of positive incentives and reinforcements can be used to reduce the need for punishment.
Operant Conditioning the Easy Way
Many students have difficulty in understanding the difference between punishment and
reinforcement, as defined by operant conditioning. Students often believe that the term “negative”
must be unpleasant, whether concerning negative reinforcement or negative punishment.
To understand operant conditioning, students must first understand the “Law of Effect”, which
states that those behaviors followed by a positive outcome are more likely to be repeated and that
behaviors followed by a negative outcome are less likely to be repeated. Specifically, the Law states
that the consequences of a behavior change the likelihood of engaging in that behavior in the future.
This idea emphasizes the pragmatic adaptability of behavior.
1. Positive Reinforcement, cell (1), means giving or presenting of something favorable,
something that the organism perceives as pleasant. This stimulus can be food, water,
access to sexual partners, etc.
116
CHAPTER 7: LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
2. Negative Punishment, cell (2), refers to weakening of a response by the omission, or removal
of a favorable stimulus, such as removal of something the organism perceives as favorable,
in order to decrease probability of response. This can be removing food if the organism does
not give the desired response when stimulated. This does not do anything to the organism
directly, it just takes away something it happens to like. Students can think of this as
passive punishment, if that makes the concept clearer.
3. Positive Punishment, cell (3), is the opposite of positive reinforcement, in that this is
presentation of a stimulus event that the organism perceives as unpleasant, and this
presentation decreases the probability that a behavior will be repeated. Examples of
positive punishment include such stimulus events as giving the organism electric shock if
it engages in a behavior that the experimenter considers undesirable.
4. Negative Reinforcement, cell (4), consists of removing a stimulus event that the organism
perceives as unpleasant. This condition permits the organism to escape from an
unfavorable event.
Operant Conditioning Matrix
Pleasant Stimulus Unpleasant Stimulus
Presented (1) Positive Reinforcement–serves to
increase response frequency
(3) Positive Punishment–serves to
> decrease response frequency
Removed (2) Negative Punishment–serves to
decrease response frequency
(4) Negative Reinforcement–serves to
increase response frequency
Skinner used the Law of Effect to derive the cornerstone of Behaviorism, which states that any
behavior can result in reinforcement or punishment. Behavior resulting in reinforcement is more
likely to recur; behavior resulting in punishment is less likely to recur. Skinner’s methods are a
specialized case of operant conditioning and his method is simpler than that used by Thorndike.
Additionally, Skinner made a distinction between classical conditioning and operant conditioning
that clarifies the difference between the two for many students. Skinner said that classical
conditioning dealt with behavior which was elicited by an external stimulus, and that the elicited
behavior was an involuntary response (e.g., salivation). He defined operant conditioning as
behavior emitted from within the participant, in response to external stimulus, but with the criteria
that the response was voluntary (cat pressing lever to get food). Skinner also developed a process
known as shaping, which he defined as the establishment of a new response by rewarding
successive approximations to the desired response. He went on to define chaining, which is part of
the process of shaping, as being the reinforcement of each response by giving the animal an
opportunity to make the next response. Skinner also defined what is known as the ABC’s of
Behavior, as follows:
ABC’s of Behavior
A = Antecedent (the stimulus event)
B = Behavior (the behavioral response to the stimulus)
C = Consequence (the reinforcement that follows the behavior)
The consequence of a given behavior served as the determinant of the likelihood of that behavior
117
PSYCHOLOGY AND LIFE
being repeated in the future. Given this model, operant conditioning is as easy as your A-B-C’s!