Behavioral Regulation: Associated Theories And Uses In Psychology
It is well known by those who study human behavior that motivation is essential when the person seeks to achieve a goal or reinforcement. Two of the theories that try to explain this fact are the associative structure of instrumental conditioning and behavioral regulation.
Throughout this articles We will see the theories of behavioral regulation we will explain what its precedents were and how this model is applied in behavior modification techniques.
In comparison with structural conditioning which focuses on the responses of each individual, their motivational antecedents and their specific consequences; Behavioral regulation encompasses a broader context.
In behavioral regulation All the behavioral options that an organism has at its disposal are studied when it comes to achieving something that will serve as reinforcement. This is a much more practical perspective that focuses on how the conditions of the situation or context limit or influence the person’s behaviors.
Precedents in Psychology and Education
As discussed above in instrumental conditioning Reinforcers were considered special stimuli that caused a satisfying situation and that therefore strengthened instrumental behavior.
However, not all theorists were in complete agreement with these ideas, so alternatives began to emerge, such as the consummatory response theory, Premack’s principle or the response deprivation hypothesis. Which would establish the bases of behavioral regulation.
1. Consummatory response theory
This theory developed by Sheffield and his collaborators was the first to question the norms of instrumental conditioning.
According to Sheffield, there are a series of species-specific behaviors that are reinforcing in and of themselves. Examples of these behaviors would be eating and drinking habits. Consummatory response theory hypothesizes that these behaviors constitute a reinforcing response in and of themselves.
The revolutionary idea of this theory consists of investigating the types of reinforcing responses instead of reinforcing stimuli.
2. Premack’s principle
The ideas reflected in Premack’s principle represented a progress in existing thinking about reinforcement mechanisms. According to this principle, the reinforcers that should be given importance were responses instead of stimuli.
Also known as the Differential Probability Principle, it theorizes that when there is a link between two stimuli (responses), the situation that is most likely to occur will positively reinforce the other with less possibilities of occurrence.
Premack and his team argued that a reinforcing response can be any behavior or activity that the subject perceives as positive. In this way, a behavior valued as positive or pleasant and that is carried out habitually will increase the probability that another, less attractive behavior will be carried out; but for this both have to be presented contingently.
For example, eating would be a positive, habitual and species-specific reinforcing response. However, cooking doesn’t have to be. However, if the person wants to obtain reinforcement, in this case eating, he will have to cook even if this is not so attractive to him. Therefore the pleasant reinforcing response will also promote the other response.
3. Response deprivation hypothesis
According to the response deprivation hypothesis proposed by Timberlake and Allison, When the reinforcing response is restricted, this response is being promoted instrumentally.
That is, the important thing is not with what proportion or probability one behavior is executed and not another, but rather that the mere fact of prohibiting the reinforcing behavior will motivate the person to want to perform it.
This hypothesis can be seen reflected in countless contexts or situations in which the mere fact that we are prohibited from doing something will work as a motivator so that they make us want to do it more.
This theory is totally opposed to Premack’s, since it argues that the deprivation of the reinforcing response has greater power to encourage instrumental behavior than the differential probability of carrying out one response or another.
Behavioral regulation and the behavioral delight point
The idea of regulation is closely linked to the notion of balance or homeostasis. This means that If people have a distribution of their activities that is satisfactory to them, they will try to maintain it at all costs. In this way, the moment something or someone interferes with that balance, behavior must change to return to normal.
Therefore, the point of behavioral delight is the distribution of responses or behaviors preferred by the person. This distribution can be reflected in the number of times or the amount of time invested in an activity or behavior.
In this case we can imagine a child who likes playing video games more than studying, one activity is pleasant and the other is carried out out of obligation. Consequently, the distribution of this child’s behaviors will be to play for 60 minutes and study for 30 minutes. This would be his point of delight.
However, although this distribution is pleasant for the person, it does not always have to be the healthiest or most appropriate. According to behavioral regulation theories, to modify negative behavior, the imposition of an instrumental contingency is necessary.
Imposition of a behavioral contingency
The objective of the technique of imposing an instrumental contingency is rectify or reform the person’s distribution of behaviors by moving them away from the point of delight. To do this, the therapist will resort to a series of reinforcements and behavior-modifying punishments.
If we return to the previous case, by imposing an instrumental contingency, the therapist will force the child to play the same amount of time that the child spends studying. Therefore, if the child wants to play for 60 minutes, he must study for the same amount of time; or on the contrary, if he only wants to study for 30 minutes, this will be the amount of time he will have to play.
The result will be a redistribution of behavior that will remain between one option and the other, increasing the amount of behavior desired but without the person deviating too much from their point of delight.
The main contributions
The currents that opted for behavioral regulation as a way to increase motivation left numerous contributions and new points of view about behavior modification. These include:
