PSY 420 Week 2 Respondent and Operant Conditioning Example

A Racing Heart at Read-Aloud Time and a Hand That Never Goes Up: Respondent and Operant Learning in One Student

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSY/420: Theories of Behavior

Week 2 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The student teacher, child and classroom are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.

Behavior analysis rests on two kinds of learning. In respondent conditioning, a neutral stimulus comes to elicit a reflexive response through pairing. In operant conditioning, voluntary behavior is shaped by its consequences. This paper applies both to Jamal, the composite fourth-grade student in Ms. Ortega's Mesa classroom introduced in Week 1.

Two Behaviors

Ms. Ortega's observations revealed two patterns. When the teacher says, "Time to read aloud," Jamal's face flushes, his breathing speeds up and his hands shake; he often asks to use the restroom. In whole-class discussions, he calls out answers without raising his hand eight to twelve times per lesson, and nearly every call-out is followed by the teacher responding, either with "Good thinking, Jamal" or "Jamal, raise your hand."

Respondent Conditioning

Pavlov (1927) showed that dogs, which salivate reflexively to food, began to salivate to a sound that had repeatedly preceded food. The food was the unconditioned stimulus, salivation to food the unconditioned response, the sound the conditioned stimulus and salivation to the sound the conditioned response. When the sound was repeatedly presented without food, salivation declined, a process called extinction, though it could return after a rest, called spontaneous recovery.

Jamal's anxiety fits this pattern. In second grade, he stuttered while reading aloud, and classmates laughed. The laughter and embarrassment, unconditioned stimuli, produced a physiological stress response. Read-aloud time, once neutral, was paired with that experience and now elicits racing heart and shaking hands, a conditioned response. The response has generalized to similar situations, such as presenting a project, but not to talking with friends at recess, showing discrimination.

Operant Conditioning

Thorndike (1898) placed hungry cats in puzzle boxes that opened when they pressed a lever or pulled a loop. At first, cats escaped by chance; over repeated trials, the successful response appeared faster while other actions dropped away. Thorndike concluded that responses followed by satisfying outcomes are stamped in, the principle that later grew into operant conditioning.

Jamal's calling out is operant. The three-term contingency is clear: the antecedent is a question posed to the whole class; the behavior is calling out the answer; the consequence is immediate teacher attention. Both praise and reprimand deliver attention, and if attention is what maintains the behavior, both act as positive reinforcement, increasing calling out over time.

"Jamal, raise your hand" was meant to stop the calling out; delivered within a second, every time, it may have been the reward.

Evidence From the Classroom

Hall et al. (1968) observed elementary students with low rates of study behavior and recorded how often teachers attended to them. Teachers often attended mainly to off-task behavior. When teachers were coached to give attention, such as approaching and offering comments, when students were studying and to ignore nonstudy behavior, study rates rose substantially. When the old pattern of attention returned briefly, study rates fell, and they rose again when attention for studying resumed, demonstrating that teacher attention controlled the behavior.

The study suggests a direct plan. If Ms. Ortega and the cooperating teacher give attention mainly when Jamal raises his hand and withhold it after call-outs, raising hands should increase and calling out decrease.

When Attention Is Withdrawn

Removing reinforcement for calling out is operant extinction. It often produces an extinction burst, a temporary increase in the behavior, before it declines. Ms. Ortega should expect Jamal to call out more, and louder, for a few days. Giving in during the burst would reinforce a more intense version of the behavior.

How the Two Processes Interact

The two processes are not separate in Jamal's day. Conditioned anxiety at read-aloud time makes escape reinforcing: asking for the restroom ends the anxiety, so the request is negatively reinforced. A respondent process creates the motivation for an operant behavior. Addressing only the restroom requests without reducing the anxiety would miss half the problem.

Addressing the Anxiety

Respondent extinction and counterconditioning can reduce the anxiety. Ms. Ortega can arrange low-stakes reading opportunities, such as reading to her alone, then to one friend, then to a small group, without any laughter or pressure. Pairing reading with success and calm attention weakens the conditioned response gradually.

Stimulus Control

Operant behavior also comes under the control of antecedents. Jamal rarely calls out in music class, where the teacher uses a hand signal before every question and calls only on students whose hands are up. In that setting, the signal has become a discriminative stimulus: it marks the times when hand raising, not calling out, is reinforced. Ms. Ortega can borrow the same approach, adding a consistent visual cue before discussion questions so that the classroom itself signals which behavior will pay off.

Shaping the Replacement Behavior

Raising a hand and waiting may be too large a step for Jamal at first. Shaping reinforces successive approximations: at first, any hand raise earns attention even if he speaks a second later; then only a hand raise held for a few seconds; then a hand raise held until he is called on. Each step is reinforced until it is reliable before moving on, so success comes early and often.

Why the Distinction Matters

Treating Jamal's read-aloud anxiety as defiance, an operant problem, could lead to consequences for leaving the room that increase his fear. Treating his calling out as anxiety, a respondent problem, could lead to comfort that reinforces it. Getting the process right determines whether help works.

Measuring Change

Ms. Ortega will count call-outs and hand raises in three discussion periods per week and record restroom requests during read-aloud time. Graphing these counts will show whether the plans are working.

Conclusion

Jamal's racing heart at read-aloud time is a respondent pattern built by pairing reading with embarrassment, and his calling out is an operant behavior maintained by teacher attention. Pavlov's and Thorndike's work explains the two processes, and a classic classroom study shows that redirecting teacher attention changes behavior. Recognizing how the processes interact leads to a plan that addresses both anxiety and attention.

References

Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-1

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), i-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092987