How Does Reinforcement Work in Operant Conditioning?

Skinner’s View: Reinforcement Theory:

Skinner advocates a behaviorist point of view, which he terms as experimental analysis of behavior. For Skinner what are important are the responses and the role of reinforcement in shaping the responses. He does not admit any role of cognition in operant conditioning. If we understand the nature of reinforcers, and the schedule on which they are given, we can accurately predict behavior. The internal state of the organism, its belief, expectancies or anticipations is in no way involved in operant conditioning.

Cognitive Perspective:

The cognitive theorists believe that operant conditioning involves purposeful understanding of the situation rather than the automatic reinforcement of specific responses.

A common observation suggests that students who read to receive good grades in the examination learn by rote, show poor conceptual clarity, show less interest in reading, and forget quickly after the examination is over. For these students the motivation to read is external. Their action is a consequence of external motivation. Those who read for the fun of it, because they like doing so are internally motivated. They learn better, show better conceptual clarity and retain the material for a longer period of time. Thus, reinforcement in the form of getting a good grade works less effectively compared to intrinsic motivation of the learner. The presence of an external reward always in a learning situation may damage the intrinsic motivation of the learner. The internal belief and expectations are crucial factors in determining the effects of reward.

The cognitive theorists view learning as an active organizing of information in accordance with learner’s goals. The role of reward is to confirm the learner’s expectations for reaching a goal. If the reinforcer does not satisfy the organism’s expectation, it loses its reinforcing value. Cognitive theorists cite a number of evidences in support of their view.

Tolman considered himself a behaviorist. Yet he believed that the learner has a purpose in performing responses. The organism learns by being exposed to the environment, even if its responses do not bring reinforcement. In a classic experiment, Tolman allowed rats to run through a maze several times a day without receiving any reward. When reward was later given to the rats on the eleventh day, they learnt very quickly. It suggests that rats learnt something during the first ten days even in the absence of reward. This is called latent learning. The learning was latent and manifested when reinforcement was given. Tolman theorized that the rats formed a cognitive map, or in other wards a mental representation of the maze.

Tolmans’ experiment on place learning adds further support to the cognitive view. He showed that rats learn to approach the place where food is kept even if they are left at different directions from the ‘food’ box. They just do not learn a series of left-turn and right-turn responses to reach the box where food is kept. In other words, rats form a cognitive map of the maze, and use their understanding to execute responses.

The third evidence comes from studies on contrast effect. When rats are shifted from a smaller reward to a larger reward, performance level increases rapidly. This is positive contrast effect. Conversely, when they are shifted from a larger reward to a smaller reward, their performance sharply declines, reaching a level lower than that of animals receiving only smaller reward- a negative contrast effect. It appears that, it is not just the level of rewards, but also the evaluation of the reward value that determines animals’ responses. Salary for the employees is a reward. When there is an unexpected fall in the salary, performance sharply declines.

The cognitive theorists, thus, view instrumental learning as a matter of forming mental representations and expecting positive consequences for the behavior.