LAW OF EFFECT
Thorndike’s studies of cats in the puzzle box led him to propose the following interpretation of their behaviour: ‘Of several responses made to the same situation, those which are accompanied or closely followed by a state of satisfaction to the animal will, other things being equal, be more firmly connected with the situation, so that, when it recurs, they will be more likely to recur’ (Thorndike, 1911, p. 244). This is the law of effect as applied to appetitive instrumental learning. Thorndike also put forward (and later retracted) a negative counterpart for the case of punishment, which proposed that certain effects (‘annoyers’) would weaken the connection between a response and the training situation. In modern terminology, Thorndike’s ‘satisfiers’ and ‘annoyers’ are called reinforces and punishers.
Thorndike’s presentation of the law of effect has two major features:
1. What is learned is a stimulus–response (S–R) association.
2. The role of the effect produced by the response is to determine whether this association will be strengthened or not.
Both of these propositions are debatable and, as we shall shortly see, this theoretical version of the law of effect has not stood up well to further experimental analysis. As an empirical generalization, though, the law seems much more secure. Everyone accepts that the likelihood of an animal responding in a particular way can be powerfully controlled by the consequence of that response.
Thorndike’s studies of cats in the puzzle box led him to propose the following interpretation of their behaviour: ‘Of several responses made to the same situation, those which are accompanied or closely followed by a state of satisfaction to the animal will, other things being equal, be more firmly connected with the situation, so that, when it recurs, they will be more likely to recur’ (Thorndike, 1911, p. 244). This is the law of effect as applied to appetitive instrumental learning. Thorndike also put forward (and later retracted) a negative counterpart for the case of punishment, which proposed that certain effects (‘annoyers’) would weaken the connection between a response and the training situation. In modern terminology, Thorndike’s ‘satisfiers’ and ‘annoyers’ are called reinforces and punishers.
Thorndike’s presentation of the law of effect has two major features:
1. What is learned is a stimulus–response (S–R) association.
2. The role of the effect produced by the response is to determine whether this association will be strengthened or not.
Both of these propositions are debatable and, as we shall shortly see, this theoretical version of the law of effect has not stood up well to further experimental analysis. As an empirical generalization, though, the law seems much more secure. Everyone accepts that the likelihood of an animal responding in a particular way can be powerfully controlled by the consequence of that response.
No comments:
Post a Comment