edward thorndike experiments

Edward Thorndike: The Law of Effect

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• The law of effect states that connections leading to satisfying outcomes are strengthened while those leading to unsatisfying outcomes are weakened.
• Positive emotional responses, like rewards or praise, strengthen stimulus-response connections. Unpleasant responses weaken them.
• This establishes reinforcement as central to efficient and enduring learning. Reward is more impactful than punishment.
• Connections grow most robust when appropriate associations lead to fulfilling outcomes. The “effect” generated shapes future behavioral and cognitive patterns.

Thorndike Theory

The law of effect states that behaviors followed by pleasant or rewarding consequences are more likely to be repeated, while behaviors followed by unpleasant or punishing consequences are less likely to be repeated.

The principle was introduced in the early 20th century through experiments led by Edward Thorndike, who found that positive reinforcement strengthens associations and increases the frequency of specific behaviors.

The law of effect principle developed by Edward Thorndike suggested that:

“Responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation, and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation (Gray, 2011, p. 108–109).”

Edward Thorndike (1898) is famous in psychology for his work on learning theory that leads to the development of operant conditioning within behaviorism .

Whereas classical conditioning depends on developing associations between events, operant conditioning involves learning from the consequences of our behavior.

Skinner wasn’t the first psychologist to study learning by consequences.  Indeed, Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning is built on the ideas of Edward Thorndike.

Experimental Evidence

Thorndike studied learning in animals (usually cats).  He devised a classic experiment using a puzzle box to empirically test the laws of learning.

• Thorndike put hungry cats in cages with automatic doors that could be opened by pressing a button inside the cage. Thorndike would time how long it took the cat to escape.
• At first, when placed in the cages, the cats displayed unsystematic trial-and-error behaviors, trying to escape. They scratched, bit, and wandered around the cages without identifiable patterns.
• Thorndike would then put food outside the cages to act as a stimulus and reward.  The cats experimented with different ways to escape the puzzle box and reach the fish.
• Eventually, they would stumble upon the lever which opened the cage.  When it had escaped, the cat was put in again, and once more, the time it took to escape was noted.  In successive trials, the cats would learn that pressing the lever would have favorable consequences , and they would adopt this behavior, becoming increasingly quick at pressing the lever.
• After many repetitions of being placed in the cages (around 10-12 times), the cats learned to press the button inside their cages, which opened the doors, allowing them to escape the cage and reach the food.

Edward Thorndike put forward a  Law of Effect, which stated that any behavior that is followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, and any behavior followed by unpleasant consequences is likely to be stopped.

Critical Evaluation

Thorndike (1905) introduced the concept of reinforcement and was the first to apply psychological principles to the area of learning.

His research led to many theories and laws of learning, such as operant conditioning. Skinner (1938), like Thorndike, put animals in boxes and observed them to see what they were able to learn.

Thorndike’s theory has implications for teaching such as preparing students mentally, using drills and repetition, providing feedback and rewards, and structuring material from simple to complex.

B.F. Skinner built upon Thorndike’s principles to develop his theory of operant conditioning. Skinner’s work involved the systematic study of how the consequences of a behavior influence its frequency in the future. He introduced the concepts of reinforcement (both positive and negative) and punishment to describe how consequences can modify behavior.

The learning theories of Thorndike and Pavlov were later synthesized by Hull (1935). Thorndike’s research drove comparative psychology for fifty years, and influenced countless psychologists over that period of time, and even still today.

Criticisms 

Critiques of the theory include that it views humans too mechanistically like animals, overlooks higher reasoning, focuses too narrowly on associations, and positions the learner too passively.

Here is a summary of some of the main critiques and limitations of Thorndike’s learning theory:

• Using animals like cats and dogs in experiments is controversial when making inferences about human learning, since animal and human cognition differ.
• The theory depicts humans as mechanistic, like animals, driven by automatic trial-and-error processes. However, human learning is more complex and not entirely explained through stimulus-response connections.
• By overemphasizing associations, the theory overlooks deeper reasoning, understanding, and meaning construction involved in learning.
• Definitions and conceptual knowledge are ignored in favor of strengthening mechanistic stimulus-response bonds.
• Learners are passive receptors rather than active or creative; educators provide rigid structured curricula rather than let learners construct knowledge.
• Learners require constant external motivation and reinforcement rather than having internal drivers.
• Failures are punished, and discipline is stressed more than conceptual grasp or successful processes.
• The focus is on isolated skills, facts, and hierarchical sequencing rather than integrated understanding.
• Evaluation only measures passive responses and test performance rather than deeper learning processes or contexts.

Application of Thorndike’s Learning Theory to Students’ Learning

Thorndike’s theory, when applied to student learning, emphasizes several key factors – the role of the environment, breaking tasks into detail parts, the importance of student responses, building stimulus-response connections, utilizing prior knowledge, repetition through drills and exercises, and giving rewards/praise.

Learning is results-focused, with the measurement of observable outcomes. Errors are immediately corrected. Repetition aims to ingrain behaviors until they become habit. Rewards strengthen desired behaviors, punishment weakens undesired behaviors.

Some pitfalls in the application include teachers becoming too authoritative, one-way communication, students remaining passive, and over-reliance on rote memorization. However, his theory effectively promotes preparation, readiness, practice, feedback, praise for progress, and sequential mastery from simple to complex.

Teachers arrange hierarchical lesson materials starting from simple concepts, break down learning into parts marked by specific skill mastery, provide examples, emphasize drill/repetition activities, offer regular assessments and corrections, deliver clear brief instructions, and utilize rewards to motivate. This style is most applicable for skill acquisition requiring significant practice.

For students, the theory instills habits of repetition, progress tracking, and associate positive outcomes to effort.

It can, however, be limited if students remain passive receivers of instruction rather than active or collaborative learners. Proper application encourages student discipline while avoiding strict, punishing environments.

Additional Laws of Learning In Thorndike’s Theory 

Thorndike’s theory explains that learning is the formation of connections between stimuli and responses. The laws of learning he proposed are the law of readiness, the law of exercise, and the law of effect.

Law of Readiness

• The law of readiness states that learners must be physically and mentally prepared for learning to occur.  This includes not being hungry, sick, or having other physical distractions or discomfort.
• Mentally, learners should be inclined and motivated to acquire the new knowledge or skill. If they are uninterested or opposed to learning it, the law states they will not learn effectively.
• Learners also require certain baseline knowledge and competencies before being ready to learn advanced concepts. If those prerequisites are lacking, acquisition of new info will be difficult.
• Overall, the law emphasizes learners’ reception and orientation as key prerequisites to successful learning. The right mindset and adequate foundation enables efficient uptake of new material.

Law of Exercise

• The law of exercise states that connections are strengthened through repetition and practice. 
• Frequent trials allow errors to be corrected and neural pathways related to the knowledge/skill to become more engrained.
• As associations are reinforced through drill and rehearsal, retrieval from long term memory also becomes more efficient.
• In sum, repeated exercise of learned material cements retention and fluency over time. Forgetting happens when such connections are not actively preserved through practice.

Gray, P. (2011). Psychology (6th ed.) New York: Worth Publishers.

Hull, C. L. (1935). The conflicting psychologies of learning—a way out . Psychological Review, 42(6) , 491.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.

Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology . New York: A. G. Seiler.

Related Articles

Learning Theories

Aversion Therapy & Examples of Aversive Conditioning

Learning Theories , Psychology , Social Science

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Learning Theories , Psychology

Behaviorism In Psychology

Famous Experiments , Learning Theories

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Child Psychology , Learning Theories

Jerome Bruner’s Theory Of Learning And Cognitive Development

Thorndike’s Law of Effect: Definition and Examples

Categories Behavior , Theories

The law of effect is an important psychological principle based on a pretty simple premise—behaviors that are followed by positive consequences are more likely to be repeated. At the same time, behaviors followed by negative consequences are less likely to be repeated. 

It was first proposed by psychologist Edward Thorndike and had a significant impact on the development of behavioral theories. 

Table of Contents

Origins of the Law of Effect

Edward Thorndike was an American psychologist who conducted a series of experiments known as the “puzzle box” experiments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These experiments were crucial in the development of Thorndike’s theory of learning and the formulation of the law of effect.

