Skinners Positive Reinforcement Theory - Research Paper Example

? B.F. Skinner’s Positive Reinforcement Theory Skinner’s theory of reinforcement involves shaping behavior by shaping the consequence of that particular behavior (Skinner, 1970). Here, punishments and/or rewards are combined and used to extinguish and/or reinforce certain behaviors respectively. Operant behaviors are those behaviors that bring out a consequence since the individual’s operation is on their personal environment. Furthermore, Tucker, Sigafoos and Bushell (1998) assert that the concentration of the theory is directed towards the relationship that exists between operant behavior and the resulting consequences. This paper provides a detailed exploration of the theory of reinforcement while highlighting the facets of the theory as well as its organizational application. B.F. Skinner’s Positive Reinforcement Theory Background and Development of the Theory Many behavioral theories of motivation and learning have their main emphasis on the consequence of previous behavior on future behavior. In contrast, classical conditioning emphasizes on the responses automatically elicited by stimuli. The reinforcement theory argues that individuals will choose the response they exhibit to a given stimulus, and based on the outcome they will repeat the same choice in cases of similar stimulus in the future (Skinner, 1970). To further develop the theory’s suggestion, Thorndike (1911) developed what is now known as the Law of Effect which states that, with other factors remaining constant, positive responses to stimuli will be strengthened as opposed to the weakening of the responses to stimuli associated with discomfort (Michael, 2005). Reinforcement Key contributor to modern ideologies’ development about the theory of reinforcement is Skinner who proposed that the internal requirements and desires of a person can be assumed based on the fact that people can learn to exhibit certain responses and/or behaviors with respect to the consequence(s) of the behavior. He labeled this school of thought a radical behaviorist or simply the behaviorist school (Michael, 2005). Positive Reinforcement Of all the principles of the theory of reinforcement, Michael (2005) believes that reinforcement is the most crucial and it comes in two forms; positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is as a result of the occurrence of a behavioral consequence of immense value that has a strengthening effect on the probability of the repeated occurrence of the behavior. This behavioral consequence is referred to as a reinforcer (Michael, 2005). A suitable example of this case is where a sales person trying a sales quota (behavior) exerts additional effort towards this goal, and the end result is a bonus reward (positive reinforcer). Administering the positive reinforcer makes it more likely that the salesperson will not stop exerting the required effort in the future (Montana and Charnov, 2008). Negative Reinforcement Negative reinforcement is as a result of undesirable behavioral consequences being withheld while at the same time strengthening the effect on the probability of a repeat of the behavior. Few people mistake negative reinforcement for punishment, but the two are different (Montana and Charnov, 2008). While negative reinforcement attempts to increase the desired behavior punishment strives to reduce the probability of occurrence of the behavior. Thus, Montana and Charnov (2008) believe that both negative and positive reinforcement have a trend of increasing the probability of the learning and repeated occurrence of a particular behavior. A suitable example in this case comes with the salesperson too. This time, the sales person exerts an effort with an aim of increasing the sales in their point of sale (behavior). Consequently, the decision that follows is not to reassign the successful salesperson to another sales point that is undesirable (negative reinforcer). Administration of this type of reinforcement ensures that the salesperson is able to exert more effort in the future if required. Punishment Punishment, as earlier seen, administers a behavioral consequence that is not desired to stop repeated occurrence of undesired behavior. Experts have argued that punishment is associated with negative side effects, and thus, should only be used in cases where both positive and negative reinforcements have previously failed (Montana and Charnov, 2008). A suitable example of this case is where an employee is demoted owing to inability to meet performance targets or suspension of an employee without pay owing to the violation of the workplace rules. Extinction Extinction works in a similar manner as punishment as it also works towards reducing unwanted behavior (Montana and Charnov, 2008). The process begins when a behavioral consequence valued in the organization is withheld so as to reduce the probability of the occurrence of a learned behavior. In case a positive enforcer is not working, extinction is the perfect alternative as it can serve to curb undesirable trend (Michael, 2005). A suitable example is where an employee is accustomed to continuous praise for timeliness in their work. When this behavior stops, the employee’s desirable behaviors will automatically diminish. To avoid this scenario i.e. unwanted extinction, managers may be required to go on with offering of positive behavioral consequences. Scope of Change The theory of reinforcement focuses its activities on an individual. The changes and behaviors recognized by this theory address an individual’s change in an organization. An organization is made of individual employees who function as a single entity in order to realize the organizational targets and/or goals (Montana and Charnov, 2008). A change brought to a single functionality (individual employee) of the entire entity (organization) has a massive impact on the entity as a whole, thus it is for this reason that the theory of reinforcement is considered to address the change in an organization at large and not the individual despite the focus on an individual that the theory emphasizes. Attributes of the Theory We have seen that positive reinforcement happens to increase the repeated occurrence of a certain behavior. When one exhibits a certain response to stimuli and the response is positively reinforced, then this response is destined to occur again. As a result, Baer and Wolf (1970) argue that the first occurrence of a behavior is enough to enter a behavioral trap, and once entered, the trap can irresistibly create a general behavior change of the individual. As a result, the below attributes have been identified to be associated with the reinforcement theory based on the idea of the behavioral traps (Montana and Charnov, 2008). Positive – a low effort is required to enter the trap and this effort is already among the variety of choice of responses available to the individual. The behavior trap has interrelated contingencies of reinforcement which motivate the individual to acquire, maintain and extend their target objectives. They can be effective over a long period of time since the individual shows little or no signs of satisfaction. Negative – The behavioral traps are baited with reinforcers that are virtually irresistible to lure the individual into the trap. Application of the Theory: Intelligence Agency Artificial Intelligence (AI) involves the use of machines or rather a branch of computer science that deals with the intelligence of machines (Overskeid, 2012). This theory can be applied in AI to control the walking of robots beginning with a motionless position. Here, the control inputs are torques for swinging and rocking of the legs. This torques is root to the rotational movements but it depends on the configuration of the robot, and is too weak to move the robot in a subjective trajectory. At this point, Michael (2005) affirms that the positive reinforcement theory comes in to try and increase the repeated occurrence of the movement that has been initiated by the torques. Upon repetition of the trend/behavior, the robot is able to move around. The key problem is pumping the robot with energy and maintaining its balance, while at the same time rocking and swinging its legs. References Baer and Wolf (1970). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of Human Behavior, Gleenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 2, 319–24. Michael, J. (2005). Positive and negative reinforcement, a distinction that is no longer necessary; or a better way to talk about bad things. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 24, 207–22. Montana, P. J. & Charnov, B. H. (2008). Management, Barron's Educational Series. 247. Overskeid, G. (2012). The role of emotions in reinforcement: Response selection in humans. The Psychological Record. 62, 125-132. Skinner, B. F. (1970). Walden two. Macmillan, Toronto. Tucker, M., Sigafoos, J., & Bushell, H. (1998). Use of noncontingent reinforcement in the treatment of challenging behavior. Behavior Modification, 22, 529–47. Read More