Psychology

Operant conditioning may be defined as learning by doing which means that the consequences of the subjects response to a stimulus shapes or influences the probability of such response or behavior to be retained (Mazur, 2006, p.201). Mazur (2006) presented two arguments on operant conditioning  one by Thorndike, and another, by Tolman (p.201). The two proponents came up with their respective hypotheses that would prove their point regarding the importance of response to learn through Operant Conditioning.

To test Thorndike and Tolmans hypotheses, McNamara, Long and Wike (as cited in Mazur, 2006, p.201) used two groups of mice in a maze where a correct turn would mean food and a wrong one merited a minute of confinement. The subjects were tested repeatedly with the control group given sixteen trials and members of the experimental group made use of small wire cars.

The control group made correct turns on 95 of the trials. Members of the experimental group, after having their trials on wire cars, were joined with a rat from the control group and would receive the consequence of the control rat that would choose the way to go. After the third series of tests all the subjects underwent extinction exercises composed of the subjects going through the maze but found no food at the right turns. For the extinction training, the control group was 64 successful while the experimental one was 66 successful. A study by Dodwell  Bessant (as cited in Mazur, 2006, p.201) that consisted of a water maze yielded comparable results. Results studies prove contradictory to Thorndikes theory.

Though responses are undoubtedly integral parts of learning, they are not essential as Thorndikes claim makes it seem. As Mazur (2006) said, animals can learn not only a single response, but also a complex chain of responses, without practice.(p.201) Tolmans claim takes another spin on learning by doing and proves valid.