Learning Theory

Question 1

what is the aim of Banduras 1961

Answer 1

To find out if children would show more aggressive behaviour if exposed to an aggressive role model and less aggressive behaviour if exposed to a non-aggressive role model. Also, to see if the sex of the role model and the child made a difference, specifically to see if the children were more likely to imitate a same sex role model and if boys were more aggressive than girls.

Question 2

what is the IV of banduras 1961

Answer 2

Bandura manipulated two sets of IVs: (1) whether the role model was aggressive or non-aggressive, (2) whether the role model was the same sex or opposite sex to the child; there was also (3) a Control condition where the children did not see a role model at all.

Bandura also studied a naturally-varying IV: (4) whether the child was male or female.

This makes the study both a lab experiment and a natural experiment. It has a Matched Pairs design because each child was only in one condition but they were matched on their level of starting aggression.

Question 3

what were the results of banduras 1961 study?

Answer 3

The children who observed an aggressive role model showed a lot of verbal and physical aggression that resembled the scripted routine the model had acted out.

There was very little aggressive behaviour in the Non-Aggressive Model condition and in the Control condition; around 70% had a score of zero for aggression. Children from the Non-Aggressive Model condition spent the most time sitting quietly.

In general, a male role model had a bigger influence than a female role model: the aggressive male model produced more aggression; the non-aggressive male model produced more calm.

Some of the more significant figures have been highlighted:
Compare the boys’ physical aggression after a male aggressive role model (average 25.8 acts) to the girls’ after a female aggressive role model (5.5)
Compare the girls’ verbal aggression after a female aggressive role model (13.7) to the boys after a male aggressive role model (12.7)
Mallet Aggression is high even for the Control group (about 13 acts on average, regardless of gender), but a non-aggressive role model reduces it to 0.5 for girls, 6.7 for boys
Even in the Control group, non-imitative aggression is higher for boys (24.6) than girls (6.1)

Question 3

what is the dv of banduras 1961 study?

Answer 3

Bandura’s observers recorded the number of verbal, physical, mallet and gun-play aggressive actions the children carried out; they also counted the number of acts of non-imitative aggression.

Question 4

what was the procedure in banduras 1961 study?

Answer 4

The basic procedure is described above.

24 children (12 boys, 12 girls) formed a Control group who didn’t watch any role model. The other 48 children were split into experimental groups of 6, each group containing 3 boys and 3 girls.
Half the children saw a same-sex role model; half saw an opposite sex role model.

Question 4

what is the sample of banduras 1961 study?

Answer 4

72 children, 36 boys and 36 girls, aged 3-5, recruited from Stanford University Nursery School.

Question 5

what were the conclusions of banduras 1961 study?

Answer 5

Bandura concludes that behaviour can be learned by imitation even if it hasn’t been reinforced (as Skinner suggested). In fact, complex patterns of behaviour can be learned through imitation without needing reinforcement for each part.

The male role model was much more influential than the female and boys’ showed a much greater tendency to engage in physical aggression. Bandura links this to cultural expectations. He suggests that even at a young age, boys and girls have learned what society expects them to behave like, based on TV, stories and family.

Verbal aggression was sex-typed, with girls imitating the female role model and boys imitating the male role model. This suggests that, if there are no strong cultural expectations, people will imitate the model they most identify with, even if the model is a stranger.

Aggressive models seem to weaken social inhibitions. You can see this by comparing the model conditions to the Control group who acted ‘naturally’. It is interesting to see how much Mallet Aggression and Gun Play went on in the Control group – presumably cultural expectations tell children they ought to play with mallets/guns in this way.

Question 6

what is the aim of banduras 1963a study?

Answer 6

To find out if children would become more aggressive if exposed to an aggressive role model in film or in a less-realistic cartoon compared to watching a live model. Bandura also wanted to test the popular idea that watching filmed aggression might be “cathartic” (making people calmer because it “vents” their aggressive feelings).

Question 7

what is the IV and DV of banduras 1963a study?

Answer 7

IV

Bandura manipulated two sets of IVs: (1) whether the aggressive role model was real, filmed or a cartoon character, (2) whether the role model was the same sex or opposite sex to the child; there was also (3) a Control condition where the children did not see a role model at all. (NB. There was no Non-Aggressive Model this time)

Bandura also studied a naturally-varying IV: (4) whether the child was male or female.

This makes the study both a lab experiment and a natural experiment. It has a Matched Pairs design because each child was only in one condition but they had been matched on starting levels of aggression.

DV

Bandura’s observers recorded the number of verbal, physical, mallet and gun-play aggressive actions the children carried out; they also counted the number of acts of non-imitative aggression.

Question 8

what was the sample and procedure of banduras 1963a study?

Answer 8

Sample

96 children, 48 boys and 48 girls, aged 3-5, recruited from Stanford University Nursery School (an opportunity sample).

