Home experiments: How to change behaviour with operant conditioning
Psychological analysis of Reynhard Sinaga
What is Operant Conditioning?
Operant conditioning is a theory which is used to explain how we learn new behaviours. Operant conditioning is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behaviour. Through operant conditioning, an individual makes an association between a particular behaviour and a consequence. The theory was proposed by Skinner in 1938.
Learning through operant conditioning can be applied to criminal activity. Offenders can learn to become involved in crime in various ways.
Skinner is thought of as being the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s law of effect from 1898. According to this Thorndike, behaviours that are followed by pleasant consequences are likely to be repeated. Behaviours that are followed by unpleasant consequences are less likely to be repeated.
Skinner uses the term reinforcement in his theory of learning. Behaviour which is reinforced tends to be repeated. Behaviour which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished.
Like many psychologists, Skinner studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using animals which he placed in a ‘Skinner Box’. Skinner identified three types of responses from external stimuli. The first is neutral. This is where responses from the environment neither increase nor decrease the probability of a behaviour being repeated. The second is reinforces. These are r Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behaviour being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative. The third is Punisher responses. These are responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated. Punishment weakens behaviour.
We can all think of examples of how our behaviour has been affected by reinforcers and punishers. As a child, you probably tried out many behaviours and learned from their consequences.
For example, if you tried smoking at school, and the consequence was that you got in with the crowd you always wanted to hang out with, and you would have been positively reinforced and would be likely to repeat the behaviour. In other words, the behaviour would have been rewarded. If, however, the main consequence was that you were caught, and your parents became involved you would likely to have been punished, and you would then be much less likely to smoke now.
Reinforcement of behaviours can be positive or negative. Positive reinforcement strengthens a behaviour by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. For example, if your parents gave you £5 each time you complete your chores you will be more likely to repeat this behaviour in the future, and so strengthening the behaviour of completing your tasks.
Negative Reinforcement means that unpleasant consequences are removed and so strengthens behaviour. Negative reinforcement strengthens behaviour because it stops or removes an unpleasant experience. For example, if you do not complete your homework, you have to give your parents £5. You will complete your tasks to avoid paying £5, and so strengthens the behaviour of completing your homework.
This would be similar to you touching an electric fence and getting a shock. If you jumped and accidentally hit the off switch on the floor beside the fence, then next time you wanted to pass the fence you would go straight to the off switch.
Punishment weakens particular behaviours. Punishment is defined as the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. It is an aversive event that decreases the behaviour that it follows.
Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish undesirable behaviour. It is not always easy to distinguish between punishment and negative reinforcement.
There are some problems with using punishment though. For example, punished behaviour is not forgotten, it’s suppressed. The behaviour returns when punishment is no longer present. Punishments can cause increased aggression showing that aggression is a way of dealing with problems. Punishments do not necessarily guide the subject toward the desired behaviour – reinforcement tells you what to do, punishment only tells you what not to do.
We can learn new ways of doing things with the various reinforcers, but we can also forget or fail to keep up with the behaviour if the reinforcers are not present. This is response and extinction.
If an animal/human is positively reinforced every time a specific behaviour occurs, e.g., every time a lever is pressed a pellet is delivered, and then food delivery is shut off. The response rate is SLOW. The extinction rate is FAST. The animal or human is slow to learn and will quickly stop doing the new behaviour as soon as the reinforcer is taken away. A good example of this would be to ask you how many days you would go into work if they stopped paying you?
If a behaviour is reinforced only after the behaviour occurs a specified number of times. e.g., one reinforcement is given after every so many correct responses, e.g., after every 5th response. For example, a child receives a star for every five words spelt correctly. The response rate is FAST meaning they would learn it quickly. The extinction rate is MEDIUM meaning that they would carry on doing it for a little while to see if they get the reward.
If the behaviour was reinforced after a fixed time providing at least one correct response has been made. An example is being paid by the hour. Another example would be every 15 minutes (half-hour, hour, etc.) a pellet is delivered (providing at least one lever press has been made) then food delivery is shut off. The response rate is MEDIUM so it would take a little longer to learn the new behaviour. The extinction rate is MEDIUM meaning they would carry on for a moderate length of time to see if a reward was coming.
If a behaviour is reinforced after an unpredictable number of times. For example, gambling or fishing. The response rate is FAST meaning we pick up the new behaviour fairly quickly. The extinction rate is SLOW meaning that very hard to extinguish the new behaviour because they can’t predict when the reward or reinforce is coming.
Finally, if a reinforcer was given after an unpredictable length of time as long as one correct response or behaviour was done within that time. The response rate is FAST meaning we would be quick to complete the new behaviour. The extinction rate is SLOW meaning the behaviour would carry on for a substantial length of time because of the unpredictability of the reinforcement.
Changing behaviour or building new behaviours takes time. Reinforcement or punishments need to be used consistently over a prolonged period.
Are criminals born or made?
This is a long-standing debate amongst psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists. Some argue that when a person is born it is already determined that they will become a criminal. They suggest that some biological, physiological, or personality traits are already determined which will influence that person towards criminality.
