Episode Highlights:
- Introduction to the concept of extinction in behavioral psychology.
- Explanation of operant conditioning and its application in the workplace.
- Examples from "The Big Bang Theory" illustrating positive reinforcement and extinction.
- Detailed discussion with Dr. Michael Domjan on the process and effects of extinction.
- Real-world examples of applying extinction to undesirable workplace behaviors.
- The importance of careful implementation to avoid frustration and aggression.
Key Topics:
- Operant Conditioning: Modifying behavior through reinforcement.
- Extinction: Reducing behaviors by removing positive reinforcers.
- Paradoxical Reward Effects: How intermittent reinforcement can lead to greater persistence.
- Practical Tips: Gradual phasing out of reinforcers and managing expectations.
Guest Expert: Dr. Michael Domjan
- Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.
- Expert in conditioning and learning with over 50 years of teaching experience.
- Author and co-author of numerous publications (over 200), including "The Essentials of Conditioning and Learning."
Related Resources:
- Dr. Michael Domjan's YouTube Channel: Learning and Behavior: Key Concepts by M. Domjan
- Book: The Essentials of Conditioning and Learning (5th Edition)
- Research Article: R. Hinkin and C. A. Schreisheim, "If You Don't Hear from Me You Know You Are Doing Fine: The Effects of Management Nonresponse to Employee Performance," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45 (2004): 362-373.
Connect with Dr. Michael Domjan:
Upcoming Episodes:
- Stay tuned for our next episode where we dive into schedules of reinforcement and their applications in management.
Join the Conversation:
- Share your thoughts and experiences with extinction and reinforcement in the workplace.
- Follow Travis Mallett on LinkedIn.
Subscribe and Review:
- Don't forget to subscribe to The Management Theory Toolbox on your favorite podcast platform.
- Leave us a review to help others discover the show and improve our content.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Just watch what people do when they put their
money in a Coke machine and itdoesn't work.
Just watch the people'sinteraction with that machine.
If you try this in theworkplace, be very careful.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome back to the Management Theory Toolbox, your
top destination for uncoveringthe why behind management and
business concepts.
If you're an executive manager,consultant or business student
and you want to dive into ascientifically rooted discussion
of management theory, thenyou're in the right place.
We're continuing to learn aboutwell learning in organizations
(00:40):
and we've been covering thistopic called operant
conditioning, which is just afancy psychology term for
modifying people's behaviorusing positive and negative
reinforcement.
A good example of this is inthe Big Bang Theory show, where
Sheldon Cooper tries to changePenny's behavior using positive
reinforcement.
Every time she does somethinghe likes, for example, by not
(01:02):
talking too loud or followingSheldon's house rules, sheldon
offers her a piece of chocolate.
He goes so far as to startrewarding her when she speaks in
a lower-toned voice, becauseSheldon finds her natural high
pitches annoying.
Eventually, Penny's boyfriendLeonard catches on.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
I know what you're doing Really.
Yes, you're using chocolates aspositive reinforcement for what
you're doing Really.
Yes, you're using chocolates aspositive reinforcement for what
you consider correct behavior.
Very good Chocolate.
No, I don't want any chocolate.
Sheldon, you can't train mygirlfriend like a lab rat.
(01:42):
Actually, it turns out I canWell, you shouldn't.
There's just no pleasing you isthere, leonard?
You weren't happy with myprevious approach to dealing
with her, so I decided to employoperant conditioning techniques
, building on the works ofThorndyke and BF Skinner.
Yet by this time next week, Ibelieve, I can have her jumping
out of a pool bouncing a beachball on her nose.
(02:03):
No, this has to stop now.
Are you saying that I amforbidden from applying a
harmless, scientifically validprotocol that will make our
lives better?
Yes, you're forbidden.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
We've so far covered the type of behavior
modification that Sheldonemploys in episodes 11, 12, and
13.
But here's a question whathappens when Sheldon stops
giving Penny the chocolates?
Will she immediately return toher previous annoying behaviors
or will it be a gradualtransition?
Or perhaps some of thosebehaviors will never or rarely
(02:40):
return, meaning that Sheldon'sbehavior modification program
could have a lasting impact?
It's a situation you mightencounter at work.
After learning about operantconditioning from this podcast,
maybe you overzealously startimplementing some positive and
negative reinforcement regimesin your team.
But what happens if you have tostop those reinforcements?
Or what happens if you find outthat something you're doing is
(03:03):
reinforcing an undesirablebehavior?
Clearly you want to stopreinforcing that behavior.
In psychology and organizationalbehavior, the process in which
a behavior is followed by theabsence of a previously
encountered positive consequence, thereby reducing the
likelihood that the behaviorwill be repeated, is called
extinction.
Reducing the likelihood thatthe behavior will be repeated is
(03:24):
called extinction.
You can think of the positivereinforcer as a candle flame
adding energy to and heating upsome object.
When the flame is extinguished,what happens?
How quickly does the objectcool down?
Was some of the object meltedor otherwise permanently changed
by the application of thatflame.
This process of extinction isour topic for today, but this
(03:48):
topic has several angles toexplore and we're going to need
some help from an expert inbehavioral principles.
We're fortunate enough to havewith us today Dr Michael Daumian
of University of Texas atAustin.
Hi, dr Daumian, and welcome tothe show.
Thank you, glad to be here.
Before we get started, go aheadand introduce yourself and tell
us a bit about your backgroundand your work.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I'm a professor of psychology at the University of
Texas at Austin, where I've beenteaching conditioning and
learning for the past 50 years.
If you can believe that, Isupervised a learning lab for
about 35 years studying basicprocesses of Pavlovlovian
conditioning.