Procedure

The basic procedure is described above. There was no Non-Aggressive Model condition, but an extra condition was added where children watched a film in which the female adult model was dressed as a cartoon cat, while following the script with the Bobo Doll.

Question 9

what are the results of banduras 1963a study?

Answer 9

You can see at once that the Control group carried out half as much aggression as the other groups.

However, there’s no significant difference between live models and filmed or cartoon models.
Picture
When you look into the data, the cartoon produced more non-imitative aggression (100) but less imitative aggression (24) whereas the human models were the other way around.

Because Bandura filmed this study, there is qualitative data as well as quantitative data (all the footage in the video clips you see are actually from this variation).

QUALATIVE:

The children were shocked by the aggressive female model, with one boy saying “That ain’t no way for a lady to behave!” and a girl saying “That girl… was acting just like a man!”
Boys and girls were admiring of the aggressive male role model: one boy said “Al’s a good socker, he beat up Bobo! I want to sock like Al!” and a girl said “He’s a good fighter, like Daddy!”

Question 9

conclusion of banduras 1963a study?

Answer 9

Bandura concludes that children will imitate filmed aggression in the same way as live aggressive role models.

Bandura also concludes that watching filmed violence is NOT cathartic. Instead of becoming less aggressive after watching aggressive film or cartoons, the children showed more aggression.

Bandura was surprised to see how much the cartoon role model was imitated, because he expected there to be less imitation as the role model became less realistic (because the children would identify with it less). However, the cartoon aggression seemed to weaken social inhibitions generally, because there was less imitative aggression but more non-imitative aggression in this condition.

Question 10

IV and DV of banduras 1965 study?

Answer 10

IV

Bandura manipulated two sets of IVs: (1) whether the aggressive role model (“Rocky”) was rewarded, punished or there were no consequences, (2) whether the role model was the same sex or opposite sex to the child, and (3) whether the child received no incentive or a positive incentive (reward).

Bandura also studied a naturally-varying IV: (3) whether the child was male or female.

This makes the study both a lab experiment and a natural experiment. It is a Matched Pairs design because the children saw different role models but had been matched on starting aggression. It also has a Repeated Measures design because the children were in the No Incentive condition then put in the Positive Incentive condition.

DV

Bandura’s observers recorded the number of verbal, physical, mallet and gun-play aggressive actions the children carried out; they also counted the number of acts of non-imitative aggression.

Question 10

results of banduras 1965 study?

Answer 10

Bandura doesn’t report the exact scores for this study but you can see the results in this graph.
Picture
You can see that the Model Reward condition produced about the same imitation from girls (mean 2.8) and boys (3.5) as the No Consequences condition.

The Model Punished condition produced much less imitation, especially among the girls (mean 0.5).

After Positive Incentive, the imitation increased significantly for girls and boys and is very similar across all conditions of the model, with the girls’ scores much closer to the boys’ (all >3).

Question 10

aim of banduras 1965 study?

Answer 10

To find out if children would be more likely to imitate a role model they see being rewarded (vicarious reinforcement) and less likely to imitate a role model they see being punished (vicarious punishment). He also wanted to see if the children would be more likely to imitate if they themselves were offered rewards.

Question 11

evaluation that can be used for all banduras studies:

2 strengths:

Answer 11

Bandura also used two observers behind the one-way mirror. This creates inter-rater reliability because a behaviour had to be noted by both observers otherwise it didn’t count.

g- both genders

Question 11

evaluation that can be used for all banduras studies:

2 weaknesses:

Answer 11

he main criticism of all Bandura’s studies is that they lack validity. The children were put in a strange situation, exposed to some unusual adult behaviour and given toys to play with which encouraged them to act unnaturally. For example, a Bobo Doll is designed to be hit and knocked over (it bounces back upright); children would suppose the experimenters wanted them to play with the Bobo Doll in this way. This sort of behaviour is called demand characteristics, because the participants do the stuff they think the researchers demand of them.

There are many ethical issues with Bandura’s studies. The major issue is harm and the wellbeing of participants. The children may have been distressed by the aggressive behaviour they witnessed and the aggressive behaviour they learned from the study may have stayed with them, going on to become a behavioural problem. Participants are supposed to leave a study in the same state they entered it, which may not have happened here. This is an example of what the BPS Code of Ethics calls “normalising unhelpful behaviours”.

Question 11

sample and procedure of banduras 1965 study?

Answer 11

Sample

66 children, 33 boys and 33 girls, aged 3-5, recruited from Stanford University Nursery School (an opportunity sample).

Procedure

The basic procedure is described above. There was no Non-Aggressive Model condition, but all the other conditions were filmed. The model (“Rocky”) went through a scripted routine of aggressive behaviour towards a Bobo Doll.

In the Reward condition, the experimenter arrived a praised Rocky for his “superb aggressive performance” and gave Rocky sweets, which he ate.

