VARIETIES OF BEHAVIORISM
Behaviorism is often
referred to as STIMULUS-RESPONSE (S-R) psychology. There is an emphasis on A) using environmental (stimulus)
explanations of behavior, and B) studying observable behaviors (responses).
Some behaviorists contend
that if a psychologist knows a person’s past learning history (i.e., which
responses of a person have been reinforced and punished in which situations)
and the present stimulus situation, then it is possible to predict what the
person will do in that situation. Behaviorists often use the “LAWS OF LEARNING” to understand personality
and the causes of human behavior.
A more thorough
understanding of S-R psychology (and its varieties) utilizes the following
sequence:
S-O-R-followed by either S+ or S- Where
S=Stimulus
O=Organism, the animal or person
R=Response
S+=A Positive Consequence (that is also a stimulus)
S-=An Aversive Consequence (that is also a stimulus)
In RADICAL BEHAVIORISM (such as the behaviorism of
B.F. Skinner), the
contents of the Organism (O) are NOT important in explaining behavior.
In MODERATE BEHAVIORISM (of which there are many
varieties), the contents of the Organism ARE important in explaining behavior.
Moderate behaviorists (such as Social Learning Theorists and Cognitive Behaviorists)
will use terms describing activities inside the Organism (ex., habits, motives,
drives, expectancies, thoughts, etc.)
Make sure that you know the
procedures and types of learning that are involved in the following terms.
These are covered in both the textbook and movies you will see.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
GENERALIZATION
DISCRIMINATION
EXTINCTION
INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING
COUNTER CONDITIONING
SHAPING
SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT:
CONTINUOUS VERSUS INTERMITTENT
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT
PUNISHMENT
SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT
APPLICATIONS
OF BEHAVIORISM TO PERSONALITY
I. SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT
A. CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT (CRF), a reinforcer is given after each and every response. Continuous
reinforcement results in a steady rate of responding on a cumulative record.
Continuous reinforcement can be compared with a number of schedules of
intermittent reinforcement, B-E below:
All intermittent schedules
create greater RESISTANCE TO EXTINCTION (the amount of responding that continues after reinforcement stops)
than the CRF schedule.
B. FIXED RATIO SCHEDULES (FR), reinforcement
occurs only when a fixed number of responses have been emitted.
Piece-work is a FR schedule. FR schedules generate more rapid responding than
CRF schedules and typically produce a pause in responding after reinforcement
occurs.
C. VARIABLE RATIO SCHEDULES (VR), reinforcement
occurs only after an average number of responses have been emitted.
Reinforcement is not predictable on a VR schedule. The VR schedule generates
high rates of responding like the FR, but with shorter post-reinforcement
pauses. Gambling and Fishing are activities reinforced on a VR schedule.
D. FIXED INTERVAL SCHEDULES (FI), reinforcement
occurs only after the first response that is emitted after the elapse of a
fixed interval of time, ex., FI 60 sec. The bill passing behavior of
congressional bodies and the textbook reading behavior of students with fixed
exams during a semester correspond to FI generated behavior. In the beginning
of the interval there is little responding. The rate
of responding grows more rapid as the end of the interval approaches. After
reinforcement, the rate slows to near zero then increases again as the time
interval elapses.
E. VARIABLE INTERVAL SCHEDULES (VI), reinforcement
occurs after the first response after an average amount of time has elapsed. If
exams were scheduled during a semester as unpredictable pop quizzes (for
example, if it was announced that there would be exams on the average of every
three weeks, but intervals between exams could be 1 week or 4 weeks), then
textbook reading behavior would be much more continuous throughout the
semester, not like the “cramming for an exam” which occurs with exams on FI schedules.
II. MOWRER’S TWO FACTOR THEORY, which uses
simple behavioral learning procedures to account for complex human behaviors
like the development of a phobia.
The first factor is CLASSICAL CONDITIONING (CC). In CC a CONDITIONED STIMULUS (CS) is followed
by an UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS (UCS), which produces an UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE (UCR). As a result of this association of the CS and UCS, future
presentations of the CS produce a CONDITIONED
RESPONSE (CR), which is similar to the
UCR. For example, a car (CS) hits me
(UCS) producing pain and fear (UCR).
