Personal consideration lip smacking and the use of

Reinforcement

I have a propensity to slap my lip area whenever placed in an awkward situation. This specific behavior is of interest in my opinion because I believe I discovered it coming from a friend, whether or not I really performed or certainly not will be talked about later. There may be nothing especially bad concerning this behavior, except that it becomes irksome once seen. It’s comparable to when you realize you’re stating “uhm” or “like” and it starts to bother you because at this point you’re mindful of it. Really fine till I realize that I’m doing it, then it must stop, yet that’s easier said than done. Thus, an idea was put into play to extinguish this behavior, but in so that it will do this, the possible beginnings of this patterns (classical or operant conditioning) were initial examined.

Analyzing the origins in the behavior lip-smacking is difficult to say the least because my personal learning history isn’t written about. However , encomiable explanations to get the basis in the behavior, lip-smacking, can be made. Perhaps, during arguments, there have been awkward calme and smacking my lips led to an escape in the stop, which resulted in the other party laughing since they believed it to be strange. Thus, lip-smacking could be the second-order conditioned stimulus (CS2) and the CS1 is the break in awkward quiet that is paired with the unconditioned stimulus of laughter. The conditioned response is the desire to smack my lips the moment placed in an awkward silence. Laughter, being an unconditioned stimulus, can be paired with the unconditioned response of delight. Because CS2 occurs at the same time as CS1, they are coexisting conditioned. America could either overlap with CS1 or occur after a time gap between each government, they can be both delayed or trace trained. This theory implies that there were already my old pairing of breaking the silence with the unconditioned stimulus, laughter.

Although higher-order classical conditioning might be a reason regarding how I learned the behavior, the much more likely origin on this behavior is because of social learning from observation. The unit due to negative reinforcement had learned to escape the aversive situation, awkward silence, by smacking her lips which usually successfully created a diversion in the silence. By observing the model’s behavior and effects, my patterns was increased, thus the behaviour was vicariously reinforced. The sole person I know to do the behaviour is my pal, and with this info, she could possibly be used in any plan to reduce this patterns.

After going over potential origins for the behavior, strategies can be produced based on these explanations. Termination can be put on weaken and eventually eliminate the trained response, prefer to smack lips during uncomfortable situation. Termination occurs when presenting the conditioned stimulation without the unconditioned stimulus. With this case, it will be when the subject does lip-smacking, CS, and laughter, ALL OF US, would not happen. In terms of operant conditioning, this issue would officially be on a set ratio routine, where it would take an infinite volume of lip-smacking to have the reinforcer, laughter. Another possible strategy is to deteriorate this habit through positive punishment. When the behavior, lip-smacking, is discovered, the subject will be reprimanded, this could lead to a decrease in the behavior. An additional prepare could be employed and that is to work with social learning from observation. The version would display the behavior, lip-smacking, and as a result be penalized, which should vicariously punish this issue. To make this plan more effective, my pal could be the style, this would be more efficient because We already thought she was a good unit since I had learned lip-smacking from watching her

In the three ideas given, the other plan, applying positive treatment to weaken the behavior, was implemented over a period of three several weeks. I told my friends regarding this project and asked that every time they will noticed the behaviour to bluntly tell me to avoid. The behavior was positively reprimanded on an spotty schedule for the reason that behavior had not been punished all the time. Because it was impossible to read how often the behavior occurred nor tell everyone That i knew of to reprimand the behavior every time they noticed this, the punishment was on a variable percentage schedule.

Fortunately, I actually typically hung out with three people on the daily basis, all whom I told and agreed to assist in this job. Thus, the contingency which the punishment could follow the tendencies was comparatively high. Altogether, there were 12-15 trials (each person held track of how many times that they told me to stop) that took place inside the span in the three-week try things out. The contiguity, or period gap between your behavior accompanied by the punishment, varied via each person, but was no more than 10 minutes. However , if the time difference was huge the effectiveness of the punisher could have decreased. One specific issue with this plan was that the intensity with the punishment varied from everyone. One good friend was specifically good and when she initial noticed the behavior would not simply reprimand me personally but accomplish that in a very furious manner. The other two would spot the behavior when reprimanding me would just ask me to quit and when the behaviour was continuing would graduate student to an upset mannerism. This is a common problem with punishments in this by beginning with a mild treatment and steadily increasing the intensity of the punishment causes a greater depth of the treatment to suppress the behavior.

The outcome in the plan has not been that the patterns, lip-smacking, was extinguished. Nevertheless , my friends mentioned that lip-smacking did lower comparably and so from the beginning from the month to the end with the project. There have been problems with the master plan such as differences in intensity of punishment as well as inconsistent contiguity. It would had been better to apply all three strategies together. Yet , due to period constraints and practicality, just one plan was employed. If perhaps all three plans had been utilized then in theory the behavior needs to have been destabilized quicker since all forms of learning (classical, operant and observational) would have taken place.

In order to extinguish the behavior, lip-smacking, positive encouragement was used on a variable percentage schedule over the span of roughly per month. The behavior has not been extinguished, although had reduced dramatically right from the start of the month, based on qualitative observation. Don’t ever was the program utilized to damage this behavior perfect. There is no quantitative base control to evaluate the effectiveness of the routine, the depth of the treatment varied, and the contiguity was inconsistent. Nevertheless , the theory at the rear of weakening the behavior was in the ideal direction. I chose to use positive punishment because I thought it would be the most effective way to weaken this behavior, because I’m quick to take grievances to try and repair myself. However , when put into practice it was harsher than My spouse and i realized. Certainly, the reprimands were successful in getting myself to stop my personal behavior during each trial, but it made me irritated sometimes to be advised to stop. At some points, I grew disappointed with personally that the patterns still was not extinct, however it showed myself that behaviors were harder to wash away than I had expected.