i need help PT2 Proj
Deasal75
Chapter9.docxChapter 9
Escape, Avoidance, and Punishment
This chapter will examine how negative reinforcement can be used to reinforce avoidant and escape motivated behaviors, as well as how consequences can lead to the suppression of unwanted or undesirable behavior.
Escape behavior if the behavior is performed the aversive stimulus is removed or stops (e.g., my son escapes my obnoxious nagging by making his bed and tidying his room)
Avoidance behavior if the behavior is performed then the aversive stimulus won’t occur (e.g., to avoid an unpleasant altercation/argument we can avoid meeting with the person who wishes to confront us)
Your text explains that the typical order in which these two behaviors develop is Escape followed by Avoidance. For example, I frequently receive telemarketer calls trying to sell me an extended auto warranty for my Jeep. I decline politely every time but they continue to push and ask more questions, trying to keep me on the phone. Becoming frustrated, I make some excuse that I need to go and end the call. Thus, I escape from the unwanted stimulus. Because my previous rejections of these offers seem to make absolutely no difference, I now avoid the telemarketer calls by refusing to answer the phone when it rings with any unknown number. As such, I never have to deal with the telemarketer.
How do we get to this point from a learning paradigm perspective? Well, it’s actually a combination of the two types of learning theories we have discussed thus far: Classical conditioning followed by Operant conditioning. In Mowrer’s two-process theory of avoidance he proposes that avoidance behavior results from a classically conditioned fear (e.g., fear of snakes) then being reinforced through operant conditioning (e.g., the reward of not having to confront snakes). There have been some problems with this such that even when a fear no longer exists, there is still a tendency to avoid the conditioning stimulus (CS) [snakes in the above example]. Unconscious habit perhaps?
A one-process theory suggests that fear needn’t be involved at all. Rather, the animal or person’s avoidant act is negatively reinforced by the lower rate of aversive stimulation. I don’t fear talking to telemarketers, but I don’t enjoy getting entangled in unwanted sales calls, thus my avoidance behavior is negatively reinforced by escaping the annoying interruption.
Avoidance Conditioning & Phobias
It is clear that avoidance learning plays a significant role in the development and maintenance of phobias. If I fear dogs due to being bitten in the past, and then avoid all dogs and any situation where I might encounter them, then my fear of dogs will increase. We have discussed this in previous chapters. You can also refer back to our earlier discussion on trigger warnings and their effect of giving you relief in the moment but ultimately strengthening your fear in the long run. Thus, more avoidance potentially leads to greater, long-lasting fear of the stimulus. This seems counter-productive to the goal of therapeutic change when you think about it.
OCD is a very good example of this two-process model that incorporates both classical and operant conditioning processes. Obsessive-compulsive disorder can become a paralyzing disorder with extremely dire consequences for the person suffering with the disorder. People often speak rather tongue and cheek about “being OCD” concerning their degree of neatness or time sensitivity and these can certainly be features of one’s personality. However, OCD can be very serious such that the anxiety experienced can be immobilizing in one’s daily life as constant thoughts of doubt continually plague the mind (e.g., Did I turn off the stove?; Did I wash my hands enough to be rid of the germs?; Did I run down someone a mile back?), which can then lead to “checking” behaviors or ritualized superstitious behavior, aimed to rectify or remove the doubt at least in the short-term until the troubling thoughts re-emerge.
For interested readers, the book “ Overcoming OCD: A Journey to Recovery” provides an in-depth account of a young man’s struggle with OCD and how his family rallies to help him.
The most effective behavioral treatment found to date for OCD is Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) which involves having the person confront what they fear (e.g., contamination) and not be able to perform the ritualistic behavior that typically removes the anxiety (e.g., washing one’s hands). The person learns to gradually confront their fear and experience an ability to tolerate the situation without taking steps to avoid it or the anxiety it provokes. A practical example of phobic behavior where this form of learning is commonly utilized is with medical students who faint at the sight of blood. Obviously if you’re going to be a doctor you are most likely going to need to get comfortable (or at the very least, be able to tolerate) seeing blood. After fainting at the sight of blood, students can become very anxious and reluctant to want to see blood again or be in a situation where they will be exposed to the possibility of fainting. Thus, the fear of such situations starts to mount, as does the clever avoidance tactics devised to cope with possible confrontations. However, this isn’t going to work in the long-run for folks interested in practicing medicine, so instead they are encouraged to keep confronting their fear (seeing blood) and learning various techniques to help them avoid fainting until they are able to manage the situation and not fear being in the presence of blood. It is a combination of using systematic desensitization and flooding techniques that were discussed in a previous chapter.
