Learning theories Flashcards
claim of classical conditioning
behaviour is learnt through stimulus association
define unconditioned stimulus
causes an automatic or reflex response
define unconditioned response
automatic reflex response to an unconditioned response
define neutral stimulus
causes no natural reflex response
define conditioned stimulus
stimulus after being paired with an unconditioned stylus, causes a learnt conditioned response
define conditioned response
learnt reflex response to a conditioned response
define extinction
over time, the conditioned response is no longer seen to previously feared stimuli
define spontaneous recovery
where out of the blue the neutral stimulus triggers the conditioned response
define stimulus generalisation
sometimes the conditioned response will appear in response to other stimuli
supporting evidence for classical conditioning
pavlov- found that pairing a tuning fork to food made dogs salivate to the sound of the fork
opposing evidence for classical conditioning
based on animal evidence- have much simpler cognitive processes
different theory for classical conditioning
social learning theory- learning could be learnt through observation
application for classical conditioning
aversion therapy- helps alcoholics not drink alcohol
aim of pavlov
see if associating a unconditioned response with a neutral stimulus causes a conditioned response
procedure of pavlov
35 dogs
placed in soundproof chambers
wore harnesses
dogs were presented with food, salivated
dogs were presented with the tuning fork noise, didn’t salivate
pavlov paired the noise with the food
results of pavlov
11 drops of saliva produced after 45 seconds
conclusion of pavlov
if a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimuli, a conditioned response will be produced
generalisability of pavlov
animals have simpler cognitive processes, can’t generalise to humans as we are more complex
reliability of pavlov
all dogs placed in harnesses
application of pavlov
aversion therapy, helps alcoholics not drink
validity of pavlov
extraneous variables controlled in lab setting as they were put in soundproof chamber
ethics of pavlov
may have caused distress
claim of operant conditioning
behaviour is learnt through consequence
what is positive reinforcement
adding something desired to encourage behaviour
what is negative reinforcement
taking something undesired away to encourage behaviour
what is positive punishment
adds something undesired to discourage behaviour
what is negative punishment
takes something desired to discourage behaviour
what is primary reinforcement
things we need e.g. food
what is secondary reinforcement
something we value e.g. money
what is fixed interval
reward seen in regular intervals
what is variable interval
reward seen at unpredictable intervals
what is fixed ratio
reward seen at regular times in relation to behaviour e.g. after 10 repetitions
what is variable ratio
reward seen randomly in relation to behaviour
supporting evidence for operant
skinners box- rats would learn to press a lever if positively reinforced by getting food or negatively reinforced by removal of electric floor
opposing evidence for operant
animal evidence- can’t rely on it as we are much more cognitively complex
different theory for operant
SLT- we learn through imitation
application for operant
token economy programmes- when desired behaviour is seen, they get a token that they can exchange for something they want
claim of social learning theory
behaviour is learnt through the imitation of role models
four stages to SLT
modelling
identification
observation
imitation
define modelling in SLT
behaviour is modelled by a role model e.g.parent
define identification in SLT
observer needs to identify with the role model e.g. same sex
define observation in SLT
behaviour needs to be observed and paid attention to
define imitation in SLT
behaviour is imitated and then is learnt. behaviour will be repeated depending on reinforcement
four stages of observation is SLT
attention
retention
reproduction
motivation
define vicarious reinforcement
role model gets rewarded for a behaviour and this makes the observer more likely to imitate their behaviour
define vicarious punishment
when a role model gets punished for their behaviour and makes observer less likely to imitate
supporting evidence for SLT
bandura- children would imitate aggression they had watched
opposing evidence for SLT
artificial evidence- takes place in lab settings, findings might not generalise to normal settings
different theory for SLT
classical- learning is caused by stimulus association
application for SLT
watershed at 9pm to stop children imitating violent behaviours