I no longer have a lab, but Iconcentrate on scholarly writing
and disseminating knowledgeabout conditioning and learning
(04:32):
through books and a YouTubechannel that has about 50 mini
lectures about various topics inconditioning and has attracted
viewers from 30 differentcountries around the world.
I recently collaborated withAndrew Delamater in writing the
fifth edition of the book theEssentials of Conditioning and
(04:57):
Learning, which was published bythe American Psychological
Association in the summer of2023.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Excellent, thank you, and 50 years of teaching at U
of T, that's quite something.
We're really happy to be ableto get your expertise today.
In today's episode, we'retalking about the idea of
extinction in the context ofbehavior conditioning.
Could you tell us whatextinction is?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So there are basically two types of
conditioning procedures.
One of these is calledPavlovian conditioning and was
originated by Pavlov.
A lot of us are familiar withthat.
In instrumental conditioningthe emphasis is on the
individual performing a responsein order to obtain a desirable
(05:40):
object.
Instrumental conditioning,sometimes also called operant
conditioning, was popularized byBF Skinner, and a lot of the
procedures and issues that hediscussed fall under the general
rubric of instrumentalconditioning.
Extinction is a learningprocedure that you cannot
introduce from the beginning.
(06:01):
That is, you first have to havean earlier training phase, and
the training can either involvePavlovian conditioning or the
training can involveinstrumental conditioning.
Once behavior has been trainedwith either of those techniques,
then you can introduceextinction, which involves a
modification of the proceduresuch that the source of
(06:25):
motivation for the learning isno longer provided.
In a conditioning procedure, beit Pavlovian conditioning or
instrumental conditioning, youhave what's called a reinforcer
or unconditioned stimulus.
So in Pavlov's experiments thiswas food.
In Skinner's experiments withrats and pigeons he also
(06:47):
provided a little bit of food.
In an extinction procedure youno longer provide that bit of
food.
Originally the food was whatmotivated learning.
In an extinction procedure youno longer provide the food and
so you remove an importantsource of motivation for the
(07:08):
original learning.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
So here's an example I'm familiar with from my work
as an engineering manager.
We'd commonly train associatesand try to give them positive
feedback on their work, toreinforce when they're following
procedures or situations wherethey went really deep into a
design.
We want to reinforce that andprovide that positive feedback.
But maybe a decade or two downthe road, when they're a lead
(07:31):
engineer or a principal engineer, it's not really expected that
we should have to keep givingthem positive feedback on all
these tiny details in order tocontinue to motivate them to do
it.
We should, of course, give thempositive feedback on their good
performance on the bigger tasksthat are part of their more
senior job description.
But if we have to keep tellingour senior engineer how great it
(07:52):
is that they solved the problemin a thorough manner just to
keep that behavior from lapsing,then something's probably wrong
and maybe they're not ready forthat more senior role.
So, if I'm understanding thiscorrectly, this is an example of
extinction, where it's expectedthat the behavior should still
continue even without thepositive reinforcement that was
previously given.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
In the context of providing feedback and
encouragement to get someone toperform correctly or perform at
a high level.
Extinction would be no longerproviding that feedback, no
longer providing thatencouragement.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
So how do we go about doing that properly?
Is there a correct procedurefor extinction?
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Well, in Pavlovian conditioning we have a signal,
or what's technically referredto as a conditioned stimulus,
that during original training ispaired with an unconditioned
stimulus.
Extinction involves presentingthe conditioned stimulus by
itself, without food, withoutthe unconditioned stimulus.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Okay, so it's as simple as that.
Simple as that.
Yeah, Okay, just stop thepositive reinforcement.
But does that actually work?
Are there any challenges withthat?
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Of course, when you say does it work?
It depends on how you wantthings to work.
The typical outcome of anextinction procedure is that the
learned response declines.
You get a reduction inconditioned responding once you
no longer provide theunconditioned stimulus or
(09:29):
reinforce the source ofencouragement for the individual
performing.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Now, in chapter 10 of your book, the Essentials of
Conditioning and Learning, whichI'll link to in the show notes
for our listeners.
You talk about some of thequote paradoxical reward effects
in extinction.
Tell us a bit about theseparadoxical effects.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Paradoxical reward effects are very interesting and
they fit into the generalcharacterization is that you get
more behavior in extinction orhaving provided less
reinforcement or lessencouragement during training.
One of the first paradoxicalreward effects was the so-called
(10:13):
partial reinforcement,extinction effect.
In this phenomenon two groupsof individuals are compared.
Extinction effect In thisphenomenon two groups of
individuals are compared.
One group gets rewarded everytime they do something and you
would think that if you rewardsomebody every time they do
something, they would be morelikely to continue doing that
when extinction is introduced.
(10:33):
The second group, duringoriginal training, is given
intermittent reinforcement.
So they are given the reward orencouragement only some of the
instances where they performed abehavior, and you would think
that that would lead to weakerbehavior and the individual
would be more likely to abandondoing that when their extinction
(10:56):
is introduced.
But it doesn't work that way.
It works just the opposite.
Providing encouragement orreward less frequently during
original training makes theindividual continue to do that
behavior for longer stretches oftime in the face of extinction
or in the face of no longerreceiving the reward or
(11:19):
encouragement.
You see this clearly if youcompare how long individuals
continue to operate slotmachines as opposed to how often
they continue to operate avending machine when extinction
is introduced.
Extinction in a slot machineconsists of the machine no
longer working, so it never paysout If you create a malfunction
(11:42):
, so it never pays out.
Individuals who have beenplaying a slot machine are going
to continue to operate themachine for long stretches of
time even though the machine isno longer working properly.
That's persistence of behaviorfollowing partial reinforcement.
If you operate a vendingmachine, you put your money in.
(12:05):
You expect to get the can ofCoke every time you put your
money in.
So that's continuousreinforcement.
If the machine now no longerfunctions, that means that
you're on extinction.