Punishment
As we saw last week, punishment involves weakening the likelihood of a behavior being repeated in the future. There are 2 types of punishment: positive (where we add a negative, undesired consequence following the behavior – such as yelling at the dog for chewing your new shoes) and negative (where we remove something pleasant the person would have liked to have – such as placing paying a fine for an overdue library book). With negative punishment there are 2 sub-types: time-outs and response costs. An example of removing an unruly student from a classroom and placing them in the hall for a few minutes would be an example of a time-out. Given our current trend on parenting in North America, this approach is often seen as more appropriate and effective with a misbehaving child than yelling or spanking which is typically seen as abusive. A response cost is demonstrated in my example above with the overdue library book fine. You will have to part with your money because of your actions. Similarly, if you choose not to study for a test and get a poor grade then you will lose the “A” grade you formerly held in the course.
Check out intrinsic and extrinsic punishment. Children at soccer practice who fail to make the number of goals required by the coach are then forced to run an extra two laps (intrinsic punishment because the act of running when tired is seen as punishing in and of itself). Extrinsic punishment would be publically chastising the child for not making the number of goals required.
As we saw with reinforcers, punishers can also be primary, secondary, and generalized. Which type of reinforcer works best to modify your unwanted behaviors?
Warning: One caution that I would like to point out is that students will often use increasing studying hours as a punishment for not completing their desired amount of studying or doing poorly on a test. Studying, though not always an enjoyable task, is essential for being successful as a student. Thus, you don’t want to frame it as a punishment because we inherently dislike punishment. Be careful to catch yourself when and if you do this so that you can arrange a different type of punishment and instead positively reward the behavior of following through on your studies!
So which should you use – reinforcement or punishment -- when trying to learn a new behavior or modify an existing behavior? Well, as you might guess there is not one simple answer. You have to consider the behavior itself (e.g., is there an immediate danger present), the personality traits of the person you are attempting to condition and how they would respond to the addition of reinforcers and punishers, past experience with such methods, and other relevant situational factors. As a general rule of thumb, I would suggest that reinforcement is more effective than punishment whenever possible. Reinforcement brings about positive affect (e.g., I feel happy when you appreciate my efforts), and it’s instructive in that it directs behavior in the manner desired (e.g., The actions taken on the PROJECT thus far are correct. Thumbs up!). Thus, it creates a win-win situation!
Your text presents the following list of problems with using punishment:
1. Punishment of maladaptive behavior doesn’t directly strengthen the occurrence of adaptive behavior.
2. Punishing one behavior may simply result in a generalized suppression of other behaviors.
3. The person delivering the punishment could become an SD (discriminant stimulus) for punishments with the result that the unwanted behavior is selectively suppressed only when that person is present.
4. Punishment might simply teach the individual to avoid the person who delivered the punishment.
5. Punishment is likely to elicit a strong negative emotional response.
6. Punishment can sometimes elicit an aggressive behavioral reaction (e.g., anger begets anger … think about how you feel when someone yells at you).
7. The use of punishment through the process of modeling could teach the person that punishment is an acceptable means of controlling behavior (e.g., the message is “Don’t hit someone if you’re angry, instead use your words,” meanwhile the parent is spanking the child for misbehaving – which message does the child take away from the interaction – “Use your words” or hit someone?).
8. Because punishment often has an immediate effect in stopping an unwanted behavior, the use of punishment is often strongly reinforced.
In the true spirit of critical thinking, your text then presents counter-arguments showing the positive use of punishment:
1. Punishment can sometimes lead to an increase in social behavior. (E.g., Being chastised for slouching and appearing disinterested in class, I am now more attentive and engaged with the lecture and peers in the classroom.)
