Although psychologists have identified a number of different types of learning, a general definition encompasses them all: Learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior brought about by experience. To understand learning, we need to return to the nature-nurture issue we first discussed in Chapter 1. Specifically, we must distinguish between performance changes due to maturation and changes brought about by experience. (Maturation is the nature part of the nature-nurture question; experience is the nurture part.) For instance, children become better tennis players as they grow older partially because their strength increases with their size—a maturational phenomenon. Maturational changes need to be differentiated from improvements due to practice, which indicate that learning has taken place. Similarly, we must distinguish short-term changes in behavior that are due to factors other than learning, such as declines in performance resulting from fatigue or lack of effort, from performance changes that are due to actual learning. The distinction between learning and performance is critical, and not always easy to make (Druckman & Bjork, 1994). To some psychologists, we can examine learning only indirectly, by observing changes in performance. Because there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between learning and performance, understanding when true learning has occurred is difficult, as someone who has done poorly on an exam due to fatigue, but who really does know the material, can well understand. On the other hand, some psychologists have approached learning from a very different perspective. By considering learning simply as any change in behavior, they maintain that learning and performance are the same thing.
Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, never intended to do psychological research. In 1904 he won the Nobel Prize for his work on digestion, testimony to his contribution to that field. Yet Pavlov is remembered not for his physiological research, but for his experiments on basic learning processes—work that he began quite accidentally (Windholz, 1997). Pavlov had been studying the secretion of stomach acids and salivation in dogs in response to the ingestion of varying amounts and kinds of food. He saw that the dogs were responding not only on the basis of a biological need (hunger), but also as a result of learning—or, as it came to be called, classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is a type of learning in which a neutral stimulus (such as the experimenter’s footsteps) comes to bring about a response after it is paired with a stimulus (such as food) that naturally brings about that response. To demonstrate and analyze classical conditioning, Pavlov conducted a series of experiments (Pavlov, 1927). In one, he attached a tube to the salivary gland of a dog, which would allow him to measure precisely the dog’s salivation. He then rang a bell and, just a few seconds later, presented the dog with meat. This pairing, carefully planned so that exactly the same amount of time elapsed between the presentation of the bell and the meat, occurred repeatedly. At first the dog would salivate only when the meat itself was presented, but soon it began to salivate at the sound of the bell. In fact, even when Pavlov stopped presenting the meat, the dog still salivated after hearing the sound. The dog had been classically conditioned to salivate to the bell.
As you can see in Figure 6-1, the basic processes of classical conditioning that underlie Pavlov’s discovery are straightforward, although the terminology he chose is not simple. Consider first the diagram in Figure 6-1a. Before conditioning, there are two unrelated stimuli: the ringing of a bell and meat. We know that normally the ringing of a bell does not lead to salivation but to some irrelevant response, such as perking up the ears or, perhaps, a startle reaction. The bell is therefore called the neutral stimulus because it is a stimulus that, before conditioning, does not naturally bring about the response of interest. We also have meat, which, because of the biological makeup of the dog, naturally leads to salivation—the response that we are interested in conditioning. The meat is considered an unconditioned stimulus, or UCS, because food placed in a dog’s mouth automatically causes salivation to occur.
The response that the meat elicits (salivation) is called an unconditioned response, or UCR—a natural, innate response that is not associated with previous learning. Unconditioned responses are always brought about by the presence of unconditioned stimuli.
Figure 6-1b illustrates what happens during conditioning. The bell is rung just before each presentation of the meat. The goal of conditioning is for the bell to become associated with the unconditioned stimulus (meat) and therefore to bring about the same sort of response as the unconditioned stimulus. During this period, salivation gradually increases each time the bell is rung, until the bell alone causes the dog to salivate. When conditioning is complete, the bell has evolved from a neutral stimulus to what is now called a conditioned stimulus, or CS. At this time, salivation that occurs as a response to the conditioned stimulus (bell) is considered a conditioned response, or CR. This situation is depicted in Figure 6-1c. After conditioning, then, the conditioned stimulus evokes the conditioned response. The sequence and timing of the presentation of the unconditioned stimulus and the conditioned stimulus are particularly important (Rescorla, 1988; Wasserman & Miller, 1997). Like a malfunctioning warning light at a railroad crossing that goes on after the train has passed by, a neutral stimulus that follows an unconditioned stimulus has little chance of becoming a conditioned stimulus. On the other hand, just as a warning light works best if it goes on right before a train passes, a neutral stimulus that is presented just before the unconditioned stimulus is most apt to result in successful conditioning. Research has shown that conditioning is most effective if the neutral stimulus (which will become a conditioned stimulus) precedes the unconditioned stimulus by between a half-second and several seconds, depending on what kind of response is being conditioned.
