Sometimes we want to end an irritating behavior, but accidently reinforce it. From a behavioral perspective what going one here and what might be don about it?
Sometimes we want to end an irritating behavior, but accidently reinforce it. From a behavioral perspective what going one here and what might be don about it?
I think it is helpful to first identify the ABCs seen in this video first.
A=Orange does something annoying to Apple.
B=Apple responds angrily.
C=Orange is happy that someone paid attention to him.
This example reminds me a lot of how one can fail at modifying behavior in children. Although Apple does not realize it, he is actually positively reinforcing Orange's behavior. This will cause Orange's behavior to increase. The reward in this case is just Orange receiving attention at all from Apple. In order for this behavior to decrease, Apple will need to use negative punishment. This means that Apple will have to remove something good, which in this case could be the attention he was giving Orange. So the best course of action for Apple would be to completely ignore Orange's comments. This would inevitably elicit an extinction burst from Orange in which Orange would continue to be annoying, probably with greater frequency for a while. The extinction burst though will eventually result in complete extinction of the behavior if Apple does continue to successfully ignore the behavior. If Apple does cave in and reinforce the behavior once again, it will become even harder for him to achieve extinction with this behavior in the future.
Terms: Positive reinforcement, negative punishment, elicit, extinction burst, extinction
The number of terms used is five.
I like how Rebekah laid out the ABCs of this video. I would agree with her that Orange is emitting the annoying behavior just to receive some sort of attention from Apple. Once Apple emits some sort of response back to him, it elicits orange to keep bugging him. Apple does not even realize that he is reinforcing Orange by reacting to him, even if it is in a negative way. Orange will take anything he can get. I think this happens to many of us in real life. If a child, pet, or friend is doing something we do not want them to do, we try and tell them to stop or we yell at them, or punish them in some other way. We think this will work and they will stop doing what we do not want them to do. Sometimes the opposite happens, like in this video. They may not care if the reaction is positive or negative, but the reinforcement allows them to keep going.
Number of terms used is 7.
This post is a lot like the family guy video posted earlier in the class. The abc's are as follows:
a: orange is bored and wants attention
b: orange elicits a behavior that annoys apple and causes him to emit a response
c: orange is positively reinforced by apples behavior, and the frequency of his behavior increases.
The problem arises when apple positively reinforces orange's behavior by responding to him. If apple would have ignored him orange would have gotten bored and moved on to other things. The desirable abc's for apple would have been:
a:orange is board and wants attention
b:orange elicits a behavior that annoys apple, apple does not emit a response as he usually would
c:orange's behavior was negatively punished, which created extinction of the target behavior (orange shouting apple's name)
Terms: emit, elicit, positive reinforcement, negative punishment, target behavior, extinction, abc's
First I want to lay out the ABCs of this video:
A= the orange wants attention, so it bugs the apple which elicits the apple to
B= emit a response to the orange, which results in
C= the orange being reinforced to bug the apple.
The orange just wants attention, so it bugs the apple. At first the apple does not respond, so the orange engages in an extinction burst of constant annoyance. Once the apple finally emits a response (the orange's desired target behavior), the orange keeps bugging it. Although the apple does not realize it, it is positively reinforcing the orange to keep annoying it. Something good is added to the situation (orange's desired response from apple is fulfilled), which causes an increase in frequency for the orange to annoy the apple. To avoid the aversive annoyance from the orange, the apple should probably just ignore it. If the apple were able to ignore the orange, orange's behavior would be punished, hopefully decreasing its annoyance in frequency, which is the desired response for the apple.
Terms: desired, aversive, response, punished, target behavior, emits, ABCs, elicits, reinforced, extinction burst, positively reinforcing (11)
A=Orange wants to get Apple's attention and keeps calling out for Apple
B=Apple responds to Orange's calling in an aversive manner
C=Orange continues to bother Apple because Orange knows that eventually Apple will respond.
No joke, that orange was annoying! Orange was continuously reinforced by Apple when Apple responded to Orange. Apple thought that Orange was annoying and just wanted Orange to shut up but Apple went about it the wrong way. From a behavioral point of view, I would have used negative punishment. I would have removed the Apple's acknowledgment to Orange. Orange would no longer be reinforced to call out for Apple and Orange's behavior would have become extinct.
Antecedent, behavior, consequence, aversive, reinforced, negative punishment, extinct=7
This reminds of the video we watched in class with the kid throwing a tantrum because the father took away his nintendo ds. This example relates to behavior because the apple was positively reinforcing the orange by constantly acknowledging the oranges behavior, even though it was annoying. At first, when the apple was ignoring the orange, the orange became more and more obnoxious which is referred to as an extinction burst. The apple then positively reinforced the orange thus causing the orange to keep emitting the annoying behavior!
A= orange being annoying to apple
B=apple acknowledging the orange
C=orange still annoys apple because he's positively reinforced
A= Orange wants apple's attention so he calls his name out over and over.
B= Apple says "what" in response to his name being called.
C= Orange now knows he can get apple's attention so he elicits the same behavior because apple keeps emitting a response.
Like we learned in class today, if apple were to realize that when he keeps responding to orange calling his name he really is reinforcing that behavior to continue. If apple didn't want orange to continue calling his name, all he had to do was ignore Orange's calls and sooner or later Orange's behavior would have extinguished.
A: Orange wants some attention
B: Orange call's apple name repetitively
C: Apple gets annoyed which elicits orange to keep talking to apple even though it annoys apple.
To me this reminds me of children and how they continue to do something that annoys one because they are getting the attention that they are wanting. I liked this because it really did shows how one can also solve ones attention seeking.
This reminds me of a classic example of children when they are whining or being annoying and are reinforced by their parents responses-- usually angry ones. The orange is seeking attention, he emits an obnoxious behavior that angers the apple, which reinforces the orange's behavior and increases its frequency (which is seen in all of the "annoying orange" videos-- one of these vegetables really needs to get a clue!)
This youtube video can easily be explained using the ABC's of Behavior Modification.
A- Orange wants attention from the Apple
B- Orange repeditedly calls Apple's name and asks annoying questions in hopes of being recognized by Apple
C- Apple becomes annoyed of the Orange because he continually elicits the behavior of answering all of Orange's questions.
By getting attention from Apple, Orange's behavior of annoyance is being continually reinforced.