Ch. 5

Question 1

Stimulus-Substitution Theory

Answer 1

(Pavlov’s)

the CS acts as a substitute for the US.

Pavlov was a physiologist who believed that classical conditioning was an indirect way of studying neurological processes in the brain.

Thus, he often made inferences about the kinds of neurological processes that are activated during conditioning.

Pavlov’s notions about the kinds of neurological processes underlying classical conditioning are now considered to be incorrect.

The actual processes involved are known to be considerably more complex than he presumed.

Nevertheless, this does not negate all aspects of Pavlov’s theory.

_{For example, consider the notion that the conditioned stimulus (CS) is somehow a direct substitute for the US.}

_{In at least some cases, it seems as though animals do react to the CS as if it were the US.}

_{The dog salivates to the light just as it does to food.}

_{More importantly, the dog may even approach the light and start to lick it, as though pairing the light with the food resulted in the light being perceived as edible (Pavlov, 1941).}

_{This sort of phenomenon, now known as sign tracking,}

Question 2

Stimulus-Substitution Theory examples

Answer 2

_{Pavlov claimed that presentation of a US, such as food, activates an area of the cerebral cortex (the outermost layer of the brain) that is responsible for sensing the occurrence of that event.}

_{Activation of this “food center” in the brain in turn activates another part of the cortex (the “salivation center”) that produces the unconditioned response of salivation.}

Food - >Activates food center in cortex - > Activates salivation center in cortex - >
Salivation

_{Pavlov also believed that the presentation of a neutral stimulus, such as a light, activates another area of the cortex responsible for detecting that type of stimulus. when the light is presented just before the food, a connection is formed between the area of the cortex activated by the light and the area activated by the food.}

_{As a result, activation of the light center of the cortex also activates the food center of the cortex, which in turn produces salivation.}

_{In other words, Pavlov believed that the presentation of the light set in motion the following sequence of events:}

Light -> Activates light center in cortex -> Activates food center in cortex -> Activates salivation center in cortex -> Salivation

Question 3

A particular difficulty for stimulus-substitution theory

Answer 3

is that if the CS is acting as a substitute for the US, then the CR should always be the same, or at least highly similar, to the UR.

Although this is often the case, it sometimes is not the case; in fact, there are sometimes substantial differences between the CR and the UR.

_{For example, a rat that receives a foot shock (the US) will probably jump (the UR).}

_{However, if it sees a light (CS) that has been paired with a foot shock, it will often freeze (the CR).}

_{Why would the rat jump in one instance and freeze in the other?}

_{An examination of the rat’s natural response to danger gives us a clue.}

_{If a rat is attacked by a snake, jumping straight up (and rats can really jump!) may cause the snake to miss.}

_{On the other hand, if a rat detects a snake in the vicinity, tensing its muscles and freezing will minimize the possibility of being detected or, if the rat is attacked, will enable it to jump quickly.}

_{This suggests that the purpose of the CR, rather than merely being a version of the UR, is to ready the organism for the occurrence of the US which brings us to our next theory of conditioning.}

Question 4

preparatory-response theory of conditioning

Answer 4

the purpose of the CR is to prepare the organism for the presentation of the US.

The dog salivates to the tone to get ready for food, and the rat freezes in response to the light to get ready for the
shock.

Note that in one case, the preparatory response is quite similar to the UR, whereas in the other case it is quite different.

Thus, a major advantage of preparatory-response theory is that, unlike stimulus-substitution theory, it accounts for situations in which the CR and the UR are sometimes different.

Question 5

preparatory-response theory of conditioning example

Answer 5

example of conditioned preparatory-responses involves cases in which the CR seems to be the exact opposite of the original UR. This often occurs with drug reactions.

Heroin is an opiate drug,It is an analgesic and a narcotic, meaning that it kills pain and makes you sleepy. It is highly addictive, and users report that the high associated with heroin is very powerful.

Imagine that someone always injects heroin in the presence of certain environmental cues,
such as in a particular room. Thus, regularly injecting heroin in a particular setting involves the following sequence of events:

Heroin cues: (NS) Heroin (US) - BP decreases (UR)

If this were a normal conditioning procedure, one might expect that the heroin-related cues would eventually become a CS that will itself elicit a decrease in blood pressure. But in reality, the opposite occurs.

