It is avoidance learning. There are some behavioristic explanations for it
but there are problems. If it is operant, what is reinforcing the behavior?
Not hitting your head? Can a lack of a stimulus be a reinforcer? If so then
why doesn't not hitting your head reinforce all kinds of other behaviors?
The two-factor explanation says it is due to a combination of operant and
classical conditioning. Classical conditioning produces a fear response to
seeing the beam and performing the avoidance behavior decreases this fear
response (operant negative reinforcement). So, you don't actually move to
avoid hitting your head but to get away from the fear stimulus (the beam).
One problem with this idea is that classical conditioning isn't usually
maintained in the absence of the US (hitting the beam) and certainly the
fear of the beam would quickly extinguish once you stopped hitting it with
your head. So what keeps you making the avoidance response? Cognitive
psychologists would point to expectations as being important to maintaining
the behavior.
Rick Froman
John Brown University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Kleissler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 7/29/01 11:42 AM
Subject: operant or classical??
Hi Tipsters,
I need some help in analyzing a situation as to operant vs. classical
conditioning. The scenario is this:
A person is walking through a room with a low beam and hits his head on
it. The next time the person walks through the room, he ducks as he
nears the place where the beam is located. Is this a classically
conditioned response, because it's a reflexive response to avoid pain --
the cs being a certain place in the room? Or operant, because he has
voluntary control over this behavior? (He was punished for the behavior
of walking in a certain place in the room, and now voluntarily executes
the avoidance behavior?)
Thanks for your input.
Kathleen Kleissler
Psychology Dept.
Kutztown University
Kutztown, PA 19530
610-683-4465
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
