Law of effect

The law of effect is a psychological

principle advanced by Edward Thorndike in
1898 on the matter of behavioral
conditioning (not then formulated as such)
which states that "responses that produce
a satisfying effect in a particular situation
become more likely to occur again in that
situation, and responses that produce a
discomforting effect become less likely to
occur again in that situation."[1]
This notion is very similar to that of the
evolutionary theory, if a certain character
trait provides an advantage for
reproduction then that trait will persist.[2]
The terms "satisfying" and dissatisfying"
appearing in the definition of the law of
effect were eventually replaced by the
terms "reinforcing" and "punishing," when
operant conditioning became known.
"Satisfying" and "dissatisfying" conditions
are determined behaviorally, and they
cannot be accurately predicted, because
each animal has a different idea of these
two terms than another animal. The new
terms, "reinforcing" and "punishing" are
used differently in psychology than they
are colloquially. Something that reinforces
a behavior makes it more likely that that
behavior will occur again, and something
that punishes a behavior makes it less
likely that behavior will occur again.[3]

Thorndike's law of effect refutes the ideas

George Romanes' book Animal Intelligence,
stating that anecdotal evidence is weak
and is typically not useful. The book stated
that animals, like humans, think things
through when dealing with a new
environment or situation. Instead,
Thorndike hypothesized that animals, to
understand their physical environment,
must physically interact with it using trial
and error, until a successful result is
obtained. This is illustrated in his cat
experiment, in which a cat is placed in a
shuttlebox and eventually learns, by
interacting with the environment of the
box, how to escape.[4]

History
This principle, discussed early on by Lloyd
Morgan, is usually associated with the
connectionism of Edward Thorndike, who
said that if an association is followed by a
"satisfying state of affairs" it will be
strengthened and if it is followed by an
"annoying state of affairs" it will be
weakened.[5][6]

The modern version of the law of effect is

conveyed by the notion of reinforcement
as it is found in operant conditioning. The
essential idea is that behavior can be
modified by its consequences, as
Thorndike found in his famous
experiments with hungry cats in puzzle
boxes. The cat was placed in a box that
could be opened if the cat pressed a lever
or pulled a loop. Thorndike noted the
amount of time it took the cat to free itself
on successive trials in the box. He
discovered that during the first few trials
the cat would respond in many ineffective
ways, such as scratching at the door or the
ceiling, finally freeing itself with the press
or pull by trial-and-error. With each
successive trial, it took the cat, on average,
less and less time to escape. Thus, in
modern terminology, the correct response
was reinforced by its consequence,
release from the box.[7]

Definition

Initially the cat's responses were largely instinctual but

Initially, the cat s responses were largely instinctual, but
over time, the pressing lever response was
strengthened while the others were weakened

Law of effect is the belief that a pleasing

after-effect strengthens the action that
produced it.[8]

The law of effect was published by Edward

Thorndike in 1905 and states that when an
S-R association is established in
instrumental conditioning between the
instrumental response and the contextual
stimuli that are present, the response is
reinforced and the S-R association holds
the sole responsibility for the occurrence
of that behavior. Simply put, this means
that once the stimulus and response are
associated, the response is likely to occur
without the stimulus being present. It
holds that responses that produce a
satisfying or pleasant state of affairs in a
particular situation are more likely to occur
again in a similar situation. Conversely,
responses that produce a discomforting,
annoying or unpleasant effect are less
likely to occur again in the situation.

Psychologists have been interested in the

factors that are important in behavior
change and control since psychology
emerged as a discipline. One of the first
principles associated with learning and
behavior was the Law of Effect, which
states that behaviors that lead to
satisfying outcomes are likely to be
repeated, whereas behaviors that lead to
undesired outcomes are less likely to
recur.[9]

Thorndike's Puzzle-Box. The graph demonstrates the

general decreasing trend of the cat's response times
with each successive trial
Thorndike emphasized the importance of
the situation in eliciting a response; the cat
would not go about making the lever-
pressing movement if it was not in the
puzzle box but was merely in a place
where the response had never been
reinforced. The situation involves not just
the cat's location but also the stimuli it is
exposed to, for example, the hunger and
the desire for freedom. The cat recognizes
the inside of the box, the bars, and the
lever and remembers what it needs to do
to produce the correct response. This
shows that learning and the law of effect
are context-specific.
In an influential paper, R. J. Herrnstein
(1970)[10] proposed a quantitative
relationship between response rate (B)
and reinforcement rate (Rf):

