Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Classical & Operant Conditioning · Acedra
Home
Explore
Psychology
Classical & Operant Conditioning
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
85 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
[Music] >>JEFFREY STOWELL: Um, so let’s begin with classical and operant conditioning. When I say the word ‘salt’, what do you think of? >>PARTICIPANT 1: Pepper. >>STOWELL: Pepper, ok. Is that a conditioned response. >>PARTICIPANT(S): [unclear] >>STOWELL: It is not a conditioned response in the context of classical conditioning, but yet, two things are connected, right? So it’s a type of associative learning, and all that ‘associative learning’ means is connecting two or more things together,
0:49
usually in time or space. [Clears throat]. For example, my uh, graduate advisor at Ohio State, uh, conducted a study with some colleagues where they used a hydran – hyanencephalic infant who didn’t have cerebral hemispheres, but just had the very basic brain structures, and they paired two stimuli together: a tone followed by a light about um, a second and a half later, ok. They repeatedly paired these things to- together, they monitored heart rate and found that if you presented just the tone
1:20
without the light, that the infant seemed to expect – as noted by a change in heart rate – that another stimulus would be following. Well, that is not classical conditioning. It is a type of associative learning, but classical conditioning is limited to when you are pairing two stimuli together, one of which – ok, at least with basic classical conditioning – must be an unconditioned stimulus. So, you know, if you think of all the uh, and that has to be tied – that has to produce
1:51
an unconditioned reflex in the organism, and so you’re limited to really just a handful of behaviors, ok. Unless you start talking about emotional conditioning, which I’m not gonna do, but we’re talking about things like blinking, salivating, um, and if you get into emotion, maybe fear – but these are very simple behaviors, ok. And classical conditioning then must be limited to the involvement of one of those stimuli being an unconditioned stimulus.
2:23
Operant conditioning is when you connect a response to a subsequent stimulus, which is either reinforcing or punishing, and then you have the other type of as- of associative learning which I have described, you know, maybe salt and pepper, uh or maybe, uh, a country song by Jo Dee Messina, you know, when I think about, uh rain, I think about – help me out here – singing, ok. And when I think about singing it’s a – maybe you don’t listen to country here – uh, heavenly tune. And when I think
2:52
about heaven, I think about angels. And when I think about angels, I think about you. Ok, you know, it isn’t that cute, right, ok. But you know what you pl– you know what you get when you play country music backwards though right? OK, well you get sober, you get y- your dog comes home, you’re married again and your truck works, right? Alright [clears throat]. [Laughte.] So don’t confuse classical conditioning with other type of ash- associative learning.
3:14
Um, if we had our audience polling, I would create teams based on what you call that carbonated beverage, ok, uh, depending on what part of the country you come from. And apparently, uh, they’ve created a map of that. [Laughter; Stowell clears throat]. And mostly in the north, uh, they call it ‘pop’, uh, in the south they call everything a ‘coke’, and a ‘soda’ kind of on the coast, and I don’t know, whatever you call it here – what do they call it here? >>PARTICIPANT(S): [Unclear] soda.
3:45
>>STOWELL: [Unclear] call it a soda, alright. So, that would be our, our teams for the day, ok. Alright so, the principle of instruction is the same, which is: give students the opportunity to reflect upon what they’re learning, and to discuss it with other students. So, each of you are fortunately teamed up, uh, at a desk with another person, and I want you to think of your answer first, and then I want you to share your answer with the – the partner next to you.
4:14
And then I’m gonna ask the ‘class’ as a whole to respond by show of hands. So you’re gonna indicate not only if you think that statement is true or false, but your confidence in your answer, ok, so. Come up with an answer on your own, then provide reasoning for your answer to your partner, and then I’ll poll the class. [Participants talk amongst themselves.] >>STOWELL: Ok let’s uh, let’s poll the class, ok. [Participants continue talking.]
