Edward Thorndike's Law of Effect: The Basis of Behaviorism

Psychology is not only focused on studying the human mind. For many psychologists, the representatives of the behaviorist current of psychology, the object of study is behavior, it is that is, the acts carried out by a great variety of living beings, provided that these can be modified through learning. In other words, the study of animal behavior has also received the interest of many psychologists.

Although b. F. Skinner is probably the best known behaviorist researcher, he owes part of his relevance to another scientist who worked a few decades before him: Edward Thorndike. And of all the contributions that the latter made to the world of psychology, the so-called Thorndike's Law of Effect is surely the most important. Let's see what it consists of.

• Related article: "Animal intelligence: the theories of Thorndike and Köhler"

Edward Thorndike's law of effect

The fundamental idea expressed by the Law of Effect is that, if a consequence perceived as positive (and therefore, satisfactory) occurs right after an action,

it is more likely that the same action will occur again. On the other hand, if an unpleasant or painful stimulus arrives after an action, the chances of repeating that action would decrease.

On the other hand, this law was proposed to describe both animal and human behavior. One of the characteristics of behaviorism, which Thorndike helped to inaugurate, was that at downplay or even deny the functionality of consciousness In the acts, his schemes could be applied to many forms of life, practically all those capable of learning: mice, mollusks, etc.

• You may be interested in: "B's theory. F. Skinner and behaviorism"

Implications for Operant Conditioning

Although Thorndike is not formally a representative of behaviorism, his Law of Effect is a concept from which behaviorists worked to develop behavior modification programs based on contingencies, that is, relationships between stimuli and responses.

For example, operant conditioning can be understood as an extension of the Law of Effect. This concept is a form of behavior modification based on the way in which the association between an action and a consequence affects learned behavior patterns.

For example, the psychologist b. F. skinner used this type of conditioning to, little by little, reward the action of pigeons used in his laboratory making them internalize chains of behaviors that result in the performance of a more complex. At first they are given a reward by propelling a small ball with their beak, and as they do so, they are given more rewards by performing complementary actions; in the end, they end up playing ping pong, receiving a prize for each point won from the opposing pigeon.

• Related article: "Operant Conditioning: Main Concepts and Techniques"

Hebb's Law

In a way, Thorndike's Law of Effect reflects a contribution made later by the neuropsychologist Donald Hebb, the so-called Hebb's Law. According to this, the neurons that are activated at the same time have an increased chance of connecting at the same time in the future. In this case, a coincidence in time (the activation of nerve cells) influences a potential future event (the same pattern of activation, later).

However, Edward Thorndike's Law of Effect does not focus on a purely biological analysis or neurological of what happens in our nervous system, but is basically based on behavior, in the style of behavioral psychologists such as John B. Watson.

• Related article: "Hebb's Law: The Neuropsychological Basis of Learning"

Criticism of the Law of Effect

The Law of Effect is the daughter of its time, and naturally its validity is not fully current, although it was a valuable first step for behavioral psychology. The main criticisms that have been made against him have to do with his implications about what happens after an action has unpleasant effects.

For example, pain, in a sexual context, can act like pleasure in some people. There is some degree of uncertainty about which stimuli are aversive and which are not for any given individual, especially considering that the language and abstract thought typical of human beings raised in society offer a new way of experiencing the most basic.

Another example of this would be found in the perception of physical punishment or even torture. For some strongly indoctrinated people, this type of suffering may be desirable as a form of martyrdom, and for this reason it is not impossible that exemplary executions work as an incentive to break the rules, for example, through attacks based on religious fundamentalism.

On the other hand, it is also not clear what a desirable stimulus is; possibly there is no universal reward equally valid for all individuals, and for this reason in many cases you have to inquire first about what is desirable and, in addition, on the type of reinforcers that are available in the "natural" environment of an individual: if accustoms someone to receive a gratification that only occurs in a laboratory environment, the behavior that it promotes can disappear.