B = k Rf / (Rf0 + Rf)

where k and Rf0 are constants. Herrnstein

proposed that this formula, which he
derived from the matching law he had
observed in studies of concurrent
schedules of reinforcement, should be
regarded as a quantification of the law of
effect. While the qualitative law of effect
may be a tautology, this quantitative
version is not.
Example

An example is often portrayed in drug

addiction. When a person uses a
substance for the first time and receives a
positive outcome, they are likely to repeat
the behavior due to the reinforcing
consequence. Over time, the person's
nervous system will also develop a
tolerance to the drug. Thus only by
increasing dosage of the drug will provide
the same satisfaction, making it
dangerous for the user.[11]

Thorndike's Law of Effect can be

compared to Darwin's theory of natural
selection in which successful organisms
are more likely to prosper and survive to
pass on their genes to the next generation,
while the weaker, unsuccessful organisms
are gradually replaced and "stamped out".
It can be said that the environment selects
the "fittest" behavior for a situation,
stamping out any unsuccessful behaviors,
in the same way it selects the "fittest"
individuals of a species. In an experiment
that Thorndike conducted, he placed a
hungry cat inside a "puzzle box", where the
animal could only escape and reach the
food once it could operate the latch of the
door. At first the cats would scratch and
claw in order to find a way out, then by
chance / accident, the cat would activate
the latch to open the door. On successive
trials, the behaviour of the animal would
become more habitual, to a point where
the animal would operate without
hesitation. The occurrence of the
favourable outcome, reaching the food
source, only strengthens the response that
it produces.

Colwill and Rescorla for example made all

rats complete the goal of getting food
pellets and liquid sucrose in consistent
sessions on identical variable-interval
schedules.[12]
Influence
The law of work for psychologist B. F.
Skinner almost half a century later on the
principles of operant conditioning, "a
learning process by which the effect, or
consequence, of a response influences the
future rate of production of that
response."[1] Skinner would later use an
updated version of Thorndike's puzzle box,
called the operant chamber, or Skinner
box, which has contributed immensely to
our perception and understanding of the
law of effect in modern society and how it
relates to operant conditioning. It has
allowed a researcher to study the behavior
of small organisms in a controlled
environment.

References
1. Gray, Peter. Psychology, Worth, NY. 6th
ed. pp 108–109
2. Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner. (2011).
"Psychology Second Edition" New
York: Worth Publishers.
3. Mazur, J.E. (2013) "Basic Principles of
Operant Conditioning." Learning and
Behavior. (7th ed., pp. 101–126).
Pearson.
4. Mazur, J.E. (2013) "Basic Principles of
Operant Conditioning." Learning and
Behavior. (7th ed., pp. 101-126).
Pearson.
5. Thorndike, E. L. (1898, 1911) "Animal
Intelligence: an Experimental Study of
the Associative Processes in Animals"
Psychological Monographs #8
6. A. Charles Catania. "Thorndike's
Legency: Learning Selection, and the
law of effect", p. 425–426. University
of Mary Land Baltimore
7. Connectionism . Thorndike, Edward.Q
Retrieved Dec 10, 2010
 8. Boring, Edwin`. Science. 1. 77. New
York: American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 2005. 307.
Web.
9. "Law of Effect" . eNotes.com.
Retrieved 2012-08-02.
10. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of
effect. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
11. Neil, Carlson; et al. (2007). Psychology
The Science Of Behaviour. New Jersey,
USA: Pearson Education Canada, Inc.
p. 516.
 12. Nevin, John (1999). "Analyzing
Thorndike's Law of Effect: The
Question of Stimulus - Response
Bonds". Journal of the Experiment
Analysis of Behaviour. p. 448.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Law_of_effect&oldid=885666581"

Last edited 2 months ago by Jebcub…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.