Posts Tagged ‘psychology’

Grilled cheese and the science of successive approximation

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

Were you paying attention in those psychology classes?

Do you remember the experiments where a rat was trained to press a lever to get food?

It’s amazing how relevant experiments on rats can be to parenting.

In pursuing my psychology degree, I took a lab where I had to perform that experiment myself. I had a rat of my own, which I named - very appropriately, I thought - Rat (hey, if it’s good enough for George of the Jungle, it’s good enough for me).

The first goal of the experiment was to get the rat to understand that pressing a lever meant getting food. There were other goals once that was accomplished, but let’s focus on that goal for now.

Rat was just not getting it. Either that, or he was just really, really stubborn. I spent many nights in that lab until well after midnight faithfully recording him doing nothing of interest (which eventually translated into a graph that crossed enough pages of graph paper to run the length of our dormitory hallway). Eventually, however, he started to get the picture. When he made a move toward the lever, I dropped him a food pellet. If he moved a little closer, he got another pellet. Brushed against the lever? Another pellet. Touched it intentionally? Another pellet. Pressed it completely? More pellets. This process took a long time - but when it worked, it worked. Eventually, getting him to stop pressing the lever (phase 2 of the experiment) was even harder.

That process of rewarding Rat for each progressive step closer to the goal is called “successive approximation.” At first, he didn’t have to press the lever to get food, he just had to look at the lever. Once he got that, he had to make progress toward the larger goal before he’d get his food. Looking at it was no longer enough. He had to move close to it. Eventually, he’s feeding himself by pressing the lever. This teaching method, it has been proven time and time again, works.

Flash-forward almost 20 years. I don’t think about Rat often. But I did today.

My three-year-old daughter has become a very picky eater. It’s gotten to the point that it’s commonplace for my wife to make two different dinners every night - one for “Little Mommy” and one for the rest of us. Last week we decided that would stop. Little Mommy was going to learn to eat what we gave her.

It didn’t go so well for the first 4 days. We had a complete meltdown just getting the compromised 1/8″ square piece of grilled cheese near her mouth. Much drama ensued at that meal. Food flew; screams were loosed. The next day we were visiting friends and despite some earnest attempts at cajoling on all of our parts, no progress was made by us parents (she succeeded in manipulating us, however, which was a setback). The following day we were back at it, though there was much less drama. Finally, today, at lunch, Rat came to mind.

Oddly, it was grilled cheese again. This time, instead of reducing the size of the task, my wife tried something different. She put some soy-butter, Little Mommy’s favorite - on a small part of the top of the sandwich. While that was promptly licked off, I decided to start eating crackers I knew Little Mommy liked. When she asked for one, I said “Sure. Just lick the sandwich - but not on the soy-butter part.” After some whining, she did it, and I gave her a cracker. The next step was to get her to eat just a bite of the sandwich to get another cracker. She couldn’t have gotten a smaller bite if she used a laser scalpel, but she did take a bite, so she got another cracker.

Now we’re at the breaking point. Lots of accolades went along with that last cracker. She’s all proud of herself. Now we push. “Okay, if you take four bites, you can have another cracker.” She likes counting, too, so we all counted the bites, which - without any prompting - got bigger, and bigger, until bite number 4 was actually too much to have in her mouth at once. But as I gave her the cracker, I knew we had finally prevailed. She herself suggested the next goal would be five bites, which she attacked with gusto. With almost nothing left to the sandwich, and praises all around, she had finally eaten the same lunch as everyone else.

I guarantee that without using that successive approximation of licking, to infinitesimally small bites, to larger bites, we’d still have no progress.

Have we won the war? Nope. We’ll probably be able to get her to eat grilled cheese again with minimal effort, but I’m sure that any other “new” food she tries will take at least some degree of that same process.  But we now have a strategy that works. After 4 days of failure with alternate strategies (yelling, bribing, punishing, & others), I’m thrilled to be making progress.

Related posts

Woman grows onto toilet seat

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

Woman Has Two Year Relationship From Boyfriend’s Bathroom - Slice of SciFi

I don’t even know what to say about this. I’m sickened and saddened at the same time.

Apparently a 35-year old woman had a phobia that kept her in the bathroom 100% of every day for an undetermined period of time. And her boyfriend never called for help until she started acting “groggy.”

Emphasis added:

The case drew nationwide attention after Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said it appeared the Ness City woman’s skin had grown around the seat in the two years she apparently was in the bathroom.

That’s astounding. She actually stopped moving long enough for her skin to grow around the seat. I can’t quite get my head around that. Not only can I not understand what would drive someone to that, I can’t understand how her boyfriend would let it happen without getting help.

