Download LCog paper 1

Operating Capacity
1
Michael J. Walk
APPL 603
1 October 2006
The Operating Capacity of Operant Conditioning:
Why Operant Principles Should Be Applied in Limited Contexts
Learning about the principles of operant psychology can be entertaining for a few,
enlightening for some, and ennui-producing for many. Discussing real-life situations in terms of
reinforcers, punishers, discriminative stimuli, and conditioned responses is often seen by the
general public as a past-time for the draconian and lab-coat donning scientific community—
ruling over rats in boxes. Society often limits human applications of operant psychology to the
areas of potty training and treating the emotionally or mentally handicapped. Vigorous
application of operant principles in the dominant socializing institutions is rarely seriously
considered. In fact, humans have a tendency to become offended if, after learning one can shape
a pigeon to peck at a colored key to receive food pellets, it is suggested that human behaviors are
the products of similar processes of reinforcement. We are resistant to the idea that our
environments control our behaviors. Even if we concede that operant conditioning is a powerful
tool for behavioral control, we are quite reticent to apply that tool on a large-scale—
incorporating operant principles into schools, businesses, and families. Why is there so much
resistance to the rigorous application of operant psychology? Is there any legitimate reason why
America’s social engineers (teachers, parents, employers, presidents, etc.) should not thoroughly
and fastidiously apply operant principles on a societal and institutional level in order to
intentionally shape the most desirable forms of human behavior?
This paper will discuss and investigate some reasons humans tend to defend against
explaining and controlling their own behaviors with operant science, and will propose some
Operating Capacity
2
philosophical and scientific arguments on the weaknesses of operant psychology when applied
on a large scale. Objections to mass operant conditioning fall into two basic categories:
arguments about human dignity, freedom, and self-control, and arguments from the science of
psychology.
Human Dignity, Freedom, and Self-Control
Although humans are quite willing to attribute their socially inappropriate behaviors to
external events, they are unwilling to explain their appropriate behaviors in terms of the
environment. We like to think that our behaviors, especially our positive ones, are a product of
our personalities and that we are in complete control of our own actions. We balk at the
suggestion that our behaviors are manifested, not through some conscious act of will, but through
a series of learned reinforcement contingencies, as is suggested by operant psychology. It is easy
for us to accept that the rat presses the bar to obtain his food, but admitting that we each exhibit
our own “bar pressing” behaviors to obtain food, acceptance, and other pleasures sounds too
hedonistic—too undignified. We like to think that we operate on a higher plane than furry white
rodents, drooling dogs, and pecking pigeons, because we feel there is something degrading about
being the product of our environments—about being controlled. In the core of our culture is the
belief that all people should be free from control—free to choose their own destinies, spouses,
jobs, and hobbies.
Even though we like to think we are unconditionally free, psychology as a whole is
founded upon the idea that human behavior, just like other environmental phenomena, can be
studied, and that through careful observation, the laws governing it can be found. Although
operant theory is one of the most robust and applicable schools of psychology, we must
remember that operant psychology is only one out of a profusion of theories on human behavior.
Operating Capacity
3
The common resistance to operant science’s deterministic view of human behavior takes into
account a more comprehensive understanding of the human condition. Mainly, the human person
is, in a dynamic and almost inconceivable way, both a product of and a producer of its
surroundings and history. Every individual is a unique creature, a mélange of experiences,
preferences, neurological organizations, cognitive schemas, and social observations (just to name
a few components of the individual psyche). Human beings do operate on the environment in
order to obtain reinforcers, but that is only one aspect of the total human experience.
In summary, human beings control and are controlled; they learn and also teach. We must
hold onto our freedom, dignity, and self-control if only to keep alive that aspect of humanity that
is above and beyond the realm of biological “bar-pressing”, which represents only one facet of
existence. We must keep alive human responsibility. We must always remember the power of the
self not only to control its surroundings but also to transcend them. Relying on operant principles
as the backbone of human socialization overlooks and undervalues the aspects of human
existence beyond the scope of the deterministic view.
