Family delinquency and crime: part two

¶ … respondent learning theory and the operant learning (or conditioning) theory. It is the opinion expressed in this paper that by studying the operant conditioning in people one can best explain the dynamics behind deviant (delinquent) behavior; and also, B.F. Skinner's approach to the operant learning (conditioning) theory is the most practical way to launch research into deviant behavior.

RESPONDENT THEORY:

The respondent theory has as its driver the "automatic nervous system" as described (p. 34-35) by the authors. Organisms either acquire an aversion to something or they acquire an attraction. That explains how humans learn to respond, the theory goes. The first descriptive incidence that led to the formulation of this theory was the famous Pavlov experiments with dogs. The canines in his research were seen to be salivating when the kennel door was opened, because they knew there was the distinct possibility that food would be forthcoming.

Anyone with a dog or a cat can create the same response by banging a fork on an open can of dog food or cat food; while the animal is resting or snoozing somewhere else in the house, and the owner bangs on the can of dog or cat food, that critter will come scurrying into the kitchen in the believe that something tasty awaits. So the "unconditioned response" of a cat or dog hustling into the kitchen is due to the "unconditioned stimulus" (banging on the rim of an opened can with a fork). The textbook (p. 35) goes on to describe "little Albert" who was scared by the loud noise behind him and hence, came to fear white rats.

The author points out that a great deal of the respondent learning that happens early in one's life "involves the pairing of 'neutral stimuli' with "primary reinforcers"; things such as sleep, food, and comforting contact with other humans (like mothers) are labeled primary reinforcers. After a child has been nurtured and loved by a mom since birth, just the mere sight of mom brings about a positive emotional reaction from the child. This is part of the respondent theory in action. And when a neutral stimuli such as the child getting a reward for being good results in having value (because it is connected with a primary reinforcer) it then is called a secondary reinforcer.

The author is quick to point out that neutral stimuli won't always mean pleasing associations since this aspect of respondent learning is also where young children learn to be afraid of things. If a child bobs underwater briefly and chokes on the water that experience - the water playing the role of a neutral stimuli - could result in that child fearing to dive underwater or be around deep water the rest of her life.

And other respondent learning / conditioning examples include: a) a person who is very self-conscious about the extra weight he is carrying may learn to avoid playing at water parks or hanging out at the beach because of the embarrassment of wearing a swimsuit; and b) a young person enthusiastic about owning her own car will work faithfully and diligently at a job she dislikes just so the money keeps flowing into her savings account.

OPERANT or INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING:

As to the "operant (also called 'instrumental' learning) learning" theory, it is different from the respondent learning theory in that the learning is linked to the "voluntary nervous" system; respondent learning is based on "autonomic nervous system." The results of the operant learning theory can be "desirable or aversive," the authors explain - it can go either way. And when the results are indeed desirable those results reinforce the behavior. Another difference between respondent learning and operant / instrumental learning is that operant learning is concerned with the "manner in which behavior is influenced by consequences."

When something welcome or something good comes to the individual following an action that is called "positive reinforcement" under the operant theory. A simple example of this dynamic is given in the text (p. 38); i.e., when a little girl is praised lavishly for saying "thank you" or "please" at the appropriate moments, she is certainly inclined to say thank you and please often because being praised feels good. The same is true when a girl or boy wear something that everyone praises; they will want to wear that outfit again because being praised is a wonderful thing to receive. And the author also points out that positive reinforcement can increase the frequency of "deviant" behavior as well. A bully in the schoolyard kicks a frail little boy and the bully's friends give him high fives and laugh with him at the pathetic weakness of the frail little boy. This is positive reinforcement for a deviant act.

In the same sense, under operant behavior an individual's behavior can be affected through negative reinforcement. In other words, in the same sense that people are likely to repeat actions in which the end result brings something of value, something to be appreciated, individuals are also likely to repeat certain behaviors in which something was taken away or canceled due to the unpleasantness of that canceled thing.

