The Consequences of Behaviour

Through experiments, operant psychology provides a formal approach to analysing and researching instances where some consequences make

behaviour more probable in future and other consequences make future emissions less likely (Skinner 1953, 1966b, 1974, 1980, 1987; Moore 2008;

Pierce and Cheney 2008). Consequential operations are the experimental procedures employed to establish enduring changes in the rate of responding and are summarised by the RS portion of the three-term contingency

(Catania 1998; Moore 2008; Pierce and Cheney 2008; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009)¹¹².

Consequences are conceptualised as the effects, modifications, or

changes brought about by behaviour in the environment (Moore 2008; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009). Always following behaviour, these environmental consequences are expressed in terms of rewards and punishment (Skinner 1953). Consequences are classed as (consequential) stimuli because it is assumed that in future these stimuli may increase or decrease behavioural emissions (Skinner 1953; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009)¹¹³.

Consequences that are empirically demonstrated through an EAB to increase the likelihood of future behaviour are termed reinforcers whereas consequences that decrease the likelihood of future behaviour are termed punishers. Some consequences do not have any effect on behaviour and are considered neutral (Foxall 1990; Catania 1998; Moore 2008; Pierce and

Cheney 2008; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009; Vella and Foxall 2011) (Figure 14). Although some events serve as effective reinforcers for most individuals, these events do not necessarily function so for all (Cooper et al. 2007, p.

275)¹¹⁴.

112 Cooper et al. (2007, pp. 255-372) provide a very detailed explanation of the experimental aspects involved in these processes and operations. For the purposes of interpretation, the main principles suffice.

113 “It is not correct to say that operant reinforcement ‘strengthens the response which precedes it.’ The response has already occurred and cannot be changed. What is changed is the future probability of responses in the same class. It is the operant as a class of behaviour, rather than the response as a particular instance, which is conditioned” (Skinner 1953, p. 87).

114 The circularity of the principle of reinforcement is usually countered through the explanation that not all consequences of behaviour are reinforcing (consistently response strengthening) or punishing (consistently response weakening), and that some consequences do not produce changes in the future rates of response while others do (e.g., Zeiler 1978, pp. 22-24; Foxall 1990, p. 40; Catania 1998, p. 70; Cooper et al. 2007, pp. 260-261; Moore 2008, pp. 122-124;

Tonneau 2008). Ice cream is categorised as either a reinforcer or punisher because of its consistent increases and decreases in behaviour when utilised in a consequential operation (Moore 2008). Only after an additional analysis via signalling operations, for example, a hot day or a craving for sugar, is it possible to better determine “why” ice cream reinforces behaviour or punishes it. (Natural selection is not circular for similar reasons - not all variations are of selective significance.)

Figure 14 – Examples of Reinforcers and Punishers

Consequences produced by operant behaviour are grouped according to the typical effects behaviours produce within the environment: the production, presentation, or increases of stimulus events, the removal or prevention of stimulus events, or changes in the consequences produced by other behaviour (Catania 1998; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009). Such stimulus events may be considered as appetitive, aversive, or neutral by classifying their common effects on behaviour (e.g., Vella and Foxall 2011)¹¹⁵. Groupings form stimulus classes.

115 The terms “appetitive” and “aversive” should not be taken as implying an intrinsic property of a stimulus (leading to) or implicating “mental acceptance” or “desire” on the part of the individual (Foxall 1990, 1997b, 2007c, 2010b). The relationship between the response and its

consequence is not “teleological”, i.e., it does not indicate that the organism acts in such a way because it plans or wishes to obtain a reinforcer (Foxall 1990, pp. 38-39). Neither should these terms be taken as implying a judgement that some consequences are “good” or “bad” in either the absolute or normative sense. See also Appendix A3.2.

Response

Eat Ice Cream Cool Down on Consumption

Eat Ice Cream Sweet Taste of Ingredients

Response

In addition, the EAB categorises reinforcers and punishers as positive or negative to summarise their overall effects on the environment: positive is the modifier used to refer to increases or decreases in future responding when the consequences of behaviour present or add events to the environment.

Negative is the modifier used to refer to increases or decreases in future responding when the consequences of behaviour reduce or remove events to the environment (Catania 1998; Moore 2008).

Figure 15 presents operational definitions of positive and negative reinforcers and punishers based on Johnston and Pennypacker (2009, pp. 73-74).

Figure 15 – Operational Definitions of Positive and Negative Reinforcers and Punishers

Response

S r+

Positive Reinforcer

A class of stimuli that occur immediately following responding, resulting in an increase in some aspect of

the response class over baseline events

:

Response

S

r-Negative Reinforcer

A class of stimuli that are terminated following responding, resulting in an increase in some aspect of

the response class over baseline events

:

Response

S p+

Positive Punisher

A class of stimuli that occur immediately following responding, resulting in a decrease in some aspect of

the response class over baseline events

:

Response

S

p-Negative Punisher

A class of stimuli that are terminated immediately following responding, resulting in a decrease in some

aspect of the response class over baseline events

:

Source: Adapted from Johnston and Pennypacker (2009, pp. 73-74, emphasis added)

Although the fundamental datum used by Skinner in research on reinforcement is the rate of responding (Skinner 1953, 1974; Cooper et al.

2007; Foxall 2010b), the consequential operation is now said to effect all or any of the properties of behaviour (Cooper et al. 2007). Behaviour is reinforced and not the individual (Catania 1998; Cooper et al. 2007; Moore 2008; Johnston and Pennypacker 2009).

Three conditions must be satisfied within an EAB to term a stimulus as a reinforcer or punisher: (a) behaviour produces some consequence, (b) the probability of behaviour increases or decreases respectively, and, (c) the increased or decreased probability of behaviour is a function of the specific consequence (Catania 1998; Cooper et al. 2007; Moore 2008). When these conditions are met, the stimulus is termed a reinforcer and the behaviour that generated such a stimulus has been reinforced (Catania 1998; Cooper et al.

2007; Moore 2008). These conditions provide the basis for establishing

reinforcers and punishers through qualitative data. In interpretation, association (rather than correlation) proceeds on the basis of the most likely function of behaviour rather than the contiguity of behaviour and its environmental effects¹¹⁶.

Reinforcement and punishment are defined in Figure 16 in terms of experimental operations following Cooper et al. (2007) and Pierce and Cheney (2008).

116 See also Appendix A2.6.2 and Appendix A3.1.

Figure 16 – Definition of Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Procedures

A. Interpreting Literal Exchange

Marketer and consumer behaviour are characterised as a chain of interlocked sequence of events extending over space and time that eventually either terminate in literal exchange or in escape-avoidance behaviours (Foxall 1990). Literal exchange constitutes a transaction between two parties involving the mutual surrender of property rights (Foxall 1999b; Vella and Foxall 2011, 2013) and therefore is best conceptualised as the intersection of two terminal responses. Exchange behaviour is simultaneously reinforced and punished:

when an individual purchases a product, she acquires legal title to ownership and use. Behaviour may be strengthened by the benefits accrued from such title. In exchange, however, she surrenders an amount of money equal to its market price. The surrender of money may weaken purchase behaviour (Alhadeff 1982; Foxall 1990, 1997b, 1999b; Vella and Foxall 2011). The purchase and consumption of ice cream is positively reinforced on a hot day and positively punished on presentation of its actual price. A discount or a buy-one-get-one-free offer on ice cream functions reduce the positively punishing effects of ice cream purchase and, therefore, the discount (or promotion) is interpreted as a negative reinforcer. Reinforcers and punishers operate independently, simultaneously (Zeiler 1978) and in combination (Vella and Foxall 2011)¹¹⁷.