I am Leah Yulevich, a radical behaviorist; please visit my profile page for information about myself. My aim in this blog is to discuss agenda for expanding operant research, and I hope experimenters, too, will join in and take the ideas further.
I’d like to begin with the obvious:
The laboratory situation:
Pressing a bar in a lab, the animal does not move away; the organism stays in place.
An experimental question:
Does the animal's immobility depend on reinforcement?
Reviewing cumulative records:
The animal is stationary. But a bar-pressing body part (e.g. a paw, a beak, a hand) moves
and the rate increases. The cumulative curves reflect stationary individuals whose body-parts move and accelerate. Only by accident was this obvious to me.
The points about stationary subjects are these:
as they press keys, animals invariably sit or stand; so locomotion does not come under scrutiny. No one sees why the entire organism moves.
Nor do we report the datum that reinforcement keeps animals at a standstill as they obtain grain or water. Since they never go to and fro in the lab, animal-subjects have been hidden from view and scientists have little to say about them.
I worry because psychology and behavior analysis have grown apart. I feel it would be good if we could bridge the conceptual gaps between the two fields. Should anyone agree that this is important, I shall be delighted to hear their thoughts and comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
*Note
For example, Azrin, N.H. and Holz W.C. (1966) Punishment: Figure 1.”Breakfast in Bed”; p. 385 in OPERANT BEHAVIOR: AREAS OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATION. Editor, Werner K. Honig
I’d like to begin with the obvious:
The laboratory situation:
Pressing a bar in a lab, the animal does not move away; the organism stays in place.
An experimental question:
Does the animal's immobility depend on reinforcement?
Reviewing cumulative records:
The animal is stationary. But a bar-pressing body part (e.g. a paw, a beak, a hand) moves
and the rate increases. The cumulative curves reflect stationary individuals whose body-parts move and accelerate. Only by accident was this obvious to me.
I am as sure today - as I was in 1984 - that it is correct and has general significance.
Immobilization - as a function of reinforcement - raises wide issues, for instance:
· What moves creatures from afar?
· Does reinforcement make organisms approach?
· Do remote conditioned signs or signals systematically attract persons and animals?
As for aversion:
The definitions of punishment don’t mention locomotion as free-operant behavior.
· Why don’t healthy animals evade the lever that will shock them?
· Why don’t they just move away when threatened with electricity?
I think the answer is, chamber walls are electrified and subjects have no choice but to remain where they are. (See note*)
In any case, neither approach nor avoidance can be fully grasped if an animal’s direction of movement remains controversial. This is why I suggest the time has come to expand conditioning research and include not only the temporal but also the spatial dimension.
The points about stationary subjects are these:
as they press keys, animals invariably sit or stand; so locomotion does not come under scrutiny. No one sees why the entire organism moves.
Nor do we report the datum that reinforcement keeps animals at a standstill as they obtain grain or water. Since they never go to and fro in the lab, animal-subjects have been hidden from view and scientists have little to say about them.
I worry because psychology and behavior analysis have grown apart. I feel it would be good if we could bridge the conceptual gaps between the two fields. Should anyone agree that this is important, I shall be delighted to hear their thoughts and comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you!
---------------*Note
For example, Azrin, N.H. and Holz W.C. (1966) Punishment: Figure 1.”Breakfast in Bed”; p. 385 in OPERANT BEHAVIOR: AREAS OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATION. Editor, Werner K. Honig
