For over a century, psychologists have been trying to figure out how people learn. Operant learning theory, which has dominated psychological textbooks and scientific literature on learning, is very comfortable for most Americans. The theory claims that we learn, or change our behavior, by associating behaviors with consequences that follow behavior. More specifically the theory says that we are rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad. It implies that rewards (or reinforcers) are pleasant for us and punishers are unpleasant, so we are likely to engage in rewarded behavior more frequently and in punished behavior less frequently. According to this theory, the frequency of future behavior is contingent on past consequences. 

It is easy to come up with anecdotes that support operant learning theory. Parents often praise children for helping others or give toddlers M & M’s for good pottying. Elementary school teachers may put stars on good papers or smile at shy children who finally speak up. Employers may offer merit pay for good work. Parents may punish children for running in the street or hitting siblings with rocks by yelling at the children angrily. And parents may put children in time-out for monopolizing toys or for failing to mind. Police charge fines for reckless driving. Workers are fired for insubordination and wives learn to avoid the triggers of abusive husbands.

For a person comfortable with viewing the world in operant terms, it is easy to overlook the many instances that fail to fit it. According to operant theory, we should stop doing things that result in unpleasant consequences. Why then do some women continue to bite their fingernails, despite years of maternal scolding and their current embarrassment over their own stubby fingers? Why do otherwise smart people continue to speed, after repeated costly tickets and insurance rate hikes? Why do children continue poor study habits, despite the low exam grades and being grounded by parents? Why do people charge far more than they can afford during Christmas holidays, only to regret it after the holidays? Why do dieters continue to sneak snacks even after embarrassing weigh-ins at Weight Watchers? Why do people drink too much, despite awful hangovers? Why do gamblers continue placing bets, despite the overwhelming number of losses? Why are recidivism rates so high for child molesters, despite the prison term and public humiliation? Clearly, unpleasant consequences fail to account for much of human behavior. 

Rather than trying to force these instances into awkward operant explanations, we might consider another explanation for learning. Perhaps things in the environment stimulate future behavior rather than reward or punish past behavior. Perhaps these things in the environment are important for what they make us do, not how they make us feel. Drivers during rush hour are familiar with aggressive driving. The driver of a sedan pulls too closely in front of a pick-up truck. Annoyed, the truck driver tailgates the sedan, dangerously close. Now annoyed himself, the sedan driver steps on his brakes. Angrier than ever, the driver of the truck slams on his own brakes to avoid rear-ending the sedan. Then the truck driver begins tailgating again. And so on. Tailgating was the consequence of the sedan cutting in front of the truck. The danger associated with the truck tailgating was surely unpleasant. Yet, it failed to reduce the tailgating, rather it provoked additional aggression. Aggressive driving promotes aggressive driving.

Courteous behavior likewise leads to courteous behavior. Students in my (HS) research methods course conducted some informal observations at local stores. The students approached people and either made eye contact and smiled, or simply made eye contact. The students came back amazed that when they smiled at people, people smiled back. The smiles of my students did not reward the approaching person for their gait or their pace. The approaching person isn’t likely to walk in the particular spot more frequently because of the smiles. Rather, the sight of a smile prompted a smile, just as the act of aggression on the part of the angry driver prompted the offended driver to act aggressively.

The purpose of this blog is to address challenges to contemporary theories of learning where evidence contradicts assumptions of the theory. We will identify behaviors that contradict traditional explanations of learning and will offer alternative explanations for them.