Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
70 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Drive reduction theory of reinforcement
|
Organisms defend a stable state/homeostasis. Stimuli that reduce a drive state are effective reinforcers. Primary and secondary reinforcers, conditioned drive state
|
|
|
Premack Principle theory of reinforcement
|
The opportunity to perform the higher probability response will serve as a reinforcer for the lower probability response.framed issues of reinforcement in terms of response, not stimuli.
Hard to assign precise numerical value to the porb. of a response also, likelihood of a response may change unexpectedly PP doesn’t tell us how reinforcers work |
|
|
behavioral regulation/bliss point
|
determine baseline response, limit responding below the baseline
predicts accurately that even a low-prob response can be made a reinforcer avoids problem of computing response probs in PP, but still doesn’t answer how a reinforcer produces an increase in the porb of the rein. response *behavioral homeostasis, impose contingency and challenge homeostasis *minimal deviation model-allocate responses accordingly so that you can get as close to your bliss point/homeostasis as you can |
|
|
elasticity
|
highly elastic items very sensitive to price/response requirement, many substitutes, high price, lower income (greater the effect of price)
elastic graph curves downward |
|
|
inelasticity
|
highly inelastic items not sensitive to price/response requirement, not many substitutes, low price, greater income (lower the effect of price)
Ex. gas inelastic graph straight horizontal line |
|
|
economic model of behavioral regulation
|
Restrictions on behavior: consumer behavior driven by price of object,and income. organisms will allocate behavior to some optimal point
chosen by organism to maximize something sort of like hedonism |
|
|
matching law
|
relative rate of response will match the relative rate of reinforcement
will match behavior to relative rate of returns predicts hyperbolic discounting: the further away the returns are, the less we value it different than what economic theories predict (maximization) |
|
|
Gordon Foxall's Behavioral Perspective Model - Operant conditioning
|
types of consequences or outcomes
hedonic reinforcement: you get something that you enjoy, you like outcome so you respond again. informational reinforcement: status. i.e. ugg boots, BMW aversive stimuli: spend $, health changes, time spent in acquisition punishment. Decrease consumer behavior instead of increase Consumer must do a cost-benefit analysis |
|
|
Categories of consumer behavior according to Foxall and the BPM
|
maintenance: things you buy for survival and obligation
accumulation: saving or collecting. Buying things just to have them. pleasure: consumption of things like popular entertainment accomplishment: status purchase. showing yourself to be better maintenance/inelastic-accomplishment/elastic |
|
|
Behavioral Ecology of Consumption
|
much consumer behavior is a biobasic behavior and thus subject to evolutionary pressures
search (foraging), choice, consumption, disposition of good |
|
|
Testing if you have stimulus control
|
change the features of the stimulus to test
or look at the absence/presence should see a change in behavior |
|
|
stimulus generalization
|
behavior on vertical, stimulus on horizontal
wider curve-generalization (steeper curve, less generalization) other similar stimulus - due to a spread of the effective training if can’t detect difference, also might get generalization- due to lack of ability |
|
|
stimulus discrimination
|
However, subjects can often be taught to discriminate stimulus and only respond to a specific stimulant.
steep curve, more discrimination |
|
|
overshadowing
|
high intensity better for controlling behavior in general
BUT overshadowing: weak tone w/ bright light, no learning to tone because light overshadows (compound CS), also if something in context is really complex compared to the CS |
|
|
quality-location effect
|
Type of response required
training dog in right/left discrimination, metronome in front-right leg, buzzar in back-left leg, group 2 is go/no go switch positions of metronome and buzzar location of sound didn’t matter in group 2, but did in group 1 |
|
|
belongingness
|
visual cues-food, auditory cues-pain avoidance
|
|
|
stimulus element vs. configural cue
|
different elements may get learned differently by different organisms
configural cue: when compound CS all together, how it’s fit together important |
|
|
discrimination
|
can train organisms to have differential responses to different stimuli
discrimination training: training 2 stimuli (1 as S+, the other as S-), you get more discrimination, steeper curve Better learning with CS+ and - and S+ and - together because more discrimination expertise result of intradimensional training |
|
|
discrimination training and role of excitatory and inhibitory conditioning
|
CS+ vs. CS-
control behavior differently-excitor vs. inhibitor S(R-O): in the presence of S, R will lead to O S+ or S^D, discriminative stimuli, excitatory learning S-, in presence of S, R will not lead to O, inhibitory learning can train organisms to have differential responses to different stimuli discrimination training: training 2 stimuli (1 as S+, the other as S-), you get more discrimination, steeper curve |
|
|
conditioned compensatory responses
|
drug opposite response tries to protect body from overdose.
UR and CR are opposite leads to conditioned tolerance Opposite CR will occur if UR disrupts homeostasis-kind of. Siegel articles-you did a hw on this! |
|
|
self-administration cues
|
SAC= self-administration cues, proprioceptive
tying off of arm reliably predict heroin physical interoception effects that happen extinguishing these allow participants to mimic these cues, just don’t actually administer drug |
|
|
drug-onset cues
|
DOC=drug-onset cues, interoceptive
the first sip of beer (reliably predicts 12 beers) a little bit of the drug extinguishing these give ppl tiny bit of drug, then don’t allow them to have any more |
|
|
role of drug conditioning in drug-seeking (drug-like and drug-opposite responses)
& ways to decrease its influence |
see notes!
|
|
|
Extinction
|
decrease in responding
not forgetting or unlearning or opposite of acquisition just learning a new relationship protocol s-r- no o! |
|
|
frustration/frustrative aggression
|
What happens when don’t get reinforced? Response to extinction to conditions
high emotional response, frustration/frustrative aggression frustration burst- a whole bunch of responding at once but net result of extinction is to decrease responding |
|
|
Spontaneous recovery
|
How we know that extinction is not unlearning
delay after extinction training, more acquired responding again if the acquired response comes back, you did not unlearn it! |
|
|
reinstatement
|
acquisition, extinction
if exposed to US, that’s enough to have conditioned responding come back drug literature uses reinstatement to mean a return of conditioned responding not necessarily in response to exposure to US |
|
|
renewal
|
shift testing context cues from extinction training context
if change contextual cues, recovery of acquired responding/performance huge problem for extinction therapy/desensitization fear may come back outside therapy context so try to do the therapy in different contexts...but can’t get to every possible context so try to do therapy in contexts where you are most likely to associate the stimulus drug extinction-interoceptive cues especially hard to extinguish? Extinction is context specific- way more so than acquisition |
|
|
CS/US devaluation
|
If extinction leaves intact a CS-US association, then US devaluation will disrupt responding to an extinguished CS, just as it disrupts responding to a CS that has not undergone extinction
|
|
|
overtraining
|
overtraining actually leads to faster extinction
so certain of rule, that when you’re not reinforced/when rule is violated, you realize it’s a new association/you give it up |
|
|
partial reinforcement
|
Partial Reinforcement Resistance to Extinction/ or Part. Rein. Ext. Effect
continuous reinforcement participants will extinguish faster than partial reinforcement participants partial reinforcement schedule fosters persistence in responding in the face of nonreward |
|
|
reinforcement magnitude
|
magnitude of reinforcement effect
extreme version of negative contrast (big to little, decrease in responding) paradoxical because you originally had a stronger response, yet extinguishes faster |
|
|
Frustration theory to Partial Reinforcement Resistant to Extinction
|
learn to expect nonreward and to continue in the face of frustration and nonreward. In anticipation of not being reinforced, you keep responding (even though you’re frustrated). emotional theory
works better with long ITIs because may not remembered when you were rewarded last |
|
|
Sequential theory to Partial Reinforcement Resistant to Extinction
|
remember that reinforced trials follow nonreinforcement. Remember bhbb recent responses. Learn that nonrewards preced reward. memory theory.
works better with shorter ITIs |
|
|
Avoidance trials
|
giving a signal before the aversive stimulus starts. after one or two occurrences of the punishing stimulus the cue will trigger an avoidance behavior. This kind of learning occurs quickly and is very durable.
|
|
|
escape trials
|
occurs when the animal learns to perform an operant to terminate an ongoing, aversive stimulus. It is a "get me out of here" or "shut this off" reaction, aimed at escape from pain or annoyance. The behavior that produces escape is negatively reinforced
|
|
|
interdimensional discrimination
|
discriminating b/w 2 dimensions: white chocolate vs. dark chocolate. male vs female
|
|
|
intradimensional discrimination
|
5% chocolate vs. 70%, discriminating w/in females. More expertise with intradimensional training!
|
|
|
stimulus equivalence
|
if say stimulus equivalence, no discrimination b/w them
if organism doesn’t tell you this is diff than this 1. cannot discriminate 2. or learned to not discriminate stimulus equivalence classes-organism has been trained to think of these things as the same (over time learn A=a). want same responding for all objects in this equivalent class, i.e. sometimes discrimination is bad! |
|
|
Avoidance theory
|
*avoid punishment by avoiding stimuli associated with punishment and do something else
but don’t always know what the cues are that the organism is paying attention to. *Can test avoidance behavior in a shuttle box Rat has to run to other side of box in order to avoid getting shocked 1 way vs. 2 way avoidance = 1 side shocking vs. 2 sides shocking. 1 way is easier to learn |
|
|
discriminated avoidance
|
if there’s a signal for the US
If participant responds when a CS or warning stimulus is presented, the CS turns off and no aversive US. 2 types of trials: response and no-response |
|
|
free-operant avoidance
|
No explicit warning stimulus or discrete trials. Can avoid at any time and this response always provides some measure of benefit. EX. changing oil in your car to prevent/avoid engine troubles
|
|
|
R-S interval
|
In avoidance procedures, interval after avoidance response and before next aversive stimulus presentation. Most net benefit if respond at end of R-S interval.
Use timing cues even though there is no |
|
|
Problem in analysis of avoidance behavior
|
how is nothing reinforcing? If i engage in avoidance response, nothing happens. somehow nothing is reinforcing
|
|
|
Two-factor theory of avoidance
|
2 forms of conditioning used in avoidance learning.
1. Pavlovian conditioning of fear to a stimulus that signals aversive stimulation AND 2. instrumental conditioning of the avoidance response by fear reduction *fear reduction is negatively reinforcing |
|
|
problems w/ 2-factor theory
|
*free-operant avoidance procedure. Warning stimulus required for 2 factor theory
*Many avoidance responses should result in Pavlovian extinction of fear and then extinction of the instrumental avoidance response, but this cycle does not happen. *After many avoidances, ppl don’t seem fearful |
|
|
safety-signal hypothesis of avoidance behavior
|
*positive reinforcement.
*(internal/interoceptive cues) associated with making avoidance response signal safety. Classical conditioning. Safety signal and CER learning can happen at same time! 2 diff ways of thinking about how avoidance learning comes to be. |
|
|
shock frequency reduction theory
|
(temporal cues) Will distribute responses at end of interval to reduce frequency of responses? You learn temporal coding, timing. You learn r-s interval, respond at end to reduce frequency. Shock interval = 30 seconds, respond at 29 seconds
|
|
|
Effective punishment
|
delay, contingency, alternative reinforcers, stimulus control, intensity
consistent, immediate, severe (to sensitize to future punishments), not signaled (if want global decrease in behavior), have alternative ways to earn reinforcers after school programs |
|
|
Theories of punishment
|
Negative Law of Effect
Premack Principle Conditioned emotional response Avoidance theory |
|
|
CER- theory of punishment
|
Stimulus (context)- elicits emotional response:fear , o=shock, r avoidance response
reduction of fear negatively reinforces you making avoidance response *Goes with modern 2 process theory don't see cycles like with modern two process theory |
|
|
Negative law of effect
|
*Original law of effect says if O is a satisfying state of affairs, it stamps in the S-R relationship
* If O is Annoying state of affairs, it weakens the S-R relationship. Punishment works cuz s-r relationship is weakened by annoying state of affairs |
|
|
Premack Principle
|
*Original: Increase low probability behaviors by making high probability behaviors contingent on them.
*4 Punishment: To decrease responding (as in punishment), make low probability behavior the outcome of high probability behavior. EX. Decrease movie watching: movies contingent on cleaning room |
|
|
Working memory
|
Retention of info needed to respond successfully on one trial or task (in matching-to-sample procedure) but is not useful in responding on the next trial or task. WM is of limited duration
*Variations in sample stimulus and location of correct choice ensure matching-2-sample procedures involve working memory EX. baking cake, must remember what ingredients you've already included. Won't help you on the next cake |
|
|
Reference memory
|
helps with remembering the constant features of the task, longer duration than working memory.
EX. general cooking knowledge about cake pans, ovens, etc. |
|
|
acquisition, retention, and retrieval
|
* When testing learning both behav. and memory are important. Can't show learning if don't remember it.
*can look at acquisition, retention, and retrieval - errors in any one of these places can manifest as the same behavior *problems with acquisition and retention- maybe learning never actually occurred or it did and you just can’t get it out.y |
|
|
acquisition
|
Info about stimuli and responses are acquired and encoded in the nervous system. Studies of learning focus on manipulating the acquisition stage
|
|
|
retention
|
Once encoded, info stored for later use
|
|
|
retieval
|
info recovered from storage
|
|
|
delayed matching to sample
|
(specific rule (triangle-i must pick triangle...if never change sample, always use specific rule) vs. general rule- match the sample is general rule, pick triangle is specific rule. Mix it up (as far as samples) to teach general rule)
Trials unique procedure: could never learn specific rule, because there is none (change sample every time)...might be harder for them to learn |
|
|
trace decay hypothesis
|
Passive memory
*memory trace forms in mind, degrades *also, the longer you’re exposed to stimulus, the better trace you’ll get *support: longer you look at it, better your performance-stronger trace *however, if you have practice/training with delay, the delay does not have as much impact- argues against trace-delay hypothesis actually something ACTIVE going on |
|
|
retrospective vs. prospective coding
|
Retrospective: think about what you’ve already done, thinking backwards. Memory of previous stimuli/events
Prospective: think about where you’re going, what you need to do, thinking forwards. Remembering what is predicted to occur. rats will use whichever is closest- switch from retrospective to prospective |
|
|
spatial memory
|
just as a rat's spatial memory is needed to learn the location of food at the end of a maze. It is often argued that in both humans and animals, spatial memories are summarized as a cognitive map. Spatial memory has representations within working, short-term and long-term memory.
|
|
|
win-shift
|
radial arm maze, spatial learning with rats
win-shift procedure: bait certain arms one time and others on the next trial actually easier for them to learn, works with natural foraging tendencies belongingness |
|
|
win-stay
|
radial arm maze, spatial learning with rats
win-stay procedure: every trial same arms are baited. Harder to learn than win-shift for rats. |
|
|
retrieval cues
|
Stimuli previously associated with target info. If poor performance is due to retrieval failure, procedures that facilitate retrieval should facilitate performance.
|
|
|
forgetting vs. retrieval failure
|
You may not remember because you never encoded or learned the info in the first place. Or you may fail to effective retrieve the info that was successfully encoded or stored.
problems with retrieval : use of retrieval cues helps with this making environment same as where they learned it S(R-O) state dependent learning |
|
|
retroactive interference
|
Extraneous stimuli can act backward to disrupt memory. Remember too little.
Meet Jane. Meet Janice. Can't remember Jane's name. as you get further in the list, switch from what you’ve done to thinking about future, which gives you least load on your memory |
|
|
proactive interference
|
Extraneous stimuli occur b4 target even to disrupt memory. Remembering too much.
EX. You learn about punishment in politics class. This proactively interferes when you go to psych class and try to learn about punishment there. |
|
|
classical conditioning & marketing/advertising
|
liked and disliked music (US)
UR liking music blue and beige pens (CS) CR liking/disliking pen taking pen= operant behavior, O= having pen you like classical and operant conditioning both at work |
