Effect of Reinforcement Essay Example for Free

Effect of Reinforcement Essay Psychology as we know it didn’t suddenly appear on the intellectual scene. It is impossible to say just when it began, or who was responsible for it. Instead, we can only point to a number of current that takes us from philosophy and the natural sciences into something recognizably psychological. To give you the simple concept of this field, psychology is the study of human and animal behavior. As time ages, many psychological theories have evolved. Burhus Frederic Skinner, as one of the contributors has emphasized a theory on learning regarding to individual’s behavior. Skinner believed that the best way to understand behavior is to look at the causes of an action and its consequences. He called this approach operant conditioning. Skinners theory of operant conditioning was based on the work of Thorndike (1905). Edward Thorndike studied learning in animals using a puzzle box to propose the theory known as the Law of Effect Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s law of effect. Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect Reinforcement. Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e. weakened). Skinner (1948) studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using animals which he placed in a â€Å"Skinner Box† which was similar to Thorndike’s puzzle box. B.F. Skinner (1938) coined the term operant conditioning; it means roughly changing of behavior by the use of reinforcement which is given after the desired response. A. Background of the study Reinforcement, a term used to refer to anything that increases the likelihood that a response will occur. Reinforcement, noted, defined by the effect that it has on behavior it increases or strengthens the behavior. It might involve responses right after the reinforced present a kind of motivation. In this study, we could see the behavior, and the responses made by the rat in the presentation of reinforcement. The errors of the rat in the progress of the experiment shall be observed and noted and shown to answer the queries of the researchers at the same time address curiosity. B. Theoretical Basis: Physiological psychology research has identified separate but interactive neural pathways mediating reward and aversion (i.e., functioning as positive and negative reinforcement systems, respectively). Direct activation of brain reward mechanisms through electrical and chemical stimulation provides a tool for elucidating these neural systems. During the past four decades, considerable knowledge has been gained regarding the anatomical and neurochemical basis of these pathways. This brief presentation addresses only brain mechanisms involved in positive reinforcement because they are closely identified with pleasure in humans and because they underlie the primary process governing much of normal behavior. Deprivation and Positive Reinforces: Experts who say educators can use positive reinforces (positive consequences) to control students behavior usually dont tell the educators they must first deprive students of whatever they plan to use as reinforce. As far back as 1938, Skinner described how deprivation is necessary when a person wants to use reinforces to control another organism. That was when he wrote, in the preface to his book, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (N.Y.: Appleton-Century-Crofts): The simplest contingencies involve at least three terms stimulus, response, and reinforcement and at least one other variable (the deprivation associated with the reinforcement) is implied. I think it is interesting that, even relatively early in his work, Skinner was waffling on his acknowledgment of the central role deprivation plays in operant conditioning. Notice how he says there are at least three terms, and at least one other variable (the deprivation associated with the reinforcement) is implied. Make no mistake about it, deprivation is not merely implied; it is the essential action that allows behaviorists to create the illusion that reinforcement controls behavior, whether the behavior occurs in the experimental laboratory, the classroom, or the slaughterhouse. Watsons S-R behavioristic psychology described behavior as reflexive responses to stimuli. Skinners radical behaviorism described behavior as responses in the presence of stimuli that were associated with reinforcers, where the reinforcers worked because the organism was deprived. The formula in Skinners psychology is stimulus-response-reinforcement (+deprivation): S-R-R (+D). (Sometimes the formula is written, Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence, or A-B-C. I would add +Deprivation, making the formula A-B-C (+D).) Without deprivation, or denial of access to something an organism wants or needs, there is no reinforcement. If a rat eats pellets of food until it stops of its own accord, then the behaviorist cannot use food to reinforce the rat’s actions. If a child has all of the attention he or she needs or wants, then a teacher cannot use attention to reinforce the childs behavior. No deprivation, no control of behavior. No control of behavior, no discipline program The following passage, from one of the Bibles of laboratory research methods for radical behaviorists, describes how completely they relied on deprivation to create the illusion that reinforcers control behavior. In 1957, C. B. Ferster and B. F. Skinner wrote that: Birds are sometimes matched on deprivation level as measured by the rate of responding under a variable-interval schedule. Each bird is run for a session of fixed length each day C. Related Literature What is Reinforcement? Reinforcement theory is the process of shaping behavior by controlling the consequences of the behavior. In reinforcement theory a combination of rewards and/or punishments is used to reinforce desired behavior or extinguish unwanted behavior. Any behavior that elicits a consequence is called operant behavior, because the individual operates on his or her environment. Reinforcement theory concentrates on the relationship between the operant behavior and the associated consequences, and is sometimes referred to as operant conditioning. REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT, AND EXTINCTION The most important principle of reinforcement theory is, of course, reinforcement. Generally speaking, there are two types of reinforcement: positive and negative. Positive reinforcement results when the occurrence of a valued behavioral consequence has the effect of strengthening the probability of the behavior being repeated. The specific behavioral consequence is called a reinforced. An example of positive reinforcement might be a salesperson that exerts extra effort to meet a sales quota (behavior) and is then rewarded with a bonus (positive reinforce). The administration of the positive reinforce should make it more likely that the salesperson will continue to exert the necessary effort in the future. Negative reinforcement results when an undesirable behavioral consequence is withheld, with the effect of strengthening the probability of the behavior being repeated. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment, but they are not the same. Punishment attempts to decrease the probability of specific behaviors; negative reinforcement attempts to increase desired behavior. Thus, both positive and negative reinforcement have the effect of increasing the probability that a particular behavior will be learned and repeated. An example of negative reinforcement might be a salesperson that exerts effort to increase sales in his or her sales territory (behavior), which is followed by a decision not to reassign the salesperson to an undesirable sales route (negative reinforce). The administration of the negative reinforce should make it more likely that the salesperson will continue to exert the necessary effort in the future. As mentioned above, punishment attempts to decrease the probability of specific behaviors being exhibited. Punishment is the administration of an undesirable behavioral consequence in order to reduce the occurrence of the unwanted behavior. Punishment is one of the more commonly used reinforcement-theory strategies, but many learning experts suggest that it should be used only if positive and negative reinforcement cannot be used or have previously failed, because of the potentially negative side effects of punishment. An example of punishment might be demoting an employee who does not meet performance goals or suspending an employee without pay for violating work rules. Extinction is similar to punishment in that its purpose is to reduce unwanted behavior. The process of extinction begins when a valued behavioral consequence is withheld in order to decrease the probability that a learned behavior will continue. Over time, this is likely to result in the ceasing of that behavior. Extinction may alternately serve to reduce a wanted behavior, such as when a positive reinforce is no longer offered when a desirable behavior occurs. For example, if an employee is continually praised for the promptness in which he completes his work for several months, but receives no praise in subsequent months for such behavior, his desirable behaviors may diminish. Thus, to avoid unwanted extinction, managers may have to continue to offer positive behavioral consequences. What is motivation? Definition of Motivation Motivation refers to â€Å"the reasons underlying behavior† (Guay et al., 2010, p. 712). Paraphrasing Gredler, Broussard and Garrison (2004) broadly define motivation as â€Å"the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something† (p. 106). Intrinsic motivation is motivation that is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure. As Deci et al. (1999) observe, â€Å"Intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action. It is manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for external rewards† (p. 658). Researchers often contrast intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, which is motivation governed by reinforcement contingencies. Traditionally, educators consider intrinsic motivation to be more desirable and to result in better learning outcomes than extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Although the use of differential reinforcement has been recommended in previous investigations and in early intervention curriculum manuals, few studies have evaluated the best method for providing differential reinforcement to maximize independent responding. This paper reviews previous research on the effectiveness of differential reinforcement as treatment and describes important areas of future research. Keywords: acquisition, differential reinforcement, early intervention, reinforcement quality, reinforcement schedules Differential reinforcement is an operant procedure used to increase the occurrence of desirable behavior while simultaneously decreasing undesirable behavior. The use of differential reinforcement is recommended in early intervention (EI) programs because children in EI often do not acquire skills in the absence of motivational procedures (Karsten Carr, 2009; Leaf McEachin, 1999; Lovaas, 2003). In addition, prompting procedures may be necessary initially, because children who require EI may not have extensive skill repertoires that could be exposed to differential reinforcement. Thus, one challenge in EI programming is to identify differential reinforcement procedures that minimize prompt dependence and promote independent responding as the ultimate goal. However, only a few studies have examined the effects of differential reinforcement on independent and prompted responding in EI programs. Therefore, the purposes of this review are (a) to provide a summary of previous research related to differential reinforcement during acquisition-based procedures in EI and (b) to suggest areas of future research. Schedules of reinforcement Studies have examined variations in differential reinforcement schedules for prompted and independent responding to identify schedules that increase the efficiency of learning (i.e., quickly increase independent responding). Olenick and Pear (1980) implemented differential reinforcement during tact training using 5-s constant time delay (hereafter referred to as â€Å"prompt delay†) with 3 children with severe intellectual disabilities. The evaluation included four conditions. In two of the conditions, reinforcement was provided on a fixed-ratio (FR) 6 or 8 schedule. Reinforcement was provided on an FR 1 schedule for correct independent responses and on an FR 6 or FR 8 schedule for prompted responses in the third condition. In the fourth condition, reinforcement was provided on an FR 1 schedule for prompted responses and on an FR 6 or 8 schedules for correct independent responses. Results indicated that all participants had the highest accuracy and number of independent responses on the FR 1 schedule for independent responses. These findings suggest that schedules of reinforcement that favor independent responding may produce more rapid skill acquisition. However, the authors implemented a fairly thin schedule of reinforcement in the first two conditions (i.e., FR 6 or 8) and did not conduct any sessions at a 0-s prompt delay, both of which are inconsistent with typical procedures used in EI (Walker, 2008). Thus, it is not clear that the results of this study are representative of acquisition in clinical settings, in which rich schedules of reinforcement and a 0-s prompt delay are used most typically in initial stages of learning. What is Latent learning? Latent learning is a theory in psychology that describes learning without a reward. An organism learns a new concept simply from observation and without any obvious reinforcement. The organism may not be consciously aware of its new skill until it suddenly expresses that skill when it becomes useful at a later date. For instance, a person can casually observe other people using chopsticks to eat and discover much later that he or she can use them correctly without ever being taught. A classic experiment in psychology illustrates how latent learning works. Edward C. Tolman and C.H. Honzik famously placed three groups of rats inside a maze, where the rats were allowed to wander around. One rat group always received a food reward when reaching the end of the maze, while the second group found no food at the end. The third group found no food at the end of the maze for ten days but discovered food on the 11th day. The first group of rats learned to reach the end of the maze quickly to reach the food. The second group continued to wonder around the maze. The third group acted similarly to the second group until food was placed at the end of the maze on the last day. One day after food was placed; the third group had already learned to reach the end of the maze as quickly as the first group.