Operant vs. Respondent Learning Theory and Deviant Behavior

Introduction: Two Learning Theories

This paper examines two major frameworks in behavioral science: respondent learning theory and operant learning (or conditioning) theory. It is the position of this paper that by studying operant conditioning in people, one can best explain the dynamics behind deviant and delinquent behavior. Furthermore, B.F. Skinner's approach to operant learning theory is the most practical foundation from which to launch research into deviant behavior.

Respondent Learning Theory

The respondent theory is driven by the autonomic nervous system. Organisms either acquire an aversion to something or they acquire an attraction, and this mechanism explains how humans learn to respond. The first landmark instance that led to the formulation of this theory was the famous Pavlov experiments with dogs. The canines in his research were observed salivating when the kennel door was opened, because they associated that event with the distinct possibility that food would be forthcoming.

Anyone who owns a dog or cat can create the same response by banging a fork on an open can of pet food. While the animal is resting or snoozing elsewhere in the house, the owner's banging on the can will send that animal scurrying into the kitchen in anticipation of something tasty. The "unconditioned response" of the pet rushing to the kitchen is produced by the "unconditioned stimulus" — the banging sound. A classic textbook example involves "little Albert," a young child who was frightened by a loud noise and consequently came to fear white rats.

A great deal of the respondent learning that happens early in 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 mother since birth, the mere sight of the mother produces a positive emotional reaction in the child. This is respondent theory in action. When a neutral stimulus — such as a child receiving a reward for good behavior — gains value because it is connected with a primary reinforcer, it becomes what is called a secondary reinforcer.

Importantly, neutral stimuli do not always carry pleasing associations. This aspect of respondent learning is also where young children learn to fear things. If a child briefly goes underwater and chokes, that experience — with water playing the role of a neutral stimulus — could result in a lifelong fear of diving or being near deep water.

Other examples of respondent learning and conditioning include: (a) a person who is very self-conscious about his weight may learn to avoid water parks or the beach because of the embarrassment of wearing a swimsuit; and (b) a young person eager to own her first car will work faithfully at a job she dislikes just so the money keeps flowing into her savings account.

Operant and Instrumental Learning Theory

Operant — also called "instrumental" — learning theory differs from respondent learning theory in that the learning is linked to the voluntary nervous system, whereas respondent learning is based on the autonomic nervous system. The results of operant learning can be either desirable or aversive. When the results are desirable, they reinforce the behavior. Another key difference is that operant learning is concerned with the manner in which behavior is influenced by its consequences.

When something welcome or beneficial follows an action, that is called positive reinforcement under the operant theory. A simple example: when a little girl is lavishly praised for saying "thank you" or "please" at the appropriate moments, she is naturally inclined to repeat those words because being praised feels good. The same logic applies when a child wears something that everyone compliments — they will want to wear that outfit again. Significantly, positive reinforcement can also increase the frequency of deviant behavior. A bully in the schoolyard who kicks a frail child and receives high fives and laughter from his friends is being positively reinforced for a deviant act.

Under operant theory, behavior can also be shaped through negative reinforcement. Just as people are likely to repeat actions that produce something of value, individuals are also likely to repeat behaviors that remove or cancel something unpleasant. The example given is that of a young man who forgets his girlfriend's birthday and faces her anger and hostility. That discomfort motivates him to remember the birthday in the future in order to avoid her rage. In short, humans tend to repeat behaviors that eliminate negativity.

Conclusion: Skinner's Legacy and Practical Application

B.F. Skinner was the principal researcher who developed operant conditioning. According to the Public Broadcasting Service, Skinner made his mark on behavioral research when he broke away from Pavlov's classical conditioning theory. Pavlov's theory held that an existing behavior — such as a dog salivating for food — is produced by associating that behavior with a new stimulus, such as the ringing of a bell. Skinner, however, set out to demonstrate that operant conditioning can be used to actively shape behavior. His key insight was that rewarding a partial behavior or a random act that approximates the desired behavior moves the organism progressively closer to that goal. Typically, a child is rewarded with praise when she produces a sound that resembles a word; when the actual word is finally articulated, the reinforcement process is complete.

Skinner even developed teaching machines that were the forerunners of today's computer-based self-instruction. He was a true pathfinder, and his theories continue to command significant respect in behavioral science. For all of these reasons, Skinner's operant conditioning framework remains the most practical and powerful lens through which to study and explain deviant behavior.

Works Cited

Hogben, Matthew, & Dyme, Donn. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 58–72.

Rehfeldt, Ruth Anne, & Hayes, Linda J. (1998). The operant-respondent distinction revisited: Toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. Psychological Record, 48(2).

Skinner, B.F. (1998). A science odyssey: People and discoveries — B.F. Skinner 1904–1990. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from