Although the terminology employed by Pavlov to describe classical conditioning may at first seem confusing, the following summary rules can help to make the relationships between stimuli and responses easier to understand and remember: An unconditioned stimulus leads to an unconditioned response. Unconditioned stimulus–unconditioned response pairings are unlearned and untrained.
During conditioning, a previously neutral stimulus is transformed into the conditioned stimulus.
A conditioned stimulus leads to a conditioned response, and a conditioned stimulus–conditioned response pairing is a consequence of learning and training. An unconditioned response and a conditioned response are similar (such as salivation in the example described earlier), but the conditioned response is learned, whereas the unconditioned response occurs naturally. Although the initial conditioning experiments were carried out with animals, classical conditioning principles were soon found to explain many aspects of everyday human behavior. Recall, for instance, the earlier illustration of how people may experience hunger pangs at the sight of McDonald’s golden arches. The cause of this reaction is classical conditioning. Emotional responses are particularly likely to be learned through classical conditioning processes. For instance, how do some of us develop fears of mice, spiders, and other creatures that are typically harmless? In a now-famous case study designed to show that classical conditioning was at the root of such fears, an 11-month-old infant named Albert, who initially showed no fear of rats, heard a loud noise just as he was shown a rat (Watson & Rayner, 1920). The noise (the unconditioned stimulus) evoked fear (the unconditioned response). After just a few pairings of noise and rat, Albert began to show fear of the rat by itself. The rat, then, had become a CS that brought about the CR, fear. Similarly, the pairing of the appearance of certain species (such as mice or spiders) with the fearful comments of an adult may cause children to develop the same fears their parents have. (By the way, we don’t know what happened to the unfortunate Albert, and Watson, the experimenter, has been condemned for using ethically questionable procedures.)
Extinction occurs when a previously conditioned response decreases in frequency and eventually disappears. To produce extinction, one needs to end the association between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Extinction occurs when the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus. We should keep in mind that extinction can be a helpful phenomenon. Consider, for instance, what it would be like if the fear you experienced while watching the Blair Witch Project never was extinguished. You might well tremble with fright every time you entered any wooded area. The goal of systematic desensitization is to bring about the extinction of the phobia. For example, a therapist using systematic desensitization for a client who is afraid of dogs may repeatedly expose the client to dogs, starting with a less frightening aspect (a photo of a cute dog) and moving toward more feared ones (such as an actual encounter with an unfamiliar dog). As the anticipated negative consequences of exposure to the dog (e.g., being jumped on or bitten) do not occur, the fear eventually becomes extinguished. Pavlov discovered this when he returned to his dog a few days after the conditioned behavior had seemingly been extinguished. If he rang a bell, the dog once again salivated—an effect known as spontaneous recovery, or the re-emergence of an extinguished conditioned response after a period of rest. Spontaneous recovery helps explain why it is so hard to overcome drug addictions. For example, cocaine addicts who are thought to be “cured” may experience an irresistible impulse to use the drug again if they are subsequently confronted by a stimulus with strong connections to the drug, such as a white powder (O’Brien et al., 1992; Drummond et al., 1995).
Stimulus generalization takes place when a conditioned response follows a stimulus that is similar to the original conditioned stimulus. The greater the similarity between the two stimuli, the greater the likelihood of stimulus generalization. Baby Albert, who, as we mentioned earlier, was conditioned to be fearful of rats, was later found to be afraid of other furry white things as well. He was fearful of white rabbits, white fur coats, and even a white Santa Claus mask. On the other hand, according to the principle of stimulus generalization, it is unlikely that he would have been afraid of a black dog, since its color would differentiate it sufficiently from the original fear-evoking stimulus. The conditioned response elicited by the new stimulus is usually not as intense as the original conditioned response, although the more similar the new stimulus is to the old one, the more similar the new response will be. Still, stimulus generalization permits us to know, for example, that we ought to brake at all red lights, even if there are minor variations in size, shape, and shade. Stimulus discrimination is the ability to differentiate between stimuli. For example, the ability to discriminate between a red and a green traffic light prevents us from getting mowed down by oncoming traffic at intersections.
