Psychology of Personality

Psychology of Personality

Operant Conditioning

Introduction

B.F. Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning (McLeod, 2018), who based his work on Edward L. Thorndike’s Law of Effect. Skinner championed the laboratory study on the Law of Effect and applied it to the study of human condition and its attendant problems (Bolles, 1979). Skinner argued that most behavior is controlled by its consequences; he invented an apparatus for observing effects of consequences, advocates a technology of behavior control and believed that everyday views about the cause of behavior were an obstacle to its true understanding. (Piotrowski, 2005, p. 711)

Skinner starts out by underlining the distinction between Classical and Instrumental conditioning. In Classical Conditioning, is animals behavior is elicited by the CS; the salivation appears to be set off from outside, thus justifying the reflex analogy to some extent. But in Instrumental Conditioning, the organism appears to be less at the mercy of external stimulation.  Its reactions seem to come from within, as if they were what we normally call voluntary. The best way to describe such instrumental reactions is at the molar level of analysis. Skinner calls such molarly defined responses operants; they operate on the environment to bring some change that leads to reward (Skinner, 1938). (Gleitman, 1981, p. 118)

Because there was not much that could be done by psychology about genetic endowment, Skinner focused on those things that could be changed or controlled: the immediate consequence of behavior. What Skinner meant by consequences was the result or effect of that particular behavior. For example, there are many ways to open a door but because each one allows a person to walk to the next room, one would speak of a door opening operant. The consequence not only define the response but also determine how often members of the class are likely to occur in the future. This was termed the Law of Effect by Edward L. Thorndike whose work Skinner refined. (Piotrowski, 2005, p. 711)

Journal 1 – Reinforced Behavioral Variability: Working towards an understanding of its Behavioral Mechanisms.

The research in this article examined some of these issues using food maintained, 4-pecked sequences in pigeons. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015). Experiment 1 evaluated the clam that behavioral variability is not reinforced directly but, rather is the byproduct of changing over within sequences. Experiment 2 asses the effects on variation levels of manipulating inter-trial and inter-response intervals. Variability increases with longer inter- response intervals but not with longer inter-trial intervals. Consequently, Experiment 3 examined more directly the relationship between remembering and reinforced variations. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015).

When you directly reinforce variation in behavior then there is an important issue to be noted, which is the relationship between reinforced variation and remembering past behaviors. For example, one may learn to respond variable by remembering one’s previous behavior and acting differently. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015). Skinner, in his theory of Operant Conditioning stated the same thing, that we have random behaviors which are responses to our environment, once these behaviors lead to consequences they become Operant which get associated with consequences. If the consequence was bad we would not indulge in that behavior anymore, if it was good we would voluntarily attempt to indulge in that behavior. It was a complex combination of this data that he argued, was what made us who we are and not merely the variable called personality.

Machado (1996, Experiment 1) observed considerable variation in 8 peck sequences under a contingency that only required one (four pigeons) or two (three pigeons) change-overs. These finders were used to challenge the claim that behavioral variation is reinforced directly. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015). Four experimentally naïve male pigeons were used for Experiment 1. Each pigeon was a year old and was housed individually with food and water continually. The colony was maintained on a 12 hour light dark cycle. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015, p. 254).

In Experiment 2, the initial conditions were to check and see if the effects of ITI (Inter-trial Interval) duration on reinforced variations may be due to reduced reinforcement. That means that if the variation was increased with longer IRIs (Inter-response Intervals) because of smaller amounts of reinforcers then comparative results should be found with longer ITIs.  Finally, Experiment 2 examined the effects IRI duration on reinforcement to replicate the results reported by Neuringer. The IRI duration was set to match session durations from the longest ITI duration. This change in the ITI and IRI could not change reinforcers per session. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015, p. 259)

Experiment 3 was made for both to reinforce behavior variability as well as simultaneously encourage and measure and remember past behaviors which would be able to examine whether manipulations are exerting their effects on variability through memorial processes in other ways. (Doughty & Galizio , 2015, p. 265)

Reinforced variations can be seen as high ordered and superficial repose classes. Research on exposure to a variability-reinforcement according to (Doughty & Galizio , 2015, p. 271) states that it may take the form of comparable levels of switching and repeating consecutive responses giving rise to variation at the level of the sequence. Skinner rejected the idea of persona and instead suggested that personality changed across scenarios which attributed to our behavior in many ways. It would change across scenarios and offer different types and degrees of reinforcers. (Ellis, 2009, p. 272)

Journal 2 – Delayed Rewards Facilitate Habit Formation.

According to research done by (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019) habitual forms of Operant behavior is determined by a number of variables such as amount of training during the experimental period, schedules of reinforcers, the amount of choices that are available and amount of exposure. Knowledge on the controlled behavior is less known when reinforcers are delayed rather than given immediately.

