Conditioning and Cognition P1 Flashcards
Two Approaches to test conditioning being independent of explicit cognition
- Evidence of conditioning in the absence of cognition (awareness) - non conscious learning
- Circumstances in which conditioning and cognition make opposing predictions - expect one thing but react in a different way
Rationale behind learning without awareness
If high order cognition is responsible for conditioning it should be impossible to do it without cognition.
Thus awareness of the contingency between the CS and US should be critical for conditioning to occur
Presence of conditioning without awareness would falsify this hypthesis
Eyeblink conditioning explain
tone + air puff in eye - blink
Eventually tone alone will lead to blink
(normally have to mask conditions)
Some eyeblink conditioning experiments suggest…
Awareness is unnecessary provided US immediately follows CS+
Unaware subject still shows differential condtioning
Clark and Squire (1998) delay vs trace conditioning
Delay - followed straight after
Trace - gap before delivery
Delay conditioning independent of awareness, trace reliant on awareness of conditioning
Delay also works for amnesic patients
Limitations of Clark and Squire
Awareness test is very complex (true false questionnaire).
- Quite a few of the items are not relevant to contingency
- Arguably confusing questions, if you don’t understand question biased results
- Replicability issues - Lovibond et al. found different results
- Unaware participants, as a group, are actually above chance on awareness test.
Criticisms for measuring awareness
- Ambiguous measures
- Lack sensitivity
- Test inappropriate information
- Fail to test all appropriate information
- Are too demanding on retrieval process
What have been the findings of reviews to do with conditioning without awareness?
- Still no convincing evidence
Not due to a lack of studies showing learning
Mainly criticisms relate to problems in valid measurements of awareness
Rationale for process dissociation Approach
Even if conditioning requires awareness, it may involve processes that form association automatically and/or processes that elicit behavioural tendencies automatically
If so all learning tasks potentially involve automatic and control processess
In some circumstances, these processes may elicit opposite tendencies (contributions can be measures)
Advantage relative to learning without awareness: researcher doesn’t have to prove the absence of conscious cognition
Grings et al 1973: instructions after conditions
Electrodermal Conditioning - immediate reversal of SCRs
Reversal instructions of safe vs dangerous, response completely reveses
Suggestion that CR may be completely controlled by the subject’s expectation of the US
Dictated by top down influences
The Perruchet gambler’s fallacy Effect
Eyeblink conditioning
Capitalises on a cognitive fallacy about “random” events that produces a pattern of expectancy that differs from experience
(heads followed by a tails)
CS = tone US = airpuff (partial reinforcement)
Perruchet Findings on responses
more reinforcement in a row leads to more responding, more non reinforcements in a row leads to less responding
Perruchet findings on expectation of next trial
More reinforcement in a row less likely they thought it would occur again
(roulette)
Reverse association!
Expectancy and associative strength of Perruchet summary nice
Runs of CS-US pairings decrease conscious expectancy but increase CRs
Runs of CS-only trials increase expectancy but decrease CRs
Other than eye blink test what else is dissociation found in?
Voluntary speeded responses to a visual US cue (high level of conscious control)
Faster to respond but expect it not to come less