Operant conditioning describes learning in which a voluntary response is strengthened or weakened, depending on its favorable or unfavorable consequences. Unlike classical conditioning, in which the original behaviors are the natural, biological responses to the presence of some stimulus such as food, water, or pain, operant conditioning applies to voluntary responses, which an organism performs deliberately, to produce a desirable outcome. If you placed a hungry cat in a cage and then put a small piece of food outside, chances are the cat would eagerly search for a way out of the cage. The cat might first claw at the sides or push against an opening. Suppose, though, that you had rigged things so that the cat could escape by stepping on a small paddle that released the latch to the door of the cage (see Figure 6-2). Eventually, as it moved around the cage, the cat would happen to step on the paddle, the door would open, and the cat would eat the food. After a few trials, the cat would deliberately step on the paddle as soon as it was placed in the cage. What would have occurred, according to Edward L. Thorndike (1932), who studied this situation extensively, was that the cat would have learned that pressing the paddle was associated with the desirable consequence of getting food. Thorndike summarized that relationship by formulating the law of effect, which states that responses that lead to satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated, and responses followed by negative outcomes are less likely to be repeated. Thorndike’s early research served as the foundation for the work of one of the century’s most influential psychologists, B. F. Skinner. You may have heard of the Skinner box (shown in one form in Figure 6-3), a chamber with a highly controlled environment used to study operant conditioning processes with laboratory animals. Whereas Thorndike’s goal was to get his cats to learn to obtain food by leaving the box, animals in a Skinner box learn to obtain food by operating on their environment within the box. Skinner became interested in specifying how behavior varied as a result of alterations in the environment.
Skinner called the process that leads the pigeon to continue pecking the key “reinforcement.” Reinforcement is the process by which a stimulus increases the probability that a preceding behavior will be repeated. In other words, pecking is more likely to occur again due to the stimulus of food. In a situation such as this one, the food is called a reinforcer. A reinforcer is any stimulus that increases the probability that a preceding behavior will occur again. Hence, food is a reinforcer because it increases the probability that the behavior of pecking the key (formally referred to as the response of pecking) will take place. What kind of stimuli can act as reinforcers? Bonuses, toys, and good grades can serve as reinforcers—if they strengthen the probability of the response that occurred before their introduction. In each case, it is critical that the organism learn that the delivery of the reinforcer is contingent on the response occurring in the first place.
A primary reinforcer satisfies some biological need and works naturally, regardless of a person’s prior experience. Food for the hungry person, warmth for the cold person, and relief for the person in pain would all be classified as primary reinforcers. A secondary reinforcer, in contrast, is a stimulus that becomes reinforcing because of its association with a primary reinforcer. For instance, we know that money is valuable because we have learned that it allows us to obtain other desirable objects, including primary reinforcers such as food and shelter. Money thus becomes a secondary reinforcer. What makes something a reinforcer depends on individual preferences. While a Hershey bar may act as a reinforcer for one person, an individual who dislikes chocolate might find 75 cents more desirable. The only way we can know if a stimulus is a reinforcer for a given organism is to observe whether the frequency of a previously occurring behavior increases after the presentation of the stimulus.
A positive reinforcer is a stimulus added to the environment that brings about an increase in a preceding response. If food, water, money, or praise is provided following a response, it is more likely that that response will occur again in the future. The paycheck that workers get at the end of the week, for example, increases the likelihood that they will return to their jobs the following week. In contrast, a negative reinforcer refers to an unpleasant stimulus whose removal from the environment leads to an increase in the probability that a preceding response will occur again in the future. For example, if you have cold symptoms (an unpleasant stimulus) that are relieved when you take medicine, you are more likely to take the medicine when you experience such symptoms again. Taking medicine, then, is negatively reinforcing, because it removes the unpleasant cold symptoms. Similarly, if the radio volume is so loud that it hurts your ears, you are likely to find that turning it down relieves the problem. Lowering the volume is negatively reinforcing and you are more apt to repeat the action in the future. Negative reinforcement, then, teaches the individual that taking an action removes a negative condition that exists in the environment. Like positive reinforcers, negative reinforcers increase the likelihood that preceding behaviors will be repeated.