Arguments from Psychology
Defining Behaviors
Part of the problem with using operant psychology to shape “the most desirable forms of
human behavior” is defining what behaviors are the most desirable. Certainly most could agree
that altruistic behaviors are desirable, but what about competitive behaviors? In a single simple
environment, it is usually easy to see what human behaviors should be shaped. For example, in a
kindergarten classroom, target behaviors could be staying in seat, raising hand, remaining silent
when the teacher is speaking, sharing, and controlling all bodily functions, to name a few.
However, defining positive behaviors becomes more complex in, for example, an 8th grade
Operating Capacity
4
classroom. Some kindergarten targets remain (i.e., hand-raising, sitting, and silence), but what
about social concern? What about friendship? And with whom? What about intimacy—same-sex
or other-sex or both? Let us look at a 12th-grade classroom. Certainly the kindergarten targets
remain, but what about prophylactic use? Is that a target behavior? Or should we shape all
sexually capable teens to abstain? Who decides these issues? What about vocations? Can we use
operant conditioning to develop a desire for positive social contribution that will be maintained
outside of the operant setting? As it becomes less obvious what positive behaviors to shape, it
should also become more obvious that the control given to a school to condition whatever
behaviors it sees fit can directly impinge on the socializing task of the family.
What place does the family’s belief system have in the mass-operant school? For
example, a family may want their children to begin working right after graduating high-school,
but if the school attempts to shape a desire for higher education; who wins out? What happens to
the youth caught between these two contradictory demands? What happens when a family wants
their young girl to maintain a strong sense of moral right and wrong, but the school attempts to
increase the frequency of open-minded behaviors? These conflicts between school and family are
just a few examples of the possible areas of contention created when operant psychology is
applied en masse. Although operant principles, wisely applied within limited settings, can
certainly contribute to society, letting the operant power go unchecked and without limitation
would be baneful.
Limitations of Operant Conditioning
Even though operant principles have been shown to work across various settings and with
a cornucopia of creatures, as more scientific research is conducted, a few caveats have been
Operating Capacity
5
added to the operant understanding of behavior. Operant principles, when applied to humans in
social settings, need to be surrounded with qualifiers.
One of the first qualifiers is that people exist in relationship with other people. Therefore,
the completely objective and disconnected contingency manager cannot exist. Most human
beings are aware of being directly controlled. And, as self-identity develops, they become
increasingly resistant to overt control by others. A person who is the subject of operant
conditioning may (sometimes unknowingly) condition the conditioner. The operant relationship
between subject and manager is reciprocal in many ways. For example, a kindergartener may
learn that she can increase the likelihood of getting reinforced for positive behaviors by first
drawing attention to herself by acting out, thus she has conditioned the manager to attend to her
positive behaviors. This rarely accounted for but often-present reciprocity is a major impediment
to effectively applying operant conditioning in social settings.
Social contexts supply a significant challenge to operant science. For example, several
problems may quickly develop in an operant classroom. Considering the unique reinforcements
and schedules present in the room, students would quickly become cognizant of the differences
among the individual behavioral programs. A student might ask, “Why do I only get a cookie
every once and a while when I raise my hand, but Joe gets one every time?” Jealousy, anger,
frustration, and ultimately behavioral regression may begin to occur. In social settings, it is
difficult to fully implement operant conditioning (without serious complications) because of the
continual confounding interactions between the learners.
Another qualifier is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. A student
who receives a treat for a positive behavior is being motivated extrinsically rather than
intrinsically. While it is true that behaviors can transition between both types of motivation, what
Operating Capacity
6
happens to the behavior when the reinforcement contingency is removed and intrinsic motivation
is absent? Behaviors maintained by reinforcement (i.e., extrinsically motivated behaviors) are
subject to extinction when the reinforcement is no longer present (Lutz, 2005). In order to
maintain the behavior, the positive reinforcement needs to be perpetually applied. If so, of what
real social value is that behavior?
