Learning Exam 4

Front 1

appetitive stimuli

Back 1

stimuli for which the organism has an appetite

Front 2

aversive stimuli

Back 2

stimuli the organism prefers not to come into contact with.

Front 3

positive contingency

Back 3

the response produces the stimulus

Front 4

negative contingency

Back 4

the response removes or prevents the stimulus.

Front 5

reinforcement

Back 5

consequence of a response causes the response to increase in frequency or probability

Front 6

punishment

Back 6

consequence of a response causes the response to decrease in frequency or probability.

Front 7

positive reinforcement

Back 7

stimulus is not present and the response produces the (appetitive) stimulus - response increases

Front 8

positive punishment

Back 8

stimulus is absent and the response produces the (aversive) stimulus - response suppresion

Front 9

(escape) negative reinforcement

Back 9

(aversive) stimulus is present and response removes it.(negative contingency) - response more probable when stimulus is present.

Front 10

(avoidance) negative reinforcement

Back 10

stimulus is not present and the response prevents the (aversive) stimulus from occurring when it otherwise would have (omission)

Front 11

(reinforcer loss) negative punishment

Back 11

(appetitive) stimulus is present and the response removes the stimulus.

Front 12

(reinforcer omission) negative punishment

Back 12

(appetitive) stimulus is absent but is scheduled to be presented and the response prevents the stimulus from occurring.

Front 13

Avoidance Paradox

Back 13

Problem with avoidance in that there is no ongoing shock prior to the response, and no shock immediately after. Thus there appeared to be no immediate consequence of the behavior that could serve to reinforce it. Yet avoidance behavior was seen.

Front 14

Evidence supporting two factor theory

Back 14

The rats are not shuttling during the tone in order to avoid the shock; they are shuttling in order to terminate the (now aversive) tone.

Front 15

CATS (Conditioned aversive temporal stimuli)

Back 15

Proposed by Douglas Anger, that time correlated internally generated stimuli mark the passage of time during the R-S interval.

Front 16

Herrstein and Hineline (1966) Avoidance Schedule

Back 16

Avoidance schedule that eliminated internal, time-correlated stimuli that might function as cats by having to variable time shock programs arranged to run simultaneously.

Front 17

molar explanation

Back 17

long-term average effect of
responding

Front 18

molecular explanation

Back 18

immediate effect of responding

Front 19

cognitive theory of avoidance

Back 19

Seligman's theory that the subject's develop an expectation that shock WILL occur if they do not respond and an expectation that shock WILL NOT occur if they do respond.

Front 20

differential punishment of other behavior.

Back 20

To explain the acquisition of avoidance on the Sidman avoidance schedule.

Front 21

free-operant avoidance

Back 21

Another name for Sidman avoidance

Front 22

Response prevention (flooding)

Back 22

Preventing a subject from making the avoidance response after turning off the shocker, which has been found to speed extinction of the

Front 23

Molar Theory. Long term behavior.

Back 23

Does Herrnstein and Hineline's shock-frequency-reduction theory of avoidance qualifies as a "molecular" theory or molar theory?

Front 24

Two-factor theory

Back 24

Cycles of responding and nonresponding are not seen during shuttle-box avoidance sessions. Avoidance thus breaks the pairing of the warning signal and shock, which should lead to extinction of fear. This goes against what theory?

Front 25

behavior decelerators

Back 25

all techniques that result in a reduction, slowing, or elimination of behaviors.

Front 26

punishment

Back 26

the suppression of an operant due to its consequences.

Front 27

overcorrection

Back 27

technique that involves both restitution and positive practice

Front 28

- the intensity of the punisher.
- the strength of the reinforcer maintaining the behavior.

Back 28

Unwanted behavior is maintained by reinforcement. The effectiveness of punishment in suppressing this unwanted behavior depends on

Front 29

Intermittent

Back 29

Resistance to extinction of the suppression produced by punishment is greater after this type of schedule

Front 30

response deprivation

Back 30

states that a contingent behavior will reinforce a given instrumental behavior if, and only if, by engaging in its preferred amount of the
instrumental behavior, the individual gains access to less than its preferred amount of the contingent behavior.

Front 31

Meehl

Back 31

proposed trans-situationality

Front 32

both groups learned to find their way through the maze equally well.

Back 32

A study by McNamara, Long, and Wilke (1956) compared the maze learning of rats that ran through a maze to rats that were merely transported through the maze in a wire basket. This study found that

Front 33

Functional analysis

Back 33

a method that allows a therapist to determine what reinforcer is maintaining a client's unwanted behavior.