|
|
|
|
Applying Learning Theory Learning theorists study animal behavior in an attempt to learn more about the general laws of learning. The Learning-Process theory conducts highly controlled experiments using for the majority artificial stimuli and apply the findings to all levels of learning. The assumption is that how organisms learn is universal. Learning-Process theory has been the dominant theory for learning until specialized studies found data to the contrary. One example is the famous study conducted by Breland and Breland (1961) on instinctual drift. Raccoons were trained using operant conditioning to pick up a coin and to drop it into a container for a food reward. For the first half of the experiment trials went well, meaning the raccoons learned to place the coins appropriately. Unfortunately as trials persisted, the raccoons would not let go of the coin. Instead, they would rub the coins together and dip them in and out of the container. The rubbing and dipping are food-getting behaviors. Now it is believed that as these coins were being associated with food, the raccoons were treating them like food. This does not support the idea that learning is constant across all situations. Moving away from Learning-Process model, theorists have proposed the Behavior Systems approach. According to the behavior-system’s approach, the full repertoire of behaviors that an animal expresses naturally can be categorized into different categories or systems. For example, there is the category of food-getting behavior. Behaviors that fall into this system relate to general and focal searches for food, and all behaviors that the animal uses once food is within its reach. The Behavior Systems theory believes that certain behaviors can be conditioned more readily with stimuli that relate to that particular system. Garcia and Koelling (1966) were the first experimenters to have empirical support for this notion. In their experiment, two stimuli were paired with two aversive stimuli in a between design. The taste of flavored water was paired with either nausea or shock; a tone was paired with either nausea or shock. Garcia and Koelling found that selective associations were formed. Taste could be associated with nausea but not shock and the tone could be associated with shock but not nausea. In the rat’s natural environment, the taste of a particular food is not going to lead to shock, but taste of poison is a good predictor of nausea. I ride horses and have had the problem of my horse trying to step on me while I am leading him around the barn. I have tried punishing him for stepping on me. I have tried reinforcing him for walking two feet away from me. All of my efforts have failed. At the beginning of this semester I participated in a Parelli Natural Horsemanship Clinic, which uses more naturalistic stimuli and responses in interacting with horses. An example of this is kicking. Horses kick each other to gain personal space. The instructor had us turn our backs to our horses and start kicking behind us towards the horse- they backed right up. Now when my horse is not respecting my space I kick at him and he backs off. This is an example of how I use a Behavior Systems approach interacting with an animal. There are two main types of associative learning: Pavlovian and Instrumental conditioning. Pavlovian conditioning takes a stimulus, which elicits no response from the organism and pairs it with a biologically relevant stimulus to produce a response. After several pairings, the conditioned stimulus should elicit the response on its own. A simplistic example of this is the peppermints that I give my horse as treats. At first, the sound of unwrapping the peppermint elicits no response from the horse except a slight orienting response. The peppermint itself results in food getting behavior (approaching, biting). With enough pairings of the wrapper noise and the peppermint, the wrapper alone produces food-getting behaviors. The other form of associative learning is instrumental conditioning. Instrumental conditioning uses reinforcements of successive approximations to get the final operant behavior. Our learning class observed a riding lesson one afternoon for lab. The trainer wanted the rider to canter and jump over two obstacles that were in a bent line. The trainer first had the rider trot over the first obstacle. After a few successful trials, the rider moved on to trotting the first jump and cantering the second jump. Finally, the two jumps were cantered. Dougherty and Lewis (1993) collected empirical data on instrumental conditioning using species-typical stimuli. Dougherty and Lewis attached a stimulus belt to the backs of horses after teaching then to lip press for a food reward. The stimulus belt applied pressure using a piston along the back. There were seven different pistons and different horses received training on different positions on their back. Rates of responding during test trials were highest among the same location and diminished the farther away the piston was from the training piston. This study uses species-typical stimuli successfully and shows generalization of responding. Both Pavlovian and Instrumental conditioning use reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is any consequence that increases the probability of the behavior reoccurring in that context. Punishment is any consequence that decreases the probability of that behavior reoccurring. Several features of the stimuli and reinforcer affect the behavior of the organism- the intensity of the stimulus, temporal contiguity, and variability are three examples. A rider uses many different forms of reinforcement and punishment some being more apparent than others. The bit in the horse’s mouth is a major aid that can be used as a reinforcer and as a punisher. For punishment, a rider will pull back sharply when the horse tries to run off. The rider is trying to decrease the likelihood that the horse will run off and not be controllable. The bit is also a negative reinforcer. When a rider pulls left, she is trying to increase the probability that the horse will turn left. When the horse starts to turn left, the rider releases the pressure. The rider’s leg is another aid that is primarily negatively reinforcing. The rider applies pressure to the sides of the horse to increase the pace and releases the pressure when the increase in speed has occurred. Intensity plays a large role in riding. If a rider keeps the pressure constant, the horse extinguishes responding. Riders use the rhythm of the gait that the horse is traveling at and amount of pressure applied to prevent this from happening. Variability of the intensity and timing of the aids is important. Temporal contiguity is extremely important when it comes to punishing. If a horse stops at a jump, a rider will use positive punishment, hitting the horse with a stick. Trainers always stress the importance of responding within the first five seconds or else the punishment might not be attached to the correct action. There are many examples of different reinforcers and punishers. The important notion is that the sport incorporates the laws of learning because they work. The population of riders that have taken a Learning psychology class is most likely less than one percent, but all these concepts are inherently learned and practiced. There are concrete examples of both types of associative learning processes using both animals and humans. Beginner riders learn all their skills by successive approximations in small steps. Horse trainers use the same techniques when training horses to jump. Horses are fight or flight animals, relying heavily on their instincts. This may be the main reason why this paradigm is so apparent. The longer that I observe horse behavior, the more they seem to fit into the Behavior Systems approach.
Domjan, M. (1998). The principles of learning and behavior. Pacific Groce, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. |