The puzzle box was a small, enclosed space with a door that could be opened by a specific response or action from the animal placed inside. In Thorndike’s experiments, this was typically a cat. Thorndike would place a hungry cat in the puzzle box and present it with a simple task to escape, such as pulling a lever or pressing a button. The cat would initially display random behaviors in attempting to escape.

Through repeated trials, Thorndike noticed that the cats eventually learned to associate certain behaviors with the opening of the door. When the cats were placed in the box again, they were much faster at displaying the required behavior. This demonstrates that the cats had learned the correct behaviors based on the outcomes of their previous experiences in the box.

How the Law of Effect Works

Learning starts when a person engages in some type of behavior, whether it’s a conscious action, a learned response, or an instinctive reaction.

Consequences

The behavior is followed by consequences, which can be either positive or negative. 

• Behaviors followed by positive outcomes or rewards are more likely to be reinforced. Positive reinforcement strengthens the connection between the behavior and its likelihood of repetition.
• Behaviors followed by negative outcomes or punishments are less likely to be repeated. Negative consequences weaken the association between the behavior and its recurrence.

Learning and Adaptation

After having a number of experiences that involve being exposed to a certain outcome or consequence, people eventually learn to associate specific behaviors with their outcomes.

That means that if a pleasant or desirable outcome happens, people will repeat the behavior. But if the behavior is followed by something aversive or unpleasant, they will likely avoid repeating those actions.

How the Law of Effect Influenced Psychology

The law of effect played an important role in the development of operant conditioning, a form of learning where behaviors are strengthened or weakened based on the consequences that follow them. B.F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s work, developing the theory further.

Operant conditioning involves reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again, while punishment decreases that likelihood. 

Positive reinforcement involves adding a positive stimulus, while negative reinforcement involves removing an aversive stimulus. On the other hand, positive punishment adds an aversive stimulus, and negative punishment removes a positive stimulus.

Applications for the Law of Effect

The law of effect has practical applications in various fields, including education, parenting, and therapy. Understanding how consequences influence behavior allows educators and parents to shape and modify behaviors effectively. 

Positive reinforcement, for example, can be a powerful tool in encouraging desired behaviors in children and students.

In therapy, behavioral interventions often utilize the principles of the law of effect to help people change their behaviors. By identifying and altering the consequences associated with certain actions, therapists can assist clients in achieving behavioral change.

Businesses often apply the law of effect to influence employee motivation and productivity. Reward systems, recognition programs, and other positive reinforcements can motivate employees to enhance their performance.

Examples of the Law of Effect

To better understand how the law of effect may apply in different contexts, let’s explore a few examples.

Educators often use the law of effect in the classroom when they incorporate positive reinforcement and negative punishment to help manage classroom behavior. 

Consider a classroom scenario where a diligent student completes their homework on time. The teacher recognizes this effort by praising the student, creating a positive consequence. This positive reinforcement increases the likelihood that the student will promptly submit assignments.

On the other hand, if a student disrupts the class with unruly behavior, the teacher may impose negative punishment by temporarily revoking a privilege, such as recess. This consequence uses the law of effect to discourage disruptive actions.

Parents and caregivers can also apply the law of effect to help children’s behavior through consequences. For example, when a child cleans their room, a parent might employ positive reinforcement by offering extra playtime or a small reward.

This positive consequence strengthens the connection between cleaning up and positive outcomes, encouraging the child to repeat the behavior.

On the flip side, if a child engages in undesirable behavior, such as not following rules, a parent might implement negative punishment. Temporarily taking away a beloved toy serves as a consequence to deter the undesirable behavior. In both cases, the law of effect guides parents using consequences to mold their children’s actions.

In the workplace, the law of effect influences employee behavior through positive reinforcement and negative punishment strategies. 

Imagine an employee achieving a challenging sales target; the employer publicly recognizes this accomplishment, providing positive reinforcement. The acknowledgment serves to strengthen the link between outstanding sales performance and positive outcomes, motivating the employee to stay productive.

Therapists can also use the law of effect to help guide clients toward positive behavioral changes. For example, a therapist might offer praise and acknowledgment when a client sticks with their treatment plan by attending therapy sessions and taking their medication as directed. This positive consequence reinforces the commitment to personal growth, encouraging continued participation in therapy. 

Limitations of the Law of Effect

While influential, the law of effect is not without criticism. One potential weakness is that it tends to oversimplify complex human behavior. Instead of acknowledging the role of cognitive processes, individual differences, and emotions, it reduces behavior to a simple stimulus-response mechanism.

Despite its limitations, the law of effect remains a fundamental concept in psychology, providing valuable insights into how behaviors are acquired and maintained.

Key Points to Remember

• The law of effect, proposed by Edward Thorndike, states that behaviors followed by positive consequences are more likely to be repeated, while those followed by negative consequences are less likely to recur.
• Positive consequences, or reinforcement, strengthen the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring, while negative consequences, or punishment, weaken that likelihood.
• The concept is integral to operant conditioning, a form of learning that involves reinforcement and punishment to shape behavior.
• Practical applications include education, parenting, therapy, and organizational management, where understanding and manipulating consequences can effectively influence behavior.

Athalye, V. R., Santos, F. J., Carmena, J. M., & Costa, R. M. (2018). Evidence for a neural law of effect.  Science (New York, N.Y.) ,  359 (6379), 1024–1029. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao6058

Domjan, M. (2012). Law of Effect. In: Seel, N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_90

Kyonka, E.G.E. (2011). Law of Effect. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1624

Nevin J. (1999). Analyzing Thorndike’s Law Of Effect: The Question Of Stimulus-response Bonds.  Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior ,  72 (3), 447–450. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-447

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Law of Effect in Psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

• Key Elements
• Behaviorism

The law of effect is a principle in psychology stating that behaviors with satisfying outcomes are more likely to happen again, while those with unsatisfying outcomes are less likely to reoccur.

According to the law of effect, responses closely followed by satisfaction will become firmly attached to the situation and, therefore, more likely to reoccur when the situation is repeated.

Conversely, if the situation is followed by discomfort, the connections to the situation will become weaker, and the behavior of response is less likely to occur when the situation is repeated.

At a Glance

The law of effect helps explain why we repeat some behaviors and not others. When something good happens after behavior, we're more likely to engage in that behavior again. Like if your child cleans up their room and you tell them "Good job!," that praise makes it more likely your child will clean their room again in the future.

The law of effect played an important role in the development of behaviorism, a school of thought suggesting that behavior can be understood in terms of conditioning and reinforcement. In particular, the law of effect had a significant impact on B. F. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning, in which behaviors are modified using reinforcement and punishment.

Examples of the Law of Effect

Imagine that you arrive early to work one day by accident. Your boss notices and praises your diligence. The praise makes you feel good, so it reinforces the behavior.

You start showing up for work a little bit early each day to keep receiving your boss’s commendations. Because a pleasing consequence followed the behavior, the action became more likely to be repeated in the future.

More Examples

• If you study and then get a good grade on a test, you will be more likely to study for the next exam.
• If you work hard and then receive a promotion and pay raise, you will be more likely to continue to put in more effort at work.
• If you run a red light and then get a traffic ticket, you will be less likely to disobey traffic lights in the future.

Who Discovered the Law of Effect?

While we often associate the idea that consequences lead to changes in behavior with the process of operant conditioning and B. F. Skinner , this notion has its roots in the early work of psychologist Edward Thorndike .

In his experiments, Thorndike utilized what is known as puzzle boxes to study how animals learn.

The boxes were enclosed but contained a small lever that, when pressed, would allow the animal to escape. Thorndike would place a cat inside the puzzle box and then place a piece of meat outside the box.

He would then observe the animal’s efforts to escape and obtain the food. He recorded how long each animal took to figure out how to free itself from the box.

Eventually, the cats would press the lever, and the door would open so that the animal could receive the reward. Even though first pressing the lever occurred simply by accident, the cats became likely to repeat it because they had received an award immediately after performing the action.