Knowing the connection between action and consequence is important for every species to adapt and it thus allows us to operate in an environment to satisfy basic needs. (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019, p. 413). According to (Thorndike, 1911) in his studies on Animal Intelligences Operant learning was described, in which cats were places in a puzzle box where they would have to learnt o press a lever in order to escape and gain access to food. It was on these grounds the Law of Effect was based. The food was the positive reinforces which strengthened the bond between the stimuli in the environment and the repose to those stimuli before the reinforcer was presented, so that after multiple encounters of the same kind, the stimulus now draws out a response. (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019, p. 413)

The study done in this article tests various possibilities that delayed rewards promote habit formation as well as to understand what drives the habit of delayed outcomes. In both experiments there is no effect of outcome devaluation on delayed outcomes. Through the findings in this research done by (Dickson, 1994) , the goal-directed instrumental behavior are controlled by (1) one of the experienced correlation between response and outcome and, (2)  representation of the value of the outcomes. (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019, p. 419). This can be used to explain the findings in the introduction of the article, which states that training, schedules of reinforcement and the use of the right choice of procedures can determine whether goal directed, or habits are observed. (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019, p. 419). Also, research in this article showed the underlying mechanism of habit formation with delayed consequences, by showing that context exposure can restore goal directed behavior which are consistent with the concept of dual system theory of Operant behavior. (Urcelay & Jonkman, 2019, p. 420).

Journal 3 – Extinction and reinstatement of an operant responding maintained by food in different models of obesity.

According to research by (Burokas, et al., 2017) one of the biggest problems that poses as the most challenging obstacle in treating obesity is the high rate if relapse back to the old ways abnormal intake of food after keep up to a well-balanced diet. Sudden irregular changes in eating behavior like compulsive behavior and lack of self-control can lead to critical relapses. According to (Ellis, 2009, p. 266) like Watson, Skinner pointed out that no matter how strong a connection there may be between a connection and a response, if there is no consistent reinforcement it will lead to the extinction of behavior.  In the case of the study in this article, and operant model of food-seeking behavior on two completely different diet induced obesity models are used, one is a free of choice chocolate mixture diet while the other is a high fat diet. (Burokas, et al., 2017).

According to research done by (Lattal, 2010) reinforcement is delayed whenever there is a period between the response that is producing the reinforcer and the delivery. His research on Skinner states that delay in the presence of the same stimuli that were present during the period of non-delay and others who correlated delay intervals with a stimulus change.

In the experiments carried out in this article, show that a free choice chocolate diet results in more subtle, reinforcement, impulsivity/compulsive-related changes and they are not enough to extinction effects on learning as compare to when forcing a high fat diet. The results indicate that extended access to hyper caloric diets impair operant behavior and produces differential effects on learning, reinforcement, and motivation depending on the exposure to high caloric diets. (Burokas, et al., 2017, p. 554).

Journal 4 – Operant Evaluative Conditioning.

In this journal article, two experiments examine the positive and negative effects from operant contingencies to stimuli that were assigned to those actions in subsequent tasks carried out. (Eder, Krishna, & Dessel, 2019).

According to The Present Research by (Eder, Krishna, & Dessel, 2019, p. 103), the study examined if evaluative properties could be transferred from operant contingencies to neutral stimuli. For the experiment groups were assigned to various actions which generated different outcomes in the previous conditioning phase where more liked as compared to the outcomes what were unpleasant in the previous conditioning phase. The only element shared by both the tasks were the action set.

Another notable implication is that the anticipated outcome while pursuing a goal have the capacity to change evaluations of stimuli relevant for action pursuit. (Eder, Krishna, & Dessel, 2019).  According to research in this article over the works of (Balcetis, 2013), several theories assume that goal pursuit had an impact on the evaluation of the environment in which the action is situated. (Eder, Krishna, & Dessel, 2019). A positive action outcome might be associated with liking the approach action of the environment, while negative action outcomes may result in those evaluations being a more negatively associated one.

Journal 5 – Prediction and Control of Operant Behavior: What You See Is Not All There Is.

The primary goal for behavior analysis is the prediction and control of operant behavior. (Bouton & Balleine, 2019). According to (Ellis, 2009) Skinner believed that we emit random operants, some will be weak while some will be strong, and some only in certain scenarios while some never at all. This similarity in short was as it were, the human personality. From Skinner’s view point such unobservable characteristics made humans more understandable.

If an operant is a goal directed action, it is controlled by the current value of the reinforcer. On the other hand, if the behavior is a habit and occurs automatically without any regard to the reinforcers value then it tends to be insensitive towards the scheduled reinforcement. (Bouton & Balleine, 2019, p. 202).