With repeated drug use, the presence of the heroin-related cues elicits not
a decrease in blood pressure, but an increase in blood pressure!

Heroin cues: (CS) - BP Increases (CR)

Similar to opponent-process theory of emotion, certain stimuli can elicit both a primary response (the a-process) and a
compensatory response (the b-process). Thus gives way to compensatory-response model.

Question 6

compensatory-response model

Answer 6

a CS that has been repeatedly associated with the primary response (the a-process) to a US will eventually come to elicit a compensatory response (the b-process).

Why would this type of compensatory conditioning occur?

Remember how in the opponent-process theory, the compensatory reactions to a US serve to maintain a state of homeostasis (internal balance).

If these compensatory reactions start occurring before the US is presented, they will be even more effective in minimizing the disturbance produced by the US.

Conditioned compensatory responses therefore constitute an extreme form of preparatory response to certain environmental events.

Question 7

compensatory-response model example

Answer 7

Repeatedly injecting heroin does not simply elicit a response, but instead sets in motion a chain of events.

The heroin directly elicits an immediate decrease in blood pressure (the a-process) that in turn
elicits a compensatory increase in blood pressure (the b-process).

Heroin - BP decreases (a-process) - BP Increases (b-process)

In terms of stimuli and responses, the heroin is a US that naturally elicits a decrease in blood pressure, and the decrease in blood pressure is itself a US that naturally elicits an increase in blood pressure.

Therefore, the decrease in blood pressure is both an unconditioned response (UR) to heroin and an unconditioned stimulus (US) that elicits a compensatory increase in blood pressure.

Heroin (US) - BP decreases (UR/US) - BP Increases (UR)

Notice that there are two US in this sequence, with which the cues in the environment could potentially become associated: one US is the heroin and the other is the decrease in blood pressure that results from the heroin.

What happens in compensatory conditioning is that the heroin-related cues, such as being in a certain room, become associated not with the heroin itself but with the primary response to heroin that is, with the decrease in blood pressure.

As a result, these cues eventually come to elicit the compensatory reaction to that response. So the actual conditioning that takes place with heroin is as follows:

Heroin cues (NS): BP decreases (US) - BP Increases (UR)

Heroin cues (CS) - BP Increases (CR)

if the compensatory reaction to the heroin (an increase in blood pressure) can be elicited just before the injection of heroin, then the immediate physical reaction to the heroin (the decrease in blood pressure) will be effectively moderated.

In this sense, a conditioned compensatory response allows the body to prepare itself ahead of time for the onslaught of the
drug.

Question 8

Unfortunately, for many people trying to kick a habit, whether it is alcohol, cigarettes, or heroin, it is often not possible to completely avoid all cues associated with the drug.

Answer 8

For this reason, modern treatments for drug addiction often include procedures designed to extinguish the power of such cues.

For example, someone attempting to quit smoking may be required to remain in the presence of cigarettes for a long period of time without smoking.

Repeated presentations of the CS (the sight of the cigarettes) in the absence of the US (nicotine
ingestion) should result in weaker and weaker CRs (cravings for a smoke).

Of course, this process can initially be very difficult, It therefore requires careful management; however, once accomplished, it can significantly reduce the possibility of a relapse.

Question 9

The compensatory-response model also has implications for drug tolerance

Answer 9

For example, if you have a habit of always drinking in a particular setting, then the various cues in that setting people greeting you as you walk in the front door of the bar; the stool you always sit on- become CSs for the effect of alcohol.

The presence of these CSs will initiate physiological reactions that compensate for the alcohol you are about to consume.

As a result, in the presence of these CSs, you should have greater tolerance for alcohol than you would in their absence.

Amount of alcohol you consume is not, by itself, a reliable gauge for determining how intoxicated you are.

Question 10

Exceptions to the typical compensatory reactions to a CS.

Answer 10

Stimuli associated with drug use sometimes elicit drug like reactions rather than drug- compensatory reactions. In other words, the stimuli become associated with the primary response to the drug rather than the compensatory response.

There is also evidence that stimuli associated with drug use sometimes elicit both compensatory responses in one system of the body and drug-like responses in another.

Thus, the circumstances in which conditioning results in drug-like reactions versus drug-compensatory reactions are complex and not entirely understood

Question 11

Rescorla-Wagner Theory (1972).

