This paper addresses core concepts in behavioral learning theory through a series of applied examples drawn from everyday life. Topics covered include classical and operant extinction, continuous versus intermittent reinforcement schedules, punishment procedures and their effectiveness, overshadowing in classical conditioning, conditioned reinforcers and punishers, positive and negative reinforcement, shaping, behavior modification, goal-setting for behavior change, and observational learning. Each concept is illustrated with concrete personal or instructional scenarios, making abstract behavioral principles accessible and practically grounded.
Classical extinction occurs by withdrawing the reinforcing stimulus. For example, failing to ever praise a dog or reward it with food after it "shakes hands" on cue may eventually result in the animal refusing to perform the trick. Operant extinction can also occur without the stimulus being given that originally provoked the behavior. A rat trained to push a lever on a dispenser for seeds — when that dispenser no longer delivers food — will soon stop pushing the lever.
Operant conditioning can also be used to condition an opposing behavior, effectively driving the original behavior to extinction. Using another method of dispensing food, such as giving the rat food when it pushes a different button that delivers food down an alternate chute, will extinguish the lever-pushing behavior entirely.
The key distinction between the two is that classical extinction involves the removal of an unconditioned or reinforcing stimulus paired with a conditioned stimulus, while operant extinction involves the removal of the consequence (reinforcement) that was maintaining a voluntary behavior.
Continuous schedules of reinforcement are necessary to teach a new task quickly, but should be switched to intermittent schedules once the behavior has been adopted with some regularity. If continuous reinforcement is maintained indefinitely, the behavior will be rapidly extinguished the moment reinforcement is unavailable — for example, if a pet owner cannot reward the animal with a treat on a given day, or a parent cannot give a child a reward when the child earns an "A."
Intermittent reinforcement makes learned behaviors more resistant to extinction because the learner cannot predict exactly when the reward will come, and so continues performing the behavior in anticipation of eventual reinforcement. This mirrors how intermittent reinforcement schedules function in broader behavioral research — variable schedules in particular tend to produce the most durable behavioral responses.
An effective punishment should be swift, proportional to the offense, and cause genuine discomfort to the child. For example, if a child steals Halloween candy from a sibling's collection, an effective punishment would be to require the child to give back a greater amount of candy than was stolen. This causes a real loss: rather than gaining from the action, the child ends up worse off than before. The disproportionate consequence creates a meaningful deterrent.
"How competing stimuli disrupt conditioning and create conditioned reinforcers"
"Personal examples of positive and negative reinforcement"
"Teaching through shaping and modifying problem behaviors"
"Learning through observation in classical and operant contexts"
You’re 28% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.