Operant Conditioning Practice Updated - KEY | PDF | Reinforcement ... - Free Printable

Let’s carefully review each scenario and check whether the filled-in answers are correct, based on operant conditioning principles.

We are given:
- Nature of Consequence:
- “+” = something added (a stimulus is presented)
- “–” = something removed (a stimulus is taken away)
- “0” = no meaningful consequence (extinction)

- Likelihood of Recurrence:
- ↑ = increase (behavior more likely to happen again)
- ↓ = decrease (behavior less likely)

- Principle:
- Positive reinforcement: + consequence → ↑ behavior
- Negative reinforcement: – consequence → ↑ behavior
- Punishment: + or – consequence → ↓ behavior
- *Positive punishment*: something unpleasant added → ↓
- *Negative punishment*: something pleasant removed → ↓
- Extinction: 0 (no consequence) → ↓ behavior

Now go one by one:

---

1. A student volunteers… teacher comments favorably…
- Consequence: favorable comment → something *added* (praise) → +
- Behavior (volunteering) is likely to increase → ↑
- Principle: Positive reinforcement ✔
✔ Correct

---

2. Child sent to room with no supper after bad report card
- Consequence: *no supper* = food (a desirable thing) is removed → –
- Behavior (getting bad report card / poor performance) is being decreased → ↓
- This is negative punishment (removing a pleasant stimulus to reduce behavior), *not* punishment in the generic sense — but the worksheet labels it simply “Punishment”, which is acceptable if they’re using “Punishment” broadly for both positive and negative types. However, the hint says:
> Punishment: when a behavior is followed by something negative, the behavior is likely to decrease
But technically, “something negative” could be misinterpreted. In this case, *removing supper* is negative *for the child*, so many curricula accept “Punishment” as the category here. Still, strictly speaking, it's negative punishment, and the table marks it as “–”, “Decrease”, “Punishment” — that’s acceptable for introductory level.
✔ Acceptable/Correct for this level.

---

3. Dad gives her a sucker to quiet her down (child screams)
From child’s perspective:
- Screaming → dad gives sucker (something *added*) → +
- Screaming is reinforced → more likely → ↑
- Principle: Positive reinforcement ✔
✔ Correct

---

4. Same situation, from father’s perspective
Father’s behavior: *giving the sucker*
- He gives sucker → child stops screaming (an aversive stimulus is *removed*)
So for *father*, the consequence is removal of unpleasant noise → –
His behavior (giving sucker) is now more likely → ↑
This is negative reinforcement for the *father* (he learns giving sucker removes screaming).
The table says: “–”, “Increase”, “Negative reinforcement” ✔
✔ Correct

---

5. Two children fighting, then quietly reading. Dad peeks and sighs, returns to work without saying anything.
- No reaction from dad → no consequence for the quiet reading behavior → 0
- Since the quiet behavior gets no attention (and previously fighting got attention), the quiet behavior may not be strengthened — but the key is: *no consequence* for the new behavior → extinction *of the previous fighting*, but for the new behavior (reading), it's not reinforced. However, the scenario asks about the behavior of *placing peacefully over book* — and since dad does nothing, it’s extinction (no reinforcement), and the behavior is *less likely* to recur *if it was previously reinforced by attention*. But the table says:
- Nature: 0
- Likelihood: Decrease
- Principle: Extinction

Is that right?
Extinction means a previously reinforced behavior decreases when reinforcement is withheld. Here, the peaceful reading wasn’t previously reinforced — but the *fighting* was possibly reinforced (by attention), and now it’s ignored → extinction of fighting. However, the targeted behavior in the scenario is “they place peacefully over a coloring book… he returns to work without saying anything.” So the behavior being analyzed is the *peaceful reading*, and since it receives no consequence, and assuming it wasn’t previously reinforced, it may not increase — but extinction technically applies to behaviors that *were* reinforced and now aren’t. Still, many worksheets treat “no consequence → behavior decreases” as extinction for simplicity.

But let’s look at the answer given:
→ 0, Decrease, Extinction
This is commonly accepted in intro psych for this type of question.
✔ Likely considered correct here.

---

6. Wife brings home flowers because husband cooked dinner
- Husband cooked dinner → wife brings flowers (something *added*) → +
- Cooking dinner is reinforced → more likely → ↑
- Principle: Positive reinforcement ✔
✔ Correct

---

7. Child spills milk → Mom swoops child up and spanks him
- Spilling milk → spanking (something unpleasant *added*) → +
- Behavior (spilling) is likely to decrease → ↓
- Principle: Punishment (specifically *positive punishment*) ✔
✔ Correct

---

Now double-check any possible errors:

Scenario 4: Some might mistakenly think it’s punishment, but from *father’s* view, removing screaming (aversive stimulus) reinforces *his* behavior → negative reinforcement. The table correctly identifies that.

Scenario 5: Tricky. If the children were fighting (likely getting attention), and now they read quietly and get *ignored*, then the *fighting* is undergoing extinction, but the question says:
> “Two children… finally place peacefully over a coloring book… He returns to work without saying anything.”
So the *targeted behavior* is the peaceful reading. Since it gets no consequence, and assuming it’s a new behavior not previously reinforced, it won’t be strengthened — so likelihood of recurrence may decrease (if they prefer attention, they might revert to fighting). So labeling it “extinction” is a bit loose, but for this level, it’s standard.

All entries in the table match standard introductory operant conditioning interpretation.

✔ All answers provided in the table are correct.

Final Answer:
All entries are correct.