CH. 6—Behaviorism & Learning Theory

what is the behaviorism and learning theory? what is accepted and whats not accepted? where did it originate from?

• a theory that deemphasizes the importance of unobservable hypothetical constructs

• things like Freuds ideas and the Neo-analytic theory would be REJECTED

• things like treats, defense mechanisms and unconscious conflicts would NOT BE CONSIDERED

• this behavioral movement grew out of the empirical tradition

empirical tradition

• scientific approaches to study observable behavior

• behavior primarily develops through experience and interactions with te environment

• ex: learning

association (2)

1. S—S association

2. S—R association

S—S

stimulis—stimulus

• one event predicting another

• ex: bell predicts food presentation

S—R

Stimulus—Response

• behavioral response thats action-based

• ex: seeing food leads to salivation

Ivan Pavlov (CLASSIC)

• Russian physiologist/biologist (psych wasn’t a thing yet)

• 1890’s

• initially studied digestive responses of dogs which accidentally led to discovery of classical conditioning

classical conditioning & learning theory

• Ivan Pavlov accidentally developed this model of learning

whats the other name for classical conditioning?

RESPONDENT CONDITIONING

Pavloc’s Initial Experiment

• presented food to dogs, which naturally made them drool

• the sound of the bell was NOT the thing that made them drool initially

• repeatedly pairing food with the bell, doggos still drooling, but still cuz of food

• eventually at the sole sound of the bell, doggos would drool

LABELS FOR CLASSICAL CONDITIONING (4)

1. Neutral Stimulus:

• NS

• does NOT naturally elicit a response

• ex: bell

2. Natural Stimulus/Unconditioned Stimulus

• UCS

• a response that’s NATURALLY elicited

• ex: drooling upon seeing food

3. Unconditioned Response

• UCR

• the RESPONSE that’s NATURALLY elected by an unconditioned stimulus

4. Conditioned Stimulus

• CS
  the formerly UCR which is now elicited by the CS

• ex: the food initially being the reason for salivation, but now its the bell

PRIOR TO COND.

Bell → NS, doesn’t elicit any natural response

Food → UCS, naturally elicits an UCR

DURING COND.

• learning trials occurred

• repeated pairings of bell+food

• Bell → NS + Food → UCS elicits salivation but STILL only cuz of the food

• bell → now a CS, elicits salivation which is now a CR

AFTER COND. TERMS (3)

1. Stimulus Generalization

• when the CR is elicited by other similar stimuli

• ex: lil Albert being scared of other small white furry things

2. Stimulus Discrimination

• when the organism learns to not respond to stimuli similar to CS

• ex: lil Albert not being afraid of lil white dog as he can tell the difference

• ex: doggo not salivating from a high pitched bell

3. Extinction

• if the CS is later presented repeatedly without the UCS, the CS will eventually lose the power to elicit the CR

• ex: if the bell is repeatedly rung without any food present, doggo will stop drooling eventually

What classical conditioning explains/Classical Conditioning Explanations

• likes and dislikes

• emotional reactions → seeing a person and having a certain emotion (yes thats classical conditioning)

• anxiety and fear responses

• many responses with a physiological basis

origins of behaviorism, classical or operant conditioning (time, person, experiment)

• John Watson

• 1920’s

• operant conditioning

• Lil Albert Experiment

behaviorism (define + founder)

• an approach that focused on scientific study of observable behavior

• John Watson

John Watson

• 1920’s

• US

• rejected introspection

• founder of Behaviorism

Lil Albert Experiment

• 11 month old boy

• not naturally afraid of white fluffy small things

• when loud noise was paired with the animal, Albert developed a fear response upon seeing it due to the UCS (loud noise)

• generalized

PRIO TO COND. OPERANT

1. NS → neutral stimulus, rat

2. UCS → metal rod

DURING COND. OPERANT

1. NS+UCS=elicits fear (UCR)

AFTER COND. OPERANT

1. CS → white rat, now elicits fear without loud noise

Radical Behaviorism (person, law, operant or classical)

• BF Skinner

• Law of Effect

• Operant Conditioning

BF Skinner

• 1940’s-1960’s

• influenced by the pioneering experimental psychologist Edward Thorndike

• developed operant conditioning as a model to explain how consequences influence behavior

Edward Thorndike

pioneering experimental psychologist

Law of Effect

• the consequences of a behavior will either strengthen or weaken that behavior

what is operant conditioning aka? and what is it based on?

• instrumental conditioning

• based on lots of work with animal training

2 types of consequence

1. Reinforcer

2. Punisher

Reinforcer

consequences that INCREASE probability of a behavior recurring in the future

punisher

consequences that DECREASE probability of a behavior recurring in the future

explain the operant model IN DETAIL (4 parts, 3 variables)

1.. INCREASE behavior probability + Additive Consequence

— Positive Reinforcement

• ADD a pleasant stimulus

2.. INCREASE behavior probability + Subtractive Consequence

— Negative Reinforcement

• REMOVE an unpleasant stimulus

3.. DECREASE behavior probability + Additive Consequence

— Positive Punishment

• add an unpleasant stimulus

4.. DECREASE behavior probability + Subtractive Consequence

— Negative Punishment

• remove a pleasant stimulus

Variables:

1. pleasant stimuli

2. unpleasant stimuli

3. where it inc. or dec. the behavior

Escape and Avoidance Learning (what its based on, example, what its fundamental for)

• based on negative REINFORCEMENT (removing something bad)

• ex: shielding eyes from sun, avoiding or escaping crowds if you’re anxious or hot

• fundamental to most anxiety-based conditions (negative reinforcement)

Extinction

• when a perviously reinforced behavior no longer reliably results in a consequence

• the behavior gradually decreases

Criticism for Behaviorism & Learning Theory

Advantages (+)

• highly scientific

• recognizes environmental influences

• delineates well-established

• parsimonious

Disadvantages (-)

• sometimes ignores insights from other areas like cognitive, social, and physiological psychology

• minimizes any notion of enduring dispositions

• tends to deemphasize human potential by comparison to laboratory animals