operant conditioning
Operant Conditioning
B.F Skinner based his work on the work of Edward Thorndike who developed the law of effect theory (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2013). Through his work Skinner went on to identify fundamental principles of learning, based on experiments with pigeons and rats. From these experiments, Skinner developed an explanation as for how humans learn behaviors or change behaviors, and went on to infer that patterns of reinforcement shape behavior, which is operant conditioning. Comparing and contrasting positive and negative reinforcement in operant conditioning gives an understanding of how both are a necessity in operant conditioning. Both positive and negative reinforcement are a necessity in operant conditioning; one form of reinforcement is more effective than the other. Several reasons exist to why one form of reinforcement is more effective than the other. A given scenario can show how to apply operant conditioning to shape behavior and how the creation of a reinforcement schedule can apply to a certain selected behavior. B. F. Skinner developed the “term” operant conditioning in 1937 (Staddon& Cerutti, 2003). Skinner 's theory of operant conditioning explains how organisms acquire learned behaviors that they exhibit. The main focus of operant conditioning is to use reinforcement as a reward or punishment to increase or decrease the likelihood of behavior (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003). Operant conditioning is a means or method of learning, which occurs through or by reward and punishment for an organism’s behavior (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2013). Basically, a learner receives either reward or punishment for behavior. The learner actively has to participate in and perform a certain type of behavior to receive either a reward or punishment. In operant conditioning, behavior, and the resulting consequences of said behavior are the emphasis. Therefore, there is an association in relation to behavior and the consequence of
B.F Skinner based his work on the work of Edward Thorndike who developed the law of effect theory (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2013). Through his work Skinner went on to identify fundamental principles of learning, based on experiments with pigeons and rats. From these experiments, Skinner developed an explanation as for how humans learn behaviors or change behaviors, and went on to infer that patterns of reinforcement shape behavior, which is operant conditioning. Comparing and contrasting positive and negative reinforcement in operant conditioning gives an understanding of how both are a necessity in operant conditioning. Both positive and negative reinforcement are a necessity in operant conditioning; one form of reinforcement is more effective than the other. Several reasons exist to why one form of reinforcement is more effective than the other. A given scenario can show how to apply operant conditioning to shape behavior and how the creation of a reinforcement schedule can apply to a certain selected behavior. B. F. Skinner developed the “term” operant conditioning in 1937 (Staddon& Cerutti, 2003). Skinner 's theory of operant conditioning explains how organisms acquire learned behaviors that they exhibit. The main focus of operant conditioning is to use reinforcement as a reward or punishment to increase or decrease the likelihood of behavior (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003). Operant conditioning is a means or method of learning, which occurs through or by reward and punishment for an organism’s behavior (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2013). Basically, a learner receives either reward or punishment for behavior. The learner actively has to participate in and perform a certain type of behavior to receive either a reward or punishment. In operant conditioning, behavior, and the resulting consequences of said behavior are the emphasis. Therefore, there is an association in relation to behavior and the consequence of
References: Olson, M. H. & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2013). An introduction to theories of learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 115-44. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205795898?accountid