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;
73 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
E.L. Thorndike
|
American psychologist interested in animal intelligence; used discrete-trial method; studied escape responses in cats and learned association b/w food and escape response (pulling of the lever)
|
|
|
Discrete-Trial Method
|
Only one response can occur per trial
|
|
|
Law of Effect
|
when a response is followed by a desirable consequence, the probability of that response in increased; when a response is followed by an undesirable consequence, the probability of that response is decreased
|
|
|
B.F. Skinner
|
used the free-operant method; famous for the Skinner box (operant chamber)
|
|
|
Free-Operant Method
|
participants free to respond when and as often as they would like
|
|
|
Skinner Box
|
magazine (food delivery service) training used to teach the animal where and when he/she gets food
|
|
|
Positive
|
response adds something
|
|
|
Negative
|
response takes something away
|
|
|
Reinforcement
|
increases response rate
|
|
|
Punishment
|
decreases response rate
|
|
|
Primary Reinforcers
|
Effective at birth: food, sex, water, visual stimulation
|
|
|
Secondary Reinforcers
|
Acquire reinforcing properties through experience; become associated with primary reinforcers
ex: $ becomes associated |
|
|
The Premack Principle
|
Any higher probability activity could reinforce a low probability activity
ex: as a child, parents say "finish spinach and you can have dessert" |
|
|
Will saying, "If you eat spinach, you can have potatoes" work?
|
If they really like potatoes, YES
|
|
|
Importance of Premack Principle
|
1. Can use any reinforcer
2. Used in educational settings and mental hospitals If I want you to do something you hate, must do it before something you like |
|
|
Problems with Premack Principle
|
1. Need to figure out high vs. low response probabilities; what people fine reinforcing or not (spinach->peas=no)
2. Response probabilities change |
|
|
Skinner's rat experiment (1938)
|
-trained rats to press bar for food
-one group received extinction (no food) -one group received mild punishment (slap on the paw) -other group received no punishment -IV=consequence:3 levels -punishment suppressed response temporarily |
|
|
What did Skinner's 1938 experiment lead them to believe?
|
That punishment was ineffective
|
|
|
Intensity of Punishment
|
-Boe & Church repeated Skinner's experiment but used electric shock as punishment
-varied level of shock from 0-220 volts -brief severe punishment (as shock got worse) caused profound suppression of behavior |
|
|
Delay of Punishment
|
A delay of only a few seconds may make punishment less effective
|
|
|
Solomon, Turner, & Lessac Experiment with dogs
|
-dogs given a choice b/w a highly preferred food & a less preferred food
-if they chose highly preferred food, they were hit on snout w/ a newspaper -interval b/w eating & hitting varied: 0,5,15 sec |
|
|
Did all the animals learn not to approach the highly preferred food in the Solomon, Turner, & Lessac Experiment?
|
Yes, required only 3-4 punishments
|
|
|
How long would dogs resist highly preferred foods in the Solomon, Turner, & Lessac Experiment?
|
15 sec delay=3 min
5 sec delay=8 days 0 sec delay=2 weeks |
|
|
Aronfreed Study
|
Children offered attractive & unattractive toy
-choose unattractive toy & asked to describe it -choose attractive toy & told "no" and removal of candy previously given delay=0,2,6,12 sec Absence of experimenter: 0 sec delay=1/2 played with toy, 6+ sec delay=almost all played with attractive toy |
|
|
Side Effects of Punishment
|
1. can induce fear
2. can induce learned helplessness 3. can induce pain-elicited aggression 4. may serve as a model for aggression |
|
|
Example of Learned Helplessness
|
2 teachers gave 5th graders math problems:
Teacher A always gave solvable problems & Teacher B was unsolvable -when B finally gave solvable problems, students failed to solve them even though they had solved exact same probs w/ Teacher A |
|
|
Issues in Operant Conditioning
|
1. Shaping
2. Generalization 3. Discrimination 4. Extinction 5. Superstitious Behavior |
|
|
Shaping
|
reinforcement/punishment of successive approximations; non-reinforcement/non-punishment of earlier behaviors
|
|
|
Generalization
|
respond to different amounts
|
|
|
Discrimination
|
respond to only one amount/type
|
|
|
Extinction
|
no reinforcement or punishment; spontaneous recovery
|
|
|
Superstitious Behavior
|
coincidental consequence; adventitious reinforcement; results in strengthening of response; each accidental pairing "stamps in" a particular response
|
|
|
Adventitious Reinforcement
|
accidental pairing of response & delivery of reinforcer
|
|
|
Skinner Superstitious Experiment
|
pigeons received food every 15 sec no matter what; not required to peck key light; belief that behavior was controlled by reinforcer
|
|
|
Mechanics of Operant Conditioning
|
time is crucial--don't delay; want association to be clear
|
|
|
Schedules of Operant Conditioning
|
1. Continuous
2. Partial a. Variable interval b. variable ratio c. fixed interval d. fixed ratio |
|
|
Continuous
|
reinforcement/punishment (r/p) after every response; doesn't work very well (loss in motivation)
|
|
|
Variable Interval
|
r/p for 1st response after random amounts of time
ex: reinf. after 2 sec, 8, 54, ... |
|
|
Variable Ratio
|
r/p after random # of responses
ex: reinf. after response 4, 13, 39, ... |
|
|
Fixed Ratio
|
r/p after specific # of responses
ex: after response 4, 8, 12 |
|
|
Decreasing behavior with Extinction
|
withhold reinforcement that maintains undesirable behavior; however, extinction can be type of punishment (can cause emotional responses--can cause aggression (extinction-induced) and frustration)
|
|
|
Problem with a strict Behavioristic view of learning
|
Learning can depend on mental processes that cannot be directly observed and that organisms can be active processors of info.