When I observe a car again
anxiety (similar to pain and fear) occurs (the CR). CC is used to account for
the development of anxiety.
The second factor, INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING, is used to
account for the development and maintenance of the car phobia. The CS (car)
produces a CR (anxiety) which has additional Stimulus (S) components--my heart
starts to pound and I begin to sweat. These stimulus components of anxiety are aversive. When I walk out of the house and see cars or hear
them, it is aversive (an aversive drive state). If I make an escape response (R) of turning around and running back
inside the house, it is negatively reinforced (Sr-) by the reduction in anxiety. Thus the
person strengthens the habit of avoiding cars by negative reinforcement.
MOWRER claims that his two
factor theory is not a new idea. It is simply a
behavioral translation of FREUDIAN theory. Neuroses
occur because of traumatic events experienced in childhood. Traumas are aversive
UCSs. Even if traumas are “repressed”, they still
have an effect; and people use defense mechanisms to minimize anxiety. Anything
that people do to reduce anxiety can be thought of as a process of negative
reinforcement in behavioral terms.
III. MILLER AND DOLLARD’S CONFLICT THEORY.
There are three kinds of
conflict, which involve learned tendencies or habits of approaching or avoiding
certain goals. It is important to know that the closer one is to a goal the stronger
the tendency to approach or avoid.
A. APPROACH-APPROACH CONFLICT.
In this conflict
there are two desirable goals or outcomes. The goals are structured, however,
such that approaching one goal means going
further away from the other desired goal. Imaging
that you wish to make a lot of money in your life (greed tendency) and you also
wish to finish college (education tendency). Imagine that you have been going
to school while working part-time. You are in the conflict zone when the
strength of both the greed tendency and education tendency are similar.
An offer of a
substantial raise and full-time employment would bring
you closer to the $ goal, where the strength
of the greed tendency would
be greater than the education tendency, and
you might not get your
degree. If, however, you are very close to
graduating (only 6 more
credits), it would mean that the education
tendency would be stronger
than the greed tendency, and you would likely
go to school rather than
take the full-time job. The approach-approach
conflict is easier to
resolve than the remaining two conflicts.
Again there are two
goals, but now you wish to avoid them, because both are aversive goals. The
goals, again, are structured so that avoiding one means that you have to
approach the other goal. Imagine that you are failing all your classes, and the
drop deadline is approaching. You wish to avoid the goal of 12 credits of F.
Also imagine that your parents have been paying for your tuition, room, and
board; and that they would be easily angered by wasting money by dropping
classes. You also wish to avoid their anger. You are in the conflict zone when
the two avoidance tendencies are similar in strength.
But now when you
collect signatures on your drop forms, the prospects of your parents anger gets
larger and larger, so you try to avoid the anger by making plans to not drop
the classes and studying 22 hrs. per day for the rest
of the semester. Vacillation occurs in the Avoidance-avoidance conflict.
C.
APPROACH-AVOIDANCE CONFLICT
In this conflict
there is only one goal, with simultaneous tendencies to approach and avoid it
at the same time. Imaging a rat that is first food deprived and then trained to
run down a straight-alley to consume food in the goal box. After this approach
training, the rat receives an electric shock while in the goal box, so now the
rat also has a tendency to avoid the goal box. Again, remember that the
tendency to approach or avoid increases as one gets closer to the goal.
In this conflict
the avoidance gradient is steeper than the approach gradient. What this means
is that in the start box, the tendency to approach is stronger than the
tendency to avoid, so the rat starts to walk toward the goal box. Half way down
the alley, the avoidance tendency becomes equal to the approach tendency, and
even closer to the goal the avoidance tendency is stronger than the approach
tendency.
What the rat does is
vacillate, walking toward the goal until the avoidance tendency gets dominant,
and then walking away and back towards the start box until the approach
tendency becomes dominant. Then turning around and going toward the goal, then
turning around again and going back toward the start, over and over again.