The Training Procedure For Pigeons

Reinforcement is the main contributing factor in operant conditioning. There is more than one way to go about establishing reinforcement, if a delay occurs between the response and the reinforcement the response may not become strengthened. It is likely that if the reinforcement occurs immediately after the response that there will be a definite strengthening of the response. Continuous reinforcement is when reinforcement occurs at every instance of the desired response. Intermittent reinforcement occurs when a response is reinforced some of the time. The different schedules of reinforcement influence patterns of response. Intermittent schedules offer greater resistance to extinction than continuous schedules.

Classical conditioning is often associated with physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s experiment with the salivating dog (Hutchinson, 2015). This experiment focused on conditioning the dog to associate food with the bell while salivating, and eventually salivates when the bell is rung even without the presence of food. Operant conditioning theory is changed behavior as the result of a reinforcement (Hutchinson, 2015). In our society, we associate positive reinforcements with compliments, smiles, high-fives in order to encourage a behavior more. Negative reinforcement involves jail, detention, and grounding, and this is to stop a behavior from continuing. A cognitive social learning theory states that behavior can be learned through observations, beliefs, expectations, and imitation of others (Hutchinson, 2015). A major difference between cognitive social learning theory and the others, is a lack of manipulation to encourage the individual to follow through with a behavior. Rather, cognitive social learning theories suggest that a change in thinking can ultimately result in a change in behavior (Hutchinson, 2015).

Classical and operant conditioning are two important concepts central to behavioral psychology. While both result in learning, the processes are quite different. In order to understand how each of these behavior modification techniques can be used, it is also essential to understand how classical conditioning and operant conditioning differ from one another. Both classical and operant learning are psychological processes that lead to learning. Here learning refers to the process by which changes in behavior, including actions, emotions, thoughts, and the responses of muscles and glands,

Learning is the act of changing an organism’s behavior in response to an experience. Associative learning is when an organism links two events that occur close in time. When an organism learns to make associations, it is being conditioned. There are two types of conditioning. Operant conditioning is when an organism associates an action and the consequence of that action. It results in the organism adapting its behavior to maximize rewards and minimize punishment (Skinner). On the other hand, classical conditioning is a type of learning where an organism associates a certain stimulus and the response to it with a different stimulus. A neutral stimulus is associated with an unconditioned response to an unconditioned

Background (key works): Reinforcement theory is rooted in theory of operant conditioning based primarily on the work of the American behavior scientist B.F. Skinner (Borkowski, 2011). In contrast to Ivan Pavlov’ respondent conditioning controlled by

B.F. Skinner’s theory of Operant Conditioning has at its foundation a desire to demonstrate a “cause and

Learning is a fascinating concept. Everyone does it and everyone always has, but not everyone explores its eclectic process. That being said, through the course of history, it has been studied vehemently. Ivan Pavlov, a behaviorist, had some groundbreaking research on subclass of learning called classical conditioning. Coming across it incidentally, he discovered that dogs would salivate not only from eating food, but anything associated with them getting fed. Anything unnatural in their feeding process, he termed as the conditioned stimulus, which would result in the conditioned response of them salivating (Daniels). Though classical conditioning seems rather simple and commonsensible, the information psychologists have gathered from it has been revolutionary. It has shown psychologists the very basics of how we learn and adapt as organisms and opened the door for other studies (Myers 268). According to psychologists, learning is the process of acquiring new and relatively enduring information or behaviors (Myers 268).

Skinner (1948) was also influenced by Thorndike’s (1898) operant conditioning of cats and went on to use similar techniques to study conditioning in rats. Skinner studied how behaviour that is rewarded will be repeated, unlike behaviour that has a negative consequence. Skinner (1948) placed hungry rats in a ‘skinner box’ with a lever, when the lever was pressed, food was released and the rats soon learned that when they pressed the lever they would be rewarded. Skinner (1948) then placed rats in another box and administered them with an electric current. If the rats pressed the lever in this box it would stop the discomfort of the current. After repeating the rats quickly learnt to press the lever. Skinner (1948) argued that all human behaviour can be learned through operant conditioning (McLeod 2015).