2. Paradoxically, punishment sometimes results in an improvement in mood, such as less crying.
3. Punishment can increase attention to the environment. (E.g., You become more aware of the feelings of others around you and the impact you could be having on the environment by littering or yelling curse words at random people.)
Practical implementations of punishment stated in the text include the following recommendations:
1. As much as possible, punishment should be immediate rather than delayed. (e.g., avoid the action “Wait until your father gets home …”)
2. At least at the outset, punishment should consistently follow each occurrence of the unwanted behavior. (e.g., use a continuous schedule)
3. Punishment should be intense enough from the outset to suppress the target behavior. Let them know you mean business and the action needs to stop.
4. Negative punishment is generally preferable to positive punishment, though abuses can occur with negative punishment if administered inappropriately.
5. With individuals who have language capacity, punishment is more effective when accompanied by an explanation (e.g., need to include a directive on what the correct behavior should be -- “ In terms of table manners, this is the incorrect way to eat your soup, but this would be the correct way.”)
6. Punishment of inappropriate behavior should be combined with positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior (e.g., “ Although you did not remember to turn in your homework at the end of class which amounts to loss of a sticker on your sticker chart, you did do a terrific job working quietly and assisting your neighbors with their projects.”) when possible.
Theories of Punishment
How does punishment actually work and what is actually happening? Your text provides 3 possible theories:
1. Conditioned suppression theory
· This is a temporary suppression of unwanted behavior such that the behavior only ceases to occur when the punishment is present; should the punishment be withdrawn, the negative behavior will resume.
· Consider this in terms of our Corrections model of punishment and its effect on changing behavior. We often see the behavior of incarcerated inmates conform to prison requirements out of fear of the adverse consequences for not following through (e.g., being placed into Segregation, adding time to one’s sentence). However, once these individuals are released from prison and are no longer being monitored with consequences hanging over their heads, we sometimes see a resurgence of the behaviors we were trying to extinguish while incarcerated. (recidivism)
2. Avoidance theory of punishment
· The issue here again is that the undesired behavior is not weakening itself; but rather, any behaviors associated with the aversive stimulus (e.g., an electric shock) are being reinforced since they do not trigger the aversive stimulus.
· E.g., if my son teases his sister he gets scolded. If he doesn’t tease her but tickles her he doesn’t get scolded. (Note. She hates being tickled.) Thus, the tickling behavior is negatively reinforced (will increase in frequency) because it means that he won’t be scolded (because he’s not teasing her).
· The point being made is that the maladaptive teasing behavior isn’t changing in and of itself; instead, other unrelated behaviors are strengthening as a result of the feared consequence from engaging in the teasing.
3. The Premack approach to punishment
· In this case we are using a low frequency behavior to punish a high frequency behavior.
· Your text gives a good example with exercise and the ingestion of food. Let’s suppose you are trying to quit eating chocolate which you tend to eat frequently ( what a horrible thought!), so you make a contingency plan that if you eat chocolate you have to perform a behavior you dislike (e.g., 50 jumping-jacks, 20 push-ups, giving $10 to your roommate). You would likely think long and hard about eating that piece of chocolate if each morsel was tied to losing $10 and doing a lot of unpleasant exercising!
Noncontingent Punishment
This section of the chapter is very interesting and deals with the phenomenon of learned helplessness. Suppose you are placed in a situation in which you have no control over the outcome or the events that are occurring to you while in that situation. What would you do? Animal models have demonstrated a number of reactions which your book discusses, but ultimately animals will give up. They will learn to be helpless and succumb to that reality. Let’s examine this more closely.
If we were to place a dog in a Skinner-type box which has the appearance of a tennis court we could condition the dog to jump across a barrier in the middle (like a net on the tennis court) to get to the other side.