We live in a messed up world.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Related posts

Whatever you do…

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008

In the spirit of ParentHacks, here’s a trick we’ve used to get our kids to do many things they otherwise wouldn’t.

We came up with it in the car on a long trip when the whining reached an all-time high. My wife, in hidden frustration, looked back and said, “Whatever you do, no smiling!” to our grouchy kids. Of course, they immediately smiled. Then it became a game: “Whatever you do, no laughing!” “Whatever you do, no putting your hands over your head!”

It kept the kids busy for a long time in the car, but then it started to work at home, too. “Whatever you do, no putting your toys away!” “Whatever you do, no drinking your milk!” “Whatever you do, no washing your hands!”

You get the picture. Our kids love the game so much they ask us to say “Whatever you do…” even when they do want to do something sometimes.

Obviously it’s the time-honored reverse-psychology ploy, but packaged as a game.

Note: sadly, it hasn’t worked yet in getting the oldest to eat anything other than chicken (or what we tell her is chicken). We’re still trying…

Technorati Tags: , ,

Related posts

Corporate Learning conference: Day 3

Monday, November 19th, 2007

I managed to get to David Snowden’s talk this morning about, essentially, the nature of learning. What does science say about how we learn? Is that different from the way we, as trainers, try to make people learn?

It seems that we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And what we’re ending up doing is, sometimes painfully, reshaping the hole (the trainees) to become square, rather than filing our peg (the training) to become round.

Snowden (and his data) suggests that there is a point at which fragmented information, couched in the right amount of ambiguity, provides the optimal learning opportunity. This is in contrast to “ordered” systems, which provide things like Best Practice documents, Six Sigma (for which he seems to have a special disdain), and other detailed efforts that treat humans as if they were computers or machinery.

There is much that Snowden brings to the table for discussion. It’s a fundamental shift in how we currently act in many companies. I agree with much of his thoughts, though how to actually implement his ideas elude me (though to be fair to myself, I haven’t had much time to think about it, either). At a minimum, selling them to the corporation would be a challenge.

I found the presentation to be very conceptual/theoretical, and not so much implementation strategies.  He mentioned he has a degree in philosophy, and it shows… but that’s not really a bad thing. We need someone to bring this stuff up and challenge the status quo - which is in many cases blindingly obviously broken.

You can access the recorded session (you may have to register first - not sure) at the conference’s wiki (once it’s posted). It’s deep in psychology and cognitive theory, and jargon filled, but worth it - especially the first 20 minutes, which lays the foundation of his theory. I’ll need to go back and listen to that part again. I wasn’t taking good enough notes during the live presentation.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Related posts

cell phones + driving = drunk driving

Tuesday, February 7th, 2006

Driven to Distraction

I absolutely love it when I find research that backs up my position.

HANG UP YOUR CELL PHONES, DRIVERS!!!

Psychological research is showing that when drivers use cell phones, whether hand-held or hands-off, their attention to the road drops and driving skills become even worse than if they had too much to drink. Epidemiological research has found that cell-phone use is associated with a four-fold increase in the odds of getting into an accident – a risk comparable to that of driving with blood alcohol at the legal limit.

If you’re talking on a cell phone in a complex conversation, you might as well be driving drunk. And let me remind you . . . that’s illegal (not to mention stupid).

One thing this summary article does not do is define what a complex conversation is, but I assume that is spelled out in the research itself. I’m going to insert my own opinion here and say that the level of complexity that has a detrimental effect probably differs with the individual, but I’ll also bet it encompasses more types of conversations than most people would assume.

Some further interesting quotes:

A special eye-tracking device measured where, exactly, drivers looked while driving. Even when drivers directed their gaze at objects on the road (during simulations), they still didn’t “see” them because their attention – during a cell-phone call – was elsewhere.

This quote goes beyond cell phones:

They concluded that the complexity of the conversation was what compromised concentration, whether the driver talked by phone or to a passenger. Thus, distractions inside one’s own head can be just as disruptive as environmental distractions.

Strayer and his colleagues compared data for hand-held and hands-free devices and found no difference in the impairment to driving, thus, they say, raising doubts about the scientific basis for regulations that prohibit only hand-held cell phones.

And in the “tips for drivers” section:

Second, drivers should also be aware that whether a cell phone is hands-on or hands-free makes no difference in terms of mental distraction. According to the research, the mental activity of conversation, whether in person or over the phone, is what takes one’s mind off the road. What happens in the head happens regardless of what happens with the hands.

And it doesn’t matter how smart you are…

Susceptibility to distraction while driving has nothing to do with smarts or skill. In fact, psychologist Durso and his doctoral student Andy Dattelpoint out that although experts can do many things automatically, detecting hazards is not among them. Thus, Durso says, “anything that disrupts resource management can have consequences even in experts.”

Related posts