The following is a summary and outline of this episode.

011 - Operant conditioning to positive psychology

Welcome to PsyDactic - CAPs board study edition. I am your host, Dr. O'Leary, a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow in the national capital region. This is a podcast I designed to help myself and other CAPs fellows study for their boards. Anyone interested in human development and mental health will likely also get something out of it. For a run-down on how it is produced, please see Episode 001. I am using AI to assist me with the content creation and episode 1 explains how. Even though I am using AI, all the content in the podcast should be considered my opinion and no one else's. If you find errors in the content or have suggestions for improvement, I would love it if you could go to PsyDactic.Com and fill out a form there to let me know.

In the last episode, I introduced behaviorism, which took a strikingly different approach to human learning and development by basically assuming that everything we are on the inside is somehow learned from the environment, except for some of the most basic things we need for survival. Our inner life and the reasons we give for our decisions are more or less illusions. What we are is what we are conditioned by our environment to be. I started with classical conditioning, Pavlov, dogs, and scaring babies. Today I am going to move on to operant conditioning with Skinner, Thorndike and Siligman who liked to put animals into boxes and at times even shock them into complacency. However, shocking dogs later helped to lead Martin Seligman to a much brighter place: positive psychology.

Operant Conditioning and learned helplessness

While Classical conditioning was focused more on inducing physiological or innate responses in animals and humans when a conditioned stimulus was presented, operant conditioning was more concerned with influencing what appeared to be voluntary choices.

B.F. Skinner, Edward Thorndike, and Clark Hull were all prominent figures in the behaviorist tradition, each making significant contributions to our understanding of learning and behavior. While they shared a common focus on observable behavior and environmental influences, their approaches and specific ideas differed in important ways.

Edward Thorndike (1874-1949)

Experiments: Thorndike conducted experiments with cats placed in "puzzle boxes." The cats had to learn to perform a specific action (e.g., pull a string) to escape the box and receive a food reward.
Ideas: Thorndike formulated the "Law of Effect," which states that behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated, while those followed by unsatisfying consequences are less likely to be repeated. This principle laid the groundwork for Skinner's operant conditioning.
Contribution to Behaviorism: Thorndike's work provided early evidence for the role of consequences in learning and helped shift the focus of psychology towards observable behavior.

Puzzle Box Experiments (Edward Thorndike):

Setup: Thorndike placed cats in "puzzle boxes" from which they could escape by performing a specific action, such as pulling a string or pressing a lever. Initially, the cats would engage in trial-and-error behavior, but over time, they learned to escape more quickly.
Key Findings: Thorndike formulated the "Law of Effect," which states that behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated,1 while those followed by unsatisfying consequences are less likely to be repeated. This principle provided a foundation for operant conditioning.
Impact: These experiments provided early evidence for the role of consequences in learning and helped shift the focus of psychology towards observable behavior.

B.F. Skinner (1904-1990)

Experiments: Skinner is best known for his work with operant conditioning, using the "Skinner Box" to study animal behavior. In these experiments, animals (often rats or pigeons) learned to perform specific actions (e.g., pressing a lever) to receive rewards (e.g., food pellets) or avoid punishments (e.g., electric shocks).
Ideas: Skinner emphasized the importance of reinforcement and punishment in shaping behavior. He argued that behaviors followed by positive consequences are more likely to be repeated (reinforcement), while those followed by negative consequences are less likely to be repeated (punishment). He also stressed the role of environmental factors in controlling behavior and rejected the notion of free will.
Contribution to Behaviorism: Skinner's work helped establish operant conditioning as a fundamental principle of learning. His ideas have been influential in education, therapy, and organizational management.

Skinner Box Experiments (B.F. Skinner):

Setup: Skinner designed a controlled environment, now known as a "Skinner Box," to study animal behavior. The box typically contained a lever or a key that an animal (often a rat or pigeon) could manipulate. When the animal performed the desired action, it would receive a reward, such as food or water, or avoid a punishment, such as an electric shock.
Key Findings: Skinner demonstrated that animals learn to associate their actions with consequences. Behaviors followed by positive consequences (reinforcement) increased in frequency, while those followed by negative consequences (punishment) decreased. He identified different schedules of reinforcement (e.g., continuous, intermittent) and their effects on behavior.
Impact: These experiments established operant conditioning as a fundamental principle of learning. They have been widely applied in animal training, education, and therapy.

Superstitious Behavior Experiments (Skinner):

Setup: Skinner placed pigeons in Skinner boxes and delivered food at fixed intervals, regardless of the pigeons' behavior.
Key Findings: The pigeons developed idiosyncratic behaviors, such as turning in circles or pecking at the floor, which they seemingly associated with the delivery of food, even though there was no actual connection.
Impact: This experiment demonstrated that even random reinforcement can lead to the development of superstitious behaviors, highlighting the power of perceived contingencies in shaping behavior.

Martin Seligman

Next I discuss a researcher who started out as a behavioralist, but then became one of the founders of Positive Psychology, Martin Seligman, while initially known for his work within the behavioralist tradition, ultimately transcended its limitations to become a pioneer in positive psychology.1 His early research focused on learned helplessness, a concept with profound implications for understanding depression and promoting resilience.

Seligman's Key Contributions to Behaviorism:

Learned Helplessness: Seligman's most significant contribution to behaviorism was his research on learned helplessness. This phenomenon, discovered through his experiments with dogs, demonstrates that when individuals repeatedly experience uncontrollable, aversive events, they may learn to passively accept their situation, even when opportunities for escape or change become available.3 This concept revolutionized the understanding of depression, suggesting that it can stem from a perceived lack of control over one's life.4
Experimental Studies: Seligman's experiments involved exposing animals to unavoidable electric shocks. Initially, the animals would try to escape, but over time, they learned that their actions had no effect on the outcome. Subsequently, even when presented with opportunities to escape, these animals often remained passive and helpless. This research provided a powerful model for understanding the development of depression in humans.
Attribution Theory: Seligman further developed the concept of learned helplessness by exploring how individuals explain the causes of events in their lives. He proposed that people with a pessimistic explanatory style, who attribute negative events to internal, stable, and global causes, are more prone to learned helplessness and depression.

