4 Quadrants of Operant Conditioning

 Can we sticky this?

I second that suggestion. 

Respectfully that is not complete.   Extinction is not included.  There also needs to be emphasis on discriminative stimulus which proceeds the behavior. 

I am all for simplicity, however, concentration only on the event following the behavior is one of the reasons folks get behaviors they did not want or intend.

Operant conditioning is about three equal load elements  A the antecedent; B the behavior: C the consequence immediately following the behavior.

mrv

Extinction is not included

I like extinction, too. I should find if someone has described it elsewhere, but I think there is some extinction going on, even during marker reward training. Some behaviors will extinguish without a direct deprivation on the part of the trainer. Such as a trainer is marking and rewarding what they want, which has become more rewarding than other behaviors that the dog was, until that time, finding rewarding or self-rewarding. In pursuit of the active rewarding following the mark, the dog is "forgetting", for lack of a better word, to even try those other behaviors, causing some extinction as a function of actively seeking the greater rewards. Or, that -P is a function of +R. I reward this but I am not rewarding that which makes this of keen interest and that of waning of interest.

content deleted

lostcoyote

so where does classical conditioning, learning by observation, as well as learning by sense of smell, etc.... fit into the scheme of things?

Those are other schema for behavior modification and learning, but not the topic of this particular thread.  

content deleted

Operant conditioning applies to the skill set developed by the vet.  It is not involved in changing the behavior of the dog since there is no discriminative stimulus (single, discrete event) that started the sequence.  The dog does not perform a behavior during the event.  Since there is no behavior it can not have a consequence.  This medical procedure changes the "internal" state of the dog.  That has an impact on behavior,  but operant conditioning does not "consider" that when examining the development of a pattern of behavior that is likely to occur again (or not occur again) under similar circumstancnes.

lostcoyote

*previously removed content.*

IMHO, that is pet animal husbandry, part of management of one's animal population, and in some ways medical management. For some dogs, it may reduce humping and wanderlust. For many dogs, it removes the threat of certain health conditions. In certain cases, a dam may have to be spayed to spare her life and I don't see it as particularly a learning experience. OC describes how animals learn. You can use OC to acclimate your dog to the vet so that going in for the operation is not scary, but the operation is not directly OC.

I don't see it as particularly a learning experience.

Hey guys, all I wanted was a quick reference to what +P,-P,+R and -R were defined as and a simple example of each.  I get confused easily and if I do, then even less knowledgeable people may as well.  This was to be a definition, not a "how does a cone affect blah blah blah".  No offense lostcoyote.

Now if we can just get this stickied (is it?) and maybe locked?

Or better yet, maybe we need a definition "section" or something.  Maybe one for Behavior.., Training..., and Health?  Where some "common" terms are used that others may not understand? 

lostcoyote, can you please explain to me what exactly you're trying to do here? The point of the thread was simply to offer simple definitions of the four quadrants of operant conditioning because those terms get used a lot on this board and it would be nice just to have a place where people could go and get an easy definition if they felt lost.

If you have a problem with the psychological theory behind operant conditioning and behaviorism in general, then I suggest you open another thread. Though honestly I have no idea what you are getting on about with the neutering and the vet and so forth. No one has ever claimed that operant conditioning was the only schema for learning or behavior modification, for dogs or for humans or for anything. So there's no need to provide ridiculous examples to try to "catch" anyone. If every time a dog goes to a vet something bad happens so now the dog hates the vet, that's an example of classical conditioning because the dog is not operant, he's not doing anything, he's just being subjected to stimuli that seems to be correlated to a particular location and people in white coats.