Thorndike noted that with each trial, the cats became much faster at opening the door. Because pressing the lever had led to a favorable outcome, the cats were much more likely to perform the behavior again in the future.

Thorndike termed this the “Law of Effect,” which suggested that when satisfaction follows an association, it is more likely to be repeated. If an unfavorable outcome follows an action, then it becomes less likely to be repeated.

Key Elements of the Law of Effect

There are two key aspects of the law of effect:

• Behaviors immediately followed by favorable consequences are more likely to occur again . In our earlier example, being praised by a supervisor for showing up early for work made it more likely that the behavior would be repeated.
• Behaviors followed by unfavorable consequences are less likely to occur again. If you show up late for work and miss an important meeting, you will probably be less likely to show up late again in the future. Because you view the missed meeting as a negative outcome, the behavior is less likely to be repeated.

The Law of Effect and Behaviorism

Thorndike’s discovery had a major influence on the development of behaviorism . In fact, B.F. Skinner based his theory of operant conditioning on the law of effect. Skinner even developed his own version of a puzzle box which he referred to as an operant conditioning chamber (also known as a Skinner box ).

Operant Conditioning

In operant conditioning , behaviors that are reinforced are strengthened. Behaviors that are punished , however, are weakened. Skinner also suggested that how these reinforcements are delivered, known as the schedule of reinforcement , can affect the strength and rate of the response.

The law of effect clearly had a significant influence on the development of behaviorism, which went on to become the dominant school of thought in psychology for much of the first half of the 20th century.​

Law of Effect Today

Thorndike's research on the laws of learning played an important role in the development of behavioral psychology and continues to exert influence to this day.

Many behavioral principles remain in use today. In therapeutic settings, psychologists and other mental health professionals often use reinforcement to encourage positive behaviors and discourage undesirable ones. In such cases, the use of favorable outcomes may be used to increase the likelihood of future positive behaviors.

What This Means For You

Knowing how the law of effect works can be a valuable tool when it comes to understanding your own behavior, as well as that of the people around you. For example, when you want to increase a behavior (such as when trying to build a good habit ), focus on maximizing the positive things that happen after you engage in that behavior.

By building a connection between what you do and the good (or bad) things that follow, you can either increase desirable behaviors or decrease undesirable ones.

Athalye VR, Santos FJ, Carmena JM, Costa RM.  Evidence for a neural law of effect .  Science . 2018;359(6379):1024-1029. doi:10.1126/science.aao6058

Thorndike E. Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals .  The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements . 1898;2(4):i-109. doi:10.1037/h0092987

Huang J, Ruan X, Yu N, Fan Q, Li J, Cai J.  A cognitive model based on neuromodulated plasticity.   Comput Intell Neurosci.  2016;2016:4296356. doi:10.1155%2F2016%2F4296356

Nevin J. Analyzing Thorndike's law Of effect: The question of stimulus-response bonds .  J Exp Anal Behav . 1999;72(3):447-450. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-447

Beeler JA. Thorndike's law 2.0: Dopamine and the regulation of thrift .  Front Neurosci . 2012;6:116. doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00116

B.F. Skinner Foundation.  Biographical information .

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Connectionism—Edward Thorndike

• First Online: 09 September 2020

Cite this chapter

• Richard Brock 3  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

19k Accesses

Though his research is no longer be commonly cited, Edward Thorndike’s championing of educational research has had a lasting legacy. Thorndike pioneered experimental studies of learning, most famously using puzzles boxes, containers from which animals attempted to escape by activating mechanisms. The results of these experiments led Thorndike to develop the notion of learning curves, which represented an animal’s progress in solving a problem over time. Thorndike was one of the first researchers to propose formal principles of learning, which he called laws, which foreshadowed a number of significant ideas in contemporary science education. Thorndike made a number of recommendations for practice in science education, in particular an approach to introducing abstract concepts and a critique of discovery learning. He was committed to the idea that teaching should be informed by research and published a number of books that introduced teachers to psychological research relevant to their practice. Perhaps Thorndike’s most lasting influence is the belief that learning can be studied and modelled and that classroom practice should be informed by systematic, empirical research. Though Thorndike’s research is sometimes presented as out-dated or simplistic, his work is nuanced and contains ideas of value to contemporary science teachers and science education researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Experiments as Building Blocks of Knowledge

Conducting Observations and Tests: Lambert’s Theory of Empirical Science

Koestler’s Theory as a Foundation for Problem-Solving

Amin, T. G., Smith, C., & Wiser, M. (2014). Student conceptions and conceptual change: Three overlapping phases of research. In N. G. Lederman & S. A. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–81). New York, NY: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: Two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education. Studies in Science Education, 51 (2), 127–167.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2017a). Making-sense of “making-sense” in physics education: A microgenetic collective case study. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research—Selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 167–178). Dordrecht: Springer.

Brock, R., & Taber, K. S. (2017b). The application of the microgenetic method to studies of learning in science education: Characteristics of published studies, methodological issues and recommendations for future research. Studies in Science Education, 53 (1), 45–73.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 (2), 121–152.

Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., … Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology , 6 (2), 139–152.

Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). E. L. Thorndike’s enduring contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 113–154). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mortimer, E. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4 (3), 267–285.

Smith, W. A. (2001). E. L. Thorndike. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), Twentieth century thinkers in adult and continuing education (2nd ed., pp. 77–93). London: Kogan Page.

Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science . Dordrecht: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Thorndike, E. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2 (4), i–109.

Thorndike, E. (1901). The human nature club . New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Thorndike, E. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements . New York, NY: The Science Press.

Thorndike, E. (1905). The elements of psychology . New York, NY: A. G. Seigler.

Thorndike, E. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology . New York, NY: A. G. Seiler.

Thorndike, E. (1911). Testing the results of the teaching of science. The Mathematics Teacher, 3 (4), 213–218.

Thorndike, E. (1912). Education. A first book . New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational psychology. Volume II. The psychology of learning . New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Thorndike, E. (1918). The nature, purposes, and general methods of measurement of educational products. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The measurement of educational products (pp. 16–24). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company.

Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning . New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King’s College London, London, UK

Richard Brock

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Brock .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria

University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA

Teresa J. Kennedy

Recommended Resources

An excellent summary of Thorndike’s work and legacy may be found in Mayer’s chapter:

Thorndike’s own writing on teaching and learning are well-written and, though they contain some ideas that are of their time, remain engaging reads for teachers and researchers. His guides to teaching are a good place to begin:

Thorndike, E. (1912). Education. A first book. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

For readers interested in the details of Thorndike’s theories, The Fundamentals of learning provides a good introduction:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Brock, R. (2020). Connectionism—Edward Thorndike. In: Akpan, B., Kennedy, T.J. (eds) Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_8

Published : 09 September 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-43619-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-43620-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Stimulus Response Theory (Thorndike’s Research + Examples)

Ever jumped because of a sudden loud noise? Or felt your mouth water when you smell your favorite food cooking? These reactions aren't just random; they're part of something called the "Stimulus Response Theory." In simple terms, it's the idea that we react in specific ways to certain things or events around us. Think of it like a cause and effect: something happens (the stimulus), and we respond in a certain way.

This theory helps explain why we do many of the things we do without even thinking about them. It's like our body's automatic reply to the world around us. Some of these reactions are natural, like flinching from a hot stove, while others can be learned over time, like feeling excited when you hear a specific song because it reminds you of a fun memory.

In this article, we'll dive into the fascinating world of stimulus and response, exploring how and why we react to things the way we do. It's a journey into understanding our automatic behaviors a bit better. Ready to discover more about yourself and the world around you? Let's go!

What Is Thorndike's Stimulus Response Theory of Learning? 

Stimulus Response Theory was proposed by Edward Thorndike, who believed that learning boils down to two things: stimulus, and response. In Pavlov’s famous experiment, the “stimulus” was food, and the “response” was salivation. He believed that all learning depended on the strength of the relationship between the stimulus and the response.

If that relationship was strong, the response was likely to occur when the stimulus was presented. In order to elicit a specific response to a specific stimulus, you had to strengthen its relationship in one of a few ways. This is where Pavlov’s experiment comes in. 