You don't persist on continuingto put money in the machine.
The first time you fail to getyour can of Coke, you probably
(12:26):
swear at the machine, maybe kickit, try to shake it, put money
in it again, hoping it's goingto work the second time.
If it doesn't work the firsttime, you get mad at it and you
walk away.
So extinction followingcontinuous reinforcement results
in a decrease in behavior veryrapidly.
So that's the paradoxicalpartial reinforcement,
(12:47):
extinction.
Another paradoxical effect isthat we expect that if we
provide a larger reward forbehavior, pay somebody a higher
bonus for doing something thatthat is going to make them
perform that activity more oftenin the face of not getting paid
.
Not getting paid is theextinction part.
(13:09):
Well, the larger the rewardthat you provide during training
.
If you introduce extinction,you stop providing rewards.
The individuals that receivedthe larger reward quit a lot
faster.
If you want somebody tocontinue to perform the desired
response in the face of nolonger getting paid for it,
(13:33):
you're better off having paidthem a little bit and
intermittently than having paidthem a lot consistently.
It's paradoxical in that smallerrewards actually lead to
greater persistence in behavior.
You see this in the persistenceof responding among artists.
You know what is theprobability that a poet is going
(13:55):
to get their next poempublished?
It's next to zero.
It's very difficult to get apoem published.
But if they do get onepublished, that will encourage
them to write more poetry andkeep trying to get it published.
So intermittent reward leads toquite strong persistence in the
(14:17):
face of long strings of failure.
Of course you see it ingambling.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Somebody can be losing bets most of the time,
but the occasional time they winis going to trap them into
continuing to bet in the face ofno reward in the patterns of
(14:46):
extinction are really related tothe details of the schedule of
reinforcement which, for ourlisteners, is actually going to
be the topic of our next episodeepisode.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Absolutely, you're absolutely right.
How quickly you stop respondingin the face of consistent
failure or consistent lack ofpay on depends very much on the
schedule of reinforcement thatwas in effect before the
extinction was introduced.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Are there ways to perform the extinction procedure
which takes into account thosedetails of the schedule of
reinforcement, for example?
Maybe you know that justeliminating this positive
reinforcer is very likely goingto completely eliminate a
desired behavior, but what ifyou were to gradually phase it
out?
Does the end result still reachzero?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The behavior doesn't always disappear completely.
You get a decline in thebehavior and depending on the
circumstances you may not reachzero and even behavior that has
declined sometimes will recur.
So extinction is not afoolproof method of eliminating
(15:57):
behavior.
But you're absolutely correctthat if you take a schedule of
reinforcement or a program ofreward or a program of payouts
and you gradually thin them outso that you're introducing more
trials where the payoff doesn'toccur, that will tend to
encourage the subject tocontinue to respond once you
(16:21):
completely turn off any rewardsor payouts.
So you can engineer what thesubject's reaction is going to
be to an extinction procedure byappropriately adjusting the
schedule of rewards andreinforcement before you
introduce extinction.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
So far we've been talking about the situation
where a positive reinforcementis being used to produce a
desired behavior, but for somereason or another we need to
extinguish that reinforcer.
So what happens to that desiredbehavior?
But if we flip that around andlook at situations where we're
maybe reinforcing an undesirablebehavior For example, an
(17:02):
employee might be showing uplate to work consistently and in
doing so they're getting areward by avoiding the morning
rush hour.
Maybe they get a sleep in later.
Those are both rewardingconsequences of this undesirable
behavior.
Now in this case I understandthat probably it's difficult for
a manager to use extinctionbecause they don't really have
(17:23):
control over those rewards.
But in general, is theextinction process any different
when we're talking aboutreducing the likelihood of
undesirable behavior?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Well, the example that you presented is a complex
one, and unfortunately, the realworld is a lot more complex
than the world of the laboratory, in which a lot of these
principles have been developed.
I mean, if you're obtaining abenefit for going to work late,
a benefit being less traffic andnot having to get up as early,
(17:55):
those are benefits.
Once you get to work, there maybe penalties you missed a
meeting, you didn't get a jobdone submitted on time, and
maybe you're going to be dockedsome leave time or vacation time
.
While there are benefits toturning up late, there may be
disadvantages.
There are many consequences ofturning up to work late, and it
(18:18):
makes the analysis of thesituation a lot more complex.
Obviously, this becomes a matterof deciding what's most
important to you.
Is it more important to sleeplater or facing the displeasure
of your boss?
So it becomes a complexdecision, and all of these
factors could enter into it.
(18:39):
As individuals make thesedecisions, they often consider
the immediate consequences to bemore salient than remote ones.
A remote consequence is thenext time raises are calculated,
you may be at a disadvantage,but that won't happen for the
next six months, and so you mayrisk being late a few times
(19:01):
because the loss in a raise istoo far away for you to worry
about.
So these decisions becomecomplicated.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yes, yes.
And then from the manager'sperspective, the manager is
tasked with dealing out some ofthose penalties or punishments
that you described.
But in this example I don'tthink a manager could use
extinction to remove positivereinforcers of showing up late.
You can't, as a manager,control the traffic or the extra
benefit of sleep or whatever.
So let's look at anotherexample where extinction might
(19:33):
work.
Suppose an employee hasdeveloped a habit of regularly
visiting the manager's office tocomplain about their coworkers
and most of the complaints arejust trivial.
The manager's kind of tired ofthis because it interferes with
their job and wants to useextinction.
So in this case it seemspossible for the manager to have
control over the stimulus orthe reinforcer, specifically the
(19:56):
attention the manager gives.
The manager could remove thatattention and stop giving this
employee their attention whenthey're complaining about
trivial things.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Attention is a huge reinforcer among people.
Everybody loves attention.
Everybody works hard to getattention.
