CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

Reflexive natural responses

Suggests an association between natural UCS and a natural UCR
Pairing occurs when these two stimuli are presented alongside a neutral stimulus
The NS requires the same response effect as the UCS. So the behaviour becomes associated with the NS as the NS is no longer neutral.
The animal or person has become conditioned to respond to the NS.

EXTINCTION

When the association (CS and CR) is no longer there.
Eg the bell will no longer cause dogs salivation

SPONTANEOUS RECOVERY

After extinction the previously paired CR and CS suddenly reappears without reconditioning.

GENERALISATION

Extending an original association between a CS and CR to include one or more similar stimuli eg if a dog become conditioned to salivate to a certain bell (CS) then it may generalise and salivate to some other bell sounds (CR)

DISCRIMINATION

Opposite of generalisation
Conditioning is associated with only one specific conditioned stimulus and therefore only this CS will result in the CR. Eg fearing pink buttons

EVALUATE CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

+ Pavlov 1927 dogs, based on empirical and scientific evidence

- not the only explanation of human behaviour. Social learning theory says we learn by observing and imitating a role mode and not stimulus response

+ applied to understanding and creating therapies such as systematic desensitisation to help treat phobias such as spiders. The principles of CC are used so that the CS eg spider is slowly associated with relaxation instead of the original CR which is fear. Eventually the CS is extinguished and becomes a NS because it produces no fear response.

+Watson and Rayner 1920 conditioned little Albert in a lab to fear rats. This was also generalised to other white fluffy objects like rabbits and beards etc showing support for classical conditioning.

- much support comes from animals eg Pavlov dogs which can’t be generalised to humans as they are not representative of the human brain structure. Human behaviour is much more complex

PAVLOV 1927

A- To investigate if dogs could be conditioned to salivate after a previously neutral stimulus

P-

lab study with 35 dogs. Repeated measures design used.
Placed each dog in a sealed room so they couldn’t see smell or hear anything so it didn’t salivate due to external variables, which was a baseline control.
Strapped in harness and put tube in mouth to drain saliva into a measuring bottle.
Control - first presented dog with food and they salivated
As control he presented the dog with the NS sound which they didn’t salivate at showing this is a NS.
To condition it he paired the sound with the food about 20 times.
After it was conditioned he presented the dog with the sound and no food.

R-

Conditioned dog started salivating 9 secs after hearing the sound and by 45 secs had produced 11 drops of saliva.

C-

The neutral stimulus of the bell sound which hadn’t previously produced a response after being paired with the UCS of food turned into a CS producing the conditioned response of salivation by itself.
Bell acts as signal for food and the brain produces reflex reaction of salivation.

EVALUATE PAVLOV

-Can’t generalise dogs to humans as behaviour much more complex

+standardised lab controls such as presenting the NS of the bell first to ensure it produced no response before the conditioning took place increases reliability

-lab unnatural environment for dogs so may produce demand characteristics and lack ecological validity

+apply to treatments for phobias such as systematic desensitisation which uses the principles of Pavlov classical conditioning. Better understanding. CS can be associated with relaxation rather than fear overtime which means eventually it becomes extinguished and become a NS.

-not only explanation of behaviour as slt says we use imitation from role models not stimulus and response

WATSON AND RAYNER 1920 LITTLE ALBERT CLASSIC STUDY

A- explore how classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia where there wasn’t one before in humans.

P-

Lab experiment on little Albert boy - single ppt design. 11 month 3 day old baby who’d been reared in hospital
Not easily upset baby so it was thought to be ethical
Made sure he wasn’t afraid of mice or rats etC and banged metal bar behind him to check it scared him- he cried
While he was playing with the rat they banged the bar again
They waited a week before continuing the experiment
The rat was then presented to him without the noise and he was hesitant to touch the rat
Given blocks to play with which he did normally so it was concluded there was some effect of conditioning
Continued until he showed fear response to rats But 11m20d found the fear response weakened so they renewed it
Tried using rabbits and dogs etc to see if the fear was generalised and he did show this generalised fear
2 months after they studied him to see if he was still scared

R-

Didn’t take many trials for him to show a startled response
After 2 months he still showed fear of rats and this was also generalised about rabbits dogs and Santa mask, anything similar.

C-

Emotional response can be conditioned in an 11 month old boy. Responses can be generalised to similar objects.
Fear response lasted for a while but they couldn’t explore whether it can be extinguished

EVALUATE WATSON AND RAYNER 1920

-Not ethical because they didn’t extinguish his fear as he left the hospital

+lab standardised procedure- banged the bar and presented the rat separately to ensure it was cause and effect between them when paired together

-not the only explanation - SLT - imitation

+apply to treatments of phobia - systematic desensitisation

-lack of ecological validity in the lab - demand characteristics