Behavioral Theory Applications and Research

Behaviorism at Work

Perhaps the biggest strength of behaviorism and the resulting social learning and social cognitive theories are their ease of application to real world examples.  Information gathered for learning theories such as these are often represented by statistics and facts, rather than theoretical concepts and ideas.  Therefore, applying them and measuring the outcome is much simpler.

We have also found that the treatment approaches developed from these theories is relatively simple and quick to administer.  Curing mental illnesses that would have taken months or even years with traditional psychoanalysis can now be completed in weeks, or even days.  

This chapter discusses the benefits of learning theories and behavioral psychology as well as the most commonly applied treatment, behavior modification.  It ends with a short discussion regarding potential short comings of the theory and the inevitable criticism that is given every theory in psychology.

Behavior Modification

Since the only thing worth measuring in behavioral theory is behavior, it is only logical that the one thing behaviorists focus on changing is also behavior.  Behavior modification is the generic term given any process derived from learning theory where the goal is to change a person's behavior or the way he or she interacts with the world.

To understand behavior modification, you have to understand the two main concepts that it is based on: Classical and Operant Conditioning.  Classical conditioning refers to the pairing of naturally occurring stimulus-response chains with other stimuli in order to produce a similar response.  Operant conditioning started as an experiment in learning and developed into the Law of Effect and our knowledge of reinforcement, punishment, and extinction.  

Shaping

In behavior modification, we apply these same techniques in order to effect change on the way a person acts or responds to the environment.  Changing complex behaviors, hence, requires complex behavioral modification.  The concept of shaping comes into play here.  Shaping refers to the reinforcement of behaviors that approximate or come close to the desired new behavior.  The steps involved are often called successive approximations because they successively approximate or get closer and closer to the desired behavior.

Research has found that this technique works well for phobias and anxiety related disorders.  Take arachnophobia for instance, the fear of spiders.  To be diagnosed with a phobia you must have both an irrational fear that is not justified by current outcome and significant distress or negative consequences because of this irrational fear.  To modify this fear or the behavior of avoiding or running away from spiders, behaviorists would apply the concept of shaping.  

The process of shaping involves the creation of a hierarchy ranging from the least feared situation (such as a stuffed animal that looks like a spider) to the most feared situation (a real tarantula, for example). We would then fill in the space between the two with situations that progressively produce higher levels of fear.  The following is an example of such a hierarchy:

We would then start at the bottom of the hierarchy and reinforce the person for engaging in this behavior, or for our example, touching or handling the stuffed animal.  Once they master this level, we would then move to the next level and repeat the same process.  Ultimately, through shaping and behavior modification, the person will be cured of their irrational fear of spiders.  This technique, and others based on the same principles, have been found to be quite successful for specific disorders.

Systematic Desensitization

A concept described by Joseph Wolpe uses a hierarchy like the example above but instead of applying reinforcement, the client is taught to relax.  Some behaviors are incongruent with each other and we have found that being tense, anxious and afraid is not possible when a person is relaxed.  The theory argues that if we can teach a person to relax in the presence of a feared object or situation, then we can alleviate the associated fear.

In systematic desensitization, an hierarchy is created, typically by the client alone or with the assistance of the behavioral therapist.  Often the hierarchy includes imagination such as imaging a spider crawling toward you or imaging a spider on your hand as intermediate steps.  The goal of this treatment is the same as shaping and reinforcement; to eliminate the fear associated with the object or situation.

This techniques has also received much research that suggests it is an effective and viable treatment for phobias, anxiety related disorders, and even sexual dysfunctions.  The performance anxiety associated with impotence in males is often reduced significantly with systematic desensitization.  

While shaping uses the theory of operant conditioning and reinforcement, systematic desensitization was derived from classical conditioning.  The object (UCS), originally paired with fear (UCR) is altered so that the object (CS) becomes paired with relaxation (CR) and hence a relearning of a conditioned response.  Overall, both treatments have been applied to many different symptoms related to anxiety and fear with very positive outcomes. 

Learning to be Helpless

The experiments in classical conditioning started as research on digestion and almost by accident lead to a concept that has become a staple in behavioral theory.  In 1967, while researching classical conditioning, another accidental discovery occurred.  In the original experiments, dogs were placed in harnesses so that they could not escape and then were presented with small electric shocks (Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967).  After this experience, these dogs as well as dogs who had not undergone the original harness studies were placed in a shuttle box (see below) which consisted of two sides both with independent electric grids on the floor.    

What they discovered was a distinct difference between the dogs who had originally been harnessed and those who had not.  For the latter, when a shock was presented, they almost immediately, after trying different methods of escape, jumped across the barrier to escape the uncomfortable shock.  The previously harnessed dogs showed distress, as did the other digs, but unlike the other dogs, failed to escape the shock and ultimately laid down on the grid and whimpered (Seligman, 1975).  