When you think of behaviorism, you may think of Pavlov’s dog. This experiment is one of the most famous experiments in the history of psychology. It is also some of the strongest evidence for theories that fall under the larger category of Stimulus Response (S-R) Theory. Stimulus Response Theories attempts to explain the ways that human beings behave. These theories, and behaviorism as a whole, are not the forefront of modern psychology. Still, they still serve as an important lesson about why we believe the things we believe about decision-making, behavior, and human nature. 

Let’s look at three concepts that Thorndike developed while explaining the Stimulus-Response Theory of Learning: Law of Effect, Law of Exercise, and Law of Readiness.

Law of Effect

Before Pavlov worked with dogs, Thorndike worked with cats. 

He would place them in a box. Outside the box was a scrap of fish. As the cats looked for ways to get to the fish, they would try to escape the box. Escaping was as easy as pulling a lever. When the cat pulled the lever, they were able to leave and enjoy the fish. 

Thorndike observed the cats be placed in this box over and over again, under the same conditions. He saw that the time it took to pull the lever decreased as the cats associated the lever with the fish. This helped him develop the Law of Effect. 

The Law of Effect states that if responses to stimuli produce a satisfying effect, they are likely to be repeated. If responses produce an unsatisfying effect, they are likely to be avoided. The cats enjoyed the scrap of fish that they could access by pulling the lever. If an angry dog replaced the scrap of fish, The Law of Effect states that those cats would not be pulling any levers. 

We seek responses with positive effects, strengthening the relationship between a stimulus and the response.

Law of Exercise

The Law of Exercise is an element within Thorndike’s work that he later modified. Initially, Thorndike believed that frequent connections of stimulus and response strengthened that connection. The more often a cat was given the opportunity to pull a lever and receive a fish, for example, the stronger that connection would be and the more likely they would pull the lever.

But, as Thorndike continued his work, he realized that this was not necessarily true. If the response leads to an unsatisfying effect or punishment, the connection between the stimulus and the response will not be strengthened. But Thorndike observed that the connection may not be weakened every time the subject gets “punished,” either. 

Law of Readiness 

Being subject to continuous trials of pulling levers and escaping boxes sounds exhausting. If a cat, human, or any other creature is too tired to try something out, they might just take a cat nap and leave the response hanging. This idea fits into Thorndike’s law of readiness. 

The Law of Readiness states that the relationship between stimulus and response is strengthened based on the subject’s readiness to learn. If the subject, be it a cat or a person, is not interested or ready to learn, they will not connect stimulus and response as strongly as someone who is eager and excited. 

These three laws set the foundation for many other theories within behaviorism. Later behaviorists, including B.F. Skinner, Edwin Guthrie, and Ivan Pavlov, have proposed theories that relate to, or are inspired by, the work of Edward Thorndike. 

Examples Of Stimulus Response Theory

• Loud Noise - Jumping or covering ears in response.
• Bright Light - Squinting or shutting eyes.
• Touching a Hot Surface - Quickly pulling your hand away.
• Smelling Food - Stomach growling or mouth watering.
• Tasting Something Sour - Puckering lips or wincing.
• Seeing a Scary Image - Gasping or feeling your heart rate increase.
• Hearing a Familiar Ringtone - Reaching for your phone.
• Feeling a Raindrop - Looking up or opening an umbrella.
• Stepping on Something Sharp - Lifting foot and expressing pain.
• Hearing a Fire Alarm - Looking for an exit or evacuating the building.
• Seeing a Cute Animal - Smiling or expressing delight.
• Listening to a Sad Song - Feeling melancholic or tearing up.
• Being in a Cold Room - Shivering or hugging oneself.
• Seeing a Familiar Face in a Crowd - Waving or calling out to them.
• Hearing a Joke - Laughing or smiling.
• Feeling a Bug on Your Skin - Slapping or brushing it away.
• Seeing Traffic Lights Turn Red - Stopping your car.
• Hearing a Doorbell - Going to answer the door.
• Tasting Something Bitter - Spitting it out or expressing dislike.
• Feeling Sand in Your Shoes - Stopping to shake it out.
• Hearing Your Name Called - Turning towards the source or responding.
• Seeing a "Wet Floor" Sign - Walking around the area or treading carefully.
• Smelling Smoke - Searching for the source or alerting others.
• Feeling a Vibration in Your Pocket - Checking your phone.
• Hearing a Baby Cry - Looking for the baby or feeling a sense of concern.

Other Stimulus Response Theories 

Contiguity theory .

One such theory includes Edwin Guthrie’s Contiguity Theory. Like other Behaviorists, Guthrie believed that learning occurred when connections were made between a stimulus and a response. But his ideas went beyond exercise and readiness. The Contiguity Theory included the law of contiguity, which suggested that time played a factor in the strength between a stimulus and a response.

If the response did not occur immediately after the stimulus, the subject would be less likely to associate the stimulus with the response. If you get a stomachache in the evening, you might associate your body’s response with what you ate in the morning, but you are much more likely to associate the response with what you ate for lunch or dinner. Time makes a difference. 

Drive-Reduction Theory 

Another theory that falls under the stimulus-response umbrella is Hull’s Drive-Reduction Theory. Developed in the 40s and 50s by Clark Hull and later Kenneth Spence, this theory looked to “zoom out” on behaviorism and explain the drive behind all human behavior. A stimulus and response are still crucial to this drive. 

Drive, Hull and Spence said, is a state that humans experience when they have a need to fulfill. If you are hungry, you are in a state of drive. If you are craving sex, comfort, or safety, you are in a state of drive. As humans, we want to reduce drive and return to a state of calm homeostasis. 

What do you do when you are hungry? You eat food and feel full. Drive-Reduction Theory states that when the effect of a response is a reduction in drive, a subject will more likely respond to that stimulus in the same way. 

Classical Conditioning 

We could not wrap up these theories without talking about Pavlov’s dogs. Pavlov used stimulus-response theory to demonstrate how dogs (or humans) could learn through classical conditioning . This is a process in which a “neutral” stimulus becomes connected to a stimulus that already elicits a response. Once this connection is made, the previously neutral stimulus elicits a response. 

Cognitive Psychology

Stimulus response theories, to be blunt, can be quite simple. They are also deterministic in nature. No one wants to believe that their decisions are the result of any sort of conditioning. Additional factors, like your thought process or the experiences that have shaped you as a person, may also influence the decisions you make. Making a decision or performing a behavior often seems more complicated than just responding to the stimulus in front of you. 

Although behaviorism and stimulus response theory were the focus of psychology for decades, they were subject to criticism from many experts in the field. Were all actions driven by the unconscious, or did the conscious mind do more than we were giving it credit for? Is human behavior and decision-making more complex than just responding to a stimulus?

As these questions were raised more and more frequently, schools of thought like humanism, positive psychology, and cognitive psychology were born. 

These schools of thought are not immune to criticism, either. So completely replacing education on behaviorism with information on cognitive psychology is not necessarily the best approach. Although psychologists view behavior as more than just a stimulus and a response, we cannot forget the theories that built the foundation to what we know today.

Can You Train Yourself?

Teachers are not solely relying on conditioning or behaviorism to teach their students. But, you can still use concepts from stimulus-response theory to teach yourself new behaviors. Want to make your bed every morning? Want to add 15 minutes of meditation into your routine? Maybe you want to replace having a cigarette with seltzer water or a piece of gum. Tap into the laws within the stimulus-response theory to “condition yourself” and bring new behaviors into your routine.

Readiness: Commit to Learning a New Behavior

Ready to learn new behavior? Great. The Law of Readiness states that you will build a stronger connection between stimulus and response. Commit to your readiness by writing down your goals. This could be as simple as writing, “I’m going to quit smoking,” or “I’m going to make my bed every morning.” If you want to go further, write down why learning or unlearning this behavior is important. Writing this down is not going to magically add a behavior to your routine, but it will motivate you in times when you may be tempted to skip the behavior. 

Effect: Find a Suitable “Reward” 

What satisfying effects can you gain from performing a behavior? For many, the Law of Effect encourages people to reward themselves. This is certainly what behaviorists had in mind when they put together schedules of reinforcement for conditioning.