If the managers attending tothese complaints actually
reinforces the frequency of thecomplaints, that would be an
excellent place to putextinction into effect.
(20:28):
That is, don't provideattention for these things.
You can do that by just tellingthem I don't want to talk about
this, or you could say it'sinappropriate.
The simplest thing to say is Idon't want to talk about this.
Another way to do it is tocreate a suggestion box.
You have a problem, put it inthe suggestion box.
(20:48):
That creates a delay and italso allows you to not ignore it
.
The best way to controlinappropriate efforts to get
attention is to not provideattention, and that is
extinction, and that would be anappropriate and reasonably
effective technique.
Now, one of the things you haveto be careful of is that you
(21:12):
want to make sure that you doprovide attention for
appropriate kind of inquiries,so you don't want to put all
behaviors on extinction.
This is a common issue inparenting.
Actually, this attempt to getattention is a frequent event in
parent-child interactions.
Children are constantly tryingto get attention and they get
(21:36):
your attention by doing thingslike being too loud or throwing
a baseball through the livingroom window.
The mistake that parents makeis that they don't provide
attention when the child isdoing constructive and useful
things.
It's like parents are busy, andthis is also true in classrooms
(22:00):
and daycare centers.
Parents in charge are very busyhaving to look at a number of
kids and so forth.
So good behavior often getsignored and bad behavior is the
behavior that gets paidattention to.
In order to solve that problem,you have to pay attention to
good behavior.
(22:20):
That way, the kid gets theattention that he or she desires
, without resorting to extreme,unpleasant behaviors that are
impossible to ignore.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
What are some of your encouragements or cautions that
you want to offer our listenerswho might be eager to go try
this concept of extinction intheir workplace?
Speaker 1 (22:41):
My recommendation, if you try this in the workplace,
is to be very careful.
And the reason I say that isthat extinction is unpleasant
and, depending on thecircumstances of extinction, you
get frustration, anger and evenaggression.
I mean, just watch what peopledo when they put their money in
(23:04):
a Coke machine and it doesn'twork.
Just watch the people'sinteraction with that machine.
All of a sudden they startswearing at it, they kick the
thing, they shake the thing,they get very annoyed and then
they stomp away.
That will happen in theworkplace.
It'll happen in personalrelationships.
(23:26):
If you are living with someoneand you get in the habit of
making coffee for them everymorning, that is a perfectly
predictable source of reward.
One day you just don't feellike it and you don't make the
coffee.
If you do something regularlyand then you introduce
extinction, the individuals youinteract with are going to be
(23:48):
pretty upset with you.
That's why I say if you'regoing to use extinction, be
careful.
Particularly if a behavior hasbeen consistently reinforced,
then the sudden introduction ofextinction is going to be very
unpleasant and it could resultin unpleasant consequences.
So in a case of someone turningup to work late, if you
(24:10):
introduce an extinctionprocedure, announce it ahead of
time, you might discuss it, soit's not a surprise, everybody
understands it.
You might even engage youremployees in designing that
extinction procedure.
Like we talked about theexample of an employee that
frequently comes to bother themanager about trivial issues.
(24:32):
You could have a group meetingin which the manager explains
that these kinds ofinterruptions make it difficult
for the manager to do their workand we need to institute some
different kind of procedures inthe workplace and people working
there could be recruited tomake suggestions.
You could have a sign thatduring this period the manager
(24:55):
is unavailable for complaints oryou could have a designated 15
minutes in the morning, 15minutes in the afternoon.
If a problem that's not urgent,drop in at those times.
So you can introduce extinction.
But be careful about how you doit so that you don't trigger
the very intense and unpleasantconsequences of extinction.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, that's all the time that we have.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
This was such a fascinatingsubject and you're definitely an
expert in this area, so we'regrateful to learn from your
expertise.
Before we sign off, can youtell our listeners how they can
find you and your work?
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I'm a professor and so everything I do is out there
in public.
You can easily find researcharticles that I've written
through Google, scholar orResearchGate.
I have an extensive facultywebpage at the University of
Texas at Austin and, as Imentioned earlier, I've got this
extensive YouTube channel onprinciples of learning, so you
(25:57):
can search for that on YouTube,but also find my books on Amazon
and other book retailers, soit's easy to find me.
In fact, it would be harder forme at this point to try to hide
.
Anyway, appreciate yourinterest and thanks very much,
travis, for having me on.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yes, and thank you, my pleasure, that was really
(26:41):
interesting.
I think my biggest takeaway isthe caution regarding using
extinction.
It's so easy to think, in theexample of the employee who's
making trivial complaints, thatit'd be best to not give the
attention to those and they'llstop.
It's kind of like the scene inParks and Recreation where a
Pawnee citizen complains to RonSwanson about the city's
(27:03):
sprinkler system.
To avoid engaging with thecomplaint, ron continuously
swivels his chair away from thecitizen, effectively ignoring
her.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Excuse me.
There's a sign at Rampset Parkthat says do not drink the
sprinkler water.
So I made some tea with it andnow I have an infection.
Sir, Sir, are you listening tome?
Sir, Sir, I'm talking to you.
Sir, Sir, are you aware thatthere is waste in your water
(27:34):
system?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
In that example, Ron's tactics elicited a
negative response, but his useof extinction seems to more or
less work and the complaintseventually go away.
But wait, is this reallyextinction?
Ron Swanson wasn't exactlyknown for attending to people's
complaints, so he hasn't reallyconditioned the people around
him to get attention as a reward.
(27:57):
This, in fact, isn't exactly aclear-cut case of extinction,
except in the general sense thatpeople have been conditioned to
usually get some kind ofattention when they talk to
someone directly, hence theirritation when he doesn't
listen.
But usually by the time werealize that we've been
inadvertently reinforcing anundesirable behavior, it's
(28:19):
probably too late by then.