Others argue that a child is born as a ‘tabula rasa’ which means blank slate. They argue that a child learns ways of behaving as they develop. They say that there are many different ways that a child learns as they grow and form an idea about how they should behave in the world.
The idea that criminals had distinct features was first proposed by Lombroso in the 1870s. He became convinced that criminals are an earlier evolutionary version of humans. He decided, after years of study, that you could tell a criminal by the shape of their face and the excessive length of their ape-like arms.
Lombroso suggested that criminals had distinct features such as large ears or an upturned nose. He suggested that thieves were more likely to have a flattened nose. Furthermore, he suggested that murderers are likely to have an aquiline nose like the beak of a bird of prey. Although this early work was quickly discredited, it was the beginning of investigations into whether criminals had distinct biological features such as different brain patterns to non-criminals.
The field was revolutionised in the 1980s by the invention of brain scanning devices. Professor Raine was amongst the first to investigate the brains of violent murderers. Raine and his colleagues scanned the brains of hundreds of murderers and found that they all had similar brain patterns. There was reduced activity in the pre-frontal cortex, the area of the brain which controls emotional impulses, and overactivation of the amygdala, the area which generates our emotions. This means that the brains were more prone to rage and anger. They are also less able to control their behaviour.
Raine found that all those who had this specific brain activation pattern suffered childhood abuse. It is possible that as a result of the abuse, the brain became damaged which results in more aggression. However, others pointed out that some people suffered abuse in childhood who did not go on to offend or be violent.
A breakthrough came in 1993 with a family in the Netherlands where all the men had a history of violence. Fifteen years of painstaking research revealed that they all lacked the same gene.
This gene produces an enzyme called MAOA, which regulates the levels of neurotransmitters involved in impulse control. If you lack the MAOA gene you are predisposed to violence. Whether the gene is triggered or not depends crucially on what happens to you in childhood.
So it seems that a genetic tendency towards violence, together with an abusive childhood, is a killer combination – murderers are both born and made.
One psychological theory that is used to explain criminality is Cognitive-Behavioural theory. This is based on the idea that cognitive processes influence thoughts and emotions. Psychologists such as Kohlberg and Piaget proposed that we learn levels of moral development. As we grow up we learn what is acceptable or unacceptable through socialisation. Kohlberg proposed that children follow a pattern of evolving and learning the various levels of moral reasoning throughout childhood. These stages are linked to the child’s age and ability to learn and reason.
Other psychological theories of crime look at individual factors, such as inadequate socialization and negative early childhood experiences, learned behaviours, personality and mental health disorders that can result in criminal thinking patterns. Psychological explanations of crime propose that a person’s thought processes and characteristic ways of dealing with the world can better explain criminality.
Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic theory is based on the work by Sigmund Freud. He suggested that we had 3 components which shaped our personality. We each have an Id, Ego, and Superego within our psychological makeup. The Id represents instinctual needs, the Ego represents understood social norms and the Superego is learned moral reasoning. According to psychodynamic theory, criminal and deviant behaviour are caused by imbalances between the Id, Ego and Superego. But it is almost impossible to measure and test each of these components to determine how they influence behaviour.
Learning theories suggest that actions are determined largely by life experiences. Learning theories suggest that we learn through ‘conditioning’. This means that when we perform a particular behaviour it can either bring about a positive or negative response. A positive response would result in a positive experience meaning the behaviour would be likely to be repeated. Behaviour may also bring about a negative response. This means that the person would have a negative experience and the behaviour is not likely to be repeated and avoided in future.
Other psychological theories suggest that a person’s personality, or some kind of psychiatric disorder, may contribute to the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. Theories of psychopathy are popularly used to describe more serious and violent delinquent acts. However, the term psychopathy is not a medically recognised term. This personality type is more often referred to as Antisocial Personality Disorder within the medical community.
Other personality types have also been suggested to be linked to criminal and deviant behaviour. Eysenck’s Trait Personality theory suggests that we each develop certain traits and that we can be high or low on these traits. Eysenck found that soldiers’ answers in a controlled study seemed to link naturally with one trait or another, suggesting that there were several different personality traits which were being revealed by the soldier’s answers. Eysenck found that behaviour could be represented by three dimensions: Introversion / Extroversion (E); Neuroticism / Stability (N); Psychoticism (P).
Extraverts are sociable and crave excitement and change, and thus can become bored easily. They are more likely to take risks and be thrill-seekers. Whereas Introverts, on the other hand, lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation. Higher levels of Extroversion have been linked to criminality.
In conclusion, then, it is clear that there are many theories which can be used to explain criminality. Each of these theories has value in understanding behaviour and explores distinct aspects of behaviour, personality, and the environment. However, we are complex creatures who have biological tendencies and different personalities. We learn at different rates and in different ways and interact with our environment in different ways.
Taken individually, these theories of why people commit crimes cannot fully explain all types of crime and criminality. It is generally accepted that the environment, our biological makeup, and psychological factors all have a part to play in criminal behaviour. Therefore, several theories must be drawn upon to fully explain criminal and deviant behaviour.