4:50
>>STOWELL: Uh, after your discussion now, uh, how many of you think that this statement is true? Ok, how many of you think it’s false? And how many of you just don’t know? Ok, alright, that’s good, uh. The correct answer is: false, ok. But, but why, you know, why do some of us think that it is an unconditioned stimulus for salivation? And I see students repeatedly, you know, think- get this question wrong, uh, and the reason is, ok – well, let me start- give you a little hint here – a
5:24
good test for an unconditioned stimulus is: would a baby reflexively respond to it, right? Because if it’s innate, you would expect that an infant who hasn’t had all of these experiences yet, um, would respond or not, ok, by asking that question: would a, would a baby respond to it? So, if you showed a baby a juicy hot dog, ok, would the baby salivate? No ok. So is it likely to be an unconditioned stimulus? No ok. So then why do we salivate when we see juicy hot dogs? Because conditioning
6:03
has occurred, in which we have seen a juicy hot dog, then we’ve actually put it in our mouth, which is the trigger for salivation, and so through that basic ‘association’, the sight of a juicy hot dog has become a conditioned stimulus. >>PARTICIPANT 2: [unclear] >>STOWELL: Uh, you have to use – >>PARTICIPANT 2: [unclear] >>STOWELL: It would be true for animals, too, ok. So, if you show an animal any type of food as an ‘infant’, ok, it’s not gonna be salivating to it. So, both humans
6:39
and animals learn to salivate at the sight and the smell through learning. So it is an example of classical conditioning, but the sight of the food is a conditioned stimulus. So I, I want to emphasize just, not everything’s just – a very limited set of stimuli that produce reflexes, and a good test for that is: would it work in an infant? Did you have a question? >>PARTICIPANT: So I can just hear one of my kids saying ‘well then how come Pavlov’s
7:05
experiment is a true classical conditioning experiment if the food is paired with the tone and they had to learn at some point that the food – that food is not a true unconditioned stimulus’. >>STOWELL: Well they actually gave the food to the dog, so that, the food itself – putting the food in the mouth would have been the unconditioned stimulus. Uh in that original footage video, hope- hopefully you’ve seen it, uh, it shows that the dog
7:32
also salivated just at the sight at the food, ok, which indicates it’s a conditioned stimulus. Alright, so we got that one straight, are you ok with that? Alright. So all I want to say about classical conditioning is that, not everything is classical conditioning, ok. You don’t turn on the radio because of a conditioned response, or you know, you don’t comb your hair beca- tha, – a certain way, because of a conditioned response ok. Uh, it’s limited strictly to those innate reflexes. Uh,
8:04
secondly, many examples of basic classical conditioning are not basic classical conditioning, ok. Uh, in fact, how many of you have seen examples where you, you play a song of the, the soundtrack from “Jaws”, ok, and everybody gets scared, ok? That actually is not basic classical conditioning, uh. It might be some higher-order conditioning, which I’m not gonna describe, uh, or it might be vicarious, uh, emotional classical conditioning, uh, but it’s not straight- it’s not just straight,
8:38
basic, classical conditioning. Uh, and if you wanna talk about that later, we can, but I’ve, I’ve got a lot more I wanted to tell you today. Uh, and once again, [chuckles], ask yourself, you know, ‘how will a baby react?’. That’s a good test for if something is an unconditioned stimulus or not. Alright: questions about classical conditioning? Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 3: Um, one of the examples that I’ve seen, [unclear], um, and I’m gonna [unclear] classical conditioning or not?
9:03
>>STOWELL: That’s a great question, um, probably not, um. It gets a little more complicated when you – there are situations where you can have both classical conditioning and operant conditioning, and what many people think of for a conditioned response, for example, when you say ‘sit’ and your dog sits, is that a classical- is that a conditioned response? It’s not, ok. Many stimuli set the context for when a behavior should occur, ok. And when I say the word ‘sit’ to a dog,
9:44
that tells the dog, ‘now’s the time that I perform this behavior, and as a consequence, I’ll likely be reinforced, ok, I’ll get a treat’. Well, that’s an operant behavior; the behavior of sitting, being reinforced. However, if you say the word ‘sit’ close enough in time to when you give the dog f- the treat, now you probably have some classical conditioning going on as well, where the word ‘sit’ can produce an uncon- excuse me, a conditioned response of salivation. But those are two
10:13
different behaviors; salivating and, and sitting are two different behaviors, and they’re better explained one by classical conditioning and the other by operant conditioning. So the fish swimming to the fur- to the surface [coughs] they see the fish food – that indicates ‘now you should swim to the surface and you’ll be reinforced’ ok. That’s probably a great example of a discriminative stimulus in the context of operant conditioning. Yes.
10:37
>>PARTICIPANT 4: I don’t wanna belabor this but I, I know a lot of people in, uh, that used the office of [unclear] and I – there’s always a lot of debate about that as well that’s – >>STOWELL: That’s a very – >>PARTICIPANT 4: – a blend – >>STOWELL: Yeah, a very similar example, ok. The [unclear] on the computer, ok, give now, m, ok, now if I reach out I’ll get the food, ok. But there’s probably both occurring at the same time, uh, and so that’s – it’s very hard to find really great
11:04
examples of very, very true basic classical conditioning. >>PARTICIPANT 5: I’ve been using – getting shocked by the doorknob in the winter since we live in a very dry area – >>STOWELL: Ok. >>PARTICIPANT 5: – north of New York and avoiding the doorknobs because you’ve gotten shocked. >>STOWELL: That would be uh, a case of emotional conditioning, of fear, and uh, you see the stimulus is paired with something painful and now you avoid the stimulus.