The employee is well-trained toseek the reinforcement and
extinction becomes tricky.
This week, take some time tothink about if there are any
behaviors in your workplace thatare undesirable.
If so, it's probably a prettysafe bet that people aren't
doing them just out of spite.
Instead, there's probably someunderlying reward that comes
(28:43):
from the behavior.
Is there a way to carefullyextinguish that reward?
Or maybe a safer option, isthere another positive
reinforcement that you can useto encourage a better behavior,
over and above the rewards theymight get from the undesirable
one?
Either way, be careful and besmart and, as always, revisit
(29:04):
the theory and think deeplyabout how it applies to your
individual situation and context.
So with that, thank you forjoining me on another episode of
the Management Theory Toolbox.
Stay tuned for our next episode, where we talk about schedules
of reinforcement.
In the meantime, keep learning,keep growing and keep adding to
(29:26):
your management theory toolbox.
Thank you.
Just watch what people do when they put their
money in a Coke machine and itdoesn't work.
Just watch the people'sinteraction with that machine.
If you try this in theworkplace, be very careful.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome back to the Management Theory Toolbox, your
top destination for uncoveringthe why behind management and
business concepts.
If you're an executive manager,consultant or business student
and you want to dive into ascientifically rooted discussion
of management theory, thenyou're in the right place.
We're continuing to learn aboutwell learning in organizations
(00:40):
and we've been covering thistopic called operant
conditioning, which is just afancy psychology term for
modifying people's behaviorusing positive and negative
reinforcement.
A good example of this is inthe Big Bang Theory show, where
Sheldon Cooper tries to changePenny's behavior using positive
reinforcement.
Every time she does somethinghe likes, for example, by not
(01:02):
talking too loud or followingSheldon's house rules, sheldon
offers her a piece of chocolate.
He goes so far as to startrewarding her when she speaks in
a lower-toned voice, becauseSheldon finds her natural high
pitches annoying.
Eventually, Penny's boyfriendLeonard catches on.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
I know what you're doing Really.
Yes, you're using chocolates aspositive reinforcement for what
you're doing Really.
Yes, you're using chocolates aspositive reinforcement for what
you consider correct behavior.
Very good Chocolate.
No, I don't want any chocolate.
Sheldon, you can't train mygirlfriend like a lab rat.
(01:42):
Actually, it turns out I canWell, you shouldn't.
There's just no pleasing you isthere, leonard?
You weren't happy with myprevious approach to dealing
with her, so I decided to employoperant conditioning techniques
, building on the works ofThorndyke and BF Skinner.
Yet by this time next week, Ibelieve, I can have her jumping
out of a pool bouncing a beachball on her nose.
(02:03):
No, this has to stop now.
Are you saying that I amforbidden from applying a
harmless, scientifically validprotocol that will make our
lives better?
Yes, you're forbidden.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
We've so far covered the type of behavior
modification that Sheldonemploys in episodes 11, 12, and
13.
But here's a question whathappens when Sheldon stops
giving Penny the chocolates?
Will she immediately return toher previous annoying behaviors
or will it be a gradualtransition?
Or perhaps some of thosebehaviors will never or rarely
(02:40):
return, meaning that Sheldon'sbehavior modification program
could have a lasting impact?
It's a situation you mightencounter at work.
After learning about operantconditioning from this podcast,
maybe you overzealously startimplementing some positive and
negative reinforcement regimesin your team.
But what happens if you have tostop those reinforcements?
Or what happens if you find outthat something you're doing is
(03:03):
reinforcing an undesirablebehavior?
Clearly you want to stopreinforcing that behavior.
In psychology and organizationalbehavior, the process in which
a behavior is followed by theabsence of a previously
encountered positive consequence, thereby reducing the
likelihood that the behaviorwill be repeated, is called
extinction.
Reducing the likelihood thatthe behavior will be repeated is
(03:24):
called extinction.
You can think of the positivereinforcer as a candle flame
adding energy to and heating upsome object.
When the flame is extinguished,what happens?
How quickly does the objectcool down?
Was some of the object meltedor otherwise permanently changed
by the application of thatflame.
This process of extinction isour topic for today, but this
(03:48):
topic has several angles toexplore and we're going to need
some help from an expert inbehavioral principles.
We're fortunate enough to havewith us today Dr Michael Daumian
of University of Texas atAustin.
Hi, dr Daumian, and welcome tothe show.
Thank you, glad to be here.
Before we get started, go aheadand introduce yourself and tell
us a bit about your backgroundand your work.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
I'm a professor of psychology at the University of
Texas at Austin, where I've beenteaching conditioning and
learning for the past 50 years.
If you can believe that, Isupervised a learning lab for
about 35 years studying basicprocesses of Pavlovlovian
conditioning.
I no longer have a lab, but Iconcentrate on scholarly writing
and disseminating knowledgeabout conditioning and learning
(04:32):
through books and a YouTubechannel that has about 50 mini
lectures about various topics inconditioning and has attracted
viewers from 30 differentcountries around the world.
I recently collaborated withAndrew Delamater in writing the
fifth edition of the book theEssentials of Conditioning and
(04:57):
Learning, which was published bythe American Psychological
Association in the summer of2023.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Excellent, thank you, and 50 years of teaching at U
of T, that's quite something.
We're really happy to be ableto get your expertise today.
In today's episode, we'retalking about the idea of
extinction in the context ofbehavior conditioning.
Could you tell us whatextinction is?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So there are basically two types of
conditioning procedures.
One of these is calledPavlovian conditioning and was
originated by Pavlov.
A lot of us are familiar withthat.
In instrumental conditioningthe emphasis is on the
individual performing a responsein order to obtain a desirable
(05:40):
object.