In in the Punishment condition, the experimenter called Rocky “a big bully” and hit him with a rolled-up newspaper.

In the No Consequences condition, nothing happened to Rocky.

The children were placed in the Observation Room for 10 minutes and secretly observed – this is the No Incentive condition.

Then they were brought juice and told they would get more juice and sticker books if they could imitate Rocky. They were asked to “show me what Rocky did” and “tell me what Rocky said.” If there was imitative aggression in response, they were rewarded straight away. This is the Positive Incentive condition.

Question 12

what is classical conditioning:

Answer 12

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
Classical conditioning focuses on STIMULUS RESPONSE, the conditioning of REFLEXES. Human reflexes include a fear response, eye blinking, knee-jerking, fear and breathing. Fear can be conditioned, as fear is a reflexive response, this can explain phobias.
Most behaviour goes beyond just a reflex so classical conditioning is quite limited.

Classical conditioning is a theory of learning that examines how a response is associated with a stimulus to cause conditioning.

A stimulus is something that produces a response, which in classical conditioning is either a reflex or an automatic behaviour. These responses to stimuli are involuntary responses i.e. showing a startle response like fear to a sudden noise.

Classical conditioning argues that there is an association between an UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS (UCS), which is a naturally occurring stimulus, and an existing UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE (UCR), which is a naturally occurring response.

Question 13

describe extinction from classical conditioning:

Answer 13

Refers to when the association (CS and CR) is no longer there, it is extinguished. So when the association is extinguished the bell (CS) will no longer cause salivation (CR). This can be achieved by presenting the UCS (food) without the CS (bell). The association between the two stops, and therefore the bell returns to being a neutral stimulus. So, the UCS of food presented without CS of bell results in CR of salivation. The CS of bell will then begin to result in no response, therefore the bell returns to original state of NS.

Question 14

describe spontaneous recovery from classical conditioning:

Answer 14

This is when, after extinction, you might find that a previously paired conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus suddenly and without reconditioning reappears for no reason. For example above, despite extinction, you ring a bell and the response of salivation occurs again.

Question 15

describe stimulus generalisation from classical conditioning:

Answer 15

Is another term of classical conditioning is stimulus generalisation, which refers to the extending of the original association between a CS and CR to include one or more similar stimulus. For example, if a dog becomes conditioned to salivate to a particular bell sound (CS), then it might generalise and salivate to some other bell sounds (CR).

Question 16

describe discrimination from classical conditioning:

Answer 16

This is the opposite of stimulus generalisation. It is when the conditioning is associated with only one specific conditioned stimulus, and only that specific CS can result in the conditioned response. For example, having a fear of pink buttons but not any other type of button shows a discrimination between the types of button.

Question 17

brief overview of pavlol 1927 salivating dogs and procedure:

Answer 17

Prior to the experiment, the dogs would salivate (UCR) in response to the meat powder food but not to the sound. During the conditioning phase the meat powder was presented at the same time as a metronome, with repeated pairings of meat powder and metronome CONDITIONING resulted.

As a result of the pairings, the NS (the metronome) had become a CONDITIONED STIMULUS (CS) capable of producing the behaviour of salivating which is a CONDITIONED RESPONSE (CR).

Procedure:

Pavlov placed each dog in a sealed room that didn’t allow the dog to see, smell or hear anything outside. This was to prevent other stimuli (extraneous variables) from making the dog salivate.

The dog was strapped into a harness to stop it moving about and its mouth was linked to a tube that drained saliva away into a measuring bottle.

In the Control Condition, Pavlov presented the dog with food (meat powder) through a hatch. The dog salivated.

As an experimental Control, Pavlov presented the dog with the Neutral Stimulus sound. The dog did not salivate at this, showing that it was indeed a Neutral Stimulus.

To condition the dog, Pavlov paired the sound with the presentation of food. He usually did this 20 times, but it depended on how attentive the dog was.

After it was conditioned, Pavlov presented the dog with the sound but no meat.

Question 18

give aim and sample of pavlovs 1927 study:

Answer 18

Aim

To find out if a reflexive behaviour can be produced in new situations through learning. In particular, to see if associating a reflex with a neutral stimulus (a sound) causes learning to take place, producing a conditioned reflex in new situations.

Sample

35 dogs of a variety of breeds, raised in kennels in the lab

Question 19

IV and DV of pavlovs 1927 study:

Answer 19

IV

This is a Repeated Measures design, since it studies the same dogs before and after their conditioning

One condition of the IV is the dogs’ natural reflexive behaviour: salivating when food is in their mouths. Other condition of the IV is the dogs’ behaviour after they have been conditioned to associate food with a different stimulus.

DV

Pavlov’s careful set-up enabled him to count how many drops of saliva the dogs produced.

