Mazur Chapter 7: Avoidance and Punishment Flashcards
Avoidance Paradox
How can the nonoccurrence of an event (shock) serve as a reinforcer for the avoidance response?
This led to the development of the two-factor theory
Problems with the two-factor theory
Fear should be greatest when avoidance responses are the strongest, since fear is supposedly what motivates the avoidance response
However, observable signs of fear disappear as subjects become more experienced in avoidance tasks
Dinsmoor proposes that it is not necessary to assume that the CS produces fear – we only need to assume that the CS has become aversive
Extinction of Avoidance Behavior
Avoidance responding should gradually deteriorate after a series of trials without shock
However, avoidance behaviors are extremely resistant to extinction
One factor theory and cognitive theory were developed to understand this complexity
One-factor theory
There is no need to assume that escape from a fear-eliciting CS is the reinforcer for an avoidance response
Avoidance of a shock can in itself serve as a reinforcer
Sidman Avoidance Task, aka Free-Operant Avoidance:
Rats learned to press a lever to avoid shock
Classical Conditioning proponents’ response: passage of time served as the CS
Shock Frequency Reduction Theory
Another way of referring to the one-factor theory, based on the work of Herrnstein and Hineline:
Rats learned to a press lever that decreases frequency of shock, for 30% to 10%
Pressing the lever did not ensure any shock-free time
Reduction in shock frequency is the reinforcer–there is no need to assume that fear or aversion to a CS controls the avoidance response
- Animals can learn an avoidance response when neither an external CS nor the passage of time is reliable signal for shock
- To master this task, animals must be sensitive to be average frequencies when they respond and when they do not respond
Cognitive Theory of Avoidance
Seligman and Johnston (1973)
Animals’ behavior can only change in avoidance task if there is a discrepancy between expectancy and observation
As the trials proceed, the animal gradually develops the expectations that
1. No shock will occur if it makes a certain response
- Shock will occur if it does not make the response
Once these two expectations have been formed, the animal’s behavior will not change until one or both of the expectations are violated
This can explain the slow extinction of avoidance behavior:
Only on a trial without an avoidance response can the animal observe an outcome (no response leads to no shock) that is inconsistent with its expectations
The Procedure of Response Blocking (Flooding)
Extinction can be speeded up by using a procedure called response blocking, or flooding
Response blocking involves presenting the signal that precedes shock and preventing the subject from making the avoidance response
Species-Specific Defense Reactions
Animals exhibit a type of preparedness in avoidance learning
SSDR’s fall into 3 categories :
fight
flight
freeze
The preparedness does not involve a stimulus-stimulus association, but rather the propensity to perform certain behaviors in potentially dangerous situations
Bolles called these innate behavior patterns species-specific defense reactions (SSDR’s), and rejected the two-factor theory of learning [“no owl hoots or whistles 5 seconds before pouncing on a mouse”]
Difference between One-Factor Theory and Cognitive Theory
Cognitive theory: change in expectations
One-Factor Theory: changes in discriminative stimuli
Flooding As Behavior Therapy
Treatment for phobias
Differs from Systematic Desensitization which uses a hierarchy of fearful aversive stimuli
Flooding–*No Hierarchy–start immediately with a highly feared stimulus and force the patient to remain in the presence of the stimulus until the patient’s external signs of fear subside
Tx for OCD, PTSD (prolonged exposure therapy)
Learned Helplessness
Repeated exposure to aversive events that are unpredictable and out of the organism’s control can have long-term debilitating effects
Expectation is formed that behavior has little effect on their environment
This expectation may generalize to a wide range of situations
Learned Optimism
Seligman’s proposed method to combat learned helplessness
Cognitive therapy that involves thinking about bad situations in more positive ways
Methods to Combat Learned Helplessness
Helpless dogs are guided across the barrier for enough trials, they will eventually start making a response on their own
Seligman suggests that the best treatment is to place the subject in a situation where it cannot fail
Expectation gradually develops that behavior has some control over the consequences
Punishment, general
Punishment produces a decrease in behavior
Thorndike and Skinner concluded that punishment is not the opposite of reinforcement
Skinner concluded that the effects of punishment are not permanent that punishment produces only a temporary suppression of responding
View of Punishment Contrary to Thorndike and Skinner
Reinforcement produces an increase in whatever specific behavior is followed by the positive stimulus
Punishment produces a decrease in the specific behavior that is followed by the aversive stimulus
In both cases we can expect the changes in behavior to persist as long as the reinforcement or punishment contingency remain in effect
Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Punishment
Manner of Introduction
Immediacy of Punishment
Schedule of Punishment
Motivation to Respond
Reinforcement of Alternative Behaviors
Punishment As a Discriminative Stimulus
Manner of Introduction
Punishement should be introduced at its full intensity
Punishment may have little or no effect on behavior if it is only gradually approached through successive approximations
Immediacy of Punishment
The more immediate the punishment, the greater the decrease in response
Schedule of Punishment
