Sunday, October 30, 2011
Skinner on Superstition
In this video, Michael Britt from the Psych Files shows how Skinner's idea of behavioral conditioning is why we have superstitions. We have seen how animals will perform actions that are associated with a certain reinforcement. Similarly, if animals receives a reward, and they were doing a particular behavior at that time, they will associate the behavior with the reward and will continue to perform the action, hoping to receive more of the reward. This causes a "superstition" and can be seen in many examples. The video shows the example of what movements different people make after throwing a bowling ball, and how people often hit the elevator button multiple times, because they have previously experienced the door open at the exact moment that they pushed the button.
I was really astonished by this, just because it brought to mind so many examples of when I do this myself. I am often guilty of pushing the elevator button multiple times, as well as the buttons at the pedestrian crosswalks on campus, even when I can see the countdown and know it will not change. I see these kinds of superstitions in sports, as well, as I always pick up the bowling ball a particular way before I throw it, and one only needs to watch a baseball game to see all the various motions that players go through before pitching, hitting, or catching the ball. I think this video is useful because it shows more examples of behaviorism in both animals and humans, which usually aid in solidifying ideas and providing connections to which one can make while reading. It also shows how we can think that a certain reinforcement was received because of a behavior, when in reality it was just a coincidence.
It seems that this could have implications on learning. Perhaps being in a group setting could accidentally reinforce some behaviors, as a student may do one thing and receive reinforcement for something someone else did, and this creates a "superstition" effect where one continues performing an action even though it did not actually cause the reinforcement to occur. Reinforcing students for mediocre work, or any other time when teachers provides reinforcement when they perhaps should not, could also possibly train students that they will receive reinforcement for any work of similar quality, and lead to a similar effect as superstition. These might be far-fetched situations, but can you think of any other implications for learning that this might have?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that "reinforcing students for mediocre work, or any other time when teachers provides reinforcement when perhaps they should not" is a poor/bad decision on part of the teacher. I believe it is setting the student(s) up for failure.
ReplyDeleteTo answer you last question, another negative implications for learning that reinforcement of mediocre work is having students not prepared for the next level (e.g. next grade or college or job). I wonder though, if the reinforcement is used as a motivator for the student to produce something (e.g. when a student normally just sits and does nothing or better yet, does not even come to school) are we (teachers) enabling the student just so they do something even if it is not their best work?
That's a great point. I just finished the Chance/Kohn articles, and they briefly mention that it may still be acceptable to provide rewards, even if it may reduce interest later on, as long as it gets the student to do at least something. This seems to be similar to the idea that we are enabling the student. This is a difficult decision, because some success seems better than none, but it could have negative repercussions in the future. We also have to consider what we are doing when we pass someone along to the next grade when they are not ready. In our current economy, getting a high school diploma is necessary for even "basic" jobs, so it seems laudable to allow the student to pass on with only mediocre work so that they can progress and attain their diploma. However, many teachers want their students to actually learn, not just get a diploma, and hope that a student may go on to college and/or be a "life long learner." Does holding a student back help them learn, or could it frustrate them (by feeling like they have failed) to the extent that they drop out, hindering their future careers? Then again, allowing them to progress when they are actually behind could also frustrate them, leading to drop out. These are tough calls for teachers to make.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I discovered the same video as you, so I especially enjoyed reading your observations. To me it seems illogical to claim that superstitions contradict behaviorism (the claim which the video suggests resulted in the experiment with random rewards). If anything, superstition and behaviorism would walk hand-in-hand. I can easily believe that our minds, consciously or unconsciously, seek to make sense out of chaos. Just like you, I bang on cross-walk buttons. However, I rationalize my actions. Does this thing work? Maybe I didn't punch it hard enough? The association between hitting the button and the light changing is a conscious one. Is it really the result of behavior modification? Have I not been taught, either by direct instruction or by example, that the only way to change the light is to hit the button?