The author gives the example of the boy or young man who forgets a girlfriend's birthday and she is very upset; she broods and storms around and that makes him very uncomfortable. In the future, in order to avoid her being hostile again - linked to his distaste for her rage - he's going to remember that birthday. So humans are apt to do again the things that take away negativity, put another way.

SIMILARITIES (and DIFFERENCES) BETWEEN OPERANT and RESPONDENT THEORIES of BEHAVIOR: Because operant and respondent theories share a number of similarities, there are those in the research field who would do away with the distinctions between them. An article in the journal Psychological Record (Rehfeldt, et al., 1998) suggests that there is nothing new in the fact that researchers criticize the two-factor learning theory (operant and respondent); "periodic doubts have been raised" often over the past few decades, Rehfeldt writes. The operant and respondent theories became distinctly separate research traditions, Rehfeldt explains, because the respondent theory emerged as the predominant experimental tradition in Europe and the operant theory - which developed into "radical or Skinnerian behaviorism" - became the main learning theory tradition in the United States. Researchers who embraced operant learning theory practices took the lead of Skinner and were "...mainly interested in the consequential control of behavior," Rehfeldt goes on.

The author quotes Skinner as saying, "Operant conditioning may be described without mentioning any stimulus which acts before the response is made" (Rehfeldt). The way Skinner saw it, the cause of the respondent "precedes it," and in operant theory, the cause of the operant "succeeds it." The author of this article, meanwhile, argues that another reason that operant and respondent learning theories have been clumped together as one theory is that "instances of operant behavior...also include instances of respondent behavior."

Taking the discussion a bit further in terms of operant and respondent behavior being similar - because "both always occur in the presence of stimuli and never in their absence" - (Rehfeldt) notes how some researchers point out that the operant-respondent distinction is always made "on the basis of single instances of behavior." In operant experimental procedures, the researcher arranges empirically for a stimulus to follow each response instance. it's all laid out and based on a single instance. And in respondent preparations for an experiment, the researcher arranges for a stimulus to precede each response instance. Is there a flaw in this dynamic that brings the two theories so close together as to be joined in a kind of psychological matrimony?

Human behaviorist and psychologist William Schoenfeld noted - and is paraphrased by Rehfeldt - that naturally occurring behavior "is not partitionable into separate instances," even though those behaviors can be recorded in that way. Behavior, Schoenfeld wrote, happens as a "continuous stream" of activity rather than on a "trial-to-trial" basis, such as the way research is conducted into learning patterns. Hence, it seems clear to author Rehfeldt - based on Schoenfeld's argument - that behavior streams for both operants and respondents, "involved stimuli and responses." Moreover, additional research (Donahoe, Burgos, and Palmer, 1993) alluded to by Rehfeldt posits that in operant preparations, organisms "are always in contact with some source of stimulation prior to reinforcer deliveries" to the extent that respondent relations between stimuli may also be established. And in respondent preparations, "organisms are always engaged in responses prior to the presentation of unconditioned stimuli" - which indeed means that operant relations between responses and unconditioned stimuli may also be established.

And so the upshot of all these comparisons and contrasts - which can become confusing to the layperson digging through this material - is that each instance of an operant contains "an embedded respondent." There is a link between the two theories of learning that cannot be broken down or ignored, according to this research by Rehfeldt.

An article in the Journal of Sex Research brings attention to operant conditioning by juxtaposing - comparing and contrasting - it with the social learning theory that Julian P. Rotter developed. Social learning in fact embraces aspects of operant conditioning (which is also known as "radical behaviorism"), and Rotter assumed that "behavior is goal directed and emphasized expectations of reward and perceived values of rewards." Those rewards are the basis for a person to model his or her behavior after the behavior of others. "Rewards for desired behavior are presumed to reinforce that behavior," (Hogben, et al., 1998) Rotter asserted, and that part of his model matches up pretty closely with operant conditioning.