 |
| A lab rat in a Skinner Box, a controlled environment designed to reinforce desired behavior, photographed in 1964 by Lina Neen/ Time and Life Pictures/ Getty Images. Click here to go to source. |
One can see this same behavior in laboratory rats who have been trained to push a bar. When the scientist changes things so that the reward is no longer dispersed when the bar is pushed, the rat will go crazy at first pushing the bar with abandon. Eventually, he learns that pushing the bar, no matter how hard, no matter how fast, is to no avail. Until he "gets it" he does what he knows best: push, push, push.
Dispersing the reward is called reinforcement. There are two types of reinforcement: "Intermittent Reinforcement is given only part of the time the animal gives the desired response. It is often used instead of Continuous Reinforcement once the desired response is conditioned by Continuous Reinforcement and the reinforcer wishes to cut down or eliminate the the number of reinforcements necessary to encourage the intended response."- Intermittent Reinforcement Wikipedia.
Which type of reinforcement do you think is more powerful? Continuous or Intermittent?
If you said Continuous you would be right. But wait. If you said Intermittent you would also be right. It's a trick question. In the beginning Continuous Reinforcement is more powerful in shaping new behavior. However, Intermittent Reinforcement is more powerful in setting behavior.
We are interested in extinguishing negative behaviors in our teenagers. We are also interested in shaping new behaviors. Let's look at extinguishing negative behaviors first.
If there has been only Continuous Reinforcement, which means that every time the teenager acted out he got what he wanted OR he got serious attention then his behavior would theoretically be easier to extinguish than if he was only Intermittently Reinforced.
Take teenager Joe. He got what he wanted OR he got serious attention every time he acted out- it was Continuous. Suddenly, his parents went to PSST and when they returned home after the meeting, they immediately quit enabling. They completely quit capitulating AND they quit giving serious attention because they also quit arguing about things. Theoretically, teenager Joe's acting out behavior would be easier to extinguish than teenager John, who only got what he wanted OR got serious attention one out of three times that he acted out. Teenager John's behavior should be significantly harder to extinguish.
Think of it this way. The rat who has had Intermittent Reinforcement knows that the bar only works part of the time. To him, it's not that weird that it's not working because there have been other times when it didn't work. The rat who got something every time he pushed the bar can more easily see that the bar is broken. It always worked before, now it doesn't, therefore it must be broke. This rat's bar pushing behavior is extinguished faster.
What does this have to do with extinguishing teenager's negative behavior?
It is relevant because of this: most parents that begin to attend PSST don't stop enabling immediately after the first time they attend. The process of change might begin right away but it's not an overnight change. That sounds normal enough. Change is after all perhaps the hardest thing we humans do; however, by changing over time the parent is actually now switching from what might have been Continuous Reinforcement to Intermittent Reinforcement. The parent is now unwittingly, "setting" the negative behavior making that behavior harder than ever to change. In other words, the parent is paying for inconsistent application of a new parenting technique.
Now lets look at shaping new behavior. Continuous Reinforcement is actually the best and once established, changing to Intermittent Reinforcement to "set" the behavior. Now it becomes more important than ever to catch the teenager doing something right, and then reinforcing it every time the parent sees that behavior, at least for a while.
For example, you see your teenager being nice to his younger sister with whom he usually fights and argues. You make your move. You approach him and say, "Joe, I'd like to speak to you alone please." Joe probably wonders if he is in trouble. Once you get him alone it might go like this:
Parent: Joe, I saw what you did.
Joe: What? what did I do?
Parent: Well, you surprised me.
Joe: I did?
Parent: Yes, you did. When you told Julie that if it was that important to her to watch Survivor on TV, then she could change the station even though you were watching one of your favorite's DR. Who. That was very mature. Very adult. I'm impressed.
Joe: Oh, really?
Parent: Yes, I think that was a huge thing for a big brother to do for her little sister. You were being a great big brother Joe.
Joe: Not really.
Parent: Oh?
Joe: Naw, I saw that one before and it's not one of my favorites. I really thought Survivor might be more interesting.
Parent: Nevertheless.
Joe: No, I'm just tired of Dr. Who, that's all, don't make such a big think out of it.
Parent: Ok, OK, I hear you. Very modest about it huh? Good for you cause that also shows me you're growing up Joe.
Joe: It does?
Parent: Yes it really does. I remember a time when you would have argued with Julie about that even though you might not have cared what you watched. You would have tortured her just for fun.
Joe: Yeah, you're right.
Parent: Look, I didn't want to embarrass you- that's why I took you aside, but I just want you to know that I see what you're doing, OK?
Joe: OK, can I go now? I want to watch Survivor.
Parent: sure, [big hug and the parents holds it for a half second longer than usual and then gives her teenager an knowing look before she unhands him and he scampers away.
OK, what happened here? First, the parent's mission was accomplished: This parent caught the teenager red-handed doing something right.
