B.F Skinner’s learning theory (final)

rejected implicit "S-O-R" psychology of Hull and classical behaviorists.

"S-C-R" psychology of Tolman

it had no appeals to implicit unobservable physiological responses inside the organism, or to underlying neural connections in organism

no appeals to intervening cognitive phenomoena or mental states

only observable "S" ad "R" events, moreso than any other behaviorist "empty organism" view"

(1) Skinner assumes no neural model or brain states explaining S-R connections (2) Skinner does NOT believe reinforcement strengthens an S-R connection - responses are not caused by stimuli, but rather are selected and produced for their reinforcing consequences

a learning curve plotting cumulative number of responses against time (so it can only go up or stay flat) - slope is "response rate", the main Skinnerian dependent variable

increases rate of responding: Positive=delivering a stimulus the animal "want" (e.g. food)Negative = taking away a stimulus the animal "doesn't want" (e.g.

shock)

decreases rate of responding;positive= delivering a stimulus the animal "doesn't wear" (e.g., shock) Negative= taking away a stimulus the animal "wants" (e.g., parental attention in "time-out" procedure)

molar: an "operant" is a class of behaviors which include any response that is controlled by the reinforcement (i.e.

, any response that brings about a given consequence

event correlated with the production of a response ; event is occasion for, not cause of, response

discriminative stimulus SD indicates response will be reinforced; S delta is the stimulus indicating the response will NOT be reinforced

a stimulus associated with reinforcement eventually becomes reinforcing itself, works like higher order conditioning must be backed up with primary reinforcement or extinction will result

a stimulus associated with many primary reinforcers, not tied to any particular motivational state (ex. money, social approval)

all SD are conditioning are reinforcer because responding in their presence always leads to reinforcement

method for producing new responses in an animal, consisting of differential reinforcement of successive approximations to a desired response using shaping techniques

partial reinforcement effect says that response is stronger when animal is NOT reinforced EVERY trial, measuring the strength of the response by its resistance to extinction

no "drive-reduction" or other theoretical entity is hypothesized - there is just an empirical observation that food-deprived rats respond at a higher rate for food reinforcement

not necessarily the disappearance of a response, but rather a return to the response's "operant level" (the rate at which the response appears without any reinforcement)

recognized as an empirical phenomenon with out much explanation of its mechanism

when a stimulus complex sets the occasion for a response, the response also occurs when the animal encounters stimulus

the unobserved theoritical entity/intervening variable employed by Pavlov and Hull plays no role for Skinner