The history of a behavior is important that we already know but the concepts of action, habits and silent operants may have unique implications for the control and treatment of problem behavior. One of the major problems for behavior is habit rather than action itself and it’s considered as highly difficult to change. Extinction and punishments are prone to possible lapse and relapse effects. On a positive note extinction of a bad behavior may or could result in the development of a positive behavior. And reinforcement of positive behavior could materialize into more habitual behavior to a point where it becomes resistant to change. Moreover, prediction and control are crucial elements in the history of a behavior. (Bouton & Balleine, 2019).

Journal 6 – Training reinforcement rates, resistance to extinction, and the role of context in reinstatement.

Behavior reduced as a consequence of extinction or intervention can relapse (Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, 2016). According to behavior momentum theory all reinforcers that are obtained in the present of a discriminative stimulus increase their resistance to change regardless if whether those behaviors are contingent or non-contingent to target behavior. (Nevin & Shahan , 2011). In addition, studies of context renewal reveal that relapse depends on the similarity between the training stimulus context and the rest stimulus context following disruption by extinction (Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, 2016).

In this article two experiment based on interactions between training reinforcement rate and the history of reinforcement associated with various component stimuli on relapse by reinstatement were assessed. The reinstatement test differed with respect to the component stimulus in which the reinstating reinforcers were presented. (Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, 2016, p. 40)

The primary focus of the study was to check and see if reinstatement is affected by the component stimulus in which reinstatement reinforcers are present. The results found were that the component stimulus in which the reinstated reinforcer occurred modulated some form of reinstatement depending on whether reinforcement was present at baseline in the Non-Target area across Experiment 1 and 2. (Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, 2016)

In conclusion the study found great resistance to extinction and reinstatement within discriminative component stimuli signaling greater training reinforcement rates (Dukoski, Bensemann, & Podlesnik, 2016, p. 42). According to the behavioral momentum theory (Nevin & Shahan , 2011) the finding in the experiments carried out in this article are consistent.

Journal 7 – Learning to Inhibit the Response during Instrumental (Operant) Extinction.

In Operant Conditioning the focus of reinforcement and punishment is to change a behavior. Extinction on the other hand is when the positive reinforcer that is responsible for the behavior to reoccur is removed. It happens when the reinforcer doesn’t serve to be rewarding and also when the target behavior is no longer reinforced. (Naik, n.d.). The concept of Extinction in Operant studies had come under increased investigation, resulting in research establishing instrumental research learning, as we see in the case of Pavlovian extinction. (Bouton, Trask, & Carranza-Jasso, 2016).

In the experiment conducted in this article, the researchers explored the role of response inhibition in the extinction of discriminated operant behavior. Experiment 1 established that an extinction procedure in which the rat could make the response (R) without any reinforcers in the presence of a cue stimulus (S). In contrast to this, a Pavlovian extinction procedure in which the rat received equal exposure to S without the opportunity to make the response, but this did not weaken the response. (Bouton, Trask, & Carranza-Jasso, 2016, p. 256).

As per the results, new evidence was provided which states that extinction of operant behavior involves learning to inhibit the responses. According to simple Pavlovian extinction exposure to S without R is never effective. (Bouton, Trask, & Carranza-Jasso, 2016). Another major point of the review done was that this could be due to the fact that extinction is subject to relapse effects such as renewal, spontaneous recovery and reinstatement. (Vurbic, 2014). The present results additionally suggest that Pavlovian exposure procedures may not be as effective as those that allow the client to actually learn to inhibit the operant response (Bouton, Trask, & Carranza-Jasso, 2016).

Journal 8 – Mice can count and optimize count-based decisions

Studies done in the past have shown that rats and pigeons can count their number of responses, and the result being count based judgements that exhibit scalar property which is also known as the Weber’s Law. (Çavdaroğlu & Balcı, 2016). As per (N., 2013) “The Weber-Fechner measures the relationship between the magnitude of a physical stimulus and the intensity that people feel.”

The study in this article tested mice on a task that required them to perform a task wherein they had to press one lever for a particular number of times and then press a second lever in order for the to receive a reinforcer. The number of responses emitted on the first before pressing the second lever constituted to the main focus of the analysis. (Çavdaroğlu & Balcı, 2016, p. 871).

The studies were based on timing by running a number of independent analyses. The first observation was to see if the mince were more precise in terms of their run response numbers or run response time before claiming their reward under the assumption that more precision in one domain would suggest its stronger control over behavior. The variability in the number of responses was lower than the variability in the timing of responses. Finally as per the study, the regression analyses showed that the number of run-lever responses had more predictive power regarding decisions than the response duration. (Çavdaroğlu & Balcı, 2016, p. 875).