1. Index

2. Problem

3. Hypothesis

4. Research

5. Materials

6. Procedure

7. Observations

8. Data

9. Conclusion

10. Bibliography

Conclusion

The problem that this experiment investigated was how to train a dog to come to a whistle more efficiently in different field settings.  The data in this experiment supports our hypothesis that the dog would learn to come to the sound of the whistle.  This is because the verbal command of, “Come” (S1) that was paired with the sound of the whistle (S2) was previously learned by the dog.  The dog learned to come or respond to only the sound of the whistle.

We hypothesized that the dog would come to the sound of the whistle (S2)  repeatedly and reinforces the behaviour of coming to the experimenters.  The data shown in the graphs reveal that the dog did show operant learning. He always returned to the experimenters.

The experiment did show cause and effect in the dog’s behaviour.  The dog learned that when the whistle was blown, it was time for him to return home and/or to the experimenter.  The dog learned to come to only the sound of the whistle.  He learned that when he returned to the experimenter, he would receive a reward.

This data supports operant conditioning principles as researched by B.F.Skinner.  The environmental event, or whistle, taught the dog to come, and the consequence of a reward increased the probability of the dog coming.

We expected differences in response time and mean response time between the two field settings, outside the house, and inside the house.  This hypothesis was supported.  It was found that there was a big difference in the mean response time between these two settings. The dog performed better inside the house as compared to outside the house.  His performance time inside the house was 1/10 of his performance time outside the house.

What would explain the difference?  The problem of uncontrolled variables in the field settings answered this question.  The uncontrolled variables that the experimenters noticed in the field settings (1) were distractions of people and their dogs walking by.  These variables changed the results of the experimenter in field setting number one.  This teaches us that the more an experimenter can control the variables, the better and clearer the results are.