It is important to note that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Punishment refers to a stimulus that decreases the probability that a prior behavior will occur again. Unlike negative reinforcement, which produces an increase in behavior, punishment reduces the likelihood of a prior response. If we receive a shock that is meant to decrease a certain behavior, then, we are receiving punishment; but if we are already receiving a shock and do something to stop that shock, the behavior that stops the shock is considered to be negatively reinforced. In the first case, the specific behavior is apt to decrease because of the punishment; in the second, it is likely to increase because of the negative reinforcement. There are two types of punishment: positive punishment and negative punishment, just as there is positive and negative reinforcement. (In both cases, “positive” means adding something, while “negative” means removing something.) Positive punishment weakens a response through the application of an unpleasant stimulus. In contrast, negative punishment consists of the removal of something pleasant. Both positive and negative punishment result in a decrease in the likelihood that a prior behavior will be repeated. Several disadvantages make the routine use of punishment questionable. For one thing, it is frequently ineffective, particularly if the punishment is not delivered shortly after the behavior being suppressed or if the individual is able to withdraw from the setting in which the punishment is being given. In short, reinforcing desired behavior is a more appropriate technique for modifying behavior than using punishment. Both in and out of the scientific arena, then, reinforcement usually beats punishment (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991; Seppa, 1996).
When we refer to the frequency and timing of reinforcement following desired behavior we are talking about schedules of reinforcement. Behavior that is reinforced every time it occurs is said to be on a continuous reinforcement schedule; if it is reinforced some but not all of the time, it is on a partial reinforcement schedule. Although learning occurs more rapidly under a continuous reinforcement schedule, behavior lasts longer after reinforcement stops when it is learned under a partial reinforcement schedule. Why should partial reinforcement schedules result in stronger, longer-lasting learning than continuous reinforcement schedules? We can answer the question by examining how we might behave when using a candy vending machine compared with a Las Vegas slot machine. When we use a vending machine, prior experience has taught us that every time we put in the appropriate amount of money, the reinforcement, a candy bar, ought to be delivered. In other words, the schedule of reinforcement is continuous. In comparison, a slot machine offers a partial reinforcement schedule. We have learned that after putting in our cash, most of the time we will not receive anything in return. At the same time, though, we know that we will occasionally win something. Now suppose that, unbeknownst to us, both the candy vending machine and the slot machine are broken, so that neither one is able to dispense anything. It would not be very long before we stopped depositing coins into the broken candy machine. Probably at most we would try only two or three times before leaving the machine in disgust. But the story would be quite different with the broken slot machine. Here, we would drop in money for a considerably longer time, even though there would be no pay-off.
Certain kinds of partial reinforcement schedules produce stronger and lengthier responding before extinction than others (King & Logue, 1990). Although many different partial reinforcement schedules have been examined, they can most readily be put into two categories: schedules that consider the number of responses made before reinforcement is given, called fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules, and those that consider the amount of time that elapses before reinforcement is provided, called fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules. Fixed- and Variable-Ratio Schedules. In a fixed-ratio schedule, reinforcement is given only after a certain number of responses. For instance, a pigeon might receive a food pellet every tenth time it pecked a key; here, the ratio would be 1:10. Similarly, garment workers are generally paid on fixed-ratio schedules: They receive several dollars for every blouse they sew. Because a greater rate of production means more reinforcement, people on fixed-ratio schedules are apt to work as quickly as possible (see Figure 6-4). In a variable-ratio schedule, reinforcement occurs after a varying number of responses rather than after a fixed number. Although the specific number of responses necessary to receive reinforcement varies, the number of responses usually hovers around a specific average. A good example of a variable-ratio schedule is a telephone salesperson’s job. She may make a sale during the third, eighth, ninth, and twentieth calls without being successful during any call in between. Although the number of responses that must be made before making a sale varies, it averages out to a 20 percent success rate. Under these circumstances, you might expect that the salesperson would try to make as many calls as possible in as short a time as possible. This is the case with all variable-ratio schedules, which lead to a high rate of response and resistance to extinction.
In contrast to fixed- and variable-ratio schedules, in which the crucial factor is the number of responses, fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules focus on the amount of time that has elapsed since a person or animal was rewarded. One example of a fixed-interval schedule is a weekly paycheck. For people who receive regular, weekly paychecks, it typically makes relatively little difference exactly how much they produce in a given week. Because a fixed-interval schedule provides reinforcement for a response only if a fixed time period has elapsed, overall rates of response are relatively low. This is especially true in the period just after reinforcement when the time before another reinforcement is relatively great. Students’ study habits often exemplify this reality. If the periods between exams are relatively long (meaning that the opportunity for reinforcement for good performance is fairly infrequent), students often study minimally or not at all until the day of the exam draws near. Just before the exam, however, students begin to cram for it, signaling a rapid increase in the rate of their studying response. As you might expect, immediately following the exam there is a rapid decline in the rate of responding, with few people opening a book the day after a test. In a variable-interval schedule, the time between reinforcements varies around some average rather than being fixed. For example, a professor who gives surprise quizzes that vary from one every three days to one every three weeks, averaging one every two weeks, is using a variable-interval schedule. Compared to the study habits we observed with a fixed-interval schedule, students’ study habits under such a variable-interval schedule would most likely be very different. Students would be apt to study more regularly since they would never know when the next surprise quiz would be coming. Variable-interval schedules, in general, are more likely to produce relatively steady rates of responding than fixed-interval schedules, with responses that take longer to extinguish after reinforcement ends.
