Operant Conditioning
Name:
Institution:

Operant conditioning acknowledges that mental processes play a vital role towards behavior, but instead of studying mental processes, the object of this realm examines observable behavior. The rationale behind this essence was created with regard to animals, which unlike humans cannot communicate. To demonstrate, when a child wants to use the bathroom, he or she may merely states of this intention and the adult will thus act accordingly in providing a restroom. Contrarily, a dog that wants to use the bathroom may bark while scratching its paws against the bathroom door. From this instance, the dog may have realized that tapping the bathroom door while barking contributes to the consequence of having the owner open the bathroom door. To this point, operant conditioning might examine how the situation of the dog tapping the bathroom rather than making a mess inside the house, came to be. Expectedly, the dog must have undergone training, which, in turn, “conditioned” the resultant behavior.
According to the law of effect, as proposed by Edward Thorndike, behavior that accrues to worthy consequences is likely to be repeated while that which assumes undesirable consequences is likely to be absconded. By extending this idea, B.F Skinner enabled the study of operant conditioning, which he described was a mode of learning that allows consequences to control responses. This theory further shows that learning through operant condition can produce four consequences (Comer & Gould, 2012). Learning may present positive traits (positive reinforcement R+) while, on the other hand, the learning process can eliminate encouraging prospects (negative reinforcement R+). At the same time, the training can discharge unbearable consequences (positive punishment P+) or contrarily, eliminate the unpleasant consequences (negative punishment P+). In this context, reinforcers refer to environmental responses that contribute to an increase in behavior repetition. Conversely, punishers are environmental responses that discourage the likelihood of repeated behavior. These concepts can be illustrated from the outlook of a teenager that has recently taken up the habit of smoking.
In positive reinforcement, for instance, the individual can be rewarded with five dollars a day when he or she manages not to smoke (thus decreasing the habit). Alternatively, positive reinforcement, in this example also describes a situation where smoking facilitates the teenager to become friends with the popular group in school (thus increasing habit). Negative reinforcement, on the other hand, can be achieved by taking away the smokers money so that he is unable to purchase cigarettes. This, therefore, shows that negative reinforcement can at times be preferable since it eliminates key facilitators of the behavior. In positive punishment, the individual may be expelled from school because of smoking and negative punishment can be enforced where the individual realizes that the unpleasant smell from smoking costs his or her dating life. Punishers and reinforcers can be either primary or secondary (Miltenberger, 2011). Primary reinforcers are elements that give natural satisfaction. These include, water, food and loving care. Primary punishers, on the other hand, are naturally unpleasant and include pain and freezing temperatures. Secondary reinforcers are features that have been associated with primary reinforcers and encompass money, good grades, and fashionable clothes. Finally, secondary punishers are related to primary punishers, and they comprise of social disapproval and poor grades.
Depending on the intended behavior, it is feasible to construct a reinforcement schedule. Reinforcement schedules can be either continuous or intermittent (Comer & Gould, 2012). In continuous reinforcement, the administrator provides reinforcement once a response is achieved. For instance, a trainer will applaud the dog each time it manages to use the bathroom, and still applauds when it pees standing up. In this case, the dog receives reinforcement in both instances. However, in intermittent reinforcement, the administrator offers reinforcement only when a precise action has been achieved. In this case, the dog would only be praised after having used the bathroom correctly. There are four types of intermittent reinforcement schedules: fixed-ratio schedule, variable-ratio schedule, fixed-interval schedule, and variable interval schedule. In fixed-ratio schedule reinforcement occurs after the participant attains a set of given targets. A variable ratio schedule arises after the participant manages to fulfill the given goal despite the many attempts. A fixed-variable schedule allows reinforcement to occur after an ascribed period. Lastly, a variable-interval schedule facilitates reinforcement to occur at random sets of time.
One can arrive at an appropriate schedule for shaping behavior based on the short or long-term applicability required (Miltenberger, 2011). In an instance where students rather than read and comprehend information, cram the concepts just before the exams, one may identify with variable-interval schedule as a tool for reinforcement. On one hand, the teacher can give the students pop quizzes and ensure that these quizzes are integrated in the students’ final grade. This, in turn, will ensure that the students are alert at all times, complete their assignments and attend classes continuously. Nevertheless, it is likely that the students will focus on the given subject and disregard the others. However, the aim of this methodology is to promote in-depth reading. In this stance, the students can be persuaded to form discussion groups for discussion purposes, which can be used for other subjects. Through this mechanism, the students will gradually conform and even prefer thorough reading than cramming. Importantly, using variable-interval schedule assures that responses are not easily extinguishable.

References
Comer, R., & Gould, E. (2012). Psychology around us. New York: Wiley.
Miltenberger, R. G. (2011). Behavior Modification: Principles & Procedures. New York: Cengage.