2. Settings and participants were in fact
real.
The intervention however, was not real.
In case you are wondering…
The setting was simply Teddy’s natural
environment at my boyfriends house.
3.
Teddy is a poodle that had learned on
his own to smile and had a natural taste
for beer.
4.
There was technically no reason to
intervene, I simply studied the natural
contingencies occurring in the
environment (aka Teddy’s house)
5. Beer was a natural reinforcer for Teddy.
Smiling was the naturally occurring
behavior.
6. Teddy has no
reinforcing taste
of beer.
Teddy smiles.
Teddy still has no
reinforcing taste
of beer.
7. For Teddy to successfully obtain beer, we
outlined 3 behaviors and chained them
together- a process called behavioral
chaining.
Looking at the can.
Sitting patiently.
And finally, smiling.
8.
9.
Teddy would need an unconditioned
stimulus. The U.S. would be the beer itself,
but what would Teddy’s unconditioned
response be?
10.
For ease sake, we’ll just say that his
unconditioned response was drooling. I
don’t know many dogs that don’t drool
and it’s pretty common for mammals to
salivate when in the presence of a
favorite food or drink.
11. Next, Teddy needed a conditioned
stimulus. Since beer was usually
distributed in cans at the house, a silver
beer can would be Teddy’s cue that
beer was in front of him.
And the conditioned response? Teddy
could smile when he wanted to; now my
goal was to train him to specifically smile
for beer.
15. Desired response was achieved through
intervention.
No recycling necessary.
The naturally reinforcing taste of beer
was sufficient for Teddy to learn.
16. If I were to recycle…
More strict and consistent monitoring
(meaning Ted was not allowed to have
any beer unless he smiled. )
Introduce salty snacks, making thirst his
motivating operation.
This thirst or deprivation increases
relevant learning and performance.
17.
18.
In our hypothetical recycle, Teddy was
thirsty and ready to learn- easily
increasing his performance to 98.9%