Instrumental conditioning,sometimes also called operant
conditioning, was popularized byBF Skinner, and a lot of the
procedures and issues that hediscussed fall under the general
rubric of instrumentalconditioning.
Extinction is a learningprocedure that you cannot
introduce from the beginning.
(06:01):
That is, you first have to havean earlier training phase, and
the training can either involvePavlovian conditioning or the
training can involveinstrumental conditioning.
Once behavior has been trainedwith either of those techniques,
then you can introduceextinction, which involves a
modification of the proceduresuch that the source of
(06:25):
motivation for the learning isno longer provided.
In a conditioning procedure, beit Pavlovian conditioning or
instrumental conditioning, youhave what's called a reinforcer
or unconditioned stimulus.
So in Pavlov's experiments thiswas food.
In Skinner's experiments withrats and pigeons he also
(06:47):
provided a little bit of food.
In an extinction procedure youno longer provide that bit of
food.
Originally the food was whatmotivated learning.
In an extinction procedure youno longer provide the food and
so you remove an importantsource of motivation for the
(07:08):
original learning.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
So here's an example I'm familiar with from my work
as an engineering manager.
We'd commonly train associatesand try to give them positive
feedback on their work, toreinforce when they're following
procedures or situations wherethey went really deep into a
design.
We want to reinforce that andprovide that positive feedback.
But maybe a decade or two downthe road, when they're a lead
(07:31):
engineer or a principal engineer, it's not really expected that
we should have to keep givingthem positive feedback on all
these tiny details in order tocontinue to motivate them to do
it.
We should, of course, give thempositive feedback on their good
performance on the bigger tasksthat are part of their more
senior job description.
But if we have to keep tellingour senior engineer how great it
(07:52):
is that they solved the problemin a thorough manner just to
keep that behavior from lapsing,then something's probably wrong
and maybe they're not ready forthat more senior role.
So, if I'm understanding thiscorrectly, this is an example of
extinction, where it's expectedthat the behavior should still
continue even without thepositive reinforcement that was
previously given.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
In the context of providing feedback and
encouragement to get someone toperform correctly or perform at
a high level.
Extinction would be no longerproviding that feedback, no
longer providing thatencouragement.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
So how do we go about doing that properly?
Is there a correct procedurefor extinction?
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Well, in Pavlovian conditioning we have a signal,
or what's technically referredto as a conditioned stimulus,
that during original training ispaired with an unconditioned
stimulus.
Extinction involves presentingthe conditioned stimulus by
itself, without food, withoutthe unconditioned stimulus.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Okay, so it's as simple as that.
Simple as that.
Yeah, Okay, just stop thepositive reinforcement.
But does that actually work?
Are there any challenges withthat?
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Of course, when you say does it work?
It depends on how you wantthings to work.
The typical outcome of anextinction procedure is that the
learned response declines.
You get a reduction inconditioned responding once you
no longer provide theunconditioned stimulus or
(09:29):
reinforce the source ofencouragement for the individual
performing.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Now, in chapter 10 of your book, the Essentials of
Conditioning and Learning, whichI'll link to in the show notes
for our listeners.
You talk about some of thequote paradoxical reward effects
in extinction.
Tell us a bit about theseparadoxical effects.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Paradoxical reward effects are very interesting and
they fit into the generalcharacterization is that you get
more behavior in extinction orhaving provided less
reinforcement or lessencouragement during training.
One of the first paradoxicalreward effects was the so-called
(10:13):
partial reinforcement,extinction effect.
In this phenomenon two groupsof individuals are compared.
Extinction effect In thisphenomenon two groups of
individuals are compared.
One group gets rewarded everytime they do something and you
would think that if you rewardsomebody every time they do
something, they would be morelikely to continue doing that
when extinction is introduced.
(10:33):
The second group, duringoriginal training, is given
intermittent reinforcement.
So they are given the reward orencouragement only some of the
instances where they performed abehavior, and you would think
that that would lead to weakerbehavior and the individual
would be more likely to abandondoing that when their extinction
(10:56):
is introduced.
But it doesn't work that way.
It works just the opposite.
Providing encouragement orreward less frequently during
original training makes theindividual continue to do that
behavior for longer stretches oftime in the face of extinction
or in the face of no longerreceiving the reward or
(11:19):
encouragement.
You see this clearly if youcompare how long individuals
continue to operate slotmachines as opposed to how often
they continue to operate avending machine when extinction
is introduced.
Extinction in a slot machineconsists of the machine no
longer working, so it never paysout If you create a malfunction
(11:42):
, so it never pays out.
Individuals who have beenplaying a slot machine are going
to continue to operate themachine for long stretches of
time even though the machine isno longer working properly.
That's persistence of behaviorfollowing partial reinforcement.
If you operate a vendingmachine, you put your money in.
(12:05):
You expect to get the can ofCoke every time you put your
money in.
So that's continuousreinforcement.
If the machine now no longerfunctions, that means that
you're on extinction.
You don't persist on continuingto put money in the machine.
The first time you fail to getyour can of Coke, you probably
(12:26):
swear at the machine, maybe kickit, try to shake it, put money
in it again, hoping it's goingto work the second time.
If it doesn't work the firsttime, you get mad at it and you
walk away.
So extinction followingcontinuous reinforcement results
in a decrease in behavior veryrapidly.
So that's the paradoxicalpartial reinforcement,
(12:47):
extinction.
Another paradoxical effect isthat we expect that if we
provide a larger reward forbehavior, pay somebody a higher
bonus for doing something thatthat is going to make them
perform that activity more oftenin the face of not getting paid
.
Not getting paid is theextinction part.
(13:09):
Well, the larger the rewardthat you provide during training
.
If you introduce extinction,you stop providing rewards.
The individuals that receivedthe larger reward quit a lot
faster.