11:28
>>PARTICIPANT 5: [unclear] still not basic classical conditioning? >>STOWELL: No, yeah, that, that would work for uh, classical conditioning in the context of emotion. Yes, that would be ok. I can clarify others later, ok. What about operant conditioning? Um, in fact, the example that we just talked about with the fish swimming to the surface or the dog sitting are great example of how many stimuli just set the context for when a behavior should occur.
11:52
Uh, and those are the antecedents to the behavior. The stimuli that precede when the behavior occurs uh. For example, if it starts raining, that is the antecedent, ok, the rain, that’s a stimulus that says ‘now’s a good time to put your umbrella up’, and the behavior of putting up your umbrella then results in some consequence, where in this case you stay dry or you, you get out of the rain, ok. So the ABCs of behavior
12:19
science are the antecedents, set the context; then the behavior occurs; and then the consequence, which is either gonna be reinforcing or punishing, ok, or, or neither. So, I want you to discuss briefly with a partner: true or false, shock is reinforcing? True, false, or it depends. >>STOWELL: Ok, uh, anybody wanna venture what the answer is? Yeah in the back, please. >>PARTICIPANT 6: [unclear] said it depends. >>STOWELL: And why did you say that?
12:56
>>PARTICIPANT 6: Um, because, I guess, what we said is reinforcing leads to uh, increased behavior – >>STOWELL: Ok. >>PARTICIPANT 6: – and depending on the uh, the setup of the experiment, it depends on whether or not you want to make the shock increase or decrease the behavior. >>STOWELL: Ok, so you’re saying there’s a possibility of, of being either one. Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 7: I, I said that [unclear] by electric chair in prison, you know – >>STOWELL: Yeah, ok, that’s uh –
13:21
>>PARTICIPANT 7: [unclear] >>STOWELL: Sound, sounds punishing – ultimately punishing. Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 7: There was a study, I haven’t found – it was recently done and it was featured on NPR, about a study that they did between, for, between people ages 18 to 25 because of their connection to this, and they took cell phones away and they sent them into a room, and they had to last 15 minutes, and the only thing that was available was an electric shock – [Stowell laughs].
13:34
>>PARTICIPANT 7: – and some of the guys [taps] kept pressing it, because it was better than being bored. [Laughter.] >>STOWELL: Interesting, ok. So, shock that [unclear]. The correct answer is, you know, it does depend, and the re- the reason I didn’t give you enough information to tell you how it affected the behavior, ok. If it strengthened a behavior, well it- that’s reinforcement. Even if it’s shock, it doesn’t matter, ok. If it weakens a behavior, then it’s – it could be punishment.
14:12
So, how many of you struggle to help your students understand the difference between positive and negative reinforcement and punishment, ok. It happens every time I get a new class, ok. So I have to start with telling them to forget everything that they know about positive and negative ok. Just forget it, ok. Except for one thing: positive is – there’s a plus, ok, and that actua- like – you’re adding something, and negative is indicated by a minus, which means subtraction. And that’s all
14:50
it means. Nothing more, nothing less. So let’s walk through positive and negative reinforcement. So, we know that it’s reinforcement because what’s the outcome on the behavior? >>PARTICIPANT 8: Increases. >>STOWELL: It strengthens the behavior. It could be indicated by an increase in the frequency of a behavior, or some other measure of learning that strengthens the behavior. So I, I want to emphasize two things. First, you start with the behavior.
15:17
Now, when I introduced operant conditioning, I said there were antecedents, you know, stimuli that set the context for the behavior. You have to separate out those – separate those, or ignore those in terms of this part right here, whether or not it’s positive or negative, ok. We’re talking about what happens after the behavior, not before the behavior. It’s what happens after the behavior. So the key is – one of the keys is to identify in any example of operant conditioning, what’s
15:47
the behavior, and what’s its immediate consequence. So first the behavior or response occurs, then the consequence, and then, in this case, positive just means that as a consequence of that behavior, something was added. It doesn’t mean it was good or bad, it just means something was added, period. And we know that it’s reinforcement because it’s going to strengthen a behavior. So you have to look at the outcome. What happens to that behavior in the future? So, a few examples.