Answer 11

Proposes that a given US can support only so much conditioning, and this amount of conditioning must be distributed among the various CSs that are present.

Another way of saying this is that there is only so much associative value available to be distributed among the cues associated with the US.

One assumption is that stronger stimuli (USs and CSs) support more conditioning than do weaker stimuli.

The theory can also been interpreted in more cognitive terms.

To say that a CS has high associative value is similar to saying that it is a strong predictor of the US, or that the subject strongly “expects” the US whenever it encounters the CS.

Question 12

Rescorla-Wagner Theory example

Answer 12

For example, the use of a highly preferred food as the US produces a stronger conditioned response of salivation than does a less preferred food.

Imagine, for example, that a tone paired with a highly preferred food (say, steak) elicits a maximum of 10 drops of saliva, while a tone paired with a much less preferred food (say, dog food) elicits only 5 drops of saliva.

If we regard each drop of saliva as a unit of associative value, then we could say that the highly preferred food supports a maximum associative value of 10 units, while the less preferred food supports a maximum associative value of 5 units.

We can use the following format to diagram the changes in associative value (we will assume the highly preferred food is the US):

Tone (V = 0 ): Food (Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Tone ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

The letter V will stand for the associative value of the CS (which at the start of conditioning is 0). The term Max will stand for the maximum associative value that can be supported by the US once conditioning is complete.

V as the number of drops of saliva the tone elicits-0 drops of saliva to begin with and 10 drops once the tone is fully associated with the food-and Max as the maximum number of drops of saliva that the tone can potentially elicit if it is fully associated with the food.

Now suppose that a compound stimulus consisting of a tone and a light are repeatedly paired with the food, to the point that the compound stimulus obtains the maximum associative value.

[Tone + Light] ( V = 0 ): Food (Max = 10 ) - Salivation

[Tone + Light] ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

This associative value, however, must somehow be distributed between the two component members of the compound.

If tone is slightly more salient than the light, then the tone might have picked up six units of associative value while the light picked up only four units. In other words, when tested separately, the tone elicits six drops of saliva while the light elicits four.

Tone ( V = 6 ) - Salivation

Light (V = 4 ) - Salivation

If the tone were even more salient than the light-for example, it was a very loud tone and a very faint light-then overshadowing might occur, with the tone picking up nine units of associative value and the light only one unit:

[Loud tone + Faint light] ( V = 0 ): Food ( Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Loud tone ( V = 9 ) - Salivation

Faint light ( V = 1 ) - Salivation

The loud tone now elicits nine drops of saliva (a strong CR) while the faint light elicits only one drop of saliva (a weak CR).

Question 13

Rescorla-Wagner explanation for the overshadowing effect

Answer 13

is that there is only so much associative value available (if you will, only so much spit available) for conditioning, and if the stronger stimulus in the compound picks up most or all of the associative value, then there is little or no associative value left over for the weaker stimulus.

Question 14

Rescorla-Wagner theory readily explains conditioning situations involving compound stimuli. Take, for example, a blocking procedure.

Answer 14

One stimulus is first conditioned to its maximum associative value:

Tone (V = 0 ): Food ( Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Tone (V = 10 ) - Salivation

This stimulus is then combined with another stimulus for further conditioning trials:

[Tone + Light] ( V = 10 + 0 = 10 ): Food (Max = 10 ) - Salivation

But note that the food supports a maximum associative value of only 10 units, and the tone has already acquired that much value.

The light can therefore acquire no associative value because all of the available associative value has already been assigned to the tone.

Thus, when the two stimuli are later tested for conditioning, the following occurs:

Tone ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

Light ( V = 0 ) - No salivation

Question 15

Rescorla-Wagner theory also leads to some counterintuitive predictions.

Answer 15

Consider what happens if you first condition two CSs to their maximum associative value and then combine
them into a compound stimulus for further conditioning.