Azrin and Holtz concluded that the most effective way to eliminate the behavior is to use punishment after every response rather to use an intermittent schedule of punishment
This finding bolsters the argument that punishment is the opposite of reinforcement in its effects on behavior
Reinforcement schedules produce an accelerating pattern, the schedule of punishment produces a decelerating pattern
Motivation to Respond
Effectiveness of a punishment procedure is inversely related to the intensity of the subjects motivation to respond
i.e. the more someone wants to do something, the less likely punishment will prevent them
Reinforcement of Alternative Behaviors
Punishment is much more effective when the individual is provided with an alternative way to obtain the reinforcer
E.g. – to eliminate some unwanted behavior such as fighting among children, therapist almost always pairs the punishment with reinforcement for an alternative behavior that is incompatible with unwanted behavior, such as cooperative play
Punishment As a Discriminative Stimulus
Punisher can also be a discriminative stimulus – predicting the availability of other stimuli, either pleasant or unpleasant
Azrin and Holz suggested that similar explanations may account for some instances of self injurious behaviors
Because self injurious behaviors often bring reinforcers of sympathy and attention, the aversive aspects of this type of behavior (pain) may serve as discriminative stimuli that reinforcement is imminent
Disadvantages of Using Punishment
Emotional effects such as fear and anger that are generally disruptive to learning and performance
e.g punishing a student for their mistakes can backfire
Punishment can sometimes lead to a general suppression of all behaviors, not only the behavior being punished
e.g telling the student “that was stupid question” reduces all questions, not just “stupid” questions
Punishment demands continual monitoring behavior
Individuals may try to circumvent the rules escape from the situation entirely
Punishment can lead to aggression against the punisher or whomever happens to be around
In institutional settings, people who must actually implement a behavior modification program may be reluctant to use punishment
Negative Punishment
The possibility of losing a reinforcer can have strong effects on behavior
Omission procedures are most effective if the omissions occur immediately after the undesired behavior – every time the behavior occurs
Behavior Decelerators in Behavior Therapy
A behavior decelerator refers to any technique that can lead to a slowing, reduction or elimination of unwanted behaviors
Positive Punishment
Punishment of Voluntary Behaviors
Punishment of Involuntary Behaviors
Negative Punishment – Response Cost and Timeout
Overcorrection
Extinction
Escape Extinction
Response Blocking
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior
Stimulus Satiation
Response Cost
The loss of tokens, money, or other conditioned reinforcers, decrease reoccurrence of undesirable behaviors
Time Out
The most common form of negative punishment
One or more desirable stimuli are temporarily removed the individual performs some unwanted behavior
Overcorrection
Several repetitions of an alternate, desirable behavior
It involves two parts:
- Restitution – making up for wrongdoing
- Positive practice – practicing a better behavior
Extinction
If it is possible to remove reinforcer, the behavior should eventually disappear through simple extinction
E.g. removing attention
However, extinction is slow, especially if behavior has been reinforced in the past
Sometimes there’s an increase relative to decrease the beginning of the extinction process
E.g. temper tantrums get worse before they decrease in frequency
Escape Extinction
Used when undesirable behavior is maintained by escape from a situation the individual does not like
E.g. the caregiver does not allow the child to escape the situation until the child eats
Response Blocking
Physically restraining individuals to prevent the inappropriate behavior
This is for behaviors that are too dangerous and destructive to wait for extension to occur
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior
Extinction of inappropriate behaviors, combined with reinforcement of more appropriate behaviors
E.g. psychiatric hospital – staff ignored psychotic speech and reinforced normal speech
Stimulus Satiation
Presenting so much of the reinforcer that it loses its effectiveness due to stimulus satiation
Is used when it is impossible to remove the reinforcer that is maintaining an undesired behavior
E.g. psychiatric patient towels – staff brought towels to her room until she complained such enough and remove them herself
SSDR’s and Learning Avoidance Responses
An avoidance response will be quickly learned if it is identical with, or at least similar to, one of the subject’s SSDR’s
e.g. it is very difficult to train a rat to avoid shock by pressing a lever versus jumping or running out of the compartment
Difficulty learning new responses such as lever pressing depends on the nature of the reinforcer
When the reinforcer is avoidance of shock, this is very difficult since it is not similar to the SSDR for avoidance for the rat
However when the reinforcer is for water, lever pressing is a relatively easy response for rats to learn
Difference Between One Factor and Two-Factor Theory
The debate is really between those who favor a molar approach versus a molecular approach
Molar = One-Factor = long-term consequences
e.g. reduction in shock frequency
Molecular = Two Factor = immediate consequences control avoidance responses
e.g. bodily feedback can serve as an immediate reinforcer since responding can lead to safety
Seligman and learned helplessness in humans
Early experience with uncontrollable aversive events produces a sense of helplessness that carries over into other situations, leading to learning and performance deficits