The process by which people learn to discriminate stimuli is known as stimulus control training. In stimulus control training, a behavior is reinforced in the presence of a specific stimulus, but not in its absence. For example, one of the most difficult discriminations many people face is determining when someone’s friendliness is not mere friendliness, but a signal of romantic interest. People learn to make the discrimination by observing the presence of certain nonverbal cues—such as increased eye contact and touching—that indicate romantic interest. When such cues are absent, people learn that no romantic interest is indicated. In this case, the nonverbal cue acts as a discriminative stimulus, one to which an organism learns to respond during stimulus control training. A discriminative stimulus signals the likelihood that reinforcement will follow a response. For example, if you wait until your roommate is in a good mood before you ask to borrow her favorite compact disc, your behavior can be said to be under stimulus control since you can discriminate between her moods. Just as in classical conditioning, the phenomenon of stimulus generalization, in which an organism learns a response to one stimulus and then applies it to other stimuli, is also found in operant conditioning. If you have learned that being polite produces the reinforcement of getting your way in a certain situation, you are likely to generalize your response to other situations. Sometimes, though, generalization can have unfortunate consequences, such as when people behave negatively toward all members of a racial group because they have had an unpleasant experience with one member of that group.
Superstitious behavior can be explained in terms of learning and reinforcement. As we have seen, behavior that is followed by a reinforcer tends to be strengthened. Occasionally, however, the behavior that occurs prior to the reinforcement is entirely coincidental. Still, an association is made between the behavior and reinforcement. Shaping is the process of teaching a complex behavior by rewarding closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior. In shaping, any behavior that is at all similar to the behavior you want the person to learn is reinforced at first. Later, you reinforce only responses that are closer to the behavior you ultimately want to teach. Finally, you reinforce only the desired response. Each step in shaping, then, moves only slightly beyond the previously learned behavior, permitting the person to link the new step to the behavior learned earlier. Shaping allows even lower animals to learn complex responses that would never occur naturally, ranging from lions trained to jump through hoops to dolphins trained to rescue divers lost at sea. Shaping also underlies the learning of many complex human skills. For instance, the organization of most textbooks is based on the principles of shaping. Typically, information is presented so that new material builds on previously learned concepts or skills. Thus the concept of shaping could not be presented in this chapter until we had discussed the more basic principles of operant learning.
In latent learning, a new behavior is learned but not demonstrated until reinforcement is provided for displaying it. In one study, psychologists examined the behavior of rats in a maze. In one experiment, a group of rats was allowed to wander around the maze once a day for seventeen days without ever receiving any reward. These rats made many errors and spent a relatively long time reaching the end of the maze. A second group, however, was always given food at the end of the maze. These rats learned to run quickly and directly to the food box, making few errors. A third group of rats started out in the same situation as the unrewarded rats, but only for the first ten days. On the eleventh day, the rats in this group were given food for completing the maze. The previously unrewarded rats, who had earlier seemed to wander about aimlessly, showed such reductions in running time and declines in error rates that their performance almost immediately matched that of the group that had received rewards from the start. To cognitive-social theorists, it seemed clear that the unrewarded rats had learned the layout of the maze early in their explorations; they just never displayed their latent learning until the reinforcement was offered. Instead, the rats seemed to develop a cognitive map of the maze—a mental representation of spatial locations and directions. According to psychologist Albert Bandura and colleagues, a major part of human learning consists of observational learning, which they define as learning through observing the behavior of another person called a model (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura, observational learning takes place in four steps: (1) paying attention and perceiving the most critical features of another person’s behavior; (2) remembering the behavior; (3) reproducing the action; and (4) being motivated to learn and carry out the behavior. Instead of learning occurring through trial and error, then, with successes being reinforced and failures punished, many important skills are learned through observational processes (Bandura, 1986).