Chapter 1-7 Learning Theory Vocabulary Flashcards
Learning in Psychology: Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, and Observational Learning
Setting the scene: The contrast between innate behaviors (instincts and reflexes) and learned behaviors, and the ways we come to know what we know through learning. The chapter focuses on the primary forms of learning and how they differ, what processes drive them, and how they apply in real life.
Key definitions and distinctions
Learning: a relatively permanent change in behavior or knowledge resulting from experience.
Innate/unlearned behaviors: reflexes and instincts.
Reflexes: simple, automatic motor or neural reactions to a specific stimulus; involve primitive CNS centers and body parts.
Instincts: more complex, whole-organism patterns triggered by broader cues (like seasons); involve higher brain centers.
Learned behaviors: require experience and show change; not present at birth.
Associative learning: learning that occurs when the mind automatically forms connections between events that occur closely in time or together.
Central to classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning.
Behaviorism: tradition in psychology emphasizing observable behaviors and their relation to environmental stimuli; cognition later enters as a complement in many accounts.
Three basic forms of learning to recognize and define:
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
Observational learning
Overview of the surfing analogy (introduction): baby hatchlings moving to the ocean instinctively; humans train and learn through practice and institutions, illustrating that learning is a process that develops with experience.
Classical conditioning: basics and classic examples
Core idea: learn to associate events that repeatedly occur together.
Pavlov as exemplar: classical conditioning as a process by which a neutral stimulus comes to elicit a response when paired with an unconditioned stimulus.
Pavlov’s dogs: UCS = meat powder; UCR = salivation; neutral stimulus = tone; after conditioning becomes CS; CS alone elicits CR (salivation).
Key terms:
Unconditioned stimulus (UCS): elicits a reflex without prior learning (e.g., meat powder).
Unconditioned response (UCR): natural reflex to UCS (salivation).
Conditioned stimulus (CS): originally neutral stimulus that comes to elicit a response after pairing with UCS (tone).
Conditioned response (CR): learned response to CS (salivation to tone).
Process: neutral stimulus presented immediately before UCS during acquisition; timing is crucial (often a brief interval, e.g., ~5 seconds).
Extinction: reduction/cessation of the conditioned response when CS is presented without UCS repeatedly.
Spontaneous recovery: after extinction, a rest period can lead the CR to reappear briefly when CS is presented again.
Generalization: responding to stimuli similar to the CS (e.g., Tiger responds to sounds similar to the can opener).
Discrimination: learning to respond only to the CS and not to similar, non-predictive stimuli (e.g., responding to the bell tone only, not to other sounds).
Higher-order conditioning (second-order conditioning): a CS becomes capable of triggering a response to a new neutral stimulus when paired with the original CS (e.g., bell → CS1; bell paired with a new neutral stimulus → CS2 also elicits CR).
Real-world examples and extensions:
Moisha’s chemotherapy: UCS = chemotherapy drugs; UCR = nausea/vomiting; CS = doctor’s office; CR = nausea when entering the office; illustrates second-order conditioning when a syringe also evokes nausea.
Tiger the cat: CS1 = electric can opener; UCS = food; CR = anticipation/excitement; second-order conditioning with squeaky cabinet (CS2) paired with CS1.
Stingray City example: boat engine sound becomes CS for food via tourist feeding; stingrays show conditioned responses to engine noise.
Angelina the baby: formula container as CS; UCS = formula; UCR = excitement; CR = anticipation of food.
Fear conditioning and the edge of a yard with an electric fence (fear/avoidance as CR).
Taste aversion learning (Garcia & Koelling, 1966):
Taste (flavor) paired with illness can produce strong, long-lasting aversions, even with long delays between CS and UCS (hours between taste and illness).
Biological constraints: flavor-illness associations are learned readily, while associations between lights/sounds and illness are not as easily learned.
Evolutionary interpretation: quick learning to avoid harmful foods enhances survival.
Important citations: Garcia & Koelling (1966).
Roscorla–Wagner model (mathematical perspective on conditioning):
Purpose: quantify the strength of an association between CS and UCS.