For example, suppose we condition a tone to its maximum associative value, as follows:

Tone (V = 0 ): Food ( Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Tone ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

and then do the same for the light:

Light (V = 0 ): Food (Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Light ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

We now combine the tone and the light into a compound stimulus and conduct further conditioning trials:

[Tone + Light] ( V = 10 + 10 = 20 ): Food (Max = 10 ) - Salivation

Note that the tone and the light together have 20 units of associative value (10 for the tone and 10 for the light). However, the maximum associative value that can be supported by the food at any one moment is only 10 units. This means that the associative value of the compound stimulus must decrease to match the maximum value that can be supported by the US.
Thus, according to the Rescorla-Wagner theory, after several pairings of the compound stimulus with food, the total associative value of the compound stimulus will be reduced to 10:

[Tone + Light] ( V = 10 ) - Salivation

This in turn means that when each member in the compound is tested separately, its value also will have decreased. For example:

Tone (V = 5 ) - Salivation

Light ( V = 5 ) - Salivation

Thus, even though the tone and light were subjected to further pairings with the food, the associative value of each decreased (i.e., each stimulus elicited less salivation than it originally did when it had been conditioned individually).

This is a counterintuitive result in that one would normally expect further pairings between a CS and US to either maintain or strengthen

Question 16

overexpectation effect

Answer 16

which is the decrease in a CR that occurs when two separately conditioned CSs are combined into a
compound stimulus for further pairings with the US.

It is as though presenting the two CSs together leads to an “overexpectation” about what will follow. When this expectation is not fulfilled, the subject’s expectations are modified downward. As a result, each CS in the compound loses some of its associative value.

Question 17

Watson and Rayner’s “Little Albert”

Answer 17

The experimenters thus concluded that the loud noise was an unconditioned stimulus that elicited a fear response (or, more specifically, a startle reaction), whereas the other objects, such as the rat, were neutral stimuli with respect to fear:

Watson and Rayner (1920) paired the white rat (NS) with the loud noise (US).

The rat was presented to Albert, and just as his hand touched it, the steel bar was struck with the hammer.

In this first conditioning trial, Albert “jumped violently and fell forward, burying his face in the mattress.

He did not cry, however” He reacted similarly when the trial was repeated, except that this time he began to whimper.

The conditioning session was ended at that point.

The next session was held a week later. At the start of the session, the rat was handed to Albert to test his reaction to it.

He tentativelv reached for the rat, but quickly withdrew his hand after touching it.

Since, by comparison, he showed no fear of some toy blocks that were handed to him, it seemed that a slight amount of fear conditioning to the rat had occurred during the previous week’s session.

Albert was then subjected to further pairings of the rat with the noise, during which he became more and more fearful.

Finally, at one point, when the rat was presented without the noise, Albert “began to crawl so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table”

Albert’s reaction was interpreted by Watson and Rayner as indicating that the rat had indeed come to elicit a conditioned fear response as a result of its association with the noise.

In subsequent sessions, during which Albert occasionally received additional conditioning trials, he reportedly showed not only a fear of the rat but also of objects that were in some way similar to the rat.

Albert’s fear seemed to have generalized to objects that were similar to the original CS.

His apparent fear of the rat, and his generalized fear of similar objects, persisted even following a 30-day break, although the intensity of his reactions was somewhat diminished.

At that point, Albert left the hospital, so no further tests could be conducted.

Watson and Rayner were also unable to carry out their original plan of using behavioral procedures to eliminate Albert’s newly acquired fear response.

Thus, although Watson and Rayner (1920) speculated about the possibility of Albert growing up to be a neurotic individual with a strange fear of furry objects, there are strong reasons to believe that this did not occur.

And even if he had acquired a conditioned fear response, additional factors are usually needed for such fears to develop into a true phobia.

Question 18

Watson and Rayner’s “Little Albert” diagram

Answer 18

Loud noise (US) -> Fear (indicated by startle reaction) (UR)

Rat (NS) - >No fear (-)

Rat (NS): Loud noise (US) - Fear (UR)

Rat (CS) - Fear (CR)

Question 19

Although the Little Albert experiment is often depicted as a convincing demonstration of phobic conditioning in a young infant, this is actually highly debatable

Answer 19

For one thing, there was no control for the possibility of pseudoconditioning; that is, it is possible that during the conditioning trials, Albert was simply sensitized (upset) by the loud noise and it was this that resulted in his negative reaction to the relatively unfamiliar animals and objects he was being shown (as opposed to the specific pairing of the rat with the noise).

It also took several pairings of the rat and the noise before the rat began to elicit a fear reaction.

Albert’s fear reactions also tended to weaken considerably by the time of the next test session several days later.

By contrast, real-life phobias usually require only one pairing of the CS with the aversive US to become established, and they often grow stronger over time.