Question 20

results and conclusions of pavlovs 1927 study:

Answer 20

Results

Pavlov found that the conditioned dog started to salivate 9 seconds after hearing the sound and, by 45 seconds, had produced 11 drops of saliva.
Conclusions

Pavlov had discovered Classical Conditioning. The Neutral Stimulus, after being repeatedly paired with an Unconditioned Stimulus (the meat), turned into a Conditioned Stimulus, producing the Conditioned Response (salivation) all by itself.

Pavlov explains how the brain learns to see the new sound as a “signal” and links the reflex to it. This is how animals in the wild learn to hunt or escape being hunted: they learn to apply their reflexes to new situations based on experiences they’ve had before

Question 21

2 strengths of pavlovs study:

Answer 21

Picture
EVALUATING PAVLOV AO3
GRAVE
Generalisability

The main problem here is generalising from dogs to humans.

On the one hand, the Theory of Evolution supports the idea that humans will learn through association (Pavlov calls it “signalisation”) in the same way as other animals. There is some evidence for this in the success of programmes to treat alcoholics with aversion therapy.

On the other hand, humans have different brains from dogs and much more complicated thoughts and motives. They’re not strongly motivated by finding food all the time, for example. But perhaps humans have other motives that drive them just as strongly and they can be conditioned by those.
Picture
Reliability

This is a good example of a reliable study because it has standardised procedures and it was carefully documented. In fact, Pavlov did repeat the study many times over 25 years, with different dogs and different Neutral Stimuli (but never with a bell!). He even got different researchers to observe the dog and measure the saliva. This gives the research inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability.

Pavlov’s carefully controlled setting makes his findings objective and scientifically credible. There don’t seem to be any other stimuli that could be making the dogs salivate, so Pavlov’s conclusions about conditioning seem to be the best explanation.

Question 22

2 weaknesses of pavlovs 1927 study:

Answer 22

One criticism, that Pavlov was aware of, was the low ecological validity of these studies. The dogs were kept in very unusual conditions (tied up in a harness in a box, cut off from other dogs and humans, with a drip feed attached to their mouths) and they were presented with odd stimuli. There was nothing normal about their reactions.

Ethics

If research like this was carried out today, it would be unethical. Research animals should be treated humanely, not sealed up in small rooms, tied in harnesses and subjected to surgery.

However, there were no Ethical Guidelines for Psychologists in the early 20th century.

Moreover, research into Classical Conditioning wasn’t the only, or even the main, reason why Pavlov used these dogs. His most significant research was into how digestion worked and it was for this he received the Nobel Prize for Medicine. This is research that has led to medical and dietary benefits for millions of humans (and dogs) which might be said to outweigh the discomfort or distress experienced by the 35 dogs Pavlov used over 25 years.

Question 23

2 strengths and weaknesses of classical conditioning:

Answer 23

Olson and Fazio (2001) used a laboratory study and found that classical conditioning contributes to the development of some gender-related attitudes therefore providing support for stimulus response behaviour.

Classical Conditioning can explain the acquisition of some aspects of behaviour, where a particular response is associated with a particular stimulus e.g. Gulf War Syndrome can also be explained as a learned reaction to the war environment.

Classical conditioning proposed that behaviour is the result of stimulus-response association, this is not the only explanation of human behaviour, social learning theory suggests that it is due to imitation and modelling and not stimulus-response.

There are a number of ethical issues concerning animals and their welfare over distress issues i.e. Pavlov’s apparatus was very uncomfortable, within three basic studies and therefore the results may be dubious because of the distress and discomfort experienced by these animals.

Question 24

what is operant conditioning:

Answer 24

Operant conditioning relates to learning through consequences. The idea is that if you are given a consequence for a specific behaviour you will either repeat it, or stop it.

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning because the consequences come after the behaviour whereas in classical conditioning the behaviour (reflex) comes before or at the same time as the stimulus.

Question 25

describe thorndike 1911 in terms of operant conditioning:

Answer 25

Thorndike (1911) researched reinforcement using a kitten in a puzzle box. Initially when the kitten was placed in the box it behaved randomly, however once it accidentally hit a lever that opened the door it received food.

After several trials the kitten escaped from the puzzle box faster, pressing the lever to open the door immediately – demonstrating that it had learned by trial and error.

This is Thorndike’s (1911) Law of Effect; a behaviour (pressing lever) followed by a pleasant consequence (food) tends to be repeated, while a behaviour (pressing button) followed by an unpleasant consequence (loud noise) tends not to be repeated.

Such a procedure differs from Pavlov’s classical conditioning because the cat only received the food as a consequence of performing the desired behaviour.

The increased success of the kitten opening the box for the food is shown in the graph below. The increased success of opening the box for food is LATENCY.

This reduction in LATENCY time from about five minutes to as little as five seconds over the trials indicated that the cats were learning the puzzle.