If you want somebody tocontinue to perform the desired
response in the face of nolonger getting paid for it,
(13:33):
you're better off having paidthem a little bit and
intermittently than having paidthem a lot consistently.
It's paradoxical in that smallerrewards actually lead to
greater persistence in behavior.
You see this in the persistenceof responding among artists.
You know what is theprobability that a poet is going
(13:55):
to get their next poempublished?
It's next to zero.
It's very difficult to get apoem published.
But if they do get onepublished, that will encourage
them to write more poetry andkeep trying to get it published.
So intermittent reward leads toquite strong persistence in the
(14:17):
face of long strings of failure.
Of course you see it ingambling.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Somebody can be losing bets most of the time,
but the occasional time they winis going to trap them into
continuing to bet in the face ofno reward in the patterns of
(14:46):
extinction are really related tothe details of the schedule of
reinforcement which, for ourlisteners, is actually going to
be the topic of our next episodeepisode.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Absolutely, you're absolutely right.
How quickly you stop respondingin the face of consistent
failure or consistent lack ofpay on depends very much on the
schedule of reinforcement thatwas in effect before the
extinction was introduced.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Are there ways to perform the extinction procedure
which takes into account thosedetails of the schedule of
reinforcement, for example?
Maybe you know that justeliminating this positive
reinforcer is very likely goingto completely eliminate a
desired behavior, but what ifyou were to gradually phase it
out?
Does the end result still reachzero?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The behavior doesn't always disappear completely.
You get a decline in thebehavior and depending on the
circumstances you may not reachzero and even behavior that has
declined sometimes will recur.
So extinction is not afoolproof method of eliminating
(15:57):
behavior.
But you're absolutely correctthat if you take a schedule of
reinforcement or a program ofreward or a program of payouts
and you gradually thin them outso that you're introducing more
trials where the payoff doesn'toccur, that will tend to
encourage the subject tocontinue to respond once you
(16:21):
completely turn off any rewardsor payouts.
So you can engineer what thesubject's reaction is going to
be to an extinction procedure byappropriately adjusting the
schedule of rewards andreinforcement before you
introduce extinction.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
So far we've been talking about the situation
where a positive reinforcementis being used to produce a
desired behavior, but for somereason or another we need to
extinguish that reinforcer.
So what happens to that desiredbehavior?
But if we flip that around andlook at situations where we're
maybe reinforcing an undesirablebehavior For example, an
(17:02):
employee might be showing uplate to work consistently and in
doing so they're getting areward by avoiding the morning
rush hour.
Maybe they get a sleep in later.
Those are both rewardingconsequences of this undesirable
behavior.
Now in this case I understandthat probably it's difficult for
a manager to use extinctionbecause they don't really have
(17:23):
control over those rewards.
But in general, is theextinction process any different
when we're talking aboutreducing the likelihood of
undesirable behavior?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Well, the example that you presented is a complex
one, and unfortunately, the realworld is a lot more complex
than the world of the laboratory, in which a lot of these
principles have been developed.
I mean, if you're obtaining abenefit for going to work late,
a benefit being less traffic andnot having to get up as early,
(17:55):
those are benefits.
Once you get to work, there maybe penalties you missed a
meeting, you didn't get a jobdone submitted on time, and
maybe you're going to be dockedsome leave time or vacation time
.
While there are benefits toturning up late, there may be
disadvantages.
There are many consequences ofturning up to work late, and it
(18:18):
makes the analysis of thesituation a lot more complex.
Obviously, this becomes a matterof deciding what's most
important to you.
Is it more important to sleeplater or facing the displeasure
of your boss?
So it becomes a complexdecision, and all of these
factors could enter into it.
(18:39):
As individuals make thesedecisions, they often consider
the immediate consequences to bemore salient than remote ones.
A remote consequence is thenext time raises are calculated,
you may be at a disadvantage,but that won't happen for the
next six months, and so you mayrisk being late a few times
(19:01):
because the loss in a raise istoo far away for you to worry
about.
So these decisions becomecomplicated.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yes, yes.
And then from the manager'sperspective, the manager is
tasked with dealing out some ofthose penalties or punishments
that you described.
But in this example I don'tthink a manager could use
extinction to remove positivereinforcers of showing up late.
You can't, as a manager,control the traffic or the extra
benefit of sleep or whatever.
So let's look at anotherexample where extinction might
(19:33):
work.
Suppose an employee hasdeveloped a habit of regularly
visiting the manager's office tocomplain about their coworkers
and most of the complaints arejust trivial.
The manager's kind of tired ofthis because it interferes with
their job and wants to useextinction.
So in this case it seemspossible for the manager to have
control over the stimulus orthe reinforcer, specifically the
(19:56):
attention the manager gives.
The manager could remove thatattention and stop giving this
employee their attention whenthey're complaining about
trivial things.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Attention is a huge reinforcer among people.
Everybody loves attention.
Everybody works hard to getattention.
If the managers attending tothese complaints actually
reinforces the frequency of thecomplaints, that would be an
excellent place to putextinction into effect.
(20:28):
That is, don't provideattention for these things.
You can do that by just tellingthem I don't want to talk about
this, or you could say it'sinappropriate.
The simplest thing to say is Idon't want to talk about this.
Another way to do it is tocreate a suggestion box.
You have a problem, put it inthe suggestion box.
(20:48):
That creates a delay and italso allows you to not ignore it
.
The best way to controlinappropriate efforts to get
attention is to not provideattention, and that is
extinction, and that would be anappropriate and reasonably
effective technique.
Now, one of the things you haveto be careful of is that you
(21:12):
want to make sure that you doprovide attention for
appropriate kind of inquiries,so you don't want to put all
behaviors on extinction.
This is a common issue inparenting.
Actually, this attempt to getattention is a frequent event in
parent-child interactions.