If we wanted to use positive reinforcement we could give the dog a treat every time he successfully jumped across the barrier. If we wanted to use negative reinforcement to condition the same jumping behavior we could electrify the bars of the cage so that painful shocks were administered to the pads of the dog’s paws. Thus, to escape the painful shocks being administered to the dog he would learn to jump to the opposite side of the cage, thus crossing the barrier, to get relief from the painful shocks (the side on which he lands does not deliver electric shocks at this time). Note, that we have conditioned the same jumping behavior in both cases except we have done so using 2 different methods of reinforcement. Now, let’s suppose our dog has learned that to escape painful shocks he needs to jump across the barrier when whichever side of the cage he’s on starts to deliver electric shocks to his paws. So far so good. The dog can control the situation. But, now we turn on the electric shock to both sides of the cage simultaneously so that no matter where he goes he will receive electric shocks. What will the dog do?
As you might imagine the dog will likely whine, whimper, keep jumping for a while, run around, and so forth. But ultimately he will learn that he cannot control the pain being administered to his paws and will give up, likely cowering and whimpering at the back of the cage. All one needs to do is visit the Humane Society to see evidence of dogs who have given up even coming to greet you because it doesn’t change their situation of being stuck in their cage as people pass by. ( I have a lot of experience with this as all my dogs are rescues.) This animal model of learned helplessness is thought to mimic what happens in human depression. My experience working with folks suffering from clinical depression is often a sense of hopelessness and helplessness as they cannot see any foreseeable change in their present or future circumstances. Why bother to eat, shower, attempt social engagements, or look for a job when the end result will always be the same -- rejection or some other form of perceived failure. Thus, the result is to give up just like the dog in the cage who learns of no other means through which to control his circumstances and end his suffering. A dire situation for anyone who has ever experienced a clinical depression.
A very serious condition that we see in extreme cases of abuse and neglect of children that pertains to this notion of learned helplessness is a disorder known as Reactive Attachment Disorder. I have included a blurb below for those students who are unfamiliar with it.
DSM-5 Criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)
The DSM-5 gives the following criteria for Reactive Attachment Disorder:
A. A consistent pattern of inhibited, emotionally withdrawn behavior toward adult caregivers, manifested by both of the following:
· The child rarely or minimally seeks comfort when distressed.
· The child rarely or minimally responds to comfort when distressed.
B. A persistent social or emotional disturbance characterized by at least two of the following:
· Minimal social and emotional responsiveness to others
· Limited positive affect
· Episodes of unexplained irritability, sadness, or fearfulness that are evident even during nonthreatening interactions with adult caregivers.
C. The child has experienced a pattern of extremes of insufficient care as evidenced by at least one of the following:
· Social neglect or deprivation in the form of persistent lack of having basic emotional needs for comfort, stimulation, and affection met by caring adults
· Repeated changes of primary caregivers that limit opportunities to form stable attachments (e.g., frequent changes in foster care)
· Rearing in unusual settings that severely limit opportunities to form selective attachments (e.g., institutions with high child to caregiver ratios)
D. The care in Criterion C is presumed to be responsible for the disturbed behavior in Criterion A (e.g., the disturbances in Criterion A began following the lack of adequate care in Criterion C).
E. The criteria are not met for autism spectrum disorder.
F. The disturbance is evident before age 5 years.
G. The child has a developmental age of at least nine months.
Specify if Persistent: The disorder has been present for more than 12 months.
Specify current severity: Reactive Attachment Disorder is specified as severe when a child exhibits all symptoms of the disorder, with each symptom manifesting at relatively high levels.
http://www.cebc4cw.org/search/topic-areas/dsm-5-criteria-for-reactive-attachment-disorder-rad/
I work with Oregon Judicial Department’s Child Welfare and Dependency and see cases of children with this diagnosis from time to time. It is quite heartbreaking to see the plight these children are in and the lack of effective psychotherapeutic intervention available for aiding these children as they mature into adulthood. In essence, due to extreme neglect or abuse these children’s needs have been ignored by caregivers or punished through severe forms of reprimand such that the children learn not to reach out to trusted adults when needing assistance. This severely affects their ability to survive and thrive (physically, socially, and psychologically), a condition known as FTT (Failure to Thrive), and impairs their ability to form significant secure attachments. Ultimately, many of these children will be unable to regulate their own behavior and will suffer further rejection or disrupted adoptive placements (i.e., failed adoptions) due to their inability to bond with their new caregivers. It’s a tragic situation for everyone involved. I share this because it’s a representative example of learned helplessness. If the young child cries because she’s hungry, tired, needs to be changed, and so forth and no one routinely responds and takes care of this little girl’s needs, she will learn to stop crying and reaching out because it doesn’t bring her any change in circumstance. In fact, in some cases it results in being physically abused so that’s even more reason to avoid asking for assistance.