Let’s say you want to get into running. The first time you run, you feel absolutely great. You’re more likely to run again! If you run with no satisfying effects, you are unlikely to run again unless you put a reward system in place. Maybe you allow yourself to spend an extra hour watching TV, or you wait to listen to that podcast until you go for a run. Whatever reward enhances the results of your behavior (without setting you back from the goals that the behavior is meant to achieve) will make a great motivation to continue performing the behavior. 

Exercise: Keep Going!

The stimulus (running) and the response (a podcast) work well together. Now, you just have to keep going! The more you run and save your podcasts for that run, the more likely it will be that you integrate running into your routine permanently. Remind yourself that routines are not built in a day. Sometimes, you will slip up. All of this is okay. Every time you perform the desired behavior, you are contributing to this habit. 

There are many approaches that you can use to form habits . Whether you want to build wealth, protect your health, or find happiness in the small moments, stimulus-response theory can help you build habits (or explain how you developed the ones you have!)  

Related posts:

• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
• Discrimination Stimulus

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• What is Psychology?
• Classic Articles
• Optical Illusions
• Procrastination
• Types of Psychology
• Psych Expert Q & A
• Psychology Symbol
• Great Psych Books
• Free Psych Articles
• Free Psych eBooks
• Free Psych Course
• Free Psych Journals
• Project Help
• Awesome GIFs
• Funny Freud
• Psych Cartoons
• Psych Memes
• Psych Movies
• Sex On The Brain
• Book Marketing
• Disclosure Policy
• Privacy Policy

The Halo Effect Experiment

David Webb  (Owner, writer & host of All-About-Psychology.Com)

The concept of the halo effect is an intriguing and influential psychological phenomenon that is intimately tied to our perceptions and judgments of others. At its core, the halo effect reflects the tendency for our positive or negative impression of an individual in one trait or domain, to influence our perception of that individual in relation to other areas or traits. This perceptual concept was first articulated by psychologist Edward Thorndike in 1920, who noted that soldiers' ratings for different traits were not independent, but were instead highly correlated with one another. Thorndike posited that this was due to raters' overall impressions of the soldiers' abilities influencing their ratings on specific traits.

As a result of the pioneering work of Thorndike, the halo effect became the subject of increasing applied research and experimentation, designed to shed light on its underlying mechanisms and the ways in which it impacts our perceptions and judgments. One of the most notable early studies on the halo effect was conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in 1946, in which he found that participants' judgments of an individual's personality were heavily influenced by their physical attractiveness. The start of this landmark study read as follows:

We look at a person and immediately a certain impression of his character forms itself in us. A glance, a few spoken words are sufficient to tell us a story about a highly complex matter. We know that such impressions form with remarkable rapidity and with great ease. Subsequent observation may enrich or upset our first view, but we can no more prevent its rapid growth than we can avoid perceiving a given visual object or hearing a melody. We also know that this process, though often imperfect, is also at times extraordinarily sensitive.

This remarkable capacity we possess to understand something of the character of another person, to form a conception of him as a human being, as a center of life and striving, with particular characteristics forming a distinct individuality, is a precondition of social life. In what manner are these impressions established? Are there lawful principles regulating their formation?

One particular problem commands our attention. Each person confronts us with a large number of diverse characteristics. This man is courageous, intelligent, with a ready sense of humor, quick in his movements, but he is also serious, energetic, patient under stress, not to mention his politeness and punctuality. These characteristics and many others enter into the formation of our view. Yet our impression is from the start unified; it is the impression of one person. We ask: How do the several characteristics function together to produce an impression of one person? What principles regulate this process?

You can read  Forming Impressions of Personality by Solomon Asch in full for free by clicking on the image below. 

Halo Effect

A rating bias in which a general evaluation (usually positive) of a person, or an evaluation of a person on a specific dimension, influences judgments of that person on other specific dimensions. For example, a person who is generally liked might be judged as more intelligent, competent, and honest than he or she actually is.

( American Psychological Association of Psychology Dictionary of Psychology )

(Nisbett and Wilson)

As research into the halo effect progressed, it began to encompass a wider range of traits and domains. In the 1960s, studies by psychologist David C. McClelland and his colleagues demonstrated that the halo effect also impacts perceptions of intelligence and competence. However, it was the halo effect experiment conducted by Richard E. Nisbett and Timothy DeCamp Wilson from the University of Michigan - the results of which were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1977 - which is arguably the most important and influential study in this field. Demonstrating as it did, that the halo effect also operates in the realm of social interactions, influencing our perceptions of others' personalities and abilities. Here's the abstract and an extract from this classic study.

Two different videotaped interviews were staged with the same individual—a college instructor who spoke English with a European accent. In one of the interviews the instructor was warm and friendly, in the other, cold and distant. The subjects who saw the warm instructor rated his appearance, mannerisms, and accent as appealing, whereas those who saw the cold instructor rated these attributes as irritating These results indicate that global evaluations of a person can induce altered evaluations of the person's attributes, even when there is sufficient information to allow for independent assessments of them. Furthermore, the subjects were unaware of this influence of global evaluations on ratings of attributes. In fact, the subjects who saw the cold instructor actually believed that the direction of influence was opposite to the true direction. They reported that their dislike of the instructor had no effect on their ratings of his attributes but that their dislike of his attributes had lowered their global evaluations of him .

The present results support the strong interpretation of the halo effect phenomenon. They indicate that global evaluations alter evaluations of attributes about which the individual has information fully sufficient to allow for an independent assessment. These results, it should be noted, are consistent with the very earliest theorizing about the phenomenon. Thorndike (1920), who gave the phenomenon its name, clearly believed that it represented far more than an effect on presumptions about or interpretations of the evaluative meaning of attributes, but rather that it represented a fundamental inability to resist the affective influence of global evaluation on evaluation of specific attributes .

The Halo Effect in Action

Powerful talk on the halo effect of racism and stereotypes.

About The Author

David Webb  is the owner, writer and host of three websites built around his teaching and research interests; including All-About-Psychology.Com which receives over two million visits a year.

A passionate promoter of psychology through social media, over 850,000 people follow his psychology  Facebook  page and he is featured on the British Psychological Society list of the 100 most followed psychologists and neuroscientists on  Twitter .

A bestselling author, his published work includes:  The Psychology Student Guide  -  The Incredibly Interesting Psychology Book  and,  On This Day in Psychology .

Recent Articles

The placebo effect: understanding its power and impact in medicine.

Jun 30, 24 10:56 AM

Adlerian Psychology: 8 Basic Principles

Jun 29, 24 11:40 AM

Free Psychology Journals

Jun 29, 24 08:57 AM

Please help support this website by visiting the  All About Psychology Amazon Store  to check out an awesome collection of psychology books, gifts and T-shirts.

Go From The Halo Effect Experiment Back To The Home Page

Psychology Discussion

Thorndike’s trial and error theory | learning | psychology.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Meaning of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory 2. Experimental Evidences of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory 3. Educational Implications 4. Some Objections.

Meaning of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Edward Lee Thorndike (1874-1949) is generally considered to have been the foremost educational psychologist not only of the United States but of the world. He contributed to research and theory in the field of learning and genetic psychology, testing and social psychology, testing and social psychology.

Thorndike first stated the elements of his theory of learning in 1913 that connections are formed in the nervous system between stimuli and response. These connections formed are illustrated by the symbols S-R. Another word used to describe these connections is the word ‘bond’ and hence,’ this theory is sometimes called a ‘Bond Theory of learning’. Thorndike has written- “Learning is connecting. The mind is man’s connection system.”

According to Thorndike learning takes place by trial and error. Some people call it, “Learning by selection of the successful variant,” accordingly when no ready-made solution of a problem is available to the learner, he adopts the method of trial and error. He first, tries one solution. If it does not help him, he rejects it, then, he tries another and so on. In this way he eliminates errors or irrelevant responses which do not serve the purpose and finally discovers the correct solution.

Thus, in trial and error method, the learner makes random activities and finally reaches the goal accidently. Here, one thing should be remembered that in trial and error also, there are often systematic and relevant responses. Activities are not wholly random. All these activities, though apparently random are suggested to him by the situation and the learner proceeds on accordingly. The stages through which the learner has to pass are Goal, Block (hinderances), Random Movements or multiple response, chance success, selection and Fixation.