Question 26

describe skinner 1930 in terms of operant conditioning:

Answer 26

In order to test Thorndike’s ideas further and to maximize the OBJECTIVITY, ACCURACY and EASE of recording behaviour in experiments, Skinner developed a specially made chamber in which an animal, e.g. a rat or pigeon, could learn a specific response.

The apparatus, a Skinner Box, could present stimuli (known as ANTECEDENT) which allowed responses (BEHAVIOUR) to be measured and recorded. CONSEQUENCES followed the performance of a particular desired behaviour.

The antecedents (a) included lights and noises, the behaviour (B) where the animal presses or pecks at a disc and the consequences (C) were food or electric shocks.

A rat placed in a Skinner box will perform a range of behaviours, the majority of which are irrelevant to the situation. When it chances to strike the bar, perhaps by stretching up against the wall, the mechanism will release a food pellet. As this makes a ‘click’ and so the rat may investigate and find the food immediately or may only do so later.

Each time the rat hits the bar another pellet is released and as it discovers food it checks more often. The rat is thus likely to encounter the food soon after pressing the bar. Once the rat was trained to understand the purpose of the bar, Skinner then used a light to indicate when to press the bar; a green light resulted in a food pellet, a red light in an electric shock.

Food is found only after the stimulus (A) is triggered, the green light, the stimulus signals a behaviour is required, the bar-pressing (B) it is this response which is REINFORCED because it is immediately followed by the arrival of the food (C).

Question 27

describe reinforcement and punishment concepts:

Answer 27

Reinforcement refers to a consequence of a behaviour, used to encourage repetition.
Punishment refers to a consequence of a behaviour, used to prevent repetition
Positive means to receive (i.e. to add +) a consequence.
Negative means to remove (i.e. to take away -) a consequence.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DO NOT, NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL AND NEVER SHALL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIREABILITY OF THE BEHAVIOUR SHOWN! IT’S ABOUT ADDING AND TAKING AWAY (+ AND -) NOT WHETHER YOU ARE GOOD OR BAD!

Question 28

describe positive and negative reinfrocement:

Answer 28

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT is when something desired is received in response to a particular behaviour. So, if a child tidies their room, they receive (+ positive) extra pocket money. They have been positively reinforced to tidy their rooms because they desire the consequence of receiving pocket money.
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT ENCOURAGES REPETITION OF BEHAVIOUR.

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT is when something undesired is taken away in response to a particular behaviour. So, if a person does not like the loud music in a particular restaurant (undesired), they will go to a quieter restaurant because they want to remove (- negative) the loud music. They have been negatively reinforced to go to the other restaurant because they desire the consequence of removing the music.
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT ENCOURAGES REPETITION OF BEHAVIOUR.

Question 29

describe positive and negative punishment:

Answer 29

POSITIVE PUNISHMENT is when something unpleasant is received (+ positive) in response to a particular behaviour. So, a child who did not complete homework (behaviour) might be given (+ positive) detention. They have been positively punished for not doing homework because the consequence of receiving detention is undesired.
POSITIVE PUNISHMENT DISCOURAGES REPETITION OF BEHAVIOUR.

NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT is when something pleasant is removed (- negative) in response to a particular behaviour. So, a child who did not complete homework (behaviour) might have their phone taken off them, so removing (- negative) something they enjoy. They have been negatively punished for not doing homework because the consequence of removing their phone is undesired.
NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT DISCOURAGES REPETITION OF BEHAVIOUR.

Question 30

describe skinners 1948 superstition in the pigeon study:

Answer 30

Skinner et al (1968) highlighted the importance of a CONDITIONED RESPONSE – that the reinforcement should be dependent on the behaviour. This suggests that when a positive consequence follows behaviour we tend to repeat that behaviour, this repetition of behaviour happens even if it was not the actually cause of the reward.

Positive consequences that occur regardless of our behaviour are called uncontrollable reinforcers. They give rise to superstition. The behaviours that arise as a consequence of such reinforcement are called SUPERSITIOUS BEHAVIOURS.

We could expect that superstition, the belief in a relationship which does not in fact exist, to be uniquely human as we assume that animals do not have beliefs. However, Skinner designed this experiment to demonstrate that superstitious behaviours could be acquired by animals. He proposed that superstitious behaviours simply arise because they are accidentally reinforced.

The four reinforcement schedules yield different response patterns. The variable ratio schedule is unpredictable and yields high and steady response rates, with little if any pause after reinforcement (e.g., gambler). A fixed ratio schedule is predictable and produces a high response rate, with a short pause after reinforcement (e.g., eyeglass saleswoman). The variable interval schedule is unpredictable and produces a moderate, steady response rate (e.g., restaurant manager). The fixed interval schedule yields a scallop-shaped response pattern, reflecting a significant pause after reinforcement (e.g., surgery patient).