16:27
When you train a dog, if it repeats the behavior: shaking hands, rolling over, you know, standing on its hind feet, uh, that – if that behavior is strengthened because you gave it a treat immediately after the behavior, that’s positive reinforcement, because what was added? A treat. Ok, uh, if you laugh at my jokes after I tell I joke, the consequence is you laugh – that’s positive, because it strengthens the behavior of me telling a joke. How could smoking, ok, be positive reinforcement?
17:00
>>PARTICIPANT 9: Takes stress away. No that’s negative. >>STOWELL: Give me another example. >>PARTICIPANT 9: But uh, yeah rush of endorphin, rush of – >>STOWELL: Ok, you get some, you know, nicotine buzz or high that reinforces the behavior, ok. Now if you, if you think ‘oh it’s because you’re adding nicotine’ or ‘you’re adding a cigarette’, that’s wrong, ok. The behavior is smoking. What’s its consequence, ok? It’s the reinforcing high that- that they get. In fact, smoking
17:33
could be- actually there’s- there’s multiple consequences of smoking. Yes, it is- there is positive reinforcement because you get the high. There’s also negative reinforcement because it takes away stress. There’s also positive punishment, ok, because you get things that should make you smoke less, like lung cancer, ok, uh. And there’s also negative punishment cause when you smoke then you might lose friends or your ability to, you know, go into a restaurant or something, so there- there are
18:00
multiple consequences of smoking, but if you’re thinking that positive has to be good, I like to use smoking as an example, because it, it doesn’t mean goo– have to do anything with good, ok. And then finally if you win a race and you win a trophy, uh, the addition of the trophy after the behavior of running a race is positive reinforcement, ok. Everybody clear on positive reinforcement? >>PARTICIPANT 10: So in this case, smoking is still the behavior – >>STOWELL: Yes.
18:26
>>PARTICIPANT 10: – and then we would have students identify what could be some positive reinforcements – >>STOWELL: Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 10: – that keep people smoking? >>STOWELL: Yes, and in fact, one of my, one of my essay questions is ‘Come up with all four contingencies for smoking: positive and negative reinforcement and punishment’ ok. So, negative reinforcement means nothing more than after the behavior, something was removed,
18:51
subtracted, or taken away, or avoided, you have to throw that one in there too, ok. Avoidance behavior is uh, negative reinforcement, but, once again, it strengthens the behavior. So if that consequence results in it occurring more frequently, it’s reinforcement, and if the consequence was that something was taken away, then it’s negative. So let me give you some examples of negative reinforcement. Alright, if you live in an apartment and your neighbors are being noisy, and you pound on
19:24
the wall, and they quiet down, how is that negative reinforcement? Beca- because the pounding, ok, removes the noise. Now you don’t – don’t get stuck into thinking that well pounding, you’re adding pounding. What’s wrong with that thinking? That’s the – ok – we’re talking about the behavior and its consequence, k. We’re not talking about the behavior – you know – what the behavior itself is, we’re talking about what the consequence is. So focus on the consequence.
19:58
Likewise, when you say ‘well, taking an aspirin to get rid of a headache’ – well, they’re taking the aspirin, that must be positive, right – no, NO! Ok. It is the behavior, then you look at the consequence, and if it takes away the headache, gee the next time you headache – get a headache, what are you gonna do? You’re gonna take an aspirin again, ok, that behavior has been strengthened, ok. Alright, if a baby’s crying, and you don’t know why, you try different things, you change
20:25
his diaper, and that happens to make it stop crying, you have – that’s been negative reinforcement, because the behavior of changing the diaper results in the removal of the crying. You know, babies have this innate, aversive cry, so that we’ll do something about it, right? I have six kids. And even the simple behavior of putting on deodorant this morning, ok, uh, results in the removal of or avoidance of an aversive body smell, ok, which means chances
20:56
are you’re gonna wear deodorant again the next day, ok. That behavior of putting on deodorant has been reinforced by the removal or avoidance of body odor, ok, uh. And here’s an example of negative reinforcement that I like to show in class and I am online so I’m gonna try this, eh. [Noise.] Ok. I’m gonna have – oh I don’t have the speakers plugged in, but you’ll at leas- you’ll at least see, if not hear, those of you who are in the front, uh, this example from the Simpsons: [Stowell laughs].
