A Unified Theory of Behavior

Our emphasis in this class has been on consequated behavior (operant conditioning) and the extent to which it can be used to explain our behavior. Ultimately, the question that must be addressed with respect to consequated behavior is: to what extent does it account for the behavior of organisms? One possibility, the extreme behaviorist view (which, in fact, virtually no one believes no matter what you may hear to the contrary), is that consequated behavior accounts for virtually all behavior that is worth talking about. At the other end of the spectrum are the extreme ethologists who claim that consequated behavior is virtually irrelevant to an understanding of behavior, including human behavior. In the middle are most psychologists, including most behaviorists. These people believe that consequated behavior accounts for a great deal of, but not all, behavior. Moreover, its relevance in any given situation depends upon a number of factors. Below are three general factors that influence the degree to which consequated behavior is responsible for observed behavior in any given situation:

1. All things being equal, more highly constrained behavior will tend to dominate less constrained behavior. Another way of saying this is that the more that a situation evokes biologically determined behavior, the less influence learned, or consequated, behavior will have.

2. The greater the experiential load, the larger the role that consequated behavior will play in a given situation. Experiential load is basically the idea that any organism brings in to a given situation both a capacity to develop complex behavioral repertoires through experience, and a history with the environment.

3. The more closed the environment, the more contingencies of reinforcement will control behavior. Most artificial environments are fairly closed economies which also tend to minimize the influence of genetically determined behavior, which makes consequated behavior the only option.

Let's look at the ramifications of each of these in some detail.

Factor One. More highly constrained behavior tends to dominate less constrained behavior.

Those things that are more closely aligned to our genetic inheritance will tend to control us when they are present and are in conflict with more weakly controlled behavior. Note that an important part of this point is that this domination occurs during those relatively infrequent times when the sources of control of our behavior are in conflict with each other. Most of the time, genetic, Pavlovian, and consequated behavior work in consonance. Also note, as we talked about in the last unit, that tend to control is a relative statement-- intrinsically consequated behavior can be maintained even in the presence of stimuli that would normally evoke genetically determined behavior, it's just that it would need to be much more strongly developed for it to be maintained.

To make our discussion even more relevant to human behavior, I want to divide consequated behavior into two parts--extrinsically and intrinsically consequated behavior. Extrinsically consequated behavior exists when the individual has learned to behave in ways that produce reinforcement that is externally controlled, while intrinsically consequated behavior exists when the individual has learned to behave in ways that produce reinforcement that is self-generated. For example, reading controlled by an assignment that is due for which you will receive a grade is extrinsically consequated behavior. Reading because of the enjoyment you derive from it is intrinsically consequated behavior. Clearly, both may be present simultaneously. The concept of intrinsically consequated behavior brings us closer to what we (unscientifically) think of as the essence of being human, but it also tends to be farther from objective observation, so needs to be done delicately.

Here, then, are the four broad categories of behavior that we've talked about and how they relate to each other:

Genetically Pre-determined Behavior

Pavlovianly Conditioned Behavior

Extrinsically Consequated Behavior

Intrinsically Consequated Behavior

Another way of looking at hierarchy of control would be to rotate this diagram 90^o counter-clockwise, with genetically pre-determined behavior at the bottom. Looking at it this way, we can see that intrinsically controlled behavior derives from extrinsically controlled which derives from Pavlovianly controlled behavior which in turn is based in genetically determined behavior. Remember back to our initial discussions of Pavlovian behavior-I asked you to look for the Unconditional reflex. Theoretically, at least, all conditioned behavior goes back to the basics-- our inherited behavior.

The idea that genetically pre-determined behavior is widespread and difficult to control through voluntary behavior has been around for a long time. For example, look at these ten well-known rules and decide which you think exist in an attempt to control genetically pre-determined behavior. Are some of these more constrained than others?

Some examples of how more constrained behavior dominates less constrained behavior are given below:

Operant Intrinsic

Reinforcing kids for making noise, reading, art
Curt Flood
When is "positive reinforcement" not reinforcing?

Pavlovian Operant

Conditioned suppression
Omission Effect

Pavlovian Intrinsic

Phobias

xenophobia
Racism
assault
territoriality

Genetic Operant

Instictive drift

Genetic Pavlovian

Taste aversion learning

Factor Two. The greater the experiential load, the larger the role that consequated behavior may play in a given situation.

Experiential load equals learning capacity X experience in a mathematical sense. If you don't have much capacity, then all the experience in the world won't change what you will do in a given situation. Conversely, lots of capacity but no experience also means that you will behave in a pretty pre-wired way. But, lots of capacity plus lots of experience means that your behavior will be much more plastic (malleable) in a given situation.

