Operant conditioning can be defined as a learning method where teaching occurs through behavioral induction. Operant conditioning differs from another ones in such a way that the behavioral change occurs voluntarily (Carlson, 2007). When individuals become exposed to a stimulus, the behavior is expected to change.
Upon noticing the desired reaction behavior in the subjects, the existing reinforcement becomes withdrawn. Behavioral change using reinforcement always requires strong emphasis to ensure that learning is achieved upon withdrawal of the reinforcement.
In the pigeon ping pong experiment, the pigeons became conditioned to pecking a small ball. The stimulus in the experiment was the ball. Whenever the ball was rolled, the pigeons pecked it. The pigeons associated the ball with pecking. The pecking action occurred regardless of where the ball came from. Even after the thrower withdrew, the pecking continued whenever the bird saw the ball. Owing to this conditioning, two pigeons were able to hit the ball across a small table. This conditioning enabled the birds to play a small game.
The pecking action became conditioned through reinforcement. Upon stopping the reinforcement, the two birds were able to peck the ball on their own. The birds seemed to be playing a game of ping pong. Upon stopping the reinforcement, the birds appeared to have gained knowledge that enabled them to peck the ball alone.
This behavioral change arose from the stopping of reinforcement. The birds, in this case, can be termed as having learnt ball pecking. Withdrawing experimental reinforcement could be an effective way of establishing whether individuals have learnt anything. The purpose of the conditioning here would be learning. Learning is achieved when reinforcement stops (Carlson, 2007).
According to Milgram, whenever an individual lacks the capability to make decisions, he/she leaves the decision-making responsibility to the seniors (Milgram, 1974). This could probably explain the reason behind the nurses’ agreement to follow the doctor’s instructions. The nurses would not be responsible for the outcomes of the resulting overdose.
Most individuals would most likely obey their seniors irrespective of the taken action. The ability to obey authority becomes a top priority for working persons. Individuals would not question the actions of superiors deemed fully qualified in their respective fields. In concrete situations, obedience became the best course of action for many individuals.
Following Milgram’s experiment, conclusion could be drawn that the nurses viewed themselves as agents carrying out the doctor’s wishes (Gazzaniga, 2010). Owing to this mentality, the nurses felt that the doctor was giving the overdose by means of the nurse. Being a senior employee to them, the nurses felt obligated to obey the doctor’s orders. Psychologically, it becomes immensely difficult for nurses to question doctors’ orders.
The nurses fail to feel personally responsible for the well-being of patients and instead bestow the entire responsibility upon the doctors. These practices lack to display work ethics upon the people undertaking the duties. In the medical field, occurrences like these amount to negligence on the part of the medical practitioner in-charge. Increased cases of patient deaths appear to occur resulting from obedience to senior members of staff.
Owing to doctor qualifications, nurses readily comply with instructions given by doctors even when these instructions create contradictions. Individuals appear to follow blindly when convinced by whoever they take orders from. This belief continues to lead people into obeying immoral orders (Gazzaniga, 2010). The ideologies of numerous Germany citizens could be attributed to this psychological thinking during the Nazi period.
References
Carlson, H. (2007). Psychology the Science of Behavious. New Jersey: Pearson.
Gazzaniga, M. (2010). Psychological Science. New York: Norton & Company.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Tavistock Publications.