Core formula (simplified):
\Delta V = \alpha \beta (\lambda - V)In words: the change in associative strength V on a given trial equals learning rate factors times the prediction error (the difference between the maximum possible conditioning λ and current associative strength V).
Alternative presentation: V{new} = V{old} + \alpha \beta (\lambda - V_{old})
Implications: stronger when CS better predicts the UCS; not all potential associations are learned equally; newer formulations include more parameters for salience and surprise.
Acquisition, generalization, discrimination, and extinction in a nutshell:
Acquisition: learning of the association; CS begins to elicit CR.
Extinction: CS presented without UCS weakens CR.
Spontaneous recovery: after a rest, CR can reappear to CS.
Generalization vs discrimination: respond to similar stimuli vs distinguish between stimuli.
Classical conditioning in humans and beyond:
Baby/infant examples: babies can show conditioned responses to neutral stimuli that predict outcomes (e.g., feeding cues).
Advertising and associative learning: models (attractive model associated with a product) can alter perceptions of speed, appeal, and design; Cialdini (2008) cited.
Association and emotion: Watson’s behaviorist emphasis on conditioning emotions; Little Albert study (1920) demonstrated conditioning of fear; later recognized as unethical by today’s standards.
Everyday connections and limitations:
Classical conditioning explains many instinctive conditioned responses, but learning is not the only driver of behavior; cognition and higher-level processing interact with conditioning.
On the spectrum of learning traditions, cognition has become integrated with behaviorism in many modern accounts.
Summary takeaway: classical conditioning demonstrates how neutral stimuli can come to predict meaningful events, enabling organisms to anticipate outcomes and prepare responses.
Observational learning and social-cognitive extensions
Core idea: learning by watching others and then imitating or modeling the observed behavior.
Bandura and social learning theory (Bandura, 1961): cognition matters; observational learning extends beyond simple imitation and involves internal processing.
Models: live, verbal, and symbolic.
Steps in the modeling process:
Attention: focus on the model and the behavior.
Retention: store the observed behavior in memory.
Reproduction: physically or verbally reproduce the behavior.
Motivation: reinforcement or punishment influences whether the behavior is repeated.
Types of motivation:
Vicarious reinforcement: observed reinforcement of a model increases likelihood of imitation.
Vicarious punishment: observed punishment of a model decreases imitation.
Examples and studies:
Bobo doll experiment (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961): observed aggressive behavior by a model led to matching aggressive behavior in children; consequences for the model affected subsequent imitation.
Chimps and juice boxes: observational learning altered efficiency of juice extraction methods.
Prosocial vs antisocial effects:
Prosocial models promote socially beneficial behavior (reading with children, healthy living, kindness).
Antisocial effects: exposure to aggressive or abusive behavior can foster aggression in children; media violence may contribute to aggression in some studies (see below).
Real-world implications: parenting, education, media consumption, modeling of behavior by public figures.
Observational learning vs classical/operant conditioning:
Observational learning introduces cognitive processing (attention, memory, expectation) that influence learning beyond direct reinforcement.
Media violence and observational learning:
Some studies suggest a link between exposure to violent media and aggression (Anderson et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2015; Bushman et al., 2016).
Other researchers argue that confounding variables (mental health, family life) may account for observed associations (Ferguson, 2011; Gentile, 2016).
Ongoing debate about causation vs correlation; complexity of factors like temperament, environment, and neurobiology.
Neurobiology notes (brief): mirror neurons are implicated in imitation and modeling; the exact neural mechanisms continue to be explored.
Operant conditioning: how behaviors are shaped by consequences
Core idea: organisms learn to associate a behavior with its consequence (reinforcement or punishment).
Thorndyke’s Law of Effect (1911): behavior followed by satisfying consequences is more likely to be repeated; punished/unrewarding consequences reduce likelihood.
Skinner’s operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938): behavior is strengthened or weakened by its consequences; animal-based experiments in Skinner boxes show systematic control of reinforcement to shape behavior.
Key terms and distinctions:
Reinforcement: increases the likelihood of a behavior.
Punishment: decreases the likelihood of a behavior.
Positive means adding a stimulus; negative means removing a stimulus.
Positive reinforcement: add a desirable stimulus after a behavior to increase its frequency.
Negative reinforcement: remove an undesirable stimulus after a behavior to increase its frequency.
Positive punishment: add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior.
Negative punishment: remove a desirable stimulus to decrease a behavior.
Practical examples:
Positive reinforcement: telling a child they’ll receive a toy if they clean their room.
Negative reinforcement: car beeps until seat belt is fastened; the beeping stops when the behavior is performed.
Positive punishment: scolding a student for texting in class.
Negative punishment: removing a favorite toy for misbehavior.
Important caveats about punishment:
Can induce fear of the punisher and the situation (Gershoff et al., 2010).
Can increase aggression and antisocial behavior if used harshly or inconsistently (Gershoff, 2002).
Modern psychology tends to favor reinforcement over punishment for behavior modification.
Shaping: Skinner’s method of rewarding successive approximations toward a target behavior.
Steps:
Reinforce any response resembling the desired behavior.
Then reinforce the response that more closely resembles the desired behavior.
Continue until the exact target behavior is achieved.
Applications: teaching complex behaviors or chains of behaviors (e.g., pigeons weaving patterns or playing ping-pong).
Role of stimulus discrimination: similar to Pavlov; teach to differentiate between similar cues.
Primary vs secondary reinforcers:
Primary reinforcers: innate reinforcing properties (e.g., food, water, sleep, shelter, sex, touch).
Secondary reinforcers: acquire reinforcing value when paired with primary reinforcers (e.g., praise, money, stickers, tokens).
Token economies:
Systems that use tokens (secondary reinforcers) exchangeable for rewards; effective in schools, prisons, and mental health settings (Adib Sureshky & Abkhanaar, 2014).
Example: tokens earned for appropriate behavior exchanged for minutes of play or other rewards.
Everyday applications and implications:
Sticker charts and time-out as behavior modification tools.
Time-out: negative punishment; guidelines include removing child from desirable activity, appropriate duration (rough rule: 1 minute per year of age), staying calm, and providing a hug when time-out ends.
Reinforcement schedules (partial reinforcement):
Continuous reinforcement (every correct response): quickest way to train new behavior.
Partial (intermittent) reinforcement: four main schedule types, varying by time vs. responses and fixed vs. variable.
Schedules and their patterns:
Fixed Interval (FI): reinforcement after a set amount of time (e.g., pain relief available hourly after pressing a button).
Variable Interval (VI): reinforcement after varying time intervals (e.g., quality-control bonus that arrives unpredictably).
Fixed Ratio (FR): reinforcement after a set number of responses (e.g., commission per sale).
Variable Ratio (VR): reinforcement after an unpredictable number of responses (most powerful for maintaining high response rates; gambling is a common VR example).
Extinction in partial schedules: extinction occurs more slowly under VR than FR, VI, or FI depending on contingencies.
Gambling and the brain: variable ratio schedules can promote persistent behavior; dopamine and reward circuitry involved; near-misses also activate reward centers (ventral striatum).
Neuroscience notes: dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin implicated; gambling now considered an addiction in DSM-5 due to neurochemical similarities with drugs; causality remains debated (drug-like brain activity, effect sizes, and confounding factors).
Practical concerns and caveats:
Real-world use of reinforcement requires consideration of consequences, timing, and the learner’s values.
Punishment alone is often insufficient or counterproductive; reinforcement strategies tend to be more effective and humane.
Latent learning and cognitive maps
Tolman and cognitive processes in learning:
Tolman showed that learning can occur without reinforcement and can be demonstrated later when a reward is provided (latent learning).
Cognitive map: internal representation of the maze layout that explains efficient navigation when reward becomes available (Tolman, Ritchie, Kalish, 1946).
Implication: learning is not just a simple stimulus–response; cognition can guide behavior even without immediate reinforcement.
Everyday analogies: video game level navigation and route-learning; cognitive maps influence how we move through unfamiliar spaces.
Tolman’s challenge to strict behaviorism: learning can be latent and use cognitive representations, not just reflexive conditioning.
