Psyfield

    简 繁

    Topics

    All terms About

    Operant conditioning

    操作性条件反射

    Concept
    Also called
    Instrumental conditioning

    Operant conditioning is learning from the consequences of behavior: what follows an action changes how likely that action is to happen again. Edward Thorndike stated the law of effect, and B. F. Skinner systematically studied reinforcement and punishment.[1][2][3]

    Stimulus added “positive”

    Stimulus removed “negative”

    Behavior increases reinforcement

    Behavior decreases punishment

    Intermittent schedules: when reinforcement comes

    Reinforcing every response (continuous reinforcement) teaches fastest; behavior reinforced only some of the time (intermittent reinforcement) is harder to extinguish.

    By number of responses

    By time

    Schematic: cumulative responses

    Point at or tap a cell or a card for its definition and an example.
    Top: the 2×2 table of reinforcement and punishment, where “positive” and “negative” mean adding or removing a stimulus. Bottom: four intermittent schedules of reinforcement; the small plots are schematic cumulative-response curves. Point at or tap parts of the figure for details
    Top: the 2×2 table of reinforcement and punishment, where “positive” and “negative” mean adding or removing a stimulus. Bottom: four intermittent schedules of reinforcement; the small plots are schematic cumulative-response curves. Save as image (PNG)

    Key points

    • Thorndike shut hungry cats in puzzle boxes with food outside, and their escape times fell gradually. He proposed the law of effect: responses followed by satisfaction become more likely to recur.[1]
    • Reinforcement increases a behavior and punishment decreases it. “Positive” means a stimulus is added and “negative” that one is removed, not good or bad; crossing the two gives four cases.[2][3]
    • Reinforcing only some responses is intermittent reinforcement. It makes behavior harder to extinguish than reinforcing every response, most of all on a variable-ratio schedule such as a slot machine.[2][3]
    • Skinner noted that approval and affection often come intermittently.[2] Among 75 women who had left abusive partners, more extreme intermittent abuse went with stronger attachment, still present six months later.[4]

    An example

    At the checkout, Lin’s son cries until she buys him candy, and he goes quiet at once. His crying was positively reinforced by the candy; her buying was negatively reinforced, because it ended the crying. Both behaviors are now more likely to happen again.

    Misreadings and limits

    The most common misreading is treating negative reinforcement as punishment. Negative reinforcement removes something unpleasant, as when a seat-belt alarm stops once you buckle up, and the behavior increases; punishment makes a behavior less likely.[2][3] The relationship study in the key points is correlational and concerns abuse, so it does not show that every on-off relationship works this way.[4]

    Sources

    1. 1 Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. Macmillan (Chapters II and V as reproduced in Classics in the History of Psychology). View source
    2. 2 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan (Chapters V, VI and XII). View source
    3. 3 Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). 6.3 Operant conditioning. Psychology 2e. OpenStax. View source
    4. 4 Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105–120. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105

    Last checked against sources: October 26, 2026