A third qualifier is the simple fact that most of operant conditioning has been researched
and developed on individual organisms. Operant principles work best when applied to an isolated
individual. There is no reinforcer or punisher that will achieve the same effects across all
members of a species. Each individual is different and responds idiosyncratically to reinforcers
based upon their current psychological or physiological needs. It is true that food works as a
reinforcer with virtually every rat, but only after they have all been starved in order to create the
need to eat. We cannot use the same privation on children. The use of positive reinforcement on
such a large scale is limited by the need to attend to the continuously varying need states of each
individual organism.
Of course, there are other concepts or objects that can be used as positive reinforcement
instead of food. Humans, in particular, can find social approval, love, or affection reinforcing.
However, in order to maintain the saliency of any reinforcer, the contingency manager must
exercise a great deal of control. He must make sure the organism has no other access to that
reinforcer so that the organism’s only way of obtaining it is by emitting the target behavior.
However, anyone who has worked in populations under strict control know that, in spite of the
best efforts of guards, orderlies, doctors, and the like, human beings have a capacity to somehow
obtain what they want even when they are restricted from having it. The amount of control
necessary for successful mass conditioning is limited simply by the fact that social environments
Operating Capacity
7
contain a plethora of confounding variables and alternative sources of reinforcement. For
example, if a teacher dispenses positive regard as a reinforcer for appropriate classroom
behaviors, what would keep the students from obtaining the positive regard of their classmates
by emitting inappropriate classroom behaviors? The students would acquire the desired
reinforcer by emitting the opposite of the target behaviors—without having to emit the target
behaviors at all.
Another difficulty in applying operant conditioning to real-life situations is the paradox
of generalization and discrimination. Much research has been conducted investigating
organisms’ abilities to discriminate and generalize operant contingencies across different
discriminative stimuli. This research has found discrimination and generalization to be
perplexing phenomena (see Lutz, 2005, chap. 7). And the paradoxical summation of these
phenomena is this: the more control, the less generalization (Bates, 2006). The more control that
is applied by the contingency manager in order to achieve the optimum situation for operant
learning to occur, the less that learning can be applied to other situations. The contingency
manager in any given situation, whether it is a teacher, a parent, or other authority, who
knowledgeably and thoroughly applies operant principles to shape a person’s behavior can only
control the immediate context in which the manager works. If behaviors are carefully reinforced,
punished, and extinguished within that context, the amount to which those learning contingencies
will be in effect in other contexts is diminished. Even if all employees within a given institution
are well schooled on operant principles and the particular behavioral plan set up for each
individual learner, the effects of such careful control would only be seen within that institution.
When the learner leaves that environment, all control will be lost, and the learner will not
generalize their learned behaviors outside of the institutional context. Rats trained in skinner
Operating Capacity
8
boxes don’t press bars when back in their cages. If positive behaviors are only present in one
single, well-controlled situation, what has society gained?
A Compromise
Given the inherent complexity of the human organism and the limitations of operant
psychology, it is wise to use caution and scientific humility when attempting to control behavior
by using operant principles. It is best, given the interactive contexts of most human situations, to
combine the powers of operant psychology with other theories of learning and behavior (e.g.,
cognitive psychology and social learning theory). However, many social institutions are
currently far too cautious and erroneously refrain from using the powerful tool of reinforcement
to aid in the socialization and education of their populations. The reasons for failing to utilize the
full potential of operant psychology are, assuredly, as wide and varied as the populations to
which it could be applied. We should use the technology of behaviorism to help repair
individuals lacking the capacity to emit desirable behaviors in typical social environments. If a
person or child is functioning positively in society, there is no need to augment—and thus further
complicate and convolute—their learning histories with careful and conscientious use of
reinforcement. If the socially desirable behaviors can be found in people whose contingencies are
not scientifically managed, then why complicate the issue by using a science that produces its
own set of side effects? If used appropriately and wisely by clinical practitioners, teachers, and
employers, in order to shape and maintain positive behaviors not already being emitted within
the scope of their given institutions, then behaviorism has helped create a better world.
Operating Capacity
References
Bates, J. (2006, September 26). Lecture presented in Applied Psychology 603. University of
Baltimore, Baltimore, MD.
Lutz, J. (2004). Learning and memory (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
9