Children are constantly tryingto get attention and they get
(21:36):
your attention by doing thingslike being too loud or throwing
a baseball through the livingroom window.
The mistake that parents makeis that they don't provide
attention when the child isdoing constructive and useful
things.
It's like parents are busy, andthis is also true in classrooms
(22:00):
and daycare centers.
Parents in charge are very busyhaving to look at a number of
kids and so forth.
So good behavior often getsignored and bad behavior is the
behavior that gets paidattention to.
In order to solve that problem,you have to pay attention to
good behavior.
(22:20):
That way, the kid gets theattention that he or she desires
, without resorting to extreme,unpleasant behaviors that are
impossible to ignore.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
What are some of your encouragements or cautions that
you want to offer our listenerswho might be eager to go try
this concept of extinction intheir workplace?
Speaker 1 (22:41):
My recommendation, if you try this in the workplace,
is to be very careful.
And the reason I say that isthat extinction is unpleasant
and, depending on thecircumstances of extinction, you
get frustration, anger and evenaggression.
I mean, just watch what peopledo when they put their money in
(23:04):
a Coke machine and it doesn'twork.
Just watch the people'sinteraction with that machine.
All of a sudden they startswearing at it, they kick the
thing, they shake the thing,they get very annoyed and then
they stomp away.
That will happen in theworkplace.
It'll happen in personalrelationships.
(23:26):
If you are living with someoneand you get in the habit of
making coffee for them everymorning, that is a perfectly
predictable source of reward.
One day you just don't feellike it and you don't make the
coffee.
If you do something regularlyand then you introduce
extinction, the individuals youinteract with are going to be
(23:48):
pretty upset with you.
That's why I say if you'regoing to use extinction, be
careful.
Particularly if a behavior hasbeen consistently reinforced,
then the sudden introduction ofextinction is going to be very
unpleasant and it could resultin unpleasant consequences.
So in a case of someone turningup to work late, if you
(24:10):
introduce an extinctionprocedure, announce it ahead of
time, you might discuss it, soit's not a surprise, everybody
understands it.
You might even engage youremployees in designing that
extinction procedure.
Like we talked about theexample of an employee that
frequently comes to bother themanager about trivial issues.
(24:32):
You could have a group meetingin which the manager explains
that these kinds ofinterruptions make it difficult
for the manager to do their workand we need to institute some
different kind of procedures inthe workplace and people working
there could be recruited tomake suggestions.
You could have a sign thatduring this period the manager
(24:55):
is unavailable for complaints oryou could have a designated 15
minutes in the morning, 15minutes in the afternoon.
If a problem that's not urgent,drop in at those times.
So you can introduce extinction.
But be careful about how you doit so that you don't trigger
the very intense and unpleasantconsequences of extinction.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, that's all the time that we have.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
This was such a fascinatingsubject and you're definitely an
expert in this area, so we'regrateful to learn from your
expertise.
Before we sign off, can youtell our listeners how they can
find you and your work?
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I'm a professor and so everything I do is out there
in public.
You can easily find researcharticles that I've written
through Google, scholar orResearchGate.
I have an extensive facultywebpage at the University of
Texas at Austin and, as Imentioned earlier, I've got this
extensive YouTube channel onprinciples of learning, so you
(25:57):
can search for that on YouTube,but also find my books on Amazon
and other book retailers, soit's easy to find me.
In fact, it would be harder forme at this point to try to hide
.
Anyway, appreciate yourinterest and thanks very much,
travis, for having me on.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yes, and thank you, my pleasure, that was really
(26:41):
interesting.
I think my biggest takeaway isthe caution regarding using
extinction.
It's so easy to think, in theexample of the employee who's
making trivial complaints, thatit'd be best to not give the
attention to those and they'llstop.
It's kind of like the scene inParks and Recreation where a
Pawnee citizen complains to RonSwanson about the city's
(27:03):
sprinkler system.
To avoid engaging with thecomplaint, ron continuously
swivels his chair away from thecitizen, effectively ignoring
her.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Excuse me.
There's a sign at Rampset Parkthat says do not drink the
sprinkler water.
So I made some tea with it andnow I have an infection.
Sir, Sir, are you listening tome?
Sir, Sir, I'm talking to you.
Sir, Sir, are you aware thatthere is waste in your water
(27:34):
system?
Speaker 2 (27:36):
In that example, Ron's tactics elicited a
negative response, but his useof extinction seems to more or
less work and the complaintseventually go away.
But wait, is this reallyextinction?
Ron Swanson wasn't exactlyknown for attending to people's
complaints, so he hasn't reallyconditioned the people around
him to get attention as a reward.
(27:57):
This, in fact, isn't exactly aclear-cut case of extinction,
except in the general sense thatpeople have been conditioned to
usually get some kind ofattention when they talk to
someone directly, hence theirritation when he doesn't
listen.
But usually by the time werealize that we've been
inadvertently reinforcing anundesirable behavior, it's
(28:19):
probably too late by then.
The employee is well-trained toseek the reinforcement and
extinction becomes tricky.
This week, take some time tothink about if there are any
behaviors in your workplace thatare undesirable.
If so, it's probably a prettysafe bet that people aren't
doing them just out of spite.
Instead, there's probably someunderlying reward that comes
(28:43):
from the behavior.
Is there a way to carefullyextinguish that reward?
Or maybe a safer option, isthere another positive
reinforcement that you can useto encourage a better behavior,
over and above the rewards theymight get from the undesirable
one?
Either way, be careful and besmart and, as always, revisit
(29:04):
the theory and think deeplyabout how it applies to your
individual situation and context.
So with that, thank you forjoining me on another episode of
the Management Theory Toolbox.
Stay tuned for our next episode, where we talk about schedules
of reinforcement.
In the meantime, keep learning,keep growing and keep adding to
(29:26):
your management theory toolbox.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.