Historical Context Of Reinforcement

Part A: Historical Context of Reinforcement

In the behavioral science the term, reinforcement signifies strengthening a behavior. Many learning theories consist of some form of strenghthening or weakening a behavior, in which withholding or presenting reinforcement may decrease or increase the future occurrence of a behavior (Skinner, 1953). The application of reinforcement varies between theorists and the type of learning implied.

Ivan Pavlov (1928) demonstrated the use of reinforcement was connected between the pairings of an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and a conditioned stimulus (CS). Pavlov’s experiements consisted of presenting meat powder, an unconditioned stimulus to a dog and as a result it produced salivation. A bell tone, the

Premack (1963) examined the rate differential relationship between the activities of four Cebus monkeys. In his experiment, the monkeys were placed in cages and were give four objects (a lever, a plunger, a hinged flap, and a horizontal lever) to play with. In the contingency sessions, different pairs of items were shown. One of the items was the operant response and the other one served as the potential reinforce. Premack locked the reinforcer and it was not accessible until an operant response had taken place. In a combination of six different phases an operant response (low-probabilty response) and a reinforce (high-probabilty response) were tested. For example, the contingent relationships between a plunger pulling, lever-pressing, and door opening exemplified the notion of the premack principle. Premack (1963) showed the lever was the reinforce for both operant responses, the plunger pulling and door opening. Also, door opening reinforced plunger pulling, but it did not reinforce lever pulling. The six results from the monkeys showed that the lever was the most probable behavior and that it reinforced the rest of the responses. Another important result Premack (1963) found was based on the fact the door opening behavior was a reinforce when contingent on the plunger pulling. When it was contingent on the lever pulling, it served as a reinforceable behavior. Dependent on the behavior’s

Premack (1962) deprived his subjects, the rats of water for almost a whole day and then measured the subjects’ behavior in an environment in which they could drink water or run on a wheel. He found the animals spent more time drinking water than running, after being deprived of water. Then, Premack set up a relationship between running and drinking. He had the rats run on the activity wheel. When they ran, their behavior of running was reinforced by a few seconds of drinking water. Therefore, the behavior of running was increased when it resulted in opportunity to access water. Afterwards, the rats were permiited to drink water freely. Premack then indicated the rats could choose between drinking and running; the rats ran more than drank water. Premack (1962) stated running reinforced drinking because running occurred more often than drinking. Premack also established. If the rats drank any amount of water the wheel locked. Premack (1962) demonstrated drinking increased when it produced running. Overall, the study showed that drinking reinforced running, when the rats were motivated to drink, or if running was the preferred activity, running reinforced drinking water (Premack, 1962). Therefore, depending on the circumstances, a high probability response may be used to reinforce a low-probabilty