Edward Thordike’s Law Of Effect: The Basis Of Behaviorism
Psychology does not only focus on studying the human mind. For many psychologists, representatives of the behaviorist current of psychology, the object of study is behavior, that is, the acts carried out by a wide variety of living beings, as long as they can be modified through learning. That is to say, the study of animal behavior has also received the interest of many psychologists.
Although BF Skinner is probably the best-known behavioral researcher, he owes part of his relevance to another scientist who worked a few decades before him: Edward Thorndike. And of all the contributions that the latter made to the world of psychology, the so-called Thorndike Law of Effect It is surely the most important. Let’s see what it consists of.
The fundamental idea expressed by the Law of Effect is that, if a consequence perceived as positive (and therefore satisfactory) occurs right after an action, the same action is more likely to occur again. On the other hand, if an unpleasant or painful stimulus arrives after an action, the chances of repeating that action would decrease.
On the other hand, this law was proposed to describe both animal behavior and that of human beings. One of the characteristics of behaviorism, which Thorndike helped to inaugurate, was that at downplay or even deny the functionality of consciousness In practice, his schemes could be applied to many forms of life, practically all those capable of learning: mice, mollusks, etc.
While Thorndike is not formally a representative of behaviorism, his Law of Effect is a concept that behaviorists worked to develop. develop behavior modification programs based on contingencies, that is, relationships between stimuli and responses.
For example, operant conditioning can be understood as an extension of the Law of Effect. This concept is a form of behavior modification based on the way in which the association between an action and a consequence affects learned behavior patterns.
For example, the psychologist BF Skinner used this type of conditioning to, little by little, reward the action of pigeons used in his laboratory, causing them to internalize chains of behaviors that resulted in the performance of a more complex act. At first they are given a reward by propelling a small ball with their beak, and as they do that, they are given more rewards by performing complementary actions; In the end, they end up playing ping pong, receiving a prize for each point won from the opposing pigeon.
Hebb’s Law
In a way, Thorndike’s Law of Effect reflects a contribution made later by the neuropsychologist Donald Hebb, the so-called Hebb’s Law. According to this, neurons that activate at the same time have an increased chance of connecting at the same time in the future. In this case, a coincidence in time (the activation of nerve cells) influences a potential future event (the same activation pattern, later).
However, Edward Thorndike’s Law of Effect does not focus on a purely biological analysis or neurological of what happens in our nervous system, but is basically based on behavior, in the style of behavioral psychologists such as John B. Watson.
The Law of Effect is a child of its time, and naturally its validity is not fully valid, although it was a valuable first step for behavioral psychology. The main criticisms that have been made against it have to do with its implications about what happens after an action has unpleasant effects.
For example, pain, in a sexual context, can act like pleasure in some people. There is a certain degree of uncertainty about which stimuli are aversive and which are not for a particular individual, especially given that the language and abstract thinking typical of humans raised in society offer a new way of experiencing the most basic stimuli.
Another example of this would be found in the perception of physical punishment or even torture. For some strongly indoctrinated people, this type of suffering may be desirable as a form of martyrdom, and it is therefore not impossible for exemplary executions to function as an incentive to break norms, for example, through attacks based on religious fundamentalism.
On the other hand, it is also not clear what a desirable stimulus is; possibly there is no universal reward equally valid for all individuals, and that is why in many cases You have to inquire first about what is desirable and, furthermore, about the type of reinforcers that are available in an individual’s “natural” environment: if someone is accustomed to receiving a reward that only occurs in a laboratory environment, the behavior it promotes may disappear.