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned "reinforcing mediocre work," a comment to which Renee responded as well. If students were rewarded randomly, what would be the result? Assume students receive random grades between A and C. If they work hard and get a "B", then work harder and get another "B", then work even harder and get an "A," they may assign the grade to hard work. However, if they get an "A" on the first paper, relax because the teacher must not be a tough grader, and then get a "B", they may assume that their grade was a result of being a slacker. Remember, the teacher has simply assigned grades at random. The students, however, are logically assigning reasons to their grades. As most of us, having spent time on both sides of the desk, as teacher and as student, I feel confident that students often ignore the fact that teachers grade papers other than their own. Can such behaviors also be related to our attempts to explain things? Our minds certainly tend toward explanation, as evidenced not only by academic papers, but also by the plethora of myths and fables that have held sway since the dawn of human communication. How might this possible tendency play a part in our behavior? Or does it even exist?
I also questioned the idea about hitting the elevator button multiple times, since it is something that we are taught. It would be ridiculous for us to stand next to an elevator without hitting the button, just assuming it would open for us. I think what he may mean is when you push the button repeatedly for no reason. For example, the elevator buttons in the Patterson Office Tower light up when you have pushed them, letting you know that the button was engaged. Regardless, I still continue to push it if the elevator takes a while, not because I am rationally assuming that maybe I did not push it hard enough, but because I am (irrationally) thinking that one of the times when I hit the button, it will open. I do agree that this is a little bit of a stretch for a “superstition.” I would say it boils down more to sheer impatience, and mashing a button gives us something to do while waiting. I do think the rituals we perform when playing sports are a much better example, where we may rationally know that twirling the ball before pitching will not actually help us throw it better, but is just something that we fear skipping, as it has helped so many times in the past. It is interesting that we are able to forget all the times that it did not help, and only focus on when it did. Gambling is a great example of this.
ReplyDeleteYour guess that our desire for explanation plays a part in our behaviors seems to be perfectly correct. I think this desire for explanation may be one of the big differences between animals and humans, and decreases the strength of the argument that what animals do in a lab can be applied to people. A bird that was fed when he pecked the corner will continue to peck the corner because he wants more food. However, it seems that a person who was rewarded with something (a grade, an elevator opening, etc.) would question where it came from. Was it because I hit the button multiple times? Should I hit the button again until it opens? Did I receive that grade because I worked harder, or because the teacher is an easy grader? As rational, thinking beings, we can test these things. Try only pushing the elevator button only once. It still opened! Try slacking off an assignment to see if it was your hard work or the teacher. You still get a good grade? It’s the teacher! It seems we can delve more into what is actually happening, and change our behavior accordingly. Our behaviors must be made up of a combination of seemingly-illogical activity (continuing to gamble even though you keep losing) and logical activity (learning that you only need to hit the elevator button once, and so you stop hitting it multiple times). Perhaps these seemingly-illogical activities are the things that Skinner can prove with his box, but the other aspect is something that is more human, and cannot be explained by lab tests. Very interesting! Thanks for your comment!
I think that superstition will affect a student's learning. We have to be mindful of the rewards that we give our students. No matter what, students know that they will either get a positive or negative response from the teacher. Some students will complete all of their work no matter what happens. They may not need rewards because they want to make sure that their work is completed. However, if you choose not to reward them, students may feel that you are being biased and some students may complete less work so that they can get their teacher to pay attention to them. Overall, too may superstitions are not good for the learning environment. How can we find an even balance between rewards and student accomplishments?
ReplyDeleteThat's a tough question that I'm not even sure if I can answer right now. Chance brought up some interesting ideas about what kinds of reinforcement are good (extrinsic vs intrinsic) and the different contingency plans he discusses. Perhaps, if behaviorism does indeed have merit for the classroom, Chance might be on to something there.
ReplyDeleteI also worried about the idea that students may act out or perform poorly because they want attention from the teacher, even if it is negative. If a student craves that attention, they might do anything to get attention, and this is a form of reinforcement. Teachers would need to be careful that they do not allow their reinforcement to cause students to perform poorly. Do you think this means that teachers should ignore poor behavior? That does not seem to be helpful, either. How should teachers handle those who are acting out to make sure they do not reinforce those behaviors?