Learning Chapter 5

Front 1

S-R (stimulus-response) Model

Back 1

- the neutral stimulus becomes directly associated with the unconditioned response and therefore comes to elicit the same response as the UR

- the purpose of the unconditioned stimulus is simply to elicit the UR so that it occurs in close proximity to the NS, thereby allowing a connection to be created between the NS and the UR

- Watson and Hull

Front 2

S-S (stimulus-stimulus) Model

Back 2

- NS becomes directly associated with the US and, because of this association, comes to elicit a response that is related to the US

Front 3

S-R and S-S

Back 3

- S-R is a stimulus obtaining a relationship to a CR

- S-S is stimulus relationship where the US is the cause behind the CR

(with S-R focus: C- stimulus --> behavior)

(with S-S focus: C- stimulus --> U- stimulus --> behavior

Front 4

Stimulus - Substitution theory

Back 4

- Pavlov ;; neurological center association (1927)

- CS acts as a substitute for the US

- connections of brain centers (crude neurological theory)

Front 5

CS is a direct substitute for the US

Back 5

Stimulus - Substitution theory

Front 6

How is the stimulus - substitution theory similar to an S-R theory?

Back 6

- predicts CR will be the same or at least the highly similar to UR

Front 7

What problem does the preparatory - response theory address?

Back 7

- when the CR is different from the UR instead of being a version of the UR

ex NS:(light):: US:(shock) --> UR:(jump)
CS:(light) -> CR:(freeze)

Front 8

What is the purpose of the CR according to the preparatory - response theory?

Back 8

- purpose of the CR is to ready the organism for the occurrence of the US

Front 9

Unlike stimulus - substitution theory, the preparatory - response theory allows for situations in which...

Back 9

- the UR and CR are different

Front 10

A- process and B- process

Back 10

- primary response and compensatory response

Front 11

Compensatory Response Model

Back 11

- a