How would you extinguish speeding? How could you extinguish speeding? If a person drove fast for thrills, then to extinguish speeding you would have to eliminate the thrills. This might occur naturally if, for example, a person grew bored with speeding.
The result would be extinction of speeding behavior in that individual. The term aversive control is used to cover situations in which behavior is motivated by the threat of an unpleasant stimulus. There are two main categories of behavior under aversive control: avoidance behavior and escape behavior.
Escape conditioning occurs when the animal learns to perform an operant to terminate an ongoing, aversive stimulus. It is a "get me out of here" or "shut this off" reaction, aimed at escaping pain or annoyance. Escape behavior is defined as occurring after an aversive stimulus starts. Escape behavior is therefore negatively reinforced reinforced by the eliminating a stimulus. For example, you could get a rat to jump off a platform into some water—which a rat is normally reluctant to do—by electrifying the top of the platform.
The rat will jump off the platform to escape. When the rat jumps off, it escapes the shock. If the platform is not electrified, and is the only place to rest from swimming, the rat will stay on the platform until it gets shocked. The jump is an escape behavior. Escape conditioning is converted into avoidance conditioning by giving a signal before the aversive stimulus starts.
Once the animal learns that a signal comes before an aversive stimulus, it will try to avoid the aversive stimulus by performing an anticipatory avoidance behavior. This kind of learning occurs quickly. It is very durable. For example, when we put anti-flea medication on two new kittens, they hated it. The next time we approached them with a tube of the medication, they ran out of the room. That early learning lasted for many months.
As a result, we had to use oral flea medication with those cats. Each time the animal carries out an avoidance maneuver, it feels relief, whether or not there was an actual threat. In that sense, avoidance behavior is self-reinforcing. It can keep going forever, even when the original threat is removed. This point was demonstrated in a classic experiment by psychologist Richard Solomon and colleagues Solomon, Kamin, and Wynne, In this research, called the shuttle box experiment, Solomon placed a dog in a large cage with two chambers.
A low wall separated the two chambers. When the researchers electrified the floor on one side, the dog jumped to the other side. This was escape conditioning because the dog jumped as soon as it felt the electric shock. If the researchers electrified the floor on the second side of the cage, the dog jumped back to the original side.
The dogs learned to jump when they heard the tone, rather than waiting for the shock. Now they were performing an avoidance behavior. The researchers found they could turn off the shock generator, and the dogs continued to jump each time they heard the tone.
The behavior never extinguished. The dogs did not allow themselves to discover the shock generator was turned off. This is an important pattern, because something similar happens to humans. Avoidance behavior is self-reinforcing.
Relief is the reinforcer, and relief occurs whether or not the threat is still present. Consequently, avoidance behaviors can go on forever, even if there is no longer a reason for it. A student who has trouble with math in high school may feel relief by avoiding math in college. Given a choice, the student might never take another math class, even if in reality the student would do well in a college math class.
The student feels relief each time math is avoided. The avoidance behavior could last forever unless the student summons up the courage to take math and find out "it is really not so bad. A handy 2x2 table of consequences shows the types of reinforcement and punishment we have discussed.
Spontaneous recovery refers to the sudden reappearance of a previously extinct response. In his research on operant conditioning , Skinner discovered that how and when a behavior is reinforced could influence how resistant it was to extinction. He found that a partial schedule of reinforcement reinforcing a behavior only part of the time helped reduce the chances of extinction.
Rather than reinforcing the behavior each and every time it occurs, the reinforcement is given only after a certain amount of time has elapsed or a certain number of responses have occurred.
This sort of partial schedule results in behavior that is stronger and more resistant to extinction. A number of factors can influence how resistant a behavior is to extinction.
The strength of the original conditioning can play an important role. The longer the conditioning has taken place and the magnitude of the conditioned response may make the response more resistant to extinction. Behaviors that are very well established may become almost impervious to extinction and may continue to be displayed even after the reinforcement has been removed altogether.
Some research has suggested that habituation may play a role in extinction as well. For example, repeated exposure to a conditioned stimulus may eventually lead you to become used to it, or habituated. Because you have become habituated to the conditioned stimulus, you are more likely to ignore it and it's less likely to elicit a response, eventually leading to the extinction of the conditioned behavior.
Personality factors might also play a role in extinction. One study found that children who were more anxious were slower to habituate to a sound. As a result, their fear response to the sound was slower to become extinct than non-anxious children.
Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Neurobiol Learn Mem. Skinner, BF. The Shaping of a Behaviorist. New York, Knopf, Facets of Pavlovian and operant extinction. Behav Processes. Schedules of Reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts; Benito KG, Walther M. Therapeutic process during exposure: Habituation model. J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord. Sensory-modulation disruption, electrodermal responses, and functional behaviors.
Dev Med Child Neurol. Coon D, Mitterer JO. Psychology: A Journey. Wadsworth Publishing; Skinner BF. A Case History in Scientific Method. Also, when you say he does it when he is anxious, and the thing about the sheepish look I get it! I wonder how much of it is stress driven. I think she was actually relieved when I gave her a job to do instead.
Just some thoughts. Good luck! And my next episode on the topic will be about the whole thing of inadvertently reinforcing and punishing dog behaviors by the micro-things we do. Good idea to work on training him to respond to my entering as a cue rather than waiting for me to say something.
Anxiety is definitely behind the jumping. I also meant to tell you that I took your advice on the window film as well. My neighbors across the stree recently installed a basketball hoop that has been drawing neighborhood kids in droves and driving my two crazy!! After reading your article, I decided to try wax paper as a temporary fix to see if it helped and it has!
From my experience jumping can be rewarding too just the act of paws touching things can be rewarding. If a dog is too sensitive and easily worried, this type of shaping is a very precarious balancing act. In fact, it is sometimes even impossible fortunately not very often.
I do understand that you are talking about the definitions used by academics, and I am talking about the emotions felt by a very sensitive dog — those are two different things. I do love your alternative behavior example as a way of setting up any dog for success. That works in so many situations but not in shaping a new behavior. Zani and Summer have mostly grown out of that, but Clara is still moderately sensitive in that way.
I think in many situations the lack of a consequence can be harder on a person or animal than a mildly unpleasant consequence. I wrote a post related to this shaping and stress a while back.
Rereading that post I would add one thing to it. When Clara was a puppy I captured, captured, and captured some more. To me that is fun. And it was low stress for her. Although Skinnerianism is simple, I do not think that outside a Skinner box we can slot everything into his Quadrants. I am not talking about behaviorism as defined by Skinner. In this blog I seek to explain current terminology as it is currently in use by professionals in the discipline, and help people understand its relevance to their lives.
You would be hard pressed to find anything controversial here. If I make a mistake I own up to it, correct it publicly, and credit the person who brought my attention to it if they choose.
You can prefer anyone you want to, and Thorndike was one of the biggies, but using different terminology from what degreed professionals in the field use is confusing to beginners who are trying to learn about learning and behavior. Behavior analysis is a field with complexity and beautiful nuance, but one thing I have learned is that you have to get the basics down first. Whether a consequence increases or decreases the likelihood of a behavior can only be determined by measuring what happens.
Teaching an incompatible behavior sitting to the same cue that often results in jumping is one technique to change the behavior. Is it aversive for the handler to leave? Is it punishment for the dog to fail to earn a treat for sitting? Is the approach of the handler positive?
No one should hurt a dog to teach him anything. A handler should use consequences that change behavior such that a dog does not learn to avoid the handler or the training experience. It is aversive. Surely it is -P which so leads to extinction. Ignoring jumping up could be described as -P which leads to extinction. I think P- and extinction can be interrelated. But I would not consider a time out extinction because it is an action and it is contingent. The dog does something, you respond by removing them from opportunities for reinforcement.
Just my opinion, but I think that one might tread the line. Thanks for the comment! Good points. Punishment is action and is contingent. I agree, though. Extinction is supposed to be an absence of consequence. The problem is removing results from jumping is almost impossible. The problem with time out is that it usually involves giving a cue or moving yourself. Either is a reward in a chain as you pointed out at the start. Extinction is only really extinguishing, when the unwanted behavior is no longer exercised.
So if you have a series of 10 repetitions, and the third is wrong extinction — no reinforcer was well as the 5th and the 8th and the 10th. But you DID withhold the reinforcer. Now, if you have a series of 10 repetitions, and the third is not reinforced, although it was correct, as was the 5th and the 8th and the 10th, we all know what we intend this to be.
One set of approximations set out to a random rate of reinforcement. For the next set could be the 2nd 5ht 8th and 9th not rewarded although the behaviors were correct. How do these trainers use extinction which is basically NO input — neither negative nor positive punisher — if they are using NRM.
0コメント