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;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Study 1: Research that tests whether eating is in response to need |
Rats were given three meals a day (1, 2, 3) Then one meal was dropped (1, -, 3) - What happens was they initially ate more food at dinner - Eventually, they ate more food at breakfast What this study tells us is that there's a mechanism that allows us to eat food when needed - Gets us ready/anticipates starving behavior - Learned stratagies |
|
|
Study 2: Research that tests whether eating is in response to need |
- Rats normally eat 10-12 meals a day - They're nocturnal, and eat mostly at dark - 2 of the largest meals occur when the lights go out then back on (breakfast/dinner) WHY? - Light change provides a cue (CS?) that allow sat to adapt to an especially large meal (compensatory CR) - Food selection is influenced by learning (learn flavors associated with sugar, starch, fat, proteins)--> learn to dislike foods associated with illness |
|
|
Cue-Potentiated feeding |
IN RATS (EXPERIMENT 1) Present of tone = increased eating (music would be a decrease in eating) - Eating is habitual and is motivated by cues - The ones that heard the music (-CS) did not overeat, those that heard the tone did overeat (CS+) IN HUMANS (Experiment 2): - Preschool children (played in two rooms) - One room = food available, other room food wasn't) Test: Ate a dish of ice cream (so they were full) - Played in two rooms with food available, then researchers measured food consumption Results: Kids that were tested with food were more tolerable to consumption, those that were tested with no food = more likely to eat food |
|
|
S-O, R-O, S-R, and S-(R-O) relations influencing eating, drinking and drug taking |
Television food commercials: (Kinds watch an average of 15 food commercials each day) 9-year-olds: Watched 14-min episode of Disney's "Recess", while eating goldfish - 1/2 saw 4 30s food comm. = 28.5 grams - 1/2 saw 4 30s non food comm. = 19.7 grams University Students: 16 min episode of "Whose Line" w/ 11 commercials that involved food) - More likely to consume fatty foods when snack ads were administered Conditioned Hypereating: Cues associated with food (CSs) initiate eating, prime food thoughts, associated with + emotions - Habit eventually takes over (eat compulsively in presence of foods) McDonald's logo (S)-->Response = Eat (R) --> Order food (O) Beer Logo (S)-->Response = Drink (R)-->Order drink (O) |
|
|
Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer |
p1(instrumental learning) = R-->food p2: (Pavlovian conditioning) = A --> food, B--> no food Test: A = R?, B = R? - What they found was the CS for food, invigorated instrumental responding Outcome specific: A CS can invigorate a specific response that leads to the same outcome General: A CS can invigorate a response that leads to other (usually related outcomes) Predictive cues influence: Approach, consumption, general motivation (general PIT), memory (outcome), and choice (outcome) |
|
|
Smarties Experiment Outcome and General (PIT) Specific (cued) Tests |
Smarties Example: 1. Human Subjects tested (L key = popcorn, R = smarties) 2. Pavlovian Training (stimuli pops up, earn a specific reward) 3. Satiation manipulation: Satiate on O1 or O2 or get nothing 4. Non Cue test: Caused a reinforcer devaluation effect 5. Cued test: - outcome specific |
|
|
Effects on choice of satiating a person on a food item (General and outcome specific experiments) |
- Satiation on sparties or popcorn = reduced responding for the outcome, another reinforcer devaluation effect - A CS (cue) associated with smarties or popcorn = Selectively increased responding for the same outcome, increase was not affected by satiation (S-O-R) --> outcome specific - A CS (cue) associated with cashews = increased responding for both smarties or popcorn, more so when participant claimed he/she was hungry --> general |
|
|
Related experiments involving Pavlovian-instrumental transfer |
Cigarette smokers: - Different instrumental responses for cigarettes or chocolate - Pictures of cigarette or chocolate invigorated responding for cigarettes or chocolate (respectively) --> outcome-specific (not weakened by devaluation of the reinforcer, created by a health warning/nicotine nasal spray) In rats - Different inst. responses for food pellets or sucrose - Different CSs for pellets or sucrose - CSs for pellets and sucrose invigorated responding for pellets or sucrose (respectively) --> outcome |
|
|
Delay discounting |
- Delayed reinforcers are less reinforcing than immediate ones - They have less value to you when they are delayed (i.e.., $50 today or next week)--> value of delayed is usually discounted - One may think that $50 a week from now = $20 today |
|
|
Impulsivity vs. self control |
- If a smaller reward is more valuable than the large reward, at the time, you are behaving "impulsively" - If large reward is more valuable, one is showing "self control" |
|
|
Factors of Delay discounting |
- Gamblers, smokers, alcoholics, heroinusers, crack users, etc., have "steeper" discounting curves (money is less valuable over time for these individuals, they behave off of impulses because they are addicted to the stimuli) |
|
|
Improving self control |
- Making a delayed reward more rewarding = increase in large reward choice, immediate less rewarding decreases choice- Precommitment is also useful(i.e., saving up for a car) |
|
|
Contingency Management treatments |
Rationale: - Behaviors like drug taking, smoking, drinking too much, over-eating are operant behaviors Therefore: - They are affected by their consequences - They are also affected by reinforcement earned for other, alternative behaviors Thus: - We can treat problem behaviors by manipulating contingencies of reinforcement (Contingency management) - We can reinforce alternative/healthy behavior and/or abstinence from the unhealthy behavior |
|
|
Evidence for Contingency Management |
Cocaine users 2 groups: 12 weeks of drug counseling, 12 weeks of contingency management - If urine specimens were cocain negative, they were given a voucher (10, 15, 20 etc., all worth $0.15) - Points were temporarily reset to 10 if there was a positive test - Points eventually exchanged for retail items Results: - Contingency management group: 46% abstained from cocaine for 8+ weeks - Controls: 0% had similar period of abstinence |
|
|
Weaknesses of Contingency Management |
Obesity study: - 32 weeks, 2 basic conditions: 1. Weight monitoring control (monthly weigh-ins) 2. Deposit contract (had monthly weigh-ins, but clients paid money into an account, got a little back (+matching bonus) everyday they met weight loss goal - What they found was increased weight loss @ 32 weeks, but after 36 weeks, had little weight loss remaining - Shows that when people aren't rewarded, they go back into the habit of eating |
|
|
Renewal, after the extinction of drug self-administration |
Over sessions, animals increase lever pressing when given frequent intravenous drug - Cocaine causes and increase in responses p1: Context A (heroin) p2: Context A: R; Context B; R Testing: Context A:R? - Strong renewal effect (lapse/relapse) - Control showed no effect, change from B-A Punishment of drug - Aversive consequences to drug use - Once punishment (footshock) was administered in context B, less likely to continue behavior in contrast to context A - Punishment involves learning not to perform a specific response in a specific context |
