Instinctive drift

Photo of B.F. Skinner, American psychologist credited for understanding of operant conditioning associated with instinctive drift.

Instinctive drift also known as instinctual drift is the tendency of an animal, of any species, to revert to unconscious and automatic behaviour that interferes with operant conditioning and the learned responses that come with it.[1] B.F Skinner was an American psychologist who coined the term operant conditioning or instrumental conditioning, which is to learn by means of being granted either a reward or punisher for the action.[1] It's through the association of the behaviour and consequence that follows that depicts if an animal will learn to practice the behaviour, or if the behaviour will become extinct.[2] The concept of instinctive drift originated by the two former students of B.F Skinner's, Keller and Marian Breland when they taught raccoons to deposit money into a bank slot. The raccoons were initially successful at this activity but over time began to dip the coins in and out and rub them together rather than drop them in.[2] In nature raccoons instinctively dip their food into water several times and rub it in order to wash it. Therefore, the adoption of this behaviour with coins is instinctual drift, and interferes with their training.[1][2] Instinctive behaviour is innate, it isn't learned. it's usually automatic and unplanned, a natural reaction which often is preferred by the animal over learned and unnatural actions.[1] This topic is relevant and discussed when it comes to the nature and nurture controversy.[2] Many experimental studies have been conducted on this topic which proves its reliability.[2] Natural behaviours are easier to learn and often easier expressed, even subliminally.[3]

Origin of Instinctive Drift

The term instinctive drift was coined by Keller and Marian Breland, former students of B.F. Skinner at the University of Minnesota (Marian in 1938, Keller in 1940).[2] B.F. Skinner coined the term operant conditioning.[2] The Breland's followed Skinners principles of control and decided to live off this principle through creation of "Animal Behaviour Enterprises.[3] They began the commercial training of animals instead of finishing their degrees.[3] They began their business on a farm, but as multiple contracts were being created with various companies, the Breland shows ended up spreading nationwide.[3] It was Keller and Marian Breland who discovered the meaning of and coined the term instinctive drift through their research.[3] They were working with racoons and conducted an experiment which involved teaching raccoons to deposit money into a bank slot. The Brelands noticed that over time and as the reinforcement schedule was spaced out, the raccoons began to dip the coins in and out of the bank and rub them with their paws rather than depositing them. They concluded that this was an instinct that was interfering with the raccoons’ performance on the task.[3][2] In nature, raccoons dip their food in water several times in order to wash it. This is an instinct which was seemingly triggered by the similar action sequence involved in retrieving and depositing coins into a bank. This instinctual drift was successfully avoided when they instead taught the raccoons to place a basketball into a basket. Because of the size of the ball and the different body position involved in this action, the raccoons did not experience instinctual drift (they did not dip the balls in and out of the basket.)[3]

A similar experiment was conducted on pigs. They were trained to insert wooden coins into a piggy bank.[4] Over time, the pigs stopped depositing the coins and instead began to drop it in the dirt, push it down with their noses, drag it back out, and fling it into the air.[4] This is a series of actions which are part of a behaviour known as rooting. It is an instinctual pattern of behaviour which pigs use to dig for food and to communicate.[4] The pigs preferred rooting than performing their trained action (depositing the coin) and this is therefore an example of instinctual drift interfering with operant conditioning.[4]

Nature vs. nurture

The nature vs. nurture controversy is a major topic discussed in psychology and pertains to animal training as well. Both sides of the nature vs. nurture debate have valid points and this controversy is one of the most debated in psychology.[5] A common question asked today by many experts in various fields is if behaviour is due to life experiences or if it is predisposed in DNA.[5] Today, partial credit is given to both sides and in many cases nature and nurture are given equal weight. With animal training it is often questioned if the training and shaping is the cause of a behaviour exhibited by an animal (nurture), or if the behaviour is actually innate to the species (nature).[5][6] Instinctive drift centers around the nature of behaviour more so than learning being the sole cause of a behaviour. Species are obviously capable of learning behaviours, this is not denied in instinctive drift.[5] Instinctive drift says that animals often revert to innate (nature) behaviours that can interfere with conditioned responses (nurture).[5]

Evolution and Instinctive Drift

Instinctive drift can be discussed in association with evolution.[7] Evolution is commonly classified as change occurring over a period of time.[7] Instinctive drift says that animals will behave in accordance with evolutionary contingencies, as opposed to operant contingencies of their specific training.[7] Evolutionary roots of instinct exist.[8] Evolution of traits and behaviours occur over time and it is by means of evolution and natural selection that adaptive traits and behaviours are passed on to the next generation and maladaptive traits are weaned out. It is the adaptive traits of species over time that is exhibited in instinctive drift and that species revert to that interferes with operant conditioning.[8][7] Much knowledge on the topic of evolution and natural selection can be credited to Charles Darwin.[7] Darwin developed and proposed the theory of evolution and it was through this knowledge that other subjects could be better understood, such as instinctive drift.[8]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Powell, R. W.; Curley, M. (1976). "Instinctive drift in non-domesticated rodents". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Staddon, J.E.; Niv, Y. (2008). "Operant conditioning". Scholarpedia. 3 (9): 2318. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.2318. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mazur, J.E. (2016). "Learning and behaviour: seventh edition". Southern Connecticut State University. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Green, C.D. "Classics in the history of psychology". York University. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Bergeman, C.S;; Plomin, R. (1991). "Nature and nurture". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 14: 373–427. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  6. ↑ Lehrman, D.S. (1953). "A critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behaviour". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 28 (4): 337–63. PMID 13121237.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Darwin, C.; Wallace, A. R. (1958). "Evolution by natural selection".
  8. 1 2 3 Cudmore, B. (2017). "The evolutionary roots of instinct". The Scientist. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.