21:36
Ok. So how is that an example of negative reinforcement? The whining and the pestering and as soon as he says, as soon as he says ‘yes, I’ll take you to Mt. Splashmore’, then they stop, ok. Which means that the next time they bug him, ok, if that worked, he’s probably gonna do it again, ok. Now, for the children, what type of reinforcement was it? It was positive, ok! So we have this vicious cycle, right. You have positive reinforcement of the whining behavior for the children, and you
22:12
have the negative reinforcement, ok, of say- agreeing, you know, or giving in and, that means that the next the situation arises, the same thing’s probably gonna happen again. So unfortunately, uh, both, are- became reinforced in those behaviors. Alright. Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 11: [unclear] backwards a little bit. I was wondering if you had another example of positive punishment for smoking because lung cancer’s not a guarantee and it’s like way down the road. >>STOWELL: Yeah. You’ll smell bad.
22:48
Coughing. Yeah. >>PARTICIPANT 12: Yellow teeth. >>STOWELL: Yellow teeth. Yeah. There’s a few others here, ok. So these should be pretty easy, ok, because right now, I’m only asking about reinforcement, ok. Only reinforcement. Later we’ll throw in punishment. Ok so. Giving a dog a treat after it shakes hands, is that positive – raise your hand if you think it’s positive reinforcement, ok, excellent, most of us, very good, ok. Giving a child candy after he or she whines.
23:10
Is that positive or negative reinforcement? >>PARTICIPANT 13: Negative. >>STOWELL: Raise your hand for positive – >>PARTICIPANT 14: For who? >>STOWELL: – for the child, I’m sorry, for the child. >>PARTICIPANT 14: For the child it’s positive. >>STOWELL: Right, for the child, ok, it’s positive, alright, very good, um. How bout washing off a corrosive chemical that spilled on you, ok? Would that be – would that behavior be positive reinforcement, most likely, or negative?
23:30
It would be negative right, because the behavior of washing removes whatever stinging or burning that the chemical is causing, ok, so that’s negative reinforcement, which means that the next time it spills on you, what are you gonna do? Wash it off again, ok. That behavior has been strengthened. Of course whatever behavior led to you spilling it on you – you know, your body in the first place [laughs] – is ok – that’s a
23:50
different story, but remember, we’re talking about the behavior and it’s immediate consequence, ok. Stopping at a stop light, k. Could that be positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement? Think about the consequences of that. >>PARTICIPANTS: Negative. Negative. >>STOWELL: Negative because it removes or prevents a ticket, an accident, injury, ok, so gee you know I don’t get a lot of positive reinforcement for stopping at a stop light.
24:25
Way to go Jeff I’m glad you stopped at the stop light, you know, here’s a piece of candy, you know? But there’s a lot of negative reinforcement that occurs ok. How about getting a kiss at the end of a date? >>PARTICIPANTS: Positive. Negative. Depends. >>STOWELL: Well, it depends, right? Is that reinforcement or punishment? I don’t know but, yeah. Because it was added it makes it positive and that’s all we’re concerned about right now, ok.
24:47
Alright, so that’s to help, hopefully, straighten out, you know, positive and negative reinforcement, but not only do y- in the real world, do we need to strengthen uh, appropriate behaviors like putting up umbrellas and stopping at stoplights, uh, but we also need to avoid those harmful – potentially harmful – behaviors, uh. How many of you ever got an electrical shock before? OK. Yeah, ok, that’s something you probably shouldn’t be doing and you’re
25:13
probably – hopefully less likely to do in the future. So the same pattern here, I’m not gonna spend a whole lot of time on it, uh, other than positive punishment means immediately after the behavior, something was added which in this case weakens the behavior, ok. So once again we’re – response – identity the behavior, its immediate consequence. If, as a consequence, something is added, it makes it positive, and if it weakens the behavior, it makes it punishment.
25:41
So here’s some example of positive punishment. A spanking – now this is if- why you think positive is good, you’re gonna be confused, cause a spanking is positive punishment because it’s after the behavior – I still remember this one, as a kid – uh, playing in the mud, my mom told me not to, but I still did with my brother, uh, and we got a spanking afterwards. That was positive punishment, ok. It made is less likely that I’d play in the mud – or at least, get caught playing in the mud,
26:08
right ok um. I also want to emphasize that pos- punishment doesn’t have to be between individuals. It can simply be the natural consequence of a behavior. So if you try a new deodorant and it gives you a rash in your armpit, you’re gonna be less likely to use it in the future, ok. So the addition of the rash makes it positive as a consequence of putting on the deodorant, which means you’ll be l- and the rash, will make it less likely you’ll wear it in the future. So, sometimes it’s just the
26:35
natural consequence of the behavior that doesn’t have to be anybody else punishing somebody else, it’s just the way it is, uh. If you get a paper cut, k, th- the way you handle the paper, hopefully you’ll be less likely to do that in the future, uh. One time my kid got a lucky paper cut. I asked him, ‘Well why was it lucky?’ He said, ‘Because it didn’t hurt!’ Ok, you are lucky, ok, [laughs] you are lucky. Alright, a speeding ticket, uh, that’s positive punishment.