Your text speaks about a student experiencing early failure with math which can result in concluding that one is incapable of doing math. Learned helplessness in school is actually quite prevalent and unfortunately very resistant to change. Consequently, this is a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud as early as possible in one’s academic career. Research has demonstrated that when animals or children have experienced failure in controlling their situations (the dog with the electric shock, or the student in math class), they will be slow in exercising control when the situation changes so that they can be successful (learning a new behavior that results in escaping the shock, attempting new math questions that the student is capable of completing). Thus, the original learned helplessness sets up a predetermined failure to learn in the future that carries over to other learning situations and is resistant to change.
Masserman’s experimental neurosis is also discussed in your chapter. This theory suggests that when animals are exposed to unpredictable events in their environment they behave in a manner that resembles a state of anxiety including signs of being restless or fidgety, passive and withdrawn, or even cataleptic. This animal reaction has been likened to the symptoms expressed by people diagnosed with PTSD ( Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). Due to the unpredictability of being placed in life-threatening situations, such as a war zone, people will experience hyper-vigilance and anxiety from their lack of ability to control their circumstances. What is clear from all these examples is that humans take great comfort in being able to control aspects of their environment, their choices, and their behavioral options. To live with uncertainty or absolutely no influence over one’s circumstances can lead to significant psychological distress.
I encourage you to examine the “ And Furthermore” discussion of Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder): a Behavioral Perspective. This highly controversial diagnosis is nicely depicted in the text discussion. You can see clearly how reinforcement of alleged “alters” can influence how often they are displayed and for what lengths of time. As I side on the argument that such “alters” are an iatrogenic creation of psychotherapy (suggestive influence through a psychotherapeutic paradigm), it makes logical sense that based on punishment and reinforcement strategies such alleged “alters” would disappear or become more prominent.
That brings us to the end of the lecture notes for this week. You will find some practice questions in the text as well as at the end of this lecture that go over much of what we have learned these past few weeks about Operant Conditioning. Please take the time to complete these questions before attempting Quiz #8. We also have our third Classroom Discussion this week so be sure to weigh in and share your thoughts with the class.
See practice questions on next page …
Take a Bite out of Twilight
One day Mike Newton noticed Bella smiled at him when he mentioned reading some of Wuthering Heights. Wanting Bella to pay more attention to him instead of Edward, Mike reads and studies more about the book. Now as he talks to Bella about Wuthering Heights, she smiles and gives him her undivided attention.
1. When Bella smiles and talks to him these behaviors are classified in behavioral terms as _____________________________________.
However, after 2 weeks, Bella only gives Mike her undivided attention when discussing the book 50% of the time.
2. The reinforcement schedule wherein Bella only responds 50% of the time is referred to as a ________________________ schedule.
3. According to behavioral theory, which reinforcement schedule is more likely to increase and maintain reading certain books over time? ________________________________
4. Occasionally Charlie has to remind Bella to clean her room. Bella feels like she’s being nagged when this happens so she goes and cleans her room.
What behavioral principle is operating in this situation? _________________________.
5. Sometimes Bella doesn’t get her room cleaned and so she is restricted from seeing Edward.
The behavioral principle in this situation is ____________________________________.
6. Bella has been having trouble with her math homework so she asks Edward for help.
If Edward were to kiss Bella every 5th time she got a math problem right, this would be an example of ___________________________________.
7. If Edward were to kiss Bella on the average of 1 out of 5 math problems correct but in a random order, he would be using a _____________________________.
8. If Bella was reinforced every 3 minutes of working on her math undistracted, Edward would be using a _____________________________.
1. Positive reinforcers
2. Partial/intermittent
3. Partial/intermittent schedule
4. Negative reinforcement
5. Negative punishment
6. Fixed ratio
7. Variable ratio
8. Fixed interval