When and how the connection is accomplished was stated first in the following three laws:

1. Law or Readiness:

First primary law of learning, according to him, is the ‘Law or Readiness’ or the ‘Law of Action Tendency’, which means that learning takes place when an action tendency’ is aroused through preparatory adjustment, set or attitude. Readiness means a preparation for action. If one is not prepared to learn, learning cannot be automatically instilled in him, for example, unless the typist, in order to learn typing prepares himself to start, he would not make much progress in a lethargic and unprepared manner.

2. Law of Exercise:

The second law of learning is the ‘Law of Exercise’, which means that drill, or practice helps in increasing efficiency and durability of learning and according to Thorndike’s S-R Bond Theory, the connections are strengthened with trail or practice and the connections are weakened when trial or practice is discontinued.

The ‘law of exercise’, therefore, is also understood as the ‘law of use and disuse’ in which case connections or bonds made in the brain cortex are weakened or loosened. Many examples of this are found in case of human learning. Learning to drive a motor-car, typewriting, singing or memorizing a poem or a mathematical table, and music etc. need exercise and repetition of various movements and actions May times.

3. Law of Effect:

The third law is the ‘Law of Effect’, according to which the trial or steps leading to satisfaction stamps in the bond or connection. Satisfying states lead to consolidation and strengthening of the connection, whereas dis-satisfaction, annoyance or pain leads to the weakening or stamping out of the connections.

In fact, the ‘law or effect’ signifies that if the responses satisfy the subject, they are learnt and selected. While those which are not satisfying are eliminated. Teaching, therefore, must be pleasing. The educator must obey the tastes and interests of his pupils. In other words, greater the satisfaction stronger will be the motive to learn. Thus, intensity is an important condition of the ‘law of effect’.

Besides these three basic laws, Thorndike also refers to five sub-ordinate laws which further help to explain the learning process.

1. Law of Multiple-Response:

According to it the organism varies or changes its responses till an appropriate behaviour is hit upon. Without varying the responses, the correct response for the solution might never be elicited. If the individual wants to solve a puzzle, he is trying in different ways rather than mechanically persisting in the same way. Thorndike’s cat in the puzzle box moved about and tried many ways to come out till finally it hit the latch with her paw which opened the door and it jumped out.

2. The Law of Set or Attitude:

Learning is guided by a total set or attitude of the organism, which determines not only what the person will do but what will satisfy or annoy him. For instance, unless the cricketer sets himself to make a century, he will not be able to score more runs. A student, similarly, unless he sets to get first position and has the attitude of being at the top, would while away the time and would not learn much. Hence, learning is affected more in the individual if he is set to learn more or to excel.

3. Pre-Potency of Elements:

According to this law, the learner reacts selectively to the important or essential element in the situation and neglects the other features or elements which may be irrelevant or non-essential. The ability to deal with the essential or the relevant part of the situation makes analytical and insightful learning possible. In this law of pre-potency of elements, Thorndike is really anticipating insight in learning which was more emphasised by the Gestations.

4. Law of Response by Analogy:

According to this law, the individual makes use of old experiences or acquisitions while learning a new situation. There is a tendency to utilize common elements in the new situation as existed in a similar past situation. The learning of driving a car, for instance, is facilitated by the earlier acquired skill of driving a motor-cycle or even riding a bicycle, because the perspective or maintaining a balance and controlling the handle helps in steering the car.

5. The Law of Associative Shifting:

According to this law we may get any response, of which a learner is capable, associated with any other situation to which he is sensitive. Thorndike illustrated this by the act of teaching a cat to stand up at a command. A fish was dangled before the vat while he said ‘stand up’. After a number of trials by presenting the fish after uttering the command ‘stand up’, he later ousted the fish and the overall command of ‘stand up’ was found sufficient to evoke the response to the cat by standing up on her hind legs.

Experimental Evidences of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Various experiments have been performed on men as well as animals to study this method. Thorndike made several experiments on rats and cats. Two important experiments are mentioned here.

Thorndike’s most widely quoted experiment was with the cat placed in a puzzle box. The hungry cat was put in the puzzle box and a fish, as an incentive, was put out-side the cage a little beyond its reach. The box was designed in such a way that the door of the cage can be released by some simple act like depressing a lever inside the cage.

At first, the cat made a great deal of varied attempts to reach the food in a trial and error fashion such as jumping up and down, clawing at the bars, scratching the cage, whaling around trying to push the bars, pawing and shaking movable parts of the cage etc., but all attempts proved to vain.

Ultimately by chance her paw fell on the loop of the rope and the door opened. The cat jumped out immediately and ate the fish. When next day, the cat was put in the box again, this time she took less time in coming out and in the subsequent trials the time decreased further so much so that the stage reached when the cat came out soon after being put inside by directly striking the latch with her paw without any random movement. This is how she learnt to reach its goal.

Expt. 2 (Experiment with Human Subjects):

Gopalaswamy demonstrated trial and error in human beings through Mirror-Drawing Experiment. This is a classical experiment in the psychology of learning. In this experiment the subject is asked to trace a star-shaped drawing, not looking at it directly, but as it is reflected in a mirror, the subject’s hand movements are visible in the mirror only and not directly. The experimenter observes the movements of the hands and thus, records the time of tracing in successive trials and the number of errors committed in each trial.

In first six trials the subject traces the star with the right hand and then in the next six trials he traces it by the left hand. Two graphs-the Time Curve and the Error Curve are then drawn, which show the general characteristics of trial and error learning. In the original experiment Gopalaswamy arranged his apparatus so that a record was automatically made of all the movements of the styles of the subject as it traced out the pattern. In this way the successive times of tracings and a record of errors was obtained.

Gopalaswamy analyzed the errors into two groups-lower level errors and higher level errors. Those errors which do not involve any noble process on the part of the subject in tracing the star are lower-level errors and those which involve higher process of mind on the perceptual and conceptual level are higher-level errors.

He discovered that improvement in the higher-level responses correlated highly with intelligence and that the improvement in the responses of the lower-level errors did not show much correlation with intelligence. This clears the respective share of trial and error and of higher learning.

For Fundulus fishes Thorndike got a glass tub with a dividing wall of glass in the middle. In the dividing wall there was a hole through which the fish could go from one part to another. By nature Fundulus fish like to remain in shade. The glass tub was filled with water and it was put under such a situation that half of its part remained under shade and the other half was in the sunshine. The fishes were kept in the sunny portion.

They began to try to coming over to the shady portion. By trying again and again the fishes succeeded in tracing the hole of the dividing wall and reached the shady portion one by one. But, at first the fishes took more time in reaching the shady portion, then in the second attempt they took less time and in the third attempt they took the least time. Trying it again finally a stage came when the fishes happened to come one after another in a row to the shady portion immediately in the very first attempt i.e., the number of errors of their wandering here and there amounted to a zero.

Educational Implications of Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

Thorndike’s theory of Trial and Error and his three basic laws of learning have direct educational implications. The ‘Law of Readiness’ lays emphasis on motivation while the ‘Law of Exercise’ compels us to accept a well-known fact ‘Practice makes a man perfect’, and the third one i.e., ‘Law of Effect’ opens fairly a large scope to discuss the role of reward and punishment as an incentive in the child’s learning.

Actually, motivation and learning are inter-related concepts. No motivation; No learning. Here we can remember a proverb, ‘the one man can take horse to the pool of water but twenty cannot make him drink’. This statement clearly shows the impact of motivation on learning. Clearly speaking motive is a force that compels an individual to act or to behave in a particular direction. And, hence the success of a teacher lies in motivating the roomfuls of energy. His prime duty is to produce ‘thirst’ (a motive to drink water) in the horses. Then and only then he may succeed in making the process of learning easier and interesting.

To quote with the experiment to Tolman and Honzik (1930) which they performed in rats will be of interest and situational here. In this experiment the rats were taught to follow a complex pattern of runs and turns through a maze to reach the food. The rats were divided in three groups. First group of rats was neither hungry nor given any food at the end or trial. The second group was hungry but was not given food. The third one was hungry and given food at the end of a trial.