This lab tests different forms of conditioning on a virtual rat named Sniffy. In this experiment we began with the virtual rat completely unconditioned and then worked towards getting Sniffy to pull the lever and get food on his own. We went through many steps to complete this task starting with getting Sniffy to notice the food chamber, the lever, and finally having Sniffy realize he can obtain food whenever he wanted by pressing the lever. Then, pushing it further, we made him press the level two, three, four and then five times to receive one pellet. All of these steps tested the idea that receiving the food as a reward will allow Sniffy to realize the benefits of learning and conditioning himself to do things that have a positive outcome more.

A virtual rat, Sniffy, was used for this experiment. Sniffy the Virtual Rat, Pro Version 3.0 allows for the demonstration of Pavlovian and operant conditioning of a virtual rat. Tom Alloway, Greg Wilson, and Jeff Graham, authors of Sniffy the Virtual Rat designed this program to be an affordable alternative for students to gain “access to the main phenomena of classical and operant conditioning that courses on the psychology of learning typically discuss” (Jakubow, 2007). The program allows for simulations for Pavlovian conditioning such as acquisition, extinction, spontaneous recovery, stimulus-intensity effects, compound conditioning, blocking, overshadowing, overexpectation, inhibition, sensory preconditioning,

Operant conditioning has made a significant contribution into the development of psychology. However, as with most psychological theories, this theory it has its strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, operant conditioning, with both its positive and negative aspects, is very important in promoting learning of desirable behaviors or removal of undesirable

Rescorla advances original theory by acknowledging a previous flaw of Pavlovian Conditioning and attempts to express a more ‘modern’ view by illustrating the circumstances producing learning in animals, the context of learning and the manner it effects behaviour. Thus suggesting that Pavlovian Conditioning is a form of associative learning, rather than reflex tradition as previously suggested. Furthermore, Rescorla emphasised how Pavlovian Conditioning still plays a fundamental role in modern psychology. However, it must be considered that this research is era dependent; being modern at the time of writing of 1988. Resultantly, one must consider if these arguments are still valid in 21st Century psychology, and if so, how. To further demonstrate

“‘Conditioning’ simply means learning, and the term ‘operant’ refers to something that acts upon something else. Operant conditioning, then, is a form of testing in which an animal learns that a response, such as pressing a lever, results in a consequence, such as a food pellet being delivered to the animal (Pritchett & Mulder, 2004).” In operant conditioning, there are two categories: reinforcement and punishment. Both can be utilized using either positive or negative strategies. In reinforcement tactics, the behavior is attempted to be increased. A positive example of this would be praising a child if they say something that resembles mama or dada for their first words. A negative example would be the parents not responding or even chiding the child for mumbling or not being very coherent. Each action is strengthened by the parents reinforcement of praise when saying the correct words or their disregard when the child does not sound coherent. In the positive example, praise is being offered so the child is receiving something, therefore making the reinforcement positive. When the parents ignore the wrong words that the child speaks, we describe

The process of classical conditioning follows the procedure from Pavlov’s salivation experiment. Before conditioning, when a bowl of dog food is presented the dog would “naturally” salivate at the mouth “in response to food”. Because this response occurs “automatically” and “prior training” isn’t required for hunger, this reaction is called an unconditioned response (UCR) which “is the response that is naturally elicited by the [UCS]” (Powell et al., 2013, pp. 112-115). When referring to a natural response--one is referring to an elicited reaction that is characterized as “an unlearned or innate reaction to [a] stimulus” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). Furthermore, the dog food is considered an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), which “is a stimulus that naturally elicits a response” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). According to Pavlov’s experiment, when a bell chimes without the presentation of dog food, the dog will not instinctually salivate (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). Since the bell didn’t initially “elicit salivation” naturally, it’s called a neutral stimulus (NS) (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). However, through conditioning, as the bell tone pairs with dog food continuously, the dog begins to salivate. Finally, after the conditioning process is completed, the pairing of “food” and the bell “now elicits salivation” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). Since the dog’s salivation required some type of continual prompting or, “prior training”, it’s reaction is considered a conditioned response (CR) “and the [bell]” is the conditioned stimulus (CS). By definition, a conditioned stimulus “is any stimulus that, although initially neutral, comes to elicit a response because it has been associated with an unconditioned stimulus” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). Responses triggered by a

One limitation of Classical Conditioning is that when a behaviour stops being performed, it is very easy for these connections to be lost. This is known an extinction. In the example of Pavlov’s dogs, if the conditioned stimulus, the bell, is presented often enough without the unconditioned stimulus, the meat, the