C.C, Pavlov, Watson and Raynor Flashcards
P1: Classical Conditioning (C.C)
Evaluate C.C as an explanation of human behaviour
- Learning by association
- Assumes learning is passive, based on reflex (automatic) behaviours that all humans and animals possess
- Involves repeatedly pairing a new stimulus with an existing stimulus-response link, learn to associate two stimuli and respond to both in similar ways
UCS -> UCR
UCS + NS -> UCR = repeated pairings to form an association
CS -> CR
Unconditioned Response (UCR) = unlearned, natural, automatic response
Neutral Stimulus (NS) = environmental stimulus that does not lead to a response prior to an association being formed
Conditioned Response (CR) = behaviour in response to a learned stimulus
AO3 ‹+› Watson and Raynor (S.E) - used C.C to condition Little Albert to fear a white rat through repeated pairing with a clang of a steel hammer on a bar to produce a conditioned fear response, supports C.C, able to pair a white rat (previously NS) with the loud noise (UCS) to produce fear (CS) so it can explain the acquisition of fear in humans
AO3 ‹-› most studies involve animals (Pavlov - salivation(CR) in response to a metronome (CS)), findings may not be generalisable to humans and how they form associations during learning, extrapolation of findings from animals to humans could reduce credibility when explaining the acquisition of human behaviour
P2: Classical Conditioning (C.C)
Evaluate C.C as an explanation of human behaviour
- Stimulus Generalisation = a stimulus similar to the CS produces a CR
- Stimulus Discrimination = learning may only occur in response to a specific stimulus
- Extinction = loss of the CR when the CS is continually presented without the UCS, association between the two stimuli is lost
- Spontaneous Recovery = if the UCS and previous CS are paired again, the association can reappear
AO3 ‹+› U.A. development of therapies for phobias, systematic desensitisation (SD), learn to associate relaxation with a phobic object, proof through Capafóns and aviophobia (treatment effective for 90% of patients), useful to help psychologists develop ethical treatments that are suited to individual patients
AO3 ‹-› cannot explain instances of fear where the individual has not encountered the NS with the UCS to form an association
Alt Exp: SLT - phobias a result of observing and imitating role models (ARRM e.g. spider), C.C cannot be applied to a wider range of learned behaviour where SLT may be more a more suitable explanation
Conclusion: Classical Conditioning (C.C)
Evaluate C.C as an explanation of human behaviour
AO3 ‹+› increases scientific credibility, concerned with investigating observable and measurable behaviours not internal, mental processes
AO3 ‹-› simplifies complex human behaviour to being a result of a stimulus-response link, ignores cognitive factors and genetic predisposition towards specific behaviours - reductionist
P1: Pavlov (1927)
- Aimed to explore how salivation became associated with neutral stimuli unrelated to food and the properties of this association
- Conducted invasive procedures on 35 dogs to re-route salivary ducts so he could accurately observe and measure the volume of saliva produced in response to various stimuli, including a ticking metronome
- Procedure conducted in a soundproof chamber in a laboratory
- Dogs were harnessed and food was delivered through a hatch
AO3 ‹+› use of controls, soundproof chamber - they weren’t distracted by outside noise, screen - prevent them from seeing the food, minimises the impact of extraneous variables, increases internal validity (salivation in response to CS only)
AO3 ‹-› laboratory - unnatural setting, unable to see the food, movements restricted by the harness -> volume of saliva produced and the extent of the conditioning may not be representative of conditioning in a real-life settings (home) = low ecological validity
P2: Pavlov (1927)
- Established a baseline by measuring the volume of saliva produced in response to the metronome (NS)
- Paired the metronome (NS) with the food (UCS) approx. 20 times
- Varied the presentation of the NS
- Forward conditioning - NS before UCS
- Backward conditioning - NS after UCS
- Found that forward pairings of the UCS and NS elicited salivation after the NS was presented for a few seconds
- After conditioning, the metronome was the CS and salivation was the CR
- Results - salivation started by 9 seconds and 11 drops were collected after 45 seconds
AO3 ‹+› standardised procedure, pairing of NS with UCS approx. 20 times before NS was presented alone, able to replicate, check consistency of results, increase reliability
AO3 ‹-› use of 35 dogs (not humans) who have structurally different brains, results are being extrapolated from dogs to humans but results may not be representative of stages of C.C in humans and how they form associations, limits generalisability
Conclusion: Pavlov (1927)
AO3 ‹+› U.A. used to develop therapies to treat addictions, aversion therapy for alcohol addiction involves using Disulfiram to form an association between nausea and alcohol to reduce drinking
AO3 ‹-› can be used for social control, Barlow used C.C to treat homosexuality - 50% changed their sexual orientation, has ethical and moral implications (could promote prejudice and discrimination towards minority groups)
Classic Study: Watson and Raynor (P1 - AO1)
- Watson & Raynor (1920)
- Aimed to see if they could condition an emotional reaction in a 9-11 months old baby through classical conditioning
- Laboratory experiment, John Hopkins University , 9 month old healthy baby (Little Albert)
- Three phases: preconditioning testing, conditioning trials, post conditioning test
- Preconditioning testing:
- Little Albert’s response to several stimuli was noted (white rat, loud noise, monkey, burning paper)
- To establish any pre-existing fears, only showed fear response towards the loud noise, no averse response to other stimuli
Learning Theories (P1 - AO3)
AO3 ‹+› established a baseline of Little Albert’s phobic responses before the conditioning trials (e.g.), allows for comparison between the phases, replication, increase reliability of findings into the classical conditioning of humans
AO3 ‹-› use of a baby (small sample) who they claimed was ‘healthy’ and ‘normal’, later suggested he had hydrocephalus from birth and he was selected due to his unemotional character, not representative of ‘normal’ children so results may lack generalisability, illness may reduce validity of results
Learning Theories (P2)
- Conditioning trials:
- Albert was presented with the white rat, every time he tried to touch it a loud noise was made
- Process was repeated many times over several weeks
- Post conditioning test:
- Shown the white rat on its own and they monitored his reaction
- After several trials, he began to lean away from the rat and started to cry
- 7 weeks later, he cried in response to several similar stimuli (a furry collar) - stimulus generalisation
- Concluded that it was possible to produce a fear response in a human using classical conditioning
AO3 ‹+› use of strict controls during the experiment (timing of hitting the metal bar when Albert was presented with the white rat), replicable, check the consistency of the findings, increase reliability
AO3 ‹-› doesn’t reflect how people acquire phobias in everyday life, fear of dogs may be due to previously being bitten by a dog, not because they heard a loud noise, results into acquisition of fears cannot be generalised to situations outside of the lab, low ecological validity
Learning Theories (Conclusion)
AO3 ‹+› Led to the development of therapies such as systematic desensitisation where a phobic object is paired with a relaxation response, effective treatment
AO3 ‹-› Violates ethical guidelines as Little Albert was removed from the experiment before they could remove the fear, left the experiment in a different emotional state compared to when he entered