These studies demonstrated that previous learning can result in a drastic change in behavior.  When presented with a situation that allowed the dogs to control their experience, those who learned earlier that they had no control failed to escape the shock.  Without this learning, escape was not only seen as a possibility, the behavior to escape was exercised in every case.  

In the study of psychological phenomenon of animals, the next logical step after a discovery such as this, is to determine its effect on humans.  Experiments were designed presenting a loud irritating noise (rather than the original shock) to human subjects (Hiroto, 1974; Hiroto & Seligman, 1975).  In these experiments, subjects were presented with the noise and told that if they solved a puzzle the noise would turn off.  By pressing a series of buttons, for example, one group learned that they had control over their environment.  A second group, however, were presented with puzzles that had no solutions, resulting in an inability to turn off the irritating noise.

To test if their learning would generalize to other areas, these same subjects, as well as new subjects were then presented with similar situations but with new types of problems to solve.  The problems in this phase were identical, so each group had an equal chance of solving the problems.  Those who were able to control their environment before did as well as new subjects, however, those in the unsolvable condition before, did significantly worse.  Like the dogs in the original experiments, the human subjects also inaccurately generalized their learned helplessness to a new situation.

Several replications of these experiments support the idea that we can learn to be helpless in an environment that actually offers us control (Garber & Seligman, 1980, Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993).  This realization has since been applied to many aspects of human behavior, and does well to explain why people in certain situations accept their uncomfortable or negative situation despite the ability to change it.

Applications of Learned Helplessness

Since the original learned helplessness experiments, the phenomenon has been applied to several areas of human behavior, including (1) Depression (Seligman, 1975; Seligman, 1976); (2) elderly adults and old-age homes (Langer & Rodin, 1976); (3) domestic violence and abusive relationships; and (4) drug abuse and addiction.

Studies have found that a true inability to control the environment is not necessary for learned helplessness to occur.  In fact, even when told there is nothing a person can do, he or she is more likely to not try or to try less diligently than those who were not given this advice (Maier & Seligman, 1975).  Like in many aspects of human behavior, perception is the key.

We have found that those who have experienced depression in the past are more likely to accept depression in their future and therefore less likely to attempt change.  The same holds true for individuals in domestic violence situations.  Those who have been unable to escape violent situations in their homes are much more likely to refuse help and accept future violence as inescapable.  This is true even when presented with real options to avoid future violence.

Many also argue that an inability to quit smoking is related, along with obvious chemical qualities, to the person's perception of control.  If a person witnesses others try and fail in their attempts to quit, they are less likely to try themselves.  For those addicted to other substances, this phenomenon seems to hold true as well.  The more you have witnessed failure either in yourself or others, the less likely you are to attempt change, even if the situation changes dramatically.

Psychology is not a Hard Science

While there have been many exciting discoveries leading to very effective treatment options for psychological problems, behaviorism and the learning theories are not without the short comings.  We spoke of the positive aspects in the beginning of this chapter, including its basis in research and factual information, its ease of application, and successful treatment outcomes.

On the downside, there are typically three main arguments against these theories.  First, many argue that even with the new revisions by Rotter, Bandura, and others, behaviorism still falls short in the overall understanding of human personalities and human differences.  Why do people respond differently to very similar situations?  Why do some people engage in negative behaviors?  Why do some people make sacrifices without external reward?  These are only a small percentage of the questions that are currently being asked of behaviorists in critique of their theory.

Second, a new discovery was found that seems to, at least on the surface, negate the concept of external reinforcement developed by Skinner and others.  Research has found that by rewarding someone for a behavior they are doing anyhow actually serves to reduce the behavior rather than increase it.  Imagine having a hobby that you greatly enjoy and someone suggests that you turn it into a business.  This sounds like a great idea and many have tried this.  You are doing what you love and people are giving you money to do it but suddenly you start to dislike this activity.  This may occur because without external rewards, there were also no external pressures, punishments, and expectations.  The addition of the reward does not often make up for the added negative results, causing you to stop engaging in a previously loved activity after given a reward.

Finally, while applying treatment based on learning theory has produced very positive results, many argue that this type of treatment has limited or no effect in the greater scheme of personality change.  In other words, a psychoanalyst may argue that the spider mentioned in the previous section is a representation of something or someone else, such as the mother figure.  While we may alleviate the fear of spiders, the fear of mother is still present and will surface in other areas of the person's life.  In this sense, we have not cured a personality deficit, we have only moved it somewhere else.  A humanist may argue that by focusing on this small aspect of the person's life, we are actually diverting them away from true happiness and self-actualization.  And finally, a biological theorist may argue that the fear of spiders was natural, resulting from our natural genetics and removing this natural phenomenon will ultimately cause detrimental results.