26:58
After you speed, you get the ticket, um. >>PARTICIPANT 15: My students contend that that is negative punishment because you- it’s not the ticket that’s punishing but it’s the removal of money. >>STOWELL: Well that’s a different consequence and that is negative punishment. You’re right. So if you – that’s why I don’t like to use that example on a test, but. It’s like, ‘well what do you mean?’ Well, just be clear about what you mean.
27:22
Do you mean getting a ticket, or do you mean the fact that you have to pay money after that fine? So, and a, a simple pos- an unkind comment about wearing a pink shirt, you know, I still remember this a – I was a freshman in high school: David Schokot comes up to me and says, ‘Jeff, that’s a girl’s shirt’, k, I had pink stripes on my shirt and so – I never wore that shirt again, ok. Very effective positive punishment – it only took one time, but, uh, that’s another example, ok.
27:49
Negative punishment, uh, you take away something which weakens the behavior. Now, this is where I want to emphasize, uh, one other thing that often gets, uh, s- confusing about operant conditioning. Is – ok, let me first of all give some examples, ok, and then I’ll tell you what it’s not, um. Let’s say that a child hits another child with a toy, ok, and they go to time out. That’s kind of like the ultimate negative punishment, because what are you removing? Like everything! Right, ok.
28:21
It’s like, well, you can’t play with the toys, you can’t do anything, um. We used to send our kids to the laundry room. They can do laundry if they wanted, but I, uh, it- I don’t think they ever did. So removal of, of all kinds of stuff, right. Likewise, if, uh, you break your curfew, you might be grounded, or you might have your video games taken way, um. Now, you’ll hear things like this: ‘Ok, you didn’t take out the trash, so I’m gonna take away your video game, k.’
28:58
Don’t ever use those examples, ok, because it conveys and inaccurate conseque- well, it conveys an inaccurate conception of the behavior, k. Behavior is, you have to – you’re doing something that can be observed, ok. We don’t wanna talk about things that we don’t do, because the things that we’re not doing during that time, we’re actually doing something else. And that is the behavior that is getting the consequence. So let’s
29:28
say that instead of not taking out the trash, they were playing baseball in the backyard, ok. So focus on the behaviors that are being performed, not on the behaviors that are not being performed, ok. So, only dead people can not do something, right. So as long as we’re alive, we’re always doing something, and focus on those behaviors and the consequences. So strictly speaking, if you’re playing baseball instead of, you know, picking up your room
29:57
or taking out the trash, ok, you are being punished for playing baseball, ok, by the removal of one of those stimuli, ok, so it is negative punishment. >>PARTICIPANT 16: So say for example, you [unclear]. >>STOWELL: Well, the great thing about humans is that we can, we have language, ok. We talk a lot about rules and things that it would be much more difficult to do. But if your dog played baseball, and it didn’t speak, you know, English, uh, and you punish
30:33
it, it’d be thinking, ‘well I shouldn’t b- play baseball again’, k. So, humans have fortunately – in some ways are a little more complex that can, you know, we can work those things out. So, once again, let me just emphasize: Don’t use examples of people not doing something, because strictly speaking, they were doing something else during that time, ok. So, only examples of punishment: is it positive or negative? I run into a pole while texting. [Chatter].
31:03
It’s positive, right, because, you know following the addition- following the behavior of texting, the addition of a pole, ok, or running into the pole – that’s positive, ok. Tasting a bitter chemical when you bite your nails, you know, would that be positive or negative punishment? [Chatter]. It’s positive. Positive punishment because the addition of the nasty taste, ok, would be the positive part. Losing your driver’s license after you get a DUI.
31:33
That would be negative punishment, k, very good, uh. Getting a black eye while playing baseball after misjudging a line drive. [Chatter]. It’d be positive punishment, ok, you’d be less likely to – to think of it in the future like that. That’s – that ended my baseball career actually when I was in, I think seventh grade. I got a nice, uh, scar over my eyebrow where it split my eyebrow open, but anyway. Eating an entire batch of
31:59
chocolate cookies in one sitting and feeling sick to your stomach: is that positive or negative punishment? [Chatter]. It’s positive, yeah, because of the cookies, right? No. Because of the addition, ok, of the sickness. It’s not because of the cookies, it’s because of the addition of the sickness, ok. Makes it positive. A teacher takes away a student’s cell phone when it rings in class. >>PARTICIPANTS: Negative. >>STOWELL: Ok, negative, very good.