Second, the teenager didn't want to accept any credit. This parent is shaping behavior, and this teenager was not comfortable with the new label, "adult", and resisted. This teenager might not want to see himself the way that parent saw him.
Third, the parent used a power word, "nevertheless" to seal the deal. This parent continues to see the teenager in the new way- mission accomplished again, i.e., catch the teenager doing something right.
From what we said above, now the parent needs to follow this up by catching the teenager in other acts of "adult behavior." Obviously, the approach is going to streamlined:
Parent: Hey,
Joe: what?
Parent: You're doing it again aren't you?
Joe: Doing what?
Parent: Acting all grown up.
Joe: What the hell does that mean?
Parent: You took out the garbage.
Joe: That's my job.
Parent: I know. But usually I have to nag you half to death and tonight you did it without me becoming a total bi&ch. Nice move.
Joe: [blushing a little] ha ha you're funny.
Parent: Sometimes. Right now I'm serious as a heart attack.
As we mentioned above, at some point you wouldn't reinforce every positive act, but in the beginning it is more effective in shaping behavior to acknowledge things.
Keep in mind that this parent has accepted the mission of catching the teenager doing something good. This parent has accepted the challenge. There has to be some things the teen does that is a step in the right direction and the parent is going to find those acts and reinforce them. Other parents are going to miss those acts.
Let's be clear. Continuous and Intermittent Reinforcement of good behavior is only one tool in the box. If you teenager is still actively using drugs, then catching them doing something right isn't going to get him to quit drugs and fly right; however, it is a skill that some parents never develop and that can hurt in the long run.
Notice that the parent in this scenario only rewarded with praise and attention. Some people believe that attention is the most powerful reinforcement known to man. Some parents get into the rut of only really giving serous focused attention to their teenager when they do something wrong. That's a recipe for disaster. Positive attention giving is very important. It is also important that the parent sees the behavior first before they apply the reinforcement although as we saw above, the parent can loosely interpret "good behavior."
For example, if while a teenager is exhibiting negative behavior, such as not doing his chore, and the parent approaches the teenager and has a discussion about why he doesn't do his chores and does he realize that is he doesn't do his chores the whole family will never get to go to Disney Land, then he is not effectively applying these principals. First of all, the attention is applied when negative behavior is happening and that reinforces that negative behavior. Secondly, the positive materialistic reward is also applied (talked about) when the negative behavior is rearing it's ugly head. It is bribery. Bribery doesn't work to good because the good stuff either happens when the behavior is bad or the good stuff is talked about (introducing the idea of the reinforcement) when the bad behavior is happening- so unwittingly the parent is reinforcing the wrong behavior.
To summarize: when a parent begins to stop enabling and yet they still do enable part of the time, they have moved into Intermittent Reinforcement, which makes it even more difficult to help that teenager change their behavior. People don't change overnight but it just so happens that inconsistency is expensive.
Secondly, when shaping new behaviors it is the parent's challenge to catch the teenager doing something good and applying positive reinforcement right then. Once again, consistency is helpful here but only in the beginning. Once the behavior is established it's better to only acknowledge the good behavior part of the time.
No one changes overnight. Still, let's start by changing our awareness. What is happening when you give attention to your children? Do you give more attention to the negative behavior or more attention to the positive behavior? Are you inconsistent? Do you not enable nine times out of ten and suddenly find that you are too tired to fight the good fight and you just give in this one time and let them have their way even though you know it's not the right thing to do? That's human nature but the inconsistency is going to cost you and it's going to be expensive.
Take the challenge. How many good things can you catch your teenager doing? Can you be consistent? That's one heck of lot of good parenting if you can pull it off? It's easy to write about but the real challenge is to go out there in the real world and execute the plan.
Let's finish with this quote for teachers based upon Skinner's work:
"Implications For Teacher in the Classroom:
"The interesting thing that Skinner discovered about intermittant reinforcement and maybe one of Skinner's most important discoveries was that behavior that is reinforced intermittantly is much more difficult to extinguish than behavior that is reinforced continuously.
"This is why many of our student's undesirable behaviors are so difficult to stop. We might be able to resist a child's nagging most of the time, but if we yield every once in a while, the child will persist with it." (Crain, 187) Therefore, when we begin to teach a desired behavior it is best to begin with continuous reinforcement, but if you wish to make a desired behavior last it is best to switch to an intermittent schedule of reinforcement."
Footnote: Drug abuse is also an example of Intermittent Reinforcement: perhaps the teenager didn't have too much fun on three of his LSD trips, maybe even he had a lousy time, but if that fourth time turned out to be an absolute belly laughing until your sore highly euphoric time then the behavior is learned. Or even though part of the trip (the coming down part) might have been not so hot, the fact that there was a tremendously fun part earlier in the trip means that intermittent reinforcement has set the behavior.
Share
1 comment:
Great post. I'd like to use the picture of the rat in the Skinner Box for a TV lecture that I'm giving. Is it copyright protected or can I use it?
Best, Rune.
Post a Comment