Seligman's Transition to Positive Psychology:

While Seligman's early work focused on the negative aspects of human behavior, he later shifted his focus to positive psychology. He became a leading advocate for studying human strengths, happiness, and well-being. He argued that psychology should not only focus on alleviating suffering but also on promoting flourishing.

Seligman's Most Important Experiments:

Learned Helplessness in Dogs: The classic experiments involving dogs exposed to inescapable shocks are considered foundational in understanding learned helplessness and its link to depression.
Anagram Studies: Seligman conducted research on humans using anagrams, finding that those who experienced initial failure on unsolvable anagrams were more likely to give up on subsequent solvable ones. This demonstrated learned helplessness in a human context.
Attribution Style Questionnaires: Seligman developed questionnaires to assess individuals' explanatory styles, demonstrating the link between pessimistic attribution and vulnerability to depression.

Impact and Legacy:

Seligman's work has had a profound impact on psychology and beyond:

Understanding Depression: His research on learned helplessness revolutionized the understanding of depression, offering new insights into its causes and potential treatments.
Promoting Resilience: Seligman's work has led to the development of interventions and therapies aimed at increasing optimism, building resilience, and preventing depression.
Positive Psychology: His pioneering work in positive psychology has shifted the focus of the field towards human strengths, well-being, and flourishing.

Learned Helplessness Experiments (Martin Seligman):

Setup: Dogs were exposed to inescapable electric shocks. Later, when placed in a situation where they could escape the shocks, they often failed to do so.
Key Findings: This experiment demonstrated the phenomenon of "learned helplessness," where prior experience with uncontrollable events can lead to a sense of helplessness and a lack of motivation to try to change one's circumstances.
Impact: This research has implications for understanding depression and other mental health conditions where individuals feel a lack of control over their lives.

These experiments, along with many others, have helped to shape our understanding of operant conditioning and its applications in various fields. They highlight the powerful role of consequences in shaping behavior and provide insights into how we learn and adapt to our environment.

A review of Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning, a learning theory proposed by B.F. Skinner, posits that behavior is shaped by its consequences. This principle can be effectively applied to understand and influence infant behavior.

Key Concepts in Operant Conditioning:

Reinforcement: A consequence that increases the likelihood of a behavior. It can be positive (adding something desirable) or negative (removing something undesirable).
Punishment: A consequence that decreases the likelihood of a behavior. It can be positive (adding something undesirable) or negative (removing something desirable).
Shaping: Gradually molding a desired behavior by reinforcing successive approximations.

Applications of Operant Conditioning to Infancy:

Feeding:
- Positive Reinforcement: Offering praise or a favorite toy after a meal can encourage healthy eating habits.
- Negative Reinforcement: Removing a disliked food or activity after a meal can reinforce eating.
Potty Training:
- Positive Reinforcement: Praising and rewarding a child for using the potty can encourage this desired behavior.
- Negative Reinforcement: Removing a diaper after successful potty use can reinforce the behavior.
Motor Skills:
- Shaping: Gradually reinforcing a child's attempts to crawl or walk, starting with small steps and gradually increasing the expectations.
Social Skills:
- Positive Reinforcement: Praising a child for sharing toys or playing cooperatively can encourage these social behaviors.

Considerations:

Timing: Consequences should be delivered immediately after the behavior to be effective.
Consistency: Consistent application of reinforcement or punishment is essential for desired results.
Individual Differences: The effectiveness of operant conditioning can vary depending on the individual child's temperament and learning style.
Ethical Considerations: Excessive use of punishment can lead to negative emotional outcomes. Positive reinforcement is generally preferred.

By understanding and applying operant conditioning principles, caregivers can effectively shape and reinforce desired behaviors in infants, fostering healthy development and positive outcomes.

Classical and operant conditioning are two fundamental types of learning that explain how we acquire new behaviors and responses.1 While both involve learning through association, they differ in key ways:2

Classical Conditioning

Focus: Learning through association between two stimuli.3
Process: A neutral stimulus (NS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that naturally elicits an unconditioned response (UCR).4 After repeated pairings, the NS becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) that elicits a conditioned response (CR) similar to the UCR.5
Response Type: Involuntary, reflexive responses (e.g., salivation, fear).6
Example: Pavlov's dogs learning to salivate at the sound of a bell.7

Operant Conditioning

Focus: Learning through consequences of behavior.8
Process: Behaviors are strengthened or weakened depending on their consequences.9 Reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior, while punishment decreases it.10
Response Type: Voluntary, goal-directed behaviors (e.g., pressing a lever, studying for a test).11
Example: A rat learning to press a lever to obtain food.12

Similarities

Associative Learning: Both involve learning through association.13 In classical conditioning, it's between stimuli, while in operant conditioning, it's between behavior and its consequences.14
Acquisition: Both have an acquisition phase where the association is learned.
Extinction: Both exhibit extinction, where the learned response weakens when the CS (classical) or reinforcement (operant) is removed.15
Spontaneous Recovery: In both, the extinguished response can reappear after a rest period.16
Generalization: Both show generalization, where responses occur to stimuli similar to the original CS (classical) or in similar situations (operant).17
Discrimination: Both involve discrimination, where learners can distinguish between different stimuli or situations.18

Differences