It was concluded that only the third group learned appreciably i.e., the number of errors went on decreasing in each attempt. The logic is simple. To be motivated and unrewarded leaves to you only frustration instead a notable amount of learning. Also nor is it worthwhile to work for a prize you do not want. Thus, it is the motive that gives the reward its value and the satisfaction of reward that fixes the learning of which it is the effect.

Briefly speaking, without motivation or drive learning is impossible, as firstly, it prods the learner into action and secondly, it introduces light and shadow into an otherwise different field. So, teacher’s concern primarily shall be the motivating of goals and releasing tensions which signalise success. Above all he should have a psychological involvement in reaching and has to be charged with values and therefore, naturally motivated himself. The advice of an old principal of a school is very pertinent here.

“Teachers, you are going to be emulated in your talk and walk by your students, but a little less. If you run, your students will walk. If you walk, your students will stand. If you stand, your students will lie down. If you lie down, your students will sleep. And if you sleep in the class, your students will die”. But, one has to admit here that the organism’s level of performance can’t be beyond a physiological limit, whatever incentive we provide to him. For instance, higher bonus to factory workers, more praise to students may lead to a better performance, but no athlete can jump over the Chinese wall, whatever the intensity of motivation is provided.

Another significant aspect of this theory is that to master a complex situation or to elaborate task, practice is must. It is not possible to handle each difficult situation in a single trial, no matter what the degree of motivation or reward is. One cannot blame the entire constitution of India in one reading even if the reward is a crore of Rupees or the threat is to be shot dead otherwise. Each task initially seems to be difficult and fatiguing but as practice continues, it becomes smoother and requires less effort.

Finally, we say that habit or S-R is established. An expert driver, for instance, goes on driving, listening to the radio and taking to his friend sitting by. In the light of class room teaching blundering is a natural phenomenon associated with student learning. But, the teacher should not regard this as a symptom of inefficient teaching, because this is the way the pupils learn. He should not be at all worried when blundering appears.

Insights will emerge as the blundering progresses from simpler associations to higher units. There is not royal road to success. Kennedy-Fraser, the Psychologist concludes, “The teachers who are responsible for the beginning of any new subject should be the best available, since at the point, the pupils have no defensive system of properly formed habits to protect them from the evil effects of bad teaching.”

Actually, we learn by doing. The teachers’ duty should be to arrange situations in which the student has chance to discover for himself what is significant. The blundering must be directed and methods that are wholly futile must be eliminated. But at the same time the teacher must exercise, constant restraint in his supervision.

Further, both punishment and reward may play a significant role in the process of learning. But, experiments go to show that motivation is successfully handled when it is kept in the positive phase. Drastic forms of inhibition tend to spread their effects over the whole learning situation. Sometimes, the teachers impress upon the negative processes. The false response is effectively inhibited when the correct reaction is fixated and the emphasis should be on the latter process. The fixating rewards are most effective when they afford immediate and complete release.

A delay introduced between the successful performance and the releasing reward has a considerable effect on their rate of learning and co-ordination. In school, the satisfactions should be closely coupled with the activity itself otherwise the likelihood of permanent effects is small. Another aspect of motivating problem is simpler than the manipulations of tensions and releases and can be mastered by all. This is that the learner should be kept informed of his progress and promptly.

Finally, though the theory is not widely accepted for its educational significance, yet, there are certain subjects such as mathematics, tables of mathematics, memorising poetry, rules of grammar etc. in which learning by Trial and Error cannot be avoided. All reasoning subjects afford the greatest opportunity for the application of the Trial and Error method.

In Brief, the implications of the theory are:

1. According to his theory the task can be started from the easier aspect towards its difficult side. This approach will benefit the weaker and backward children.

2. A small child learns some skills through trial and error method only such as sitting, standing, walking, running etc. In teaching also the child rectifies the writing after committing mistakes.

3. In this theory more emphasis has been laid on motivation. Thus, before starting teaching in the classroom the students should be properly motivated.

4. Practice leads a man towards maturity. Practice is the main feature of trial and error method. Practice helps in reducing the errors committed by the child in learning any concept.

5. Habits are formed as a result of repetition. With the help of this theory the wrong habits of the children can be modified and the good habits strengthened.

6. The effects of rewards and punishment also affect the learning of the child. Thus, the theory lays emphasis on the use of reward and punishment in the class by the teacher.

7. The theory may be found quite helpful in changing the behaviour of the delinquent children. The teacher should cure such children making use of this theory.

8. With the help of this theory the teacher can control the negative emotions of the children such as anger, jealousy etc.

9. The teacher can improve his teaching methods making use of this theory. He must observe the effects of his teaching methods on the students and should not hesitate to make necessary changes in them, if required.

10. The theory pays more emphasis on oral drill work. Thus, a teacher should conduct oral drill of the taught contents. This helps in strengthening the learning more.

Some Objections to Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory:

The theory has been criticised by various psychologists on the following grounds. Firstly, the theory is mechanical, for it leaves no room for an end or purpose in any sense whatsoever. On the contrary psychologist Mc Dougall maintained that even the behaviour of the amoeba or the paramecia consists in learning to face novel conditions to serve some unknown purpose Even repeated trials are of no avail if the tendency to learn is not there.

Again, if the tendency is there, even one trial may be fruitful. Mc Dougall and Woodworth insist on readiness for reaching a goal in learning and Lloyd Morgan lays stress on persistency with varied efforts till the goal of learning is achieved. The hungry cat confined in the puzzle-box with food in front of it goes on persistently trying various means until it gets out of it and has food. So, its trials are not blind and mechanical. In fact, they are guided by perceptual attention and feelings of pleasure and pain. Yet, Thorndike pays no attention to these higher order mental processes.

Secondly, in course or repeated trials the numbers of errors are not corrected of themselves or mechanically. The effects of Trial and Error depend to a great extent upon the psycho-physical state of the animal or man. In the absence of any purpose in view the animal is so puzzled, rather than enlightened by the errors committed that it goes on blindly repeating them without end.

Thirdly, Thorndike assumes that learning consists only in the association of several separate movements. But, learning is a whole process related to a whole situation. The hungry cat confined in a puzzle-box with food placed near it does not perceive the situation in a piece-meal fashion but as a whole of hunger food-puzzle box-confinement.

Finally, the laws of learning formulated by Thorndike appear to be unjustified. For instance, the ‘law of effect’ seems to be in consistent with his mechanical point of view. Satisfaction in or the sense of being rewarded by success and dissatisfaction in or the sense of being punished by failure seen to ascribe higher mental processes to animals like cats and rats than are psychologically ascribable to them. Or, it violates Lloyd Morgans’s law.

Similarly, the ‘Law of Exercise’ has been severely criticised on the grounds that it does not regard other factors like motives, interests, special training etc. Mechanical repetition without motive, interest, significance or understanding does not make anyone learn anything and remember it. One rupee-currency note passes hundred times through the hand of a person, but hardly anyone is able to tell the size, the colour and other details of it.

A boy was asked to write hundred times ‘I have gone’ after school. He wrote it mechanically and correctly all the times. But, when he left the school in the absence of the teacher, he wrote “I have written,” ‘I have gone’ correctly one hundred times and since you are not here “I have went home”. After repeating one correct thing so many times he again committed the same mistake. This shows that repetition without motive, interest or understanding is of no avail.

Thus, learning by Trial and Error is not of very much use and should not be resorted to by the teacher as it lays a stress on cramming. Also, there is much wastage of time and energy by this method.

Related Articles:

• Trial and Error Theory: Experiments and Limitations | Learning
• 3 Important Theories of Learning
• Tolman’s Sign Theory of Learning | Education
• Theory of Learning by Insight | Psychology

Psychology , Cognitive Processes , Learning , Theories , Thorndike’s Trial and Error Theory

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Animal Intelligence

DOI link for Animal Intelligence

Get Citation

Animal Intelligence is a consolidated record of Edward L. Thorndike's theoretical and empirical contributions to the comparative psychology of learning. Thorndike's approach is systematic and comprehensive experimentation using a variety of animals and tasks, all within a laboratory setting. When this book first appeared, it set a compelling example, and helped make the study of animal behavior very much an experimental laboratory science.

