Chapter 7: Instrumental Conditioning - Motivational Mechanisms

Skinner

response allocation approach concerned with how an instrumental conditioning procedure limits an organism's free flow of activities and consequences of this limitations how an individual distributes his/her responses among the various options that are available unconstrained baseline: making a choice to do something instead of other options

Sheffield, Roby & Campbell

(1954) maze --> food reward at the end - more reinforcing maze --> food deposited directly in their stomach - reinforcing if rats are hungry enough they will work for both options biological drive is important but not the only motivator for humans to act

Colwill & Rescorla

(1986) looking at the response-outcome relationship Training relates to US Devaluation studies making the reinforcer less attractive Feed or give water before task pair food/sugarwater with LiCl and watch the response will pick the opposite option organisms have mental representations of expected outcome S(R-O) associations are learned during the course of instrumental conditioning

Pinball & Candy Study

Baseline Phase: Play pinball & eat candy - free choice to do either, not allowed to do both at the same time some children: H - Pinball; L - Candy other children: H - Candy; L - Pinball Response Contingency Phase: If you eat candy, then you can play pinball; if you play pinball, then you can eat candy children will not be motivated to do more of the H to get more of the L

consummatory response theory

CRT Sheffield & Colleagues attributes reinforcement to species-specific behaviors (eating, drinking, mating) species specific behaviors are the critical features of reinforcers

drive reduction theory

DRT Clark Hull homeostatic theory of motivation deprivation procedures (food, water, etc.) create a biological drive state reinforcers are things that reduce the drive

Capaldi & Colleagues

T maze and rat must turn left Group 1 - one large bar of food (300 mg) Group 2 - 4 pellets (300 mg) even though rats were getting the same amount of food, they made a choice decision disproves drive reduction theory

Thorndike and reinforcers

Things that are good reinforcers are things that organisms find pleasurable i.e. anything that will reinforce particular behaviors ex: food, water, air, shelter

S-R association

Thorndike association between stimulus and response

Thorndike

associative structure of instrumental conditioning relies on associations, related to classical conditioning outcome serves to strengthen/weaken stimulus-response association + outcome = strengthened SR - outcome = weakened SR ignores the stimulus-outcome and response-outcome associations

problem with drive reduction theory

cannot explain all motivated behavior so many exceptions ex: thrill-seeking activity: purposefully disrupt homeostasis, but enjoy it also the ability to choose something better means that your drive isn't strong enough that you will eat, drink, etc. anything

examples of hierarchal association

different stimuli (mom, dad, grandma) influence response (do it or avoid it) knowing the potential outcome (time out)

examples of response allocation

ex: watching a movie: fidget, check your phone, your watch, talk to someone, eat popcorn ex: idea of multi-tasking ex: rat in a cage: exploring, lever pressing, sniffing, chewing

motivation

forces behind behaviors

examples of Premack's differential probability principle

if you make dinner (L), i will give you a massage (H) if you sweep the floor (L), you can play with your dolls (H) if you clean your room (L), we can bake a cake (H)

primary motivation

induced by a biological drive state ex: thirst, hunger

incentive motivation

induced by the properties of the reinforcer itself ex: sight, smell, taste of ice cream even if you're not hungry

Premack's Differential Probability Principle

low probability and high probability choice to engage in different behaviors high probability can reinforce the low probability but not vice versa given the two responses H (high probability) and L (low probability) the opportunity to perform H after engaging in/ performing L will result in the reinforcement of L organism's preferences change any behavior could serve as a reinforcer proceed that it was more likely than the instrumental response

S-O association

mechanism of reward expectancy whatever the stimuli may be, reinforcement of the instrumental response will inevitably result in pairing these stimuli with the reinforcer or outcome

law of effect

responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation, and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation. the establishment of an S-R association between instrumental response and the contextual stimulus that are present when the response is reinforced the reinforcer strengthens the S-R association

hierarchal association S(R-O)

stimulus mediates the relationship between a response and an outcome make response or withhold the response depending on the stimulus

two process theory

there are two distinct types of learning: Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning

response deprivation hypothesis

to make a thing/behavior reinforcing, limit access to it depriving organisms of the opportunity to perform even a low probability response can make access to that response an effective reinforcer ex: buying expensive one-of-a-kind earrings that only a few people will have because there are only so many in the world