Question 31

describe the different types of reinforcement:

Answer 31

CR: Continuous Reinforcement (CR) offers a reward every time the behaviour is completed. Other schedules of reinforcement are only PARTIAL, which will ultimately affect both response rate and resistance to extinction.

Fixed interval: The reward turns up at a regular time. Desirable behaviour increases in the run-up to the reward. This happened with Skinner’s pigeons. It might happen with humans at work if there is a regular tea break or “casual Friday”. Learning is medium and extinction (learned behaviour fading) is medium.
Variable Interval: The reward turns up but you can’t be sure exactly when. An example might be the audience applauding a performer or cheering an athlete. Desirable behaviour increases more slowly but stays at a steady rate. Learning is fast but extinction is slow.
Fixed Ratio: The reward turns up every time the desired behaviour is carried out so often. Skinner’s rats got a reward every time they pressed the lever. A human might get paid for every 100 products they build. If you don’t do the behaviour, you get nothing; if you work fast, you get a lot. Learning is fast and extinction is moderate.
Variable Ratio: The reward is dispensed randomly, after a changing number of behaviours, such as feeding the rat after one lever-press, then after 5, then after 3. For humans, this might be like a slot machine because you don’t know how many times you’ll have to pay in before it pays out. Learning is fast and extinction is slow.

Question 32

describe primary and secondary reinforcers:

Answer 32

Primary reinforcers are essential to survival. They’re such stimuli as food, water, sleep and shelter. Primary reinforcers are biological. Secondary reinforcers, however, are such conditioned stimuli as money, grades or tokens for good behavior.

Question 33

describe the application of operant conditioning to gambling:

Answer 33

Skinner (1953) stated, “If the gambling establishment cannot persuade a patron to turn over money with no return, it may achieve the same effect by returning part of the patron’s money on a variable-ratio schedule”.
Skinner uses gambling as an example of the power and effectiveness of conditioning behavior based on a variable ratio reinforcement schedule. In fact, Skinner was so confident in his knowledge of gambling addiction that he even claimed he could turn a pigeon into a pathological gambler (“Skinner’s Utopia,” 1971). Beyond the power of variable ratio reinforcement, gambling seems to work on the brain in the same way as some addictive drugs. The Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery reports evidence suggesting that pathological gambling is an addiction similar to a chemical addiction. Specifically, gambling may activate the reward centers of the brain, much like cocaine does. Research has shown that some pathological gamblers have lower levels of the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) known as norepinephrine than do normal gamblers (Roy, et al., 1988). According to a study conducted by Alec Roy and colleagues, norepinephrine is secreted when a person feels stress, arousal, or thrill; pathological gamblers use gambling to increase their levels of this neurotransmitter. Another researcher, neuroscientist Hans Breiter, has done extensive research on gambling and its effects on the brain. Breiter reports that “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine”. Deficiencies in serotonin (another neurotransmitter) might also contribute to compulsive behavior, including a gambling addiction.
It may be that pathological gamblers’ brains are different than those of other people, and perhaps this difference may somehow have led to their gambling addiction, as these studies seem to suggest. However, it is very difficult to ascertain the cause because it is impossible to conduct a true experiment (it would be unethical to try to turn randomly assigned participants into problem gamblers). Therefore, it may be that causation actually moves in the opposite direction—perhaps the act of gambling somehow changes neurotransmitter levels in some gamblers’ brains. It also is possible that some overlooked factor, or confounding variable, played a role in both the gambling addiction and the differences in brain chemistry.
However, some research suggests that pathological gamblers use gambling to compensate for abnormally low levels of the hormone norepinephrine, which is associated with stress and is secreted in moments of arousal and thrill.

Question 33

describe shaping behaviout, discrimination and generalisation in terms of flexibility in operant conditioning:

Answer 33

1. SHAPING BEHAVIOUR

We shape the desired behaviour in the person of animal – this is behaviour training.

For example: there was a well know advertisement showing a squirrel running an ‘assault course’ to the Mission Impossible music. The squirrel would never, of course, have completed the whole course in one go to reach the reward of the nuts. So the behaviour had to be shaped.

You have to reinforce successive approximations. This simply means that as the required behaviour is approached, you reward until you get what you want.
Those creating the advert would have to get the squirrel to do the first bit and find the nuts. Then the nuts would be moved on, and the squirrel had to conquer another bit of the puzzle until finally it could do the whole thing. This is shaping.

In operant conditioning, stimulus discrimination refers to responding only to the discriminative stimulus and not to similar stimuli. Another example might be the type of behaviors that are appropriate in one situation but not in another

when a learned behavior is applied to another similar context.

Question 34

2 strengths of operant conditioning

Answer 34

Operant conditioning principles have been adapted into clinical therapies to help patients for example, the token economy programme involves giving rewards and tokens for desired behaviour like good table manners.

Skinner and Thorndike carried out very carefully controlled lab experiments which eliminated most extraneous variables and are easy to replicate therefore evidence to support operant conditioning is very reliable.