32:21
I like to use this, uh, chart to help students – give students something that they can apply to every single condition that I give them by asking them two questions. Ok, so the questions are in the black boxes, and the t- answers, there’s two answers to each question in the blue boxes, and when you combine them, you have four possible choices. So the first question is, ‘as a con-‘ well really maybe the first question should be ‘identify the behavior and what the consequence is’, ok.
32:52
Then, ask yourself, ‘As a consequence of the behavior, will something be added or removed?’ If it was added, it’s gonna be positive all the way across. If it was removed, it’s going to be negative all the way across. And then you ask if that consequence strengthens the behavior, in which case it’s reinforcement all the way down, or if it weakens the behavior, in which case it’s punishment all the way down. And you get four possible choices, which if they
33:15
correctly answer those two questions, they’ll get every example correct, ok. Then we put it all together, ok. We put reinforcement and punishment together in the same examples, ok, as choices, uh. By the way, I’m, I’m expecting that I’ll share this PowerPoint presentation, uh, with Emily and then you can distribute that as needed to participants, so, uh. >>PARTICIPANT 17: I think this is in the lesson – TOPSS unit plan. >>STOWELL: Oh yeah, I think I put it in there, so. [Laughs].
33:51
It should be in there that’s right. So, the police stop drivers and give awards for safe driving. [Participants laugh]. >>STOWELL: Wouldn’t that be [unclear]. OK, so, talk about it with your partner. We’re talking about your driving behavior, ok. Alright, so for drivers, what, what type of consequence is that, k. What’s the correct answer? >>PARTICIPANT 18: Positive reinforcement. >>STOWELL: It’s positive reinforcement, ok, very good. They’re gonna get harder, ok.
34:26
A coach removes a player from the game for committing a flagrant foul, ok. Guy goes up for a layup, he hacks him [makes sound] – you’re sitting on the bench, ok. For the player, what type of consequence is that? Alright so, the correct answer for this? >>PARTICIPANTS: Negative punishment. >>STOWELL: Negative punishment. >>PARTICIPANT 20: Can I ask a question? >>STOWELL: Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 20: Here’s what my students will often do, we were just talking about this.
34:52
They will say, um, ‘Couldn’t that be reinforcement of some kind, because you’re increasing the child’s behavior of not fouling?’ >>STOWELL: Then I would say, ‘We don’t talk about not-behaviors in this class, ok?’ [Laughs]. We don’t talk about un-behaviors, or, you know. >>PARTICIPANT 21: I would say though, it increases the chances that they will play fairly. >>STOWELL: Well, ok then, ok, if you talk about that behavior, that’s a different behavior. >>PARTICIPANTS: Fair play.
35:19
>>STOWELL: And, ok, if they play fair and it prevents them from sitting on the bench, then what is that? >>PARTICIPANTS: Negative. >>STOWELL: That’s negative reinforcement. >>PARTICIPANT 22: That’s exactly what I said. If I turn this around, and I’ll say ‘Well that’s good that you see that – >>STOWELL: Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 22: – but that’s not the question they’re asking. >>STOWELL: Exactly, ok. So focus on the behavior that’s in the question, not a subsequent behavior which may be changed
35:43
by its own consequences, ok, we’re talking about the behavior of committing the foul, ok. Excellent point. Yes. >>PARTICIPANT 23: Um, I think it’s to me [unclear] almost like diagramming a sentence. Have them first go find the behavior and then what the consequence. And then you don’t have to interpret ‘well what if this happens?’ >>PARTICIPANT 24: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >>PARTICIPANT 23: You just look at the behavior that’s presented. >>STOWELL: Right.
35:54
>>PARTICIPANT 23: It’s the coach – we’re looking at the coach’s behavior. The coach removes the player for doing something, so it’s – the coach is removing, um, because the player has done this, the coach removes him >>STOWELL: Exactly, yes. >>PARTICIPANT 23: and that’s the consequence of the behavior. >>STOWELL: Exactly. >>PARTICIPANT 25: And honestly, to take away arguing on a test, I underline the behavior, like so in all of our practice problems, the behavior is underlined – >>STOWELL: Yeah.
