John A. Nevin’s Behavioral Momentum Theory

Easier and more difficult behaviors to modify. What factors determine them?

I'll start with a very simple question. One that we have all asked ourselves at one time or another: What makes some behaviors easier and less easy to modify or even eliminate?

Readers will think of examples of acquaintances, or even of themselves, in which they have been able to modify behaviors that seem impossible for others to change, such as stopping nail biting, quitting smoking, or resisting compulsive shopping.

The behavioral momentum theory: what exactly is it?

This is where one of the proposals to answer our concern comes into play: the The Behavioral Momentum Theory by John Anthony Nevin (1988)but first, we will explain some basic concepts of the Psychology of Learning to put the mind at ease.

• LearningThe conscious or unconscious acquisition of knowledge and/or skills through study or practice. It can also be defined as a relatively permanent change in behavior due to reinforcement.
• ReinforcerAny element that increases the probability that a behavior will be repeated (e.g., giving a treat to our pet when it responds to a command we have given it will cause it to do it again in the future).
• Continuous reinforcementIt consists of giving a reinforcer whenever the desired behavior is emitted.
• Partial reinforcementPartial reinforcement: It consists of giving the reinforcer sometimes yes, sometimes no to the same behavior. It can be established for every 5 correct answers (Fixed) or randomly (Variable), so that a reinforcer could be given in behavior number 3, and in the following behavior number 15 without a fixed number.
• ExtinctionThe abandonment of reinforcement to eliminate a behavior that was produced by reinforcement is called this way.

Having these terms clear, we can begin to describe Nevin's Behavioral Momentum Theory, or BPT from now on.

Explaining resistance to change

Nevin proposed the Behavioral Momentum Theory to explain the resistance to change of behaviors that, in many people, become automatic either by training or by a massive practice of them. Therefore, he put forward a concept: Behavioral momentumdefined as the susceptibility of a behavior to be interrupted.

But what creates this susceptibility and what makes one behavior more resistant than another when it comes to eliminating it? The answer can be found (among others) in the forms of reinforcement with which the behavior was acquired..

Research supporting this theory

Let's think of two mice that we have trained to press a lever. Each time they did so, they would receive a food pellet. The behavior is to press the lever, and the reinforcer is the food pellet.

Mouse 1 has always been reinforced after pressing the lever, while mouse 2 has been partially reinforced (sometimes yes, sometimes no and without a fixed pattern). At this point, when the behavior is fixed, we want to eliminate it in our small rodents. Therefore, we stop dispensing food pellets every time the lever is pressed (extinction of the behavior).

I ask you, dear readers: which mouse will take longer to extinguish its behavior, i.e. to stop pressing the lever: number 1 or number 2?

Reinforcement

Mouse number 1, which learned by continuous reinforcement, will extinguish very quickly The behavior because he will realize that no more food falls into his feeder regardless of how many times he presses the lever. That is to say: if food was always given to him and suddenly it is not given to him, he will make a few attempts that, after being unsuccessful, he will give up definitively.

Extinction

And mouse number 2? It will suffer a paradoxical effect explained by the Theory of Frustration (Amsel, 1962) whereby its behavior will not only not begin to die out immediately, but will actually increase.

Why does this happen? Mouse number 2 was reinforced sometimes yes, sometimes no. He does not know when a bowl will fall again. He does not know when a pellet will fall back into his feeder, but he knows that there must be a few lever presses where it will not fall and a few where it will. Therefore, he will press the lever 20, 100, 200 times until he finally understands that there will be no more pellets in the feeder if he emits the behavior and it ends up extinguishing.

Or in other words: mouse number 1 had less behavioral momentum than mouse number 2.

How does this phenomenon affect us in our lives?

If we turn our gaze from the mice to ourselves, this explains a multitude of everyday actions:

• Checking our cell phone every so often to see if we have messages or calls.
• Refreshing social networks in search of a Like.
• Frequently looking in the direction in which we know a person we have been waiting for a while in the street is coming.
• Looking at the mailbox even on holidays (maybe the letter carrier felt like working...) just in case there is a letter.

Influencing disorders

But it can not only be applicable in such daily behaviors, but also in disorders such as gambling, addictions, eating disorders... in which apparently a continuous "reinforcement" is generated, but in reality it is not so. A gambler does not always get money out of the machine, a cigarette produces instant pleasure, but stimulates areas of the brain that ask for more and more, and more and more of the stimulus to satiate, a person with binge eating disorder can fill up on food and be assaulted by a great discomfort because of his little control that makes that "little pleasure" is dissipated ....

It is well known how difficult it is to give up an addiction or overcome an eating disorder, and therein lies the resistance to the extinction of the behaviors that are emitted, in relation to how they were acquired.

Still, a cautionary note is in order. The Behavioral Momentum Theory has provided an excellent framework for the study of resistance to change. and extinction of behavior, but logically, the complexity that characterizes us, in particular, human beings, makes it improbable that only the behavioral moment explains extinction by itself. In any case, it is a very interesting theory to take into account for our knowledge.