Learning Theories Pack One - Classical Conditioning Flashcards
nature or nurture
nurture - behaviours are learnt after birth
due to environental factors
summary
scientific cause and effect
scientific credibility suport psychology as a science
practical aplications eg therapies
pavlov -
beleived that dogs had learnt a new behaviour they previosly did not have
proposed that the dogs would salivate (unconditioned response ) when they see food (unconditioned stimulus) and this could therefore be paired withanother stimulus (conditioned stimulus) in order to new behaviour (conditioned response )
35 dogs different breed raisd in kenels from the labs
sealed room diddnt allow dogs to see or hear or smell anything
linked to a tube thet drained saliva away and measured it ns - metranoe fork
20 times
confirmed that the dogs learned to assosiate the sound cs with the food ucs and would therefore salivate when they heard the sound.
9 secs after metranome by 45 secs 11 drops of saliva
secondary conditioning - with buzzer
different dogs different results
conclude that environmental stimuli that previosly had no relation to the reflux action could through pairing trigger a salvation respons
extinction
assossiation can simply disapear
if pairing is separated so learned response is no longer cariiedout
spontaneous recovery
after extinction the assosiation recurs for no specific reason
suddenly produces responce peviously condidtioned
stimulus generalisation
tendancy for the cs to produce the same behaviour to a similar situaton
eg condition stimulus for fear of dogs to toy dogs or picture of dogs
evidence in support of classical conditioning
pavlov 1927
watson and rayner 1920
methodology of classical condtioning
scientifically credible
empirical evidence controlled experiments
directly observable
used animals so hard to generalise to humans
reductionist - incomplete explanations
applications of classical condidtioning
aversion therapy and systematic desensitisation
alternative theories
social learning heory - also uses cognitions
evidence against
deterinistic does not allow for any degree of free will
classicla study
watson and rayner 1920
aim - wether they could condition fear of an animal by simultaneously presenting the animal and striking a steel bar to make noise to frighten the child
wether the fear would transfer to other animals and objects
the effect of time on a conditioned response
strengths of watson and rayner 1920
reliability simple weel documented
standerdised procedured
easy to replicate
applications - proved fear can be learnt so it can als be unlearnt
eg therapied - systematic desinsitisation
validity scientific carriedot in lab conditions high levels of control
weaknesses of watson and rayner 1920
generalisability
one individual - young child 9 moths - not representative of population eg can generalsise to aduts
ecological validity - lab experiment controlled conditions queit small room nt where most babies learn
not representative of real life
ethics couldnt consent although mother did for him
was emotionaly harmed as little albet was frighteed
what is classified as a phobia
the fear of the objest has to be marked and persisstent wich affects persons everyday functioning life
exposure to the phobic stimuls almoost provokes an immediate anxeity respose - cryigng running awa
the object / situation is avoided
present for atleast 6 moths