36:03
>>PARTICIPANT 25: – so that when they wanna argue because they’re interpreting it differently, they know, they’re like ‘We’re looking at this underlined behavior. What’s the consequence?’ It just has helped us over the years, to avoid a lot of that reading into the debate questions and the debate – especially on tests. >>STOWELL: Yeah, for those of you who could hear, she said: ‘Just underline the behavior in the question,’ ok, or when, when they’re contending it, underline the behavior.
36:47
[Participants discuss] >>STOWELL: Alright, for the baseball player who makes an error, ok, a base- uh, their teammate glares, glares at him or her, ok, what type of consequence is that? >>PARTICIPANTS: Positive punishment. >>STOWELL: It’s positive punishment, very good, ok. They commit the error, they get the nasty look, hopefully they do it less in the future, ok. A suspected criminal confesses to a crime, which ends the interrogation. [Participants discuss]
37:17
Oh you guys are good, but students, on this one, they always get stuck. They start thinking about, well let’s see, was, was the interrogation added, uh, [noise]. Boy, they just start reading all kinds of stuff into this question, but, but focus on the behavior: the confessing to the crime, and its immediate consequence is the removal of the interrogation, which means the next time he’s interrogated, what’s he gonna do? >>PARTICIPANT 26: Confess.
37:46
>>STOWELL: Confess, ok, that behavior has been strengthened, so it is negatively reinforcement. You clean your room and your mom stops nagging you, uh. [Participants discuss]: Negative reinforcement, well, yeah negative reinforcement. >>STOWELL: It’s negative reinforcement, good, ok, but students are like ‘Oh but you’re adding the nagging’, ok, no! That’s, that’s the mom’s behavior, ok, we’re talking about the child who, who cleans the room and it ends the nagging.
38:16
Alright, your older brother sits on you until he sa- you say he is the ‘King of the World’. After you say it, ok, he gets off. [Participants discuss]: Negative reinforcement. >>STOWELL: Negative reinforcement. And the reason I, I have several of these examples is cause that’s the one that I think is most confusing to students. Negative reinforcement k. They tend to confuse it with punishment, which has a completely opposite effect on the behavior.
38:40
A rate receives electric shock to its brain every time it presses a lever. The rat presses the lever more frequently. [Participants discuss] >>STOWELL: Positive reinforcement, ok, and so, sh- here, we have positive reinforcement working as a shock acting as a reinforcer, because it’s delivered directly to uh, the reward pathways in the brain. Ok, uh, a teenager is late for school and loses her cell phone for a day. She is less likely to be late in the future. >>PARTICIPANTS: [Discussion].
39:10
Negative punishment. >>STOWELL: Negative punishment, ok, very good. When you buckle your seatbelt, the tone in your car shuts off, ok. You are more likely to buckle next time. >>PARTICIPANTS: Negative reinforcement >STOWELL: Negative reinforcement, good, ok. So, [clears throat], after raking the leaves in the yard, you receive a Justin Bieber CD, ok. You rake the leaves less often. >>PARTICIPANTS: [Laugh]. Positive punishment. >>STOWELL: Positive punishment, ok. JB, you know. Never say never.
39:39
Right? Uh, after completing your homework, you get your cell phone back. >>PARTICIPANTS: Positive reinforcement. >>STOWELL: Positive reinforcement, ok. Alright so. Why did I give you so many examples? >>PARTICIPANT 27: We need to do that for our students. >>STOWELL: Cause y-, we and our students need a lot of practice on these because they carry in these preconceptions that they just can’t seem to drop, you know, what positive and negative mean, and it will confuse them.
40:09
So, give them lots of opportunities. In fact, I, I’ve, I’ve taken out a number of examples, and there might be a full class period where I just ask these questions over and over and over, uh, and then when they come back to the next class period, I ask a few more, usually about negative reinforcement, ok, and it just, it just takes them that long for them to get it. So, the main, the take-home points for operant conditioning: Identify the behavior and its consequence ok uh.
40:34
Will the consequence strengthen or weaken the behavior? Was something added or removed? It has nothing to do with good or bad. And remember, you can’t do nothing, ok, unless you’re dead. So, uh, always focus on the actual behaviors that are occurring, ok. Let’s not confuse students, uh, or ourselves, ok. There’s actually only one, one place in my whole psych of learning course, which I talk about not reinforcing a behavior, ok.
41:04
It’s differential reinforcement of zero responding, k, but otherwise I say, let’s, you know, that’s the only time that I, I talk about reinforcing the absence of a behavior, k. But you can also think about it as reinforcing every other behavior except the one you’re trying to get rid of, ok, which is why it’s sometimes called differential reinforcement of other behavior. Alright, if I’d been keeping track electronically, we’d have some team scores at this, at this point.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat