Mowrer and Lamoreaux: Fear as an Intervening Variable in Avoidance Conditioning

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

According to the authors, the associationist model (S-R) is flawed in that it does not account for motivational factors in learning.

Pavlov ignored a crucial variable in his studies by not accounting for hunger

It is possible that when pairing the CS with the UCS a crucial variable was hunger reduction.

This leads the authors to conclude that Pavlovian conditioning is at best over-simplified and at worst wrong in principle.

Bekhterev’s work on a conditioned emotional response (CER) led to the conclusion by others that the UCS is important in conditioning for 2 reasons

1. It determines the character or pattern of the response (similar to what we know)
2. It also provides the incentive or drive necessary to actuate this response pattern

Question 2

Role of Motivation

Answer 2

The authors propose that, because of the importance of motivation, secondary motivators (physiological and emotional) are basic and necessary for a proper understanding of overt observable behavior

In other words, observable behavioral has an emotional context

Another reason the authors assert this is based on the fact that not every conditioned response is the same in quality or quantity to its unconditioned counterpart

Question 3

Fear as Intervening Variable

Answer 3

Explains the variability in CR quality and quantity

Question 4

Method

Answer 4

1. The experimenters ran the animals through 10 conditioning trials a day for 12 days.
2. The rat was placed in the box and allowed one minute for habituation.
3. The researchers then exhibited the CS and if a CR was performed the CS was terminated and the UCS not applied
4. If the CR was not performed after 5 seconds the UCS shock was administered until the UCR was performed or for a fixed duration (as in group 3) The CS was present with the UCS and terminated at the same time on each trial.
5. 1 minute was allowed between each trial

Question 5

Results

Answer 5

The rats in group 1 (that had to make a different response to remove the CS danger signal than they did to remove the electric shock UCS) learned

According to the authors this cannot be explained through association learning

Three assumptions that aren’t found in association theory that explains this result are:

1. The CS acquires the capacity to elicit the secondary motive of fear
2. Under appropriate conditions this fear motivates random responses
3. The termination of the CS and the CER reinforces whichever response happens to bring about the fear reduction, regardless of whether or not this response is the UCR that removes the primary motivator (UCS shock)

Question 6

Differential effortfulness

Answer 6

The researchers concluded in group 1 the striking difference in ease of conditioning between running and jumping as a CR was due to differential effortfulness

Basically associative learning was reinforcing the less effortful run response

Their attempts to reinforce a competing response was made more difficult by the fact that it required more effort

Question 7

Summary

Answer 7

The experiment presented, based on prior research, that the secondary motivator (fear) helps to explain differences in response to a primary motivator (traditional CS or UCS)

The finding that it possible to condition a different response to a solitary CS even when you have conditioned a response to a CS and UCS combination is difficulty explained by association theory

This is explained by their theory as a competition between independent secondary reinforcement of the response to the CS and of the associative reinforcement of the response the CS + UCS

Although there is a tendency for the associative response to be made the findings suggest the importance of considering fear as an intervening variable