I Just Can't Help Myself!

[two mosquitoes fly near a bug zapper; one flies towards it, as if in a trance] 
Bug zapper mosquito #1: Harry, no! Don't look at the light! 
Harry the Mosquito: [entranced] I-can't-help-it. It's-so-beautiful. 
[Harry gets zapped, falls] 


Hey all!  Hopefully everyone's enjoying this crazy summer weather, especially for those already on summer.  Sigh, three more weeks until freedom...


Anyways, the quote I listed above is from the movie A Bug's Life, for those who don't recall.  It's random, I know, but it was one of my favorite scenes in the movies, just because it seemed to explain something that commonly happened.  


In fact, it does relate to this post, so bear with me for a second.  One of the odder experiments we learned about was one that involved the A not B error, as so labelled by renowned psychologist Piaget.  You see, Piaget was a developmental psychology, and like this experiment, he did a lot of experiments on infants.  The procedure for this one involved a parent figure holding an infant while an experimenter takes a toy and hides it under one of two cloths, which they labelled well A.  The infant was then let go so they could go find the toy.  Of course, the infant lifts up the cloth for well A and gets the toy.  The infant is then congratulated, and then the process starts over.  The experimenters do the process of hiding the toy and reinforcing the infant about three or so times.  


Yet, on the fourth time (assuming I'm remembering the number correctly), the experimenter hides the toy under the cloth for well B instead of well A.  Naturally, one would think the infant would go for well B to get the toy.  Instead, the infant goes for well A, lifts up the cloth, and finds nothing...  Yet, one of the strangest parts of the experiment is that the whole time the infant is reaching for the cloth in well B, he/she is starting at the cloth in well A.  What's going on?


Piaget proposed that the infant knows that the toy is in well A, as witnessed by the starting, yet he/she cannot help but reaching for well A.  As you can probably infer from the design, the researchers reinforced the infants' behavior by repeating the same process over and over.  Thus, the infants received reinforcement to go for well A, while the option of well B was not reinforced at all.  In fact, other experiments have been done where searching in well A has been only reinforced once and then the toy is put in well B.  If this is the case, infants will reach for well B in the majority of the cases.  Thus, the infants' behavior needs to be reinforced multiple times for this result to occur.  


One of the developmental differences between infants and adults is that an infant does not have their prefrontal cortex fully developed.  To over-simplify things, the prefrontal cortex is responsible for controlling certain behaviors.  This is ambiguous, I know, but it's hard to simplify such complex functioning.  For example, let's say that taking recreational drugs has been reinforced for an individual, and thus they are tempted to take the drugs.  Yet, they also know that taking such drugs have possible negative side effects.  So, how does the person decide between doing it or not doing it?  Simply put, it depends on the strength of one's prefrontal cortex.  If the person has a fully developed prefrontal cortex, they are more likely to inhibit simply the idea of reinforcement due to noting the drawbacks.  So, essentially, the prefrontal cortex may prevent people from engaging in behaviors that have been reinforced.


Seeing the connection?  Like previously mentioned, infants don't really have much of a prefrontal cortex since it hasn't really developed at that point in their life.  Thus, it's hard to regulate rewards and behaviors that lead to those rewards.  As seen in the case of the infants, they seem to know that the toy is hidden in well B.  Yet, due to the reinforcement of looking in well A and lack of prefrontal cortex development, the infant can't really help him/herself but look in well A, even if they know otherwise.  Interesting, no?  


I don't know of research that connects any of it to a bigger picture, such as an adult, so I'm just going to be speculating at this point.  But, the prefrontal cortex is something that doesn't fully develop in the average adult until adulthood (the age of 25, if I remember correctly...).  Thus, the ability to regulate behavior is something that emerges developmentally.  Yet, the options of drugs and alcohol are available to people before then (obviously).  This may mean that teenagers may not be able to properly weigh costs/benefits and thus may be more inclined to participate in such activities, even if they wouldn't later in life.  But, alcohol and drugs in large amounts also affects the development of the prefrontal cortex, meaning it may be harder to inhibit any actions that can be reinforcing.  


This makes me wonder how hard it must be for those that get addicted to something at a younger age to stay off whatever they're so reinforced by...  Even though we tend to view most behaviors such as addictions as being brought upon by one's self, perhaps an earlier life mistake is something that is quite hard to resist once they've aged...  Just having a little more sympathy for others might not be a bad thing, yah?  Anyways, my mind is going.  Time to call it quits for now!