Description of the papers
The psychological concept under analysis is intelligence as seen through the operant conditioning lens. In 1898 one of the pioneers of operant conditioning – Edward Thorndike – wrote an article called “Animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associate processes in animals.”
In the article, the author carried out an experimental analysis of cats. He placed them in enclosures when they were hungry, and added basic escape mechanisms to the boxes.
Thorndike (1898) placed food outside the enclosures. Some of the boxes had platforms that the cats could step on when they needed to get out; others had levers that would open when the cats wanted to escape.
In other instances, he placed cords that the cats could pull when necessary. He recorded the time it took the cats to leave the enclosures successfully. He took out the cats that failed to open the enclosures but never fed them.
He found out that successful cats kept repeating the acts needed to open the enclosures, and they did this in remarkably short timeframes. However, the cats that failed never attempted again.
Thorndike came up with the law of cause and effect by affirming that responses (methods of escape used by the cats) that came immediately before satisfactory outcomes (food and less loneliness) became strongly associated to the situation, and were more likely to recur.
However, inadequate association with the situation occurred when negative responses followed certain responses; these responses were less likely to occur.
Hagopian et al. (2000) wanted to determine the effects of non contingent reinforcement on engagement with stimuli and problem behavior. Their analysis involved four mentally retarded participants who all had problem behaviors.
They provided them with positive rewards such as toys and soft music under different conditions and observed them. They found that if they provided the subjects with positive stimuli regardless of participants’ behavior (non contingent reinforcement), the subjects continued to engage with it.
They also realized that the stimuli almost reduced problem behavior to zero in these cases. They explained that non contingent reinforcement created reductions of destructive behavior.
They also found that reduced response to the readily available stimuli (satiation) was a factor when the subjects had long access times. Extinction – providing no consequence for behavior – did not lead to reductions in problem behavior.
Comparison
In both analyses, the researchers are trying to understand how one reinforces behavior in intelligent organisms. It can also be stated that the analyses focus on how learning occurs.
They both use experimental analyses to come up with theories that explain these relationships. Furthermore, basic concepts of operant conditioning are the basis of these two researches; they all involve responses or behavior, rewards, and stimuli (something that alters behavior).
Both studies also support the law of cause and effect; Thorndike (1898) explains that when a satisfactory effect comes immediately after a cat’s behavior (response), then the response is likely to be repeated.
However, when negative outcomes come immediately after certain behaviors, then the responses are less likely to occur. To Thorndike (1898), it is not possible to experience behavior reinforcement when one changes environments inconsistently.
Similarly, Hagopian et al. (2000) explain that when one provides subjects with stimuli consistently; that is throughout the experiment, then targeted responses are likely to emanate from the study.
In their case, they wanted to subvert problem behavior, so that was their targeted response. The subjects needed to form a link between the incentives and the consequences in order to achieve this outcome. Through consistent delivery, the researchers illustrated that there was a law of cause and effect.
Continuities and discontinuities
These researches are all based on operant conditioning. However, the recent paper is significantly different from the older article because it deals with the concept of non contingent reinforcement.
Non contingent reinforcement refers to the provision of stimuli irrespective of a subject’s behavior. Scientists do this in order to show the subject that his or her negative behavior is not necessary in order to achieve a desired outcome.
In their research, the subjects’ desired outcome was getting attention. The actions that they used to achieve this were tantrums, biting, kicking and self harm – all cases of problem behavior.
The researchers provided toys and music as stimuli. Continually providing these stimuli caused the participants to reduce their undesired behavior.
Thorndike (1898) had not considered a situation where the researcher continuously delivers the positive stimuli without regard to behavior. His experiment was contingent on the subjects’ responses.
Therefore, his method was heavily reliant on interruptive removal or provision of stimuli; i.e., rewards and punishments. He did not focus on non interruptive patterns.
The studies are quite different from each other because of the methods employed and the analytical techniques. The recent paper relied heavily on theoretical reviews of similar work.
The authors quote other scientists’ explanations on extinction and satiation before making their conclusions. However, Thorndike (1898) was the first of his kind, so he did not rely on other authors’ previous work.
He needed to justify his choice of methods because they were not common. Hagopian et al. (2000) used accepted methods of scientific research like baseline conditions and investigational conditions.
Furthermore, the papers focused on different participants; Thorndike (1898) dealt with animals, so he could not use neurological explanations for his work; subsequent studies on operant conditioning have dwelt on human subjects.
Lastly, Hagopian et al. (2000) distinguished between the factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the consequences such as contingency and satiation while Thorndike (1898) did not know about any of these terms.
References
Hagopian, L., Crockett, J., Van Stone, M., Deleon, I. & Bowman, L. (2000). Effects of non contingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction and alternative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33 (4), 433-449
Thorndike, E. (1898). Animal Intelligence: An experimental study of the associate processes in animals. Psychological review monograph supplement, 2(4), 1-8