Experiential load emphasizes an important relationship--an individual's capacity to develop complex behavioral repertoires through experience, determined by the individual's neurological complexity, is crucial in determining the extent to which consequated behavior will play a role in a given situation. Neurological complexity, however, simply provides the potential for the role of consequated behavior. The individual then has to have accumulated experience before consequated behavior will be much of an influence. Since species with more complex nervous systems can develop more complex behavioral repertoires in specific situations, they will tend to show relatively less reliance on genetically determined behavior in those situations. I like the term load since it implies a variable weighting-- the more profound the experience (as a function of capacity and amount of time in the environment), the greater the impact on behavior. The obvious conclusion is that we as human beings are going to have relatively high experiential load as a factor in lots of situations given our capacity to develop, through experience, very complex patterns of behavior. This makes our behavior, relatively speaking, less reliant on genetically determined behavior.

Experiential load is a way of bringing our past history in a particular environment into the equation. Since it factors in neural capacity, it is a little more robust concept. Experiential load can account for individual differences as well. Those born with a particualr talent, such as music, would have a greater capacity for it, so they would, relatively speaking, have a greater experiential load.

Recall our conversation about courtship patterns. The courtship of stickleback fish is pretty much pre-wired--sticklebacks instinctively know what to do and do it, with learning playing an insignificant role. Because they have really tiny little fish brains, they have little capacity for experiential load. Put a stickleback in a courtship situation, and every time it will do it the same way, whether it works or not. For example, stick a ping pong ball (which in terms of the SS resembles a female stickleback) in front of a male and he'll court his (tiny) brains out. Not just once, but every time you do it. An unsatisfying courtship experience has no effect on him doing it all over again next time you place the ping pong ball in front of him. Poor fish, he just doesn't get it.

The courtship of humans, on the other hand, while having universal components that seem to have genetic underpinnings, nonetheless requires a fair amount of learning and shaping to be both successful and legal. While we all on occasion resemble sticklebacks in that we seemingly learn nothing from past courtship disappointments, it really is a different process that is beyond the scope of this discussion and that you can learn all about in Fr. Bruce's class or by watching The Jerry Springer Show.

Factor Three. The more closed the environment, the less choices an individual is likely to have, making behavior more predictable.

Restricted environments make it so that those few options available will more completely control the behavior of the individual. Recall our discussion of open vs. closed economies. In a setting in which an individual has plenty of opportunities to get commodities important to the individual, and no one source controlled the market, the control exerted by any one set of contingencies was relatively weak. However, when a monopoly existed, behavior became very predictable because it was highly controlled by the existing contingencies.

The three factors interact to determine the role of learned behavior in any given setting.

Since we live in such varying environments at different times, we need to look at what any particular environment presents or allows the individual to do. For example, what is typical behavior of a college student in a college classroom?

• Factor one. What genetically determined behavior is called forth in a classroom? Not much. There are no physical threats (as opposed to my high school classes back in Los Angeles!), but not many fun things to do, either. It's a pretty bland environment, and is so by design. There's not much Pavlovian stuff going on either. So, if the stronger (in the sense of constraint) stuff is absent, then operant contingencies will be free to operate.
• Factor two. Experiential load. Well, neurologically complex are we. We have these Big American Brains, so operant contingencies have the potential to be relatively important here. And, since we all have a great deal of experience in classroom settings, consequated behavior should be relatively important.
• Factor three. It is a very artificial (closed) environment, which means that if you want the goodies (grades), you pretty much need to do what the prof. requires. It's pretty likely that there is little other than the specific operant behavior required for you to engage in.

Using these three factors together, consequated behavior should account for most of your behavior in such an environment, and indeed it does.

Compare this to another environment that has a lot of operant contingencies, but also a genetically constrained component. You are driving down I-694 on your way to work (all good operant stuff so far). You are coming to that part of the freeway in Brooklyn Park where the highway narrows from three lanes to two. You've merged, then somebody comes racing up the shoulder on your left, passes you, and you see that he is going to try to squeeze in ahead of you just before he would go off into the median. What do you do? Be honest now, and tell Blinky what you would probably do, what you would like to do, and what the smart thing to do is, then explain how constrained learning is involved. After you've made your posting, please read other students' postings and feel free to comment on each others' reactions. How are they similar/different from yours?

Let's see how well this is settling in. Let's try a final exercise that may be near and dear to your hearts. Let's consider a behavior that's very plastic--good manners. How important are good manners in the two situations that follow? Both situations involve the same locale, but the conditions have changed between the first setting and the second.

1. You are a passenger on the Titanic. It's the second day out of port, and you are surprised and flattered that you've been honored with an invitation to dine at the Captain's table. There will be lots of upper-crust types at the table, and you really want to impress them.

2. Two days later. About an hour earlier you felt a shudder run through the ship, and you just learned that it had hit an iceberg. You've begun to notice that it is slowly nosing into the water, and you realize that there are only enough life boats for about a third of the passengers. (If you recently saw the movie of the same name, please try to ignore the mawkish love story in the movie as you work through this.)

Use the table below to fill in the role of each of the three factors, and how they help explain what you might do, and what role learned behavior (such as good manners) will play in each setting.

Bring your filled-in table with you to class--we'll discuss it in groups.

Before going on, be sure to Make Up Your Own Question!

Email Tom