Observational learning in practice: prosocial and antisocial effects
Bandura’s model of social learning:
Humans learn by observing models and may imitate or modify observed behaviors.
Four types of models:
Live models: real people performing the behavior.
Verbal models: instruction or description of the behavior.
Symbolic models: characters in media (TV, books, games) that demonstrate the behavior.
Steps in modeling (Attention, Retention, Reproduction, Motivation).
Motivation includes vicarious reinforcement (increasing imitation when model is reinforced) or vicarious punishment (decreasing imitation when model is punished).
Bobo doll study (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961): exposure to an aggressive model who is punished reduces imitation; if not punished, children imitate aggressive behavior.
Prosocial effects:
Observing models who engage in positive behaviors (reading, exercising, kindness) can promote similar behaviors in observers.
Parents and public figures can serve as pro-social models to encourage positive social change.
Antisocial effects:
Observing aggression or violence, especially without consequences, can increase aggressive behavior in observers;
Claire’s example (conditioning of aggressive behaviors in a child by modeling parental violence) illustrates potential negative modeling outcomes; abuse victims may become abusive parents (Various sources cited: Morel et al., 2007; US DHHS, 2013).
Media violence debate:
Some studies show a causal link between hours of exposure to violent media and aggression (Anderson et al., 2015; 2010; Bushman et al., 2016).
Other studies emphasize the role of mediating factors (mental health, family life) and highlight limitations in proving causation (Ferguson, 2011; Gentile, 2016).
Overall: observational learning can contribute to both prosocial and antisocial outcomes depending on models and context.
Connections to foundations, ethics, and real-world relevance
The psychology of learning shows how behavior can be shaped by environment, cognition, and social context.
Applications span education, parenting, advertising, clinical settings, and public policy.
Ethical considerations:
Historical experiments (e.g., Little Albert) are now viewed as ethically problematic; contemporary research emphasizes welfare and consent.
Philosophical implications:
The balance between innate predispositions and learned behavior shapes how we understand human nature and culture.
Practical implications:
To promote learning, use positive reinforcement, design shaping plans, and leverage observational learning with positive models.
In education and parenting, emphasize consistency, timely feedback, and alignment between behaviors and rewards.
Quick reference: key terms and formulas
Key terms:
UCS, UCR, CS, CR
Acquisition, Extinction, Spontaneous Recovery, Generalization, Discrimination
Higher-order conditioning
Reflex, Instinct
Primary vs Secondary reinforcers
Token economies
Shaping
Modeling steps: Attention, Retention, Reproduction, Motivation
Live, Verbal, Symbolic models
Prosocial vs antisocial effects
Latent learning, Cognitive map
Mirror neurons (neural basis, not fully settled)
Core formulas:
Classical conditioning learning strength (simple form):
\Delta V = \alpha \beta (\lambda - V)
V{new} = V{old} + \alpha \beta (\lambda - V_{old})
Reinforcement schedules (abbreviations):
FI: Fixed Interval
VI: Variable Interval
FR: Fixed Ratio
VR: Variable Ratio
Representative empirical anchors and dates:
Pavlov: 1849–1936; neutral stimulus paired with UCS to produce CS and CR.
Watson: 1878–1958; behaviorism and Little Albert experiments (1920).
Skinner: 1904–1990; Skinner box, shaping, reinforcement schedules (1938; 1961).
Tolman: latent learning and cognitive maps (1946).
Garcia & Koelling: taste aversion and biological constraints (1966).
Bandura: social learning theory and Bobo doll (1961).
Adib Sureshky & Abkhanaar: token economies (2014).
Anderson, Gentile, Ferguson, Gentile, Kirsch, Miller, Houston, etc.: ongoing debates on media violence and aggression.
Real-world implications to remember:
Use of conditioning concepts in education, advertising, and behavior modification.
Awareness of the ethical implications and potential unintended consequences of certain methods (punishment, exposure to violence, etc.).
Notes on limitations:
Learning is multi-determined and interacts with motivation, cognition, emotion, and social context; not all learning can be reduced to simple stimulus–response chains.