Question 35

2 weaknesses of operant conditioning:

Answer 35

Many studies of operant conditioning by theorists like Skinner and Thorndike studied and tested animals, and then applied the findings to humans, but because animals and humans are cognitively different the evidence and findings of these studies are not directly comparable to the behaviours of humans.

Operant Conditioning’s ideas that all behaviour is conditioned is criticised as being reductionist and fails to account for metal processes and individual free will, it believes all behaviour is passively learned from our experiences.

Question 36

describe flooding:

Answer 36

Flooding and Implosion are techniques to remove maladaptive (phobic) behaviour. According to Wolpe, they work through reciprocal inhibition. This is when two incompatible psychological states cannot occur at the same time. For example you cannot be anxious and relaxed at the same time. The therapy therefore combines psychological and biological components of the fear response.

Flooding is a technique that involves a phobic person being placed in a situation where their object of fear is present for a prolonged period of time. They have no means to remove themselves from this situation, therefore the continued exposure to the stimulus will result in the person eventually seeing it a less fear producing and their phobia reduces until it has gone. Quick and prolonged exposure to the feared stimulus facilitates extinction because the person is too physically exhausted for the conditioned response to occur, you can only be fearful for so long.

Flooding (also known as implosion therapy) works by exposing the patient directly to their worst fears. (S)he is thrown in at the deep end. For example, a claustrophobic will be locked in a closet for 4 hours or an individual with a fear of flying will be sent up in a light aircraft.

What flooding aims to do is expose the sufferer to the phobic object or situation for an extended period of time in a safe and controlled environment. Unlike systematic desensitisation which might use in vitro or virtual exposure, flooding generally involves vivo exposure.

Fear is a time limited response. At first the person is in a state of extreme anxiety, perhaps even panic, but eventually exhaustion sets in and the anxiety level begins to go down. Of course normally the person would do everything they can to avoid such a situation. Now they have no choice but confront their fears and when the panic subsides, and they find they have come to no harm. The fear (which to a large degree was anticipatory) is extinguished.

Prolonged intense exposure eventually creates a new association between the feared object and something positive (e.g. a sense of calm and lack of anxiety). It also prevents reinforcement of phobia through escape or avoidance.

Effectiveness of flooding comes from three key aspects of the therapy:
1. The feared stimulus is presented quickly to the client
2. The fear stimulus is continuously present
3. The client has no means to leave the situation.

Implosion therapy follows the same process, although the person is asked to imagine their feared stimulus. This is used in PTSD where memories are recalled rather than live exposure.

Question 37

2 strengths of flooding:

Answer 37

Flooding is based in the theoretical concept of classical conditioning and combines this with biological explanations of human fear and anxiety responses. Therefore it has strong explanations about how and why it works.

One strength of flooding is that it works much faster than other therapies such as systematic desensitisation.

use a01 for WHY!!!!

Question 38

2 weaknesses of flooding:

Answer 38

A second major concern is the ethical and moral issue of flooding techniques.
A01 needed

There’s also a danger of spontaneous recovery, when the extinguished phobia suddenly returns. This is because the flooding sessions aren’t very long and the therapy doesn’t replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response.
a01 needed

Question 39

compare systematic desensitisation to flooding:

Answer 39

The difference between flooding and systematic desensitisation is that the person has control of their relaxation stages in systematic desensitisation and they control the stages of their own fear through the hierarchy. In flooding, they do not have control as the feared object or situation is presented to them immediately and they have to endure it until they become calm.

The similarity between them is that they are both based on ideas of classical conditioning as a cause of phobias. They also both view phobias as an irrational learned response that can be unlearned once the feared stimulus has been faced and nothing ‘bad’ happened.

Question 40

describe systematic desensitisation:

Answer 40

Systematic desensitization is a therapeutic intervention that reduces the learned link between anxiety and objects or situations that are typically fear-producing. The aim of systematic desensitization is

Systematic desensitisation helps a client to overcome a fear or a phobia, and induce relaxation with the client, the client will feel their muscles in their body when they are tense and when they are relaxed they will feel the difference and know what is happening when they feel like this. After they have learned their relaxation skills themselves and the therapist will create an anxiety hierarchy. Exposure to the hierarchy stimuli can be done in two ways:
· In vitro – the client imagines exposure to the phobic stimulus.
· In vivo – the client is actually exposed to the phobic stimulus.

After they have acquired this, they will take the step further, if the client has a fear of spiders they will first get shown a picture of a spider and help them to use their relaxation skills in this situation to overcome the anxiety, once they have done this they will then move onto viewing a caged up spider, and help deal with the anxiety when in the same room as it, eventually when the client is ready they will move onto handling a spider so they can learn how to relax with a spider.