|
|
|
Cognitive Learning
|
1. Observational Learning
2. Causal Attributions 3. Food Aversion 4. Language 5. Biological Restraints (innate) 6. Cognitive Maps (Tolman) |
|
|
Observational Learning
|
Bandura--Bobo Doll experiment
|
|
|
Causal Attributions
|
perceptions of the causes of behavior often involves learning a cognitive relationship; dispositional attributions (s/t about the person) vs. situational attributions (environmental factors)
|
|
|
Decreasing behavior with Extinction
|
withhold reinforcement that maintains undesirable behavior; however, extinction can be type of punishment (can cause emotional responses--can cause aggression (extinction-induced) and frustration)
|
|
|
Problem with a strict Behavioristic view of learning
|
Learning can depend on mental processes that cannot be directly observed and that organisms can be active processors of info.
|
|
|
Cognitive Learning
|
1. Observational Learning
2. Causal Attributions 3. Food Aversion 4. Language 5. Biological Restraints (innate) 6. Cognitive Maps (Tolman) |
|
|
Observational Learning
|
Bandura--Bobo Doll experiment
|
|
|
Causal Attributions
|
perceptions of the causes of behavior often involves learning a cognitive relationship; dispositional attributions (s/t about the person) vs. situational attributions (environmental factors)
|
|
|
Food Aversion
|
Eat something and get sick later there is a tendency to avoid it later
|
|
|
Why does food aversion go against Behaviorism?
|
example of one-trial learning goes against the notion of shaping; the stimulus (food) and the response (sick) aren't close together in time
|
|
|
Language
|
predisposition to learn language (not through experience); no one-to-one association between 1 word and another
novelty (comprehension and generation); use sentences he's never used but we still understand |
|
|
Ambiguity
|
"they are cooking apples"
"I love you, too" "I love U2" "I love you two" |
|
|
Biological Constraints
|
innate; predisposition to learn certain things and not others; cannot use Behavioristic techniques to train all behaviors
|
|
|
Ex of biological constraints
|
Breland & Breland tried to train raccoon to put $ in piggy bank but never happened...raccoon just played with it/tried to eat b/c thought it was food
|
|
|
Cognitive Maps
|
Tolman; rats were trained to go through a partially flooded maze for food once they learned maze, it was completely flooded so only option was to swim; Tolman predicted they would swim to goal box based on cognitive maps
|
|
|
S-R prediction for flooded maze
|
rats won't find correct path to goal box; use different set of muscular movements when first learned route
|
|
|
Rat maze results
|
rats swam down correct paths without errors
|
|
|
Cognition
|
active processing of information
ex:deciding what to rehearse (remember phone #, studying) |
|
|
Principles of Cognitive Psychology
|
1. Study unobservables
2. Organism is an active seeker and processor of info 3. In general, non-reductionistic |
|
|
Study unobservables
|
use observable behavior to draw inferences about unobservables (i.e. memory)
|
|
|
Organism is an active seeker and processor of info
|
individual has some control
ex: Big Bang Theory--giving Penny chocolate |
|
|
Non-reductionistic
|
not safe to assume that what you do with rats is true of humans
|
|
|
Complexity of learning
|
learning is too complex to be explained by simple associations
|
|
|
Results of problems with strict behavioristic view of learning
|
led to the study of the mental activities involved with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of info
|
|
|
Another name for operant and classical conditioning
|
Behaviorism
|
|
|
Behavior Modification
|
applying principles of reinforcement/punishment to human problems
ex: roommate leaves dirty laundry around |
|
|
How can you use behavior modification to stop roommate from leaving dirty laundry around?
|
1. Punish-yell, scold, throw away (doesn't mean behavior will improve in the long term)
2. Train an incompatible behavior-buy laundry hamper and reward for use 3. Reward absence of unwanted behavior-invite friends over when room is clean |
|
|
Hypotheses in Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment
|
1. subjects would imitate the adult model of aggression
2. children exposed to non-aggressive model would be less aggressive than than those who observed aggression AND control group 3. children would imitate the behavior of the same sex more than the opposite sex 4. boys would be more aggressive than girls |
|
|
Measures of aggression in Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment
|
1. verbal aggression
2. physical aggression 3. mallet aggression 4. non-imitative aggression |
|
|
Subject design in Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment
|
2x2x2 with control group
|
|
|
Results of Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment
|
1. children imitated the violent behaviors they observed
2. boys' violent behavior influenced more by males than females (interaction) 3. boys more physically aggressive |
