APA Why It Would Be Easier To Operantly Condition Behaviour

Running head: OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

Why It Would Be Easier To Operantly Condition Behaviour

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

Abstract

This paper is based on operant conditioning theory. This is a theory of learning which proposes

that the learning of a given behavior is determined by the consequence of that behavior. In regard

to this, a behavior with a good consequence is likely to be embraced and learned while one with

a bad consequence is likely to be discarded. The first part of the paper explains why it is easy to

operantly condition natural human behaviors, unlike the behaviors that are not natural. The

second part examines the strengths and weakness of Thorndike’s and Skinner's theory of operant

conditioning.

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

Introduction

Operant conditioning is a theory of human and animal learning that focuses on both

antecedents and consequences of human behavior (Nevid, 2009). It is Burrhus F. Skinner and

Edward L. Thorndike who laid the foundation for operant conditioning. Whereas Thorndike

demonstrated that the probability of a behavioral response is altered by the effect it has, Skinner

associated individuals’ behaviors with the consequences of their behaviors. Skinner added that

there is no way human behaviors can be explained using internal motivations and behaviors. He

instead proposed that it is only by looking at the external and observable causes of behavior that

one can explain human behavior. The term “operant” was used by Skinner to refer to any active

behavior that operates in the environment and can produce consequences.

Why it is Easier to Operantly Condition a Natural Behavior

It is easier to operantly condition natural behavior than behavior that is not natural. One

of the reasons as to why this is possible is that natural human behavior is influenced by its

consequences. In other words, natural human behavior can be systematically altered by

environmental consequences. Since natural human behavior is exhibited in the environment and

can be determined from its observable and external manifestations, it is easy to determine how

consequences determine behavior. This can be achieved through usage of reinforcement

(rewarding), punishment and extinction of behavior (Nord, 1999). Reinforcement involves

consequences that increase and strengthen the frequency of a given behavior. Positive reinforcers

involve incentives that are given after exhibition of a good behavior. Examples include praises

and direct rewards. Negative reinforcement involves removal of unfavorable and unpleasant

stimuli that might hinder the frequency of behavior (Malone & Cruchon, 2001).

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

According to Nevid (2009), punishment involves a consequence that leads to decrease in

the frequency of a given behavior. A positive punishment involves the presentation of an

unfavorable stimulus in order to weaken the response of a given behavior. An example is caning

a child who has misbehaved. A negative punishment involves the presentation of a response that

enhances removal of some stimuli that influence behavior. An example is depriving a child of his

toy as a result of the exhibition of undesirable behavior. Extinction involves a decline in a given

behavior, given the fact that some behaviors lack any consequence at all. Extinction here is used

to refer to as any action aimed at terminating an undesirable behavior.

It is easy to operantly condition natural human behavior since the exhibition of any given

natural behavior is not accidental. It is enhanced by reinforcement. Here, reinforcement is

considered as any behavioral consequence that strengthens behavior. In his famous experiment,

Skinner placed a hungry rat in a box. The rat accidentally pressed a lever in that box and some

food fell for the rat to eat. As time went by, the rat continued to press the lever, this time not

accidentally but intentionally. Thus the pressing behavior was reinforced and became part of the

rat’s actions (Risley, 2002).

Unlike unnatural behaviors that are dynamic and not predictable, natural behaviors tend

to take a stable form once established (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). It normally takes time to form

and shape natural behaviors. It is not something that can be learned and internalized within a

single day. This suggests that learning natural behavior is a process that consumes time. It is a

progressive process that is gradually built through positive reinforcement as each behavior

approaches the final goal of perfection. Given such circumstances, it is therefore easy to

operantly condition natural human behaviors due to the fact that there is enough time to do so.

Consequently, once the conditioning is effected, natural human behavior tends to remain stable.

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

Strengths of Thorndike’s and Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning

The theory helps to demonstrate that the consequence of a behavior helps to determine

whether that behavior will be learned or repeated. A behavior that earns one a punishment is

likely to be abandoned while one that leads to rewarding is likely to be adopted. Thorndike and

Skinner rejected the use of formal theories of learning, such as postulate-theorem and

hypothetico-deductive types of approach to theorizing. They emphasized on responses (operants)

that were influenced by consequences. They effectively demonstrated that cause and effect

relationship allows one to control his or her behavior (Nord, 1999).

The theory illustrates the importance of relevant conditioning in the government,

businesses, education, religion, psychotherapy and many other human interactions. The

proponents of the theory demonstrated how operant conditioning can be the basis for molding an

ideal community. The theory is also helpful in the classroom since it enables teachers to

appropriately instill discipline on learners. This can be enhanced through appropriately punishing

and rewarding learners based on their behaviors. Additionally, Skinner’s and Thorndike’s ideas

have been applied successfully in therapy clinics (Malone & Cruchon, 2001).

Weaknesses of Thorndike’s and Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning

If used wrongly, Thorndike’s and Skinner's theory of operant conditioning may not work

well as a tool for punishing children (Risley, 2002). It may have a negative effect on a child. For

instance, a child may feel rejected and not loved if he or she is only punished for mistakes and is

never rewarded for achievements. This can make the child pretend that he or she has changed his

behavior in order to avoid punishment and receive an award. Additionally, the theory cannot be

used in classroom group work since it encourages individual work (Risley, 2002). The theory

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

focuses on individual subjects, where behavioral laws and equations are applied, and not on

groups, from where generalized results can be collected.

Other critics do argue that Thorndike’s and Skinner's theory is based on laboratory

experiments, without practical experiments in human life. The two’s approach to human

behavior is too simplistic that it cannot be effective in explaining the full complexity of human

behavior. For instance, it cannot explain human language behavior. The theory is based on

assumptions since its proponents treated people as animals and objects that can be controlled.

Perhaps that is why operant conditioning is seen as no theory at all. It is further argued that the

proponents of the theory did not appreciate the importance and role of theory in explaining

psychological concepts. Therefore, the theory is said to make no contribution to psychology and

science knowledge in general (Nevid, 2009).

Skinner and Thorndike have also been criticized for not having room for other views and

perspectives. As Phillips and Soltis (2004) note, the two are seen as radical behaviorists who

saw no other ways of doing things. Additionally, the theory strictly deals with distinct behavior-

bad or good-without an in between. One wonders whether one’s behavior can be explained as

being completely good or completely bad without an intermediate. Yet human beings display a

multitude of behaviors, some of which can be good, bad or fair (Nord, 1999).

Conclusion

Human beings differ from animals in that it is possible to act on both the inside and the

outside range of their observed behaviors and instincts. Some of the aspects of this extended

behavior may constitute natural human behavior while others can entail unnatural human

behavior. All in all, when it comes to conditioning human behavior, it is easier to operantly

condition natural human behavior than the unnatural one. This is due to the fact that natural

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

human behavior is predictable and its exhibition depends on the consequences that accompany it.

Although highly criticized, Thorndike's and Skinner's theory of operant conditioning is efficient

enough to explain how conditioning of natural human behavior is possible.

OPERANT CONDITIONING OF BEHAVIOUR

References:

Malone, J. C. & Cruchon, N. M. (2001). Radical Behaviorism and the Rest of Psychology: A

Review/Précis of Skinner's “About Behaviorism.” Behavior and Philosophy, 29(1): 31-

57.

Nevid, J. S. (2009). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Nord, W. R. (1999). Beyond the Teaching Machine: The Neglected Area of Operant

Conditioning in the Theory and Practice of Management. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 4(4):375–401.

Phillips, D. C. & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on Learning, New York: Teachers College

Press.

Risley, M. W. (2002). Application of Operant Conditioning Procedures to the Behaviour

Problems of an Autistic Child. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 19(2-4):305–312.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."