With support and assistance from the therapist the client will proceed through the anxiety hierarchy responding appropriately to the presentation to each of the fearful images or act by producing the state of relaxation. The person undergoing treatment stays with each step until a relaxed state is reliably produced when faced with each item.

As tolerance develops for each identified item in the series, the client moves on to the next. In facing more menacing situations progressively, and developing a consistent pairing of relaxation with the feared object, relaxation rather than anxiety becomes associated with the source of their anxiety.

Question 41

describe the four key processes for systematic desentisation:

Answer 41

Functional Analysis: This step involves understanding the specific fears or anxieties that the individual experiences. The therapist works with the client to identify the situations or objects that trigger their anxiety. This is a crucial step as it allows the therapist to tailor the treatment to the client’s specific needs.

Develop an Anxiety Hierarchy: Once the triggers are identified, the therapist helps the client rank these anxiety-provoking situations from least to most distressing. This hierarchy acts as a roadmap for the desensitisation process, guiding the gradual exposure to the feared stimuli.

Relaxation Training: Before exposure to the anxiety-provoking situations, the client is taught various relaxation techniques, such as deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, or meditation. These techniques are essential as they help the client manage their anxiety during exposure.

Gradual Exposure: The client is gradually exposed to the anxiety-provoking situations, starting from the least frightening according to the anxiety hierarchy. As they become comfortable with one level of the hierarchy, they move on to the next, all while employing the relaxation techniques they’ve learned. The goal is to desensitise the client to their fears by pairing the anxiety-provoking stimulus with relaxation.

Question 42

2 strengths of systematic desentisation:

Answer 42

The strengths of systematic desensitisation is that it approaches a behaviour that is related to the phobia so it is able to tackle the phobia by substituting a behaviour to replace the fear reaction.

It is a more ethical therapy than implosion or flooding as it consists of gradual exposure to the fear stimulus which is less stressful than facing the full phobia quickly and without escape.

Question 43

2 weaknesses of systematic desentisation:

Answer 43

The weaknesses for systematic desensitisation is that it just changes the behaviour that is being displayed they don’t look into any other reasons for the behaviours occurring, they may be able to relax the client in a certain situation and stop them becoming anxious at their phobia or fear, but they may of not solved all the problem.

Systematic desensitisation does not work for mental health issues other than phobias and anxiety. So issues such as psychosis cannot be treated with this therapy.

Question 44

give an overview of animal ethics:

Answer 44

1. Ethical Guidelines
   The BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals: The British Psychological Society (BPS) provides specific guidelines that researchers must adhere to when conducting experiments involving animals. These guidelines emphasize minimizing harm, ensuring proper care, and justifying the use of animals in research.
   Justification: Researchers must demonstrate that the potential benefits of the research outweigh the harm caused to the animals. The use of animals must be scientifically justified, and alternatives (such as simulations or human studies) should be considered first.
2. The 3Rs Principle
   Replacement: Researchers should seek alternatives to animal research wherever possible, such as using computer models or studying humans directly.
   Reduction: The number of animals used in research should be minimized to the smallest number necessary to achieve reliable results.
   Refinement: The methods used in research should be refined to minimize distress, pain, or harm to the animals.
3. Ethical Concerns
   Harm and Suffering: The potential for animals to experience pain, suffering, or distress is a significant ethical concern. Researchers must ensure that any harm is minimized and that animals are treated humanely.
   Speciesism: This term refers to the bias of giving different values or rights to beings based on their species. Ethical debates often question whether it is morally acceptable to use animals for human benefit.
   Necessity and Benefit: The necessity of using animals in research is a major ethical issue. Researchers must critically assess whether the knowledge gained justifies the ethical cost of using animals.
4. Legal Requirements
   Licensing and Regulation: Researchers must obtain the necessary licenses to conduct animal research and adhere to national and international laws, such as the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK. These laws regulate the use of animals in research, ensuring ethical standards are maintained.
5. Specific Examples in Psychology
   Harlow’s Monkeys (1950s): This study, which involved separating infant monkeys from their mothers, raised significant ethical concerns about psychological harm and long-term effects on the animals.
   Skinner’s Operant Conditioning: B.F. Skinner’s experiments on rats and pigeons are often cited in discussions of the ethics of animal research, highlighting the need for ethical oversight in experiments that may cause stress or discomfort to animals.
6. Debates in Animal Ethics
   Utilitarianism vs. Deontology: Utilitarian approaches justify animal research if the benefits outweigh the harms, while deontological perspectives may argue that animals have intrinsic rights that should not be violated regardless of the outcomes.
   Human Benefits vs. Animal Rights: The tension between the potential human benefits of research (e.g., medical advancements) and the rights and welfare of animals is a central debate in animal ethics.
7. Conclusion
   Researchers must balance the scientific benefits of their work with the ethical obligation to treat animals with care and respect. Ethical considerations should be a primary concern throughout the research process, ensuring that the welfare of animals is prioritized.