Watson and Rayner (1920) also noted that Albert was not afraid of anything as long as he was able to suck his thumb, and they had to repeatedly remove his thumb from his mouth during the sessions to enable a fear reaction to be elicited.

This suggests that any fear conditioning that might have occurred was in fact relatively weak since it was easily countered by the comfort derived from thumb sucking.

Question 20

Further support for this conclusion is provided by a modern analysis of Watson’s (1923) film, Studies upon the Behavior of the Human Infant, which includes clips of the Little Albert experiment

Answer 20

Although Albert does sometimes appear upset, many of these reactions are actually developmentally appropriate for an infant of that age.

Children at about two years of age often go through a phase in which they react fearfully to unusual or unexpected events- such as a relatively unfamiliar animal or someone wearing a face mask-an innate process that Watson would have been unaware of, since the occurrence of such a phase was only later proposed by other researchers

Question 21

Additional Factors in Phobic Conditioning

Answer 21

many people with phobias are unable to recall any particular conditioning event before the development of their symptoms.

Additionally, most people are surprisingly resilient when exposed to extremely frightening events and do not easily develop chronic fears such as seen in phobias and in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Researchers have therefore suggested several additional variables that, singly or in combination, may be involved in the development of a true phobia.

These include observational learning, temperament, preparedness, incubation, US revaluation, and selective sensitization.

Question 22

Observational Learning

Answer 22

Many phobias are acquired when observing fearful reactions in others.

This tendency to acquire conditioned fear reactions through observation may be inherited.

In such cases, a display of fear by another person can be conceptualized as an unconditioned stimulus that naturally elicits an unconditioned fear response in oneself:

Display of fear by others (US) - Fear in oneself (UR)

A neutral stimulus that is associated with this fear display might become a conditioned stimulus for fear:

Snake (NS): Display of fear by others (US)
-> Fear in oneself (UR)

Snake (CS) - Fear in oneself (CR)

The result is that a person who has had no direct confrontation with snakes may indirectly acquire a conditioned fear of snakes.

(The other way in which observational learning may be involved in fear development is through higher-order conditioning.

Question 23

Temperament

Answer 23

is one’s level of emotional reactivity, including how quickly and strongly one reacts to external stimulation.

Temperament, which is largely inherited and can differ widely across individuals, can affect how easily a conditioned response is acquired, including a fear response.

— Pavlov found that dogs that were shy and withdrawn conditioned more readily than dogs that were active and outgoing.

— Similarly, people with certain temperaments may be more susceptible than others to the development of conditioned fears.

— Even Watson, who downplayed the role of genetic influences in human behavior, acknowledged the possible influence of temperament.

— Watson and Rayner (1920) deliberately chose Albert as a subject for their experiment in the belief that his emotional stability would grant him a good deal of immunity against any harmful effects of their procedures.

Question 24

Preparedness

Answer 24

refers to an innate tendency to learn certain behaviors or make certain types of associations more easily than others.

With respect to phobias, people in general may have an inherited tendency to make aversive associations to certain types of events, such as snakes and spiders as opposed to trees and flowers.

This notion was initially proposed by Valentine (1930), who attempted to replicate Watson and Raver’s (1920) experiment with his one-year-old daughter.

He did so by blowing a loud whistle whenever she touched certain objects.

When the object she touched was a pair of opera glasses, she displayed no fear, even to the sound of the whistle.

When the object was a caterpillar, however, some fear was elicited.

Valentine also observed a two-year-old who became fearful of dogs “at slight provocation.”

He concluded that humans have an innate tendency to fear certain objects or events, such as certain animals.

Question 25

More evidence for the role of preparedness in fear conditioning includes a study by Cook and Mineka

Answer 25

They exposed laboratory-raised rhesus monkeys to videotapes edited to show another monkey reacting either fearfully or non fearfully to either a fear-relevant stimulus (a toy snake or toy crocodile) or a fear-irrelevant stimulus (flowers or a toy rabbit).

Only those monkeys who observed the model reacting fearfully to the fear-relevant stimulus acquired a conditioned fear reaction to that stimulus.

Question 26

Soares and Öhman (1993) found that human subjects developed signs of conditioned anxiety when exposed to___?

Answer 26

subliminal stimuli-pictures presented so briefly that subjects were consciously unaware of the content- -that were paired with uncomfortable levels of electric shock.

This conditioned reaction occurred when the pictures were of fear-relevant stimuli (snakes and spiders) as opposed to fear-irrelevant stimuli (flowers and mushrooms).

This result supports the notion that humans, too, may be innately predisposed to learn to fear certain types of objects and events.

Question 27

concepts of temperament vs preparedness.

Answer 27

temperament refers to differences between people in how emotionally reactive they are, which in turn affects how easily they can develop any type of phobia.

It is considered to be an important component of one’s personality.

Preparedness (as it relates to phobias) refers to differences between phobias in how easily they can be acquired.

Thus, temperament refers to how easily a certain person can acquire a phobia, while preparedness refers to how easily people in general can acquire a certain phobia.

Question 28

Incubation

Answer 28

refers to the strengthening of an already established conditioned fear response to an aversive CS (i.e., the feared object or event) as a result of repeated brief exposures to the CS by itself.

For example, a child who is bitten by a dog and then repeatedly runs away each time a dog comes near him may find that his fear of dogs grows worse even though he is never again bitten.

As a result, what may have started off as a moderate fear of dogs may evolve over time into a severe fear.

In fact, this process might even result in a conditioned fear that is stronger than the unconditioned fear that was originally elicited when the child was bitten.

It also contradicts the general rule that the presentation of the CS without the US will result in extinction.

Note, too, that covert exposures to the feared stimulus- as in worrying about it might also result in incubation.

Incubation is, of course, one reason for the old adage that if you fall off a horse you should immediately get back on; if you wait, you might later become too fearful to get back on.

Question 29

Selective Sensitization

Answer 29

which is an increase in one’s reactivity to a potentially fearful stimulus following exposure to an unrelated stressful event.

For example, people with agoraphobia (fear of being in a public place) often report that the onset of the disorder occurred during a period in which they were emotionally upset or suffered from some type of physical illness.

Similarly, an individual going through a stressful divorce might find that their usual minor anxiety about driving in heavy traffic suddenly develops into severe anxiety.

The stressful circumstance surrounding the divorce affects their reactions not only to the divorce but to other potentially aversive events as well.

Thus, during turbulent times in one’s life, minor fears and anxieties may become exacerbated into major fears and anxieties.

Question 30

Systematic Desensitization example

Answer 30

Peter, a two-year-old boy who had an extreme fear of rabbits.

Jones’s treatment strategy consisted of first feeding Peter cookies while presenting a rabbit at a considerable distance.

It was assumed that the positive emotional response elicited by the cookies would overcome the mild anxiety elicited by the distant rabbit.

Over successive sessions, the rabbit was gradually brought closer to Peter as he continued to eat cookies.

Within a few months, Peter was munching on cookies while holding the rabbit in his lap.

As a result of this gradual conditioning procedure, Peter’s fear of the rabbit was eliminated

Question 31

Wole conducted research on fear conditioning in cats exposed to electric shocks.

Answer 31

The cats displayed a strong fear of both the experimental chamber in which they had been shocked and the room containing the chamber.

A major indication of this fear was the cats’ refusal to eat while in the room (which is an example of the conditioned suppression procedure).

Wolpe then devised a treatment plan to eliminate the fear.

He began by feeding the cats in a room that was quite dissimilar from the original “shock” room.

Then, over a period of days, the cats were fed in rooms that were made progressively more similar to the shock room.

Eventually they were able to eat in the room in which they had originally been shocked.

The procedure effectively eliminated the conditioned fear in all 12 cats that Wolpe studied.

Question 32

counterconditioning

Answer 32

The procedure that Wolpe (1958) used is called counterconditioning, in which a CS that elicits one type of response is associated with an event that elicits an incompatible response.

Experimental room originally elicited a conditioned fear response because of its association with shock.

Later, the room elicited a conditioned positive emotional response after it had become associated with food.

Question 33

reciprocal inhibition

Answer 33

Wolpe proposed that the underlying process in counterconditioning is reciprocal inhibition, in which the occurrence of one response can be inhibited by the simultaneous occurrence of an incompatible response.

Thus, the positive emotional response elicited by food inhibited the cats’ anxiety because the two responses countered each other.

Question 34

Wolpe (1958) began to ponder ways of applying this treatment procedure to human phobias.

Answer 34

He toyed with other types of responses that might counter anxiety, such as anger and assertiveness (i.e., the client was taught to act angry or assertive in situations that were normally associated with fear), but finally hit upon the use of deep muscle relaxation.

Deep muscle relaxation is largely incompatible with the experience of anxiety making it ideal from Wolpe’s perspective as a tool for counterconditioning.

Woloe also realized that real-life exposure to a phobic stimulus was impractical in many treatment scenarios.

For example, it would be extremely difficult to expose a person with a fear of thunderstorms to a succession of storms that are made progressively more frightening.

To solve this dilemma, Wolpe decided to have the patient simply visualize the feared stimulus.

A series of visualized scenarios could then be constructed that would represent varying intensities of the feared event.

One drawback to this procedure is that the counterconditioning occurs only to the visualized event, and it will then have to generalize to the real event.

Nevertheless, if the visualization is fairly vivid, the amount of generalization to the real world should be considerable.

Question 35

systematic desensitization

Answer 35

is a behavioral treatment for phobias that involves pairing relaxation with a succession of stimuli that elicit increasing levels of fear.

The three parts of the procedure are as follows:

1. Training in relaxation. An abbreviated version of Jacobson’s (1938) deep muscle relaxation procedure is commonly employed for inducing relaxation, but other methods such as meditation or hypnosis have also been used.
2. Creation of a hierarchy of imaginary scenes that elicit progressively intense levels of fear.

Experience has shown that about 10 to 15 scenes are usually sufficient, starting with a scene that elicits only a minor degree of fear and finishing with a scene that elicits a tremendous amount of anxiety.

3. Pairing of each item in the hierarchy with relaxation.

Starting with the least fearful scene in the hierarchy, the person is asked to visualize the scene for about 10 to 30 seconds and then engage in a short period of relaxation.

This process is repeated until the first scene no longer elicits anxiety, at which point the process is carried out using the next scene.

By the time the top item in the hierarchy is reached, most of the person’s fear will have been eliminated, leaving only a residual amount of fear to what was once an intensely fearful scene.

The fear response to this final scene is also eliminated, at which point it is quite likely that they will now feel significantly less anxious when confronted with the phobic stimulus in real life.

Question 36

In vivo desensitization

Answer 36

Although Wolpe (1958) emphasized, mostly for convenience, the use of imaginary stimuli (the procedure then being referred to as imaginal desensitization), the treatment can also be carried out with real stimuli.

This version of desensitization is sometimes referred to as in vivo desensitization.

in vivo desensitization usually makes use of relaxation to counter the person’s fear response.

In vivo desensitization has an obvious advantage in that one does not have to worry about whether the treatment effect will generalize to a real-life stimulus because one is already working with a real-life stimulus.

A drawback, however, is that in severely phobic clients even minor amounts of the real stimulus might elicit tremendous amounts of anxiety.

In such cases, it might be wise to first use imaginal desensitization to eliminate much of the fear, and then switch to in vivo desensitization to complete the process.

Question 37

Who is system desensitization and in vivo desensitization good for?

Answer 37

It tends to be very effective with patients who have relatively few phobias that are highly specific in nature (e.g., a fear of spiders).

By contrast, people diagnosed with social phobias, who tend to experience a generalized fear of many different social situations, do not respond as well to this form of treatment.

Additionally, when using imaginal desensitization, the client must be able to clearly visualize the feared event and experience anxiety while doing so.

Unfortunately, some individuals are unable to visualize clearly, or they feel no anxiety even with clear visualization. In these cases, in vivo desensitization is the better alternative.

Question 38

Eysenck’s idea on systematic desensitization

Answer 38

Wolpe (1958) assumed that systematic desensitization is a counterconditioning procedure that works through the process of reciprocal inhibition.

However, some researchers (e.g., Eysenck) have claimed that systematic desensitization is simply a matter of extinction in which a CS is repeatedly presented in the absence of the US.

From this perspective, systematic desensitization for a dog-phobic individual works simply because it involves repeated presentations of dogs (or images of dogs) in the absence of anything bad happening, with the relaxation actually being irrelevant.

relaxation is not always needed for the treatment to be effective; gradual exposure to the feared stimulus is by itself often sufficient.

Overall, it may well be that both extinction and counterconditioning are often involved.

Question 39

Flooding therapy

Answer 39

a behavioral treatment that involves prolonged exposure to a feared stimulus, thereby providing maximal opportunity for the conditioned fear response to be extinguished.