This landmark study in the investigation of animal intelligence illustrates Thorndike's thinking on the evolution of the mind. It includes his formal statement of the influential law of effect, which had a significant impact on other behaviorists. Hull's law of primary reinforcement was closely related to the law of effect and Skinner acknowledged that the process of operant conditioning was probably that described in the law of effect.

The new introduction by Darryl Bruce is an in-depth study of Thorndike's legacy to comparative psychology as well as a thorough retrospective review of Animal Intelligence . He includes a biographical introduction of the behaviorist and then delves into his theories and work. Among the topics Bruce covers with respect to Thorndike's studies are the nature of animal intelligence, the laws of learning and connectionism, implications for comparative psychology, and relation to theories of other behaviorists. Animal Intelligence is an intriguing analysis that will be of importance to psychologists and animal behaviorists.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 | 19  pages, the study of consciousness and the study of behavior, chapter 2 | 136  pages, animal intelligence; an experimental study of the associative processes in animals 1, chapter 3 | 13  pages, the instinctive reactions of young chicks 1, chapter 4 | 3  pages, a note on the psychology of fishes 1, chapter 5 | 69  pages, the mental life of the monkeys; an experimental study 1, chapter 6 | 41  pages, laws and hypotheses for behavior laws of behavior in general, chapter 7 | 13  pages, the evolution of the human intellect 1.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• When did science begin?
• Where was science invented?

halo effect

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Simply Psychology - Why the Halo Effect Affects How We Perceive Others
• Corporate Finance Institiute - Halo Effect
• Psychology Today - Halo Effect
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - An Analysis of the Generalizability and Stability of the Halo Effect During the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak
• MedicineNet - What is Meant by the Halo Effect?
• Rutgers University - Department of Phulosophy - She just doesn’t look like a philosopher. . .? Affective influences on the halo effect in impression formation
• Frontiers - An Analysis of the Generalizability and Stability of the Halo Effect During the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak
• WebMD - What is the Halo Effect?
• Healthline - What Is the Halo Effect?
• Verywell Mind - Why the Halo Affects How We Perceive Others

halo effect , error in reasoning in which an impression formed from a single trait or characteristic is allowed to influence multiple judgments or ratings of unrelated factors.

Research on the phenomenon of the halo effect was pioneered by American psychologist Edward L. Thorndike , who in 1920 reported the existence of the effect in servicemen following experiments in which commanding officers were asked to rate their subordinates on intelligence, physique, leadership, and character, without having spoken to the subordinates. Thorndike noted a correlation between unrelated positive and negative traits. The service members who were found to be taller and more attractive were also rated as more intelligent and as better soldiers. Thorndike determined from this experiment that people generalize from one outstanding trait to form a favourable view of a person’s whole personality.

In 1946, Polish-born psychologist Solomon Asch found that the way in which individuals form impressions of one another involved a primacy effect, derived from early or initial information. First impressions were established as more important than subsequent impressions in forming an overall impression of someone. Participants in the experiment were read two lists of adjectives that described a person. The adjectives on the lists were the same but the order was reversed; the first list had adjectives that went from positive to negative, while the second list presented the adjectives from negative to positive. How the participant rated the person depended on the order in which the adjectives were read. Adjectives presented first had more influence on the rating than adjectives presented later. When positive traits were presented first, the participants rated the person more favourably; when the order was changed to introduce the negative traits first, the same person was rated less favourably.

• Sign up and Get Listed

Outside of US & canada

Be found at the exact moment they are searching. Sign up and Get Listed

• For Professionals
• Worksheets/Resources
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Marriage Counselor
• Find a Child Counselor
• Find a Support Group
• Find a Psychologist
• If You Are in Crisis
• Self-Esteem
• Sex Addiction
• Relationships
• Child and Adolescent Issues
• Eating Disorders
• How to Find the Right Therapist
• Explore Therapy
• Issues Treated
• Modes of Therapy
• Types of Therapy
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychotropic Medication
• What Is Therapy?
• How to Help a Loved One
• How Much Does Therapy Cost?
• How to Become a Therapist
• Signs of Healthy Therapy
• Warning Signs in Therapy
• The GoodTherapy Blog
• PsychPedia A-Z
• Dear GoodTherapy
• Share Your Story
• Therapy News
• Marketing Your Therapy Website
• Private Practice Checklist
• Private Practice Business Plan
• Practice Management Software for Therapists
• Rules and Ethics of Online Therapy for Therapists
• CE Courses for Therapists
• HIPAA Basics for Therapists
• How to Send Appointment Reminders that Work
• More Professional Resources
• List Your Practice
• List a Treatment Center
• Earn CE Credit Hours
• Student Membership
• Online Continuing Education
• Marketing Webinars
• GoodTherapy’s Vision
• Partner or Advertise

• Learn About Therapy >

Edward Thorndike (1874-1949)

Edward Thorndike was an early 20th century educator and psychologist who studied the learning process and influenced the development of the American public school system.

Professional Life

Edward Thorndike was born August 31, 1874 in Williamsburg, Massachusetts. He received his undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and began his graduate work at Harvard. By age 23, he completed his PhD from Columbia University. 

Thorndike began his professional career at the Women’s College of Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, where he taught for one year, before accepting a teaching position at Teachers College at Columbia University in 1899. Thorndike remained at Teachers College until his retirement in 1940; his career focused largely on evaluating the learning process and testing intelligence. 

In 1912, Thorndike acted as president of the American Psychological Association. Thorndike also served as president of the Psychometric Society, after the first president and founder Louis Leon Thurstone, stepped down in 1937. Thorndike married Elizabeth Moulton in 1900 and they raised four children. 

Contribution to Psychology

Thorndike is known for his development of the law of effect, a theory regarding the effects of reward and punishment on learning. Thorndike originally believed that reward and punishment were equal in terms of effect, but he eventually determined that reward was far more effective and that punishment may actually lead to the repetition of an undesired behavior.

Similarly, Thorndike's connectionism states that behavior is a product of the connection of numerous neural and psychological processes. Behavior that cannot be explained by a simpler phenomenon, such as conditioning, follows connectionist principles. For Thorndike, learning is generally a gradual process built upon insight and increasing connections.

To study the learning process, Thorndike conducted a series of experiments involving animals and problem boxes and mazes. His subjects were rewarded when they were able to push a lever and escape, which they were able to do with increasing rapidity upon repetition. Thus, Thorndike concluded that the learning process was enhanced by the learner’s response to stimulus. B.F. Skinner built upon Thorndike’s law of effect in his behaviorist work with operant conditioning.

Thorndike identified three specific factors that benefit learning and result in maximum outcomes:

• The law of effect is determined by consequence.
• The law of recency requires that recurrence is determined by the most recent response.
• The law of exercise states that when a stimulus is administered upon response, each subsequent response is strengthened. 

Thorndike also developed military tests during World War I, when he was a member of the Committee on Classification of Personnel. His Alpha and Beta tests were used to measure the intelligence of soldiers. Thorndike’s tests were adapted for use among schoolchildren in the following years, and they directly impacted the development of standardized testing. Thorndike was a proponent of eugenics, because he believed that intelligence was a hereditary trait.

References:

• Clifford, Geraldine Joncich. (2003). Edward L. Thorndike. Encyclopedia of Education . Retrieved from http://www.gale.cengage.com/InContext/bio.htm
• Tomlinson, S. (1997). Edward lee thorndike and john dewey on the science of education. Oxford Review of Education , 23(3), 365-383. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215839945?accountid=1229

People Are Reading

• Dialectical Dilemmas and How ACT Models Can Help Guide Treatment
• How Emotionally Intelligent People Use Negative Emotions to Their Advantage
• Political Differences May Shorten Thanksgiving Visits
• Is ‘13 Reasons Why’ Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?
• Time-Management Hacks to Be More Efficient and Procrastinate Less

Join GoodTherapy!

Mental health professionals who meet our membership requirements can take advantage of benefits such as:

• Client referrals
• Continuing education credits
• Publication and media opportunities
• Marketing resources and webinars
• Special discounts

Notice to users