supporting evidence for ‘can learning theories explain phobias’
cook and mineka- monkeys feared a toy snake when they watched other monkey’s being scared of it on film, explains that phobias are imitated
opposing evidence for ‘can learning theories explain phobias’
not all phobias are caused by pairing stimuli, reinforcement or imitation, meaning theories are reductionist
different theory for ‘can learning theories explain phobias’
evolution theory- maybe we have evolved to be fearful of certain stimuli. this serves as an evolutionary benefit. e.g. fear of tigers
application for ‘can learning theories explain phobias’
modelling- SLT suggests that we see role models being calm around feared stimuli, this behaviour will be repeated
claim of systematic desensitisation
phobias are caused by classical conditioning and therefore aims to treat phobias by pairing relaxation with feared stimuli
define counter-conditioning
learning to associate feared stimulus with relaxation
what is graduated exposure
introducing the feared stimuli in gradual stages, increasing in intensity
supporting evidence for systematic desensitisation
capafons- SD was used to treat a fear of flying and 90% of ppts reduced their fear of flying
opposing evidence for systematic desensitisation
some phobias are based on concepts, therefore SD can’t be used e.g. fear of aliens
different theory for systematic desensitisation
modelling- models calm response to feared stimuli may help to reduce fear by imitating this behaviour
claim of modelling
phobias are caused by social learning theory and aims to treat phobias by modelling calm responses to feared stimuli
supporting evidence for modelling
little peter- 3 yrs old and scared of rabbits. he saw other children playing with the rabbits and after watching he let the rabbit nibble his fingers
opposing evidence for modelling
depends on the type of phobias, its not practical to use for fears of concepts
aim of Watson and Rayner
to see if this learnt fear could be generalised to other stimuli
procedure of Watson and Rayner
Albert chosen as he ‘practically never cried’
no fear response to white rat/rabbit
metal pole hit- made him cry after 3rd hit
every time he touched white rat- metal bar hit- made him cry
at sight of rat- he cried and crawled away
17 days after conditioning- stimulus generalisation occurred. cried when saw a rabbit
31 days into experiment- alberts mother withdrew him
results of Watson and Rayner
alberts fear response lasted 31 days, but became weaker towards the end
conclusion of Watson and Rayner
it is necessary to repeat pairing process, some extinction of the learnt response can be seen over time
generalisability of Watson and Rayner
only 1 ppt- he had hydrocephalus- water on brain- and was an unemotional child
reliability of Watson and Rayner
standardised procedure- took place for 31 days, and times of day conditioning took place at
application of Watson and Rayner
therapies such as systematic desensitisation- pairs fear with relaxation
validity of Watson and Rayner
high level of control- Watson hid behind a curtain when hitting metal bar so Albert wasn’t scared of Watson and only the rat
ethics of Watson and Rayner
psychological harm- researchers purposely induced phobia- caused distressed.
Albert was never deconditioned as his mum withdrew him.
aim of capafons
investigate the effectiveness of systematic desensitisation as a treatment for a fear of flying
procedure of capafons
41 ppts recruited via media campaign
20 ppts in treatment group
21 ppts in control group
diagnostic scales- psychological measures e.g. heart rate and palm temp
EPAV scales- catastrophic thoughts e.g. wing falling off
treatment condition- 12-15 one hour SD sessions
created stimulation hierarchy
ppts taught breathing techniques
results of capafons
in control- no reduction in fear
2 ppts in treatment group showed no reduction in fear
conclusions of capafons
systematic desensitisation is effective for acrophobia
however, may not be effective for everyone e.g. 2 had no reduction in fear
generalisability of capafons
small sample size of 20 in treatment condition with only 1 type of phobia
individual differences affect success e.g. 2 didn’t get any better with fear
reliability of capafons
standardised measure of fear- psychological measures means can be easily replicated
application of capafons
results show systematic desensitisation is effective to reduce anxiety with acrophobia
validity of capafons
psychological measures were objective
use of control group helped establish cause and effect between fear reduction and SD treatment
ethics of capafons
control group denied treatment, however they received therapy after study
could be very distressing by rising anxiety levels