This method can be contrasted with systematic desensitization, in which exposure to the feared stimulus not only occurs gradually but also involves pairing the feared event with a response that will counteract the fear (such as relaxation).

Flooding is more clearly based on the principle of extinction as opposed to counterconditioning.

Duration of each exposure, whether in vivo or imaginal, be sufficiently long, otherwise, the fear may not be extinguished or, worse yet, become stronger.

Two basic types of flooding procedures.
1. imaginal flooding
2. in vivo flooding

One concern with any type of flooding therapy is that the stress involved may result in medical complications.

— psychiatric disorders —> could experience exacerbation of their fears.
— clients with PTSD

Question 40

imaginal flooding

Answer 40

client is asked to visualize, as clearly as possible, a scenario involving the feared event.

The greater the level of fear induced by the visualized scenario, the better.

Although the level of fear during visualization may initially increase, it should eventually begin to decrease.

Once the fear response to one scenario has been extinguished, the fear response to other scenarios can be similarly extinguished.

After extinction has occurred within several scenarios, the client will likely experience considerably less fear when encountering the feared event in the real world.

Question 41

In vivo flooding

Answer 41

which consists of prolonged exposure to the actual feared event.

As with in vivo desensitization, in vivo flooding is advantageous because it does not require the treatment effect to generalize from an imagined encounter to a real encounter.

It is also not dependent on a person’s visualization ability.

On the other hand, in vivo flooding can be highly aversive and cannot be used with some types of fears, such as house fires, that are impossible to replicate in a therapy setting.

Question 42

exposure-based treatments or exposure therapies

Answer 42

are now considered the treatment of choice for phobic disorders.

Several variations of these approaches have been devised, which often combine aspects of Systematic desensitization and flooding, along with additional processes, such as observational learning.

Question 43

exposure-based treatments or exposure therapies example

Answer 43

For example, Öst (1989) described a method for rapidly eliminating specific phobias, such as a specific fear of spiders, in a single session.

The major component of the treatment package was an in vivo exposure procedure in which clients were encouraged to approach the feared object as closely as possible, remain there until the anxiety faded away, and then approach the object even more closely.

This process continued until the client had closely approached the object and had experienced at least a 50% reduction in their reported level of fear.

Note that this exposure procedure is similar to systematic desensitization in that it is somewhat gradual, and similar to flooding in that the client is encouraged to endure a fairly intense level of anxiety each step of the way.

Question 44

Participant modeling (or contact desensitization)

Answer 44

Throughout the procedure, most clients were accompanied by the therapist, who acted as a model to demonstrate how to interact with the feared object (such as how to use a jar to capture a spider).

The therapist also helped the client physically contact the feared object for example, by first touching the object while the client touched the model’s hand, then touching the obiect while the client also touched the obiect, and then gradually removing their hand while the patient continued touching the object.

Question 45

Aversion therapy

Answer 45

is a treatment procedure that reduces the attractiveness of a desired event by associating it with an aversive stimulus.

For example, the taste of alcohol has sometimes been paired with painful electric shocks.

An alternative version which is similar to Pliny’s treatment in that it makes use of stimuli associated with ingestion- involves pairing the taste of alcohol with nausea.
_{client is first given an emetic, as nausea develops, client takes a mouthful of alcohol. Procedure repeated several times, with the type of alcohol being varied across trials to ensure generalization.}

_{Research has shown that such nausea-based treatments are more effective than shock-based treatments, presumably because we have a biological tendency (i.e., a preparedness) to quickly associate nausea with substances that we ingest}

Question 46

covert sensitization.

Answer 46

Aversion therapy is sometimes carried out with the use of imaginal stimuli rather than real stimuli.

As with imaginal desensitization, the effectiveness of this procedure is dependent on the client’s ability to visualize images clearly and to experience strong feelings of revulsion in response to these images.

The treatment effect also has to generalize from the visualized event to the real event, which, as in imaginal treatments for phobias, is likely to result in some loss of effectiveness.

Thus, covert sensitization will likely be somewhat less effective than aversion therapy, which utilizes exposure to the actual stimulus.

Question 47

relapse prevention training

Answer 47

In which the person learns to identify and cope with situations in which there is a high risk of resuming the problematic behavior.