Our Protagonists: Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner
Like all great stories, we will begin with the action that got everything else going. A long time ago, Pavlov was trying to figure out the mysteries surrounding salivation in dogs. He hypothesized that dogs salivate in response to the presentation of food. What he discovered set the stage for what was first called Pavlovian conditioning and later, classical conditioning.
What does this have to do with operant conditioning? Other behavior scientists found Pavlov’s work interesting but criticized it because of its focus on reflexive learning. It did not answer questions about how the environment might shape behavior.
E. L. Thorndike was a psychologist with a keen interest in education and learning. His theory of learning, called connectionism, dominated the United States educational system. In a nutshell, he believed that learning was the result of associations between sensory experiences and neural responses (Schunk, 2016, p. 74). When these associations happened, a behavior resulted.
Thorndike also established that learning is the result of a trial-and-error process. This process takes time, but no conscious thought. He studied and developed our initial concepts of operant conditioning reinforcement and how various types influence learning.
Thorndike’s principles of learning include:
- The Law of Exercise, which involves the Law of Use and the Law of Disuse. These explain how connections are strengthened or weakened based on their use/disuse.
- The Law of Effect focuses on the consequences of behavior. Behavior that leads to a reward is learned, but behavior that leads to a perceived punishment is not learned.
- The Law of Readiness is about preparedness. If an animal is ready to act and does so, then this is a reward, but if the animal is ready and unable to act, then this is a punishment.
- Associative shifting occurs when a response to a particular stimulus is eventually made to a different one.
- Identical elements affect the transfer of knowledge. The more similar the elements, the more likely the transfer because the responses are also very similar.
Later research did not support Thorndike’s Laws of Exercise and Effect, so he discarded them. Further study revealed that punishment does not necessarily weaken connections (Schunk, 2016, p. 77). The original response is not forgotten.
We all have experienced this at one time or another. You are speeding, get stopped, and receive a ticket. This suppresses your speeding behavior for a short time, but it does not prevent you from ever speeding again.
Later, John B. Watson, another behaviorist, emphasized a methodical, scientific approach to studying behavior and rejected any ideas about introspection. Behaviorists concern themselves with observable phenomena, so the study of inner thoughts and their supposed relationship to behavior was irrelevant.
The “Little Albert” experiment, immortalized in most psychology textbooks, involved conditioning a young boy to fear a white rat. Watson used classical conditioning to accomplish his goal. The boy’s fear of the white rat transferred to other animals with fur. From this, scientists reasoned that emotions could be conditioned (Stangor and Walinga, 2014).
In the 1930s, B. F. Skinner, who had become familiar with the work of these researchers and others, continued the exploration of how organisms learn. Skinner studied and developed the operant conditioning theory that is popular today.
After conducting several animal experiments, Skinner (1938) published his first book, The Behavior of Organisms. In the 1991 edition, he wrote a preface to the seventh printing, reaffirming his position regarding stimulus/response research and introspection:
“… there is no need to appeal to an inner apparatus, whether mental, physiological, or conceptual.”
From his perspective, observable behaviors from the interplay of a stimulus, response, reinforcers, and the deprivation associated with the reinforcer are the only elements that need to be studied to understand human behavior. He called these contingencies and said that they “account for attending, remembering, learning, forgetting, generalizing, abstracting, and many other so-called cognitive processes.”
Skinner believed that determining the causes of behavior is the most important factor for understanding why an organism behaves in a particular way.
Schunk (2016, p. 88) notes that Skinner’s learning theories have been discredited by more current ones that consider higher order and more complex forms of learning. Operant conditioning theory does not do this, but it is still useful in many educational environments and the study of gamification.
Now that we have a solid understanding of why and how the leading behaviorists discovered and developed their ideas, we can focus our attention on how to use operant conditioning in our everyday lives. First, though, we need to define what we mean by “operant conditioning.”
Operant Conditioning: A Definition
The basic concept behind operant conditioning is that a stimulus (antecedent) leads to a behavior, which then leads to a consequence. This form of conditioning involves reinforcers, both positive and negative, as well as primary, secondary, and generalized.
- Primary reinforcers are things like food, shelter, and water.
- Secondary reinforcers are stimuli that get conditioned because of their association with a primary reinforcer.
- Generalized reinforcers occur when a secondary reinforcer pairs with more than one primary reinforcer. For example, working for money can increase a person’s ability to buy a variety of things (TVs, cars, a house, etc.)
The behavior is the operant. The relationship between the discriminative stimulus, response, and reinforcer is what influences the likelihood of a behavior happening again in the future. A reinforcer is some kind of reward, or in the case of adverse outcomes, a punishment.
What our readers think
Helped me better understand my psychology homework. 🙂
Really love this article as a teacher and as a parent. More enlightened on how to positively influence positive behavior change.
Muito bom o artigo. Parabéns.
Hi, one of your examples “Your child is not cleaning his room when told to do so. You decide to take away his favorite device (positive punishment – removal of a positive reinforcer)…” I believed it should be “negative punishment” instead of positive punishment. Negative punishment means punishment by removal. You are removing what a person wants when he performed an undesired behavior.
Hi Anne,
Great spotting, and thank you for bringing this to our attention! We’ve corrected this in the post now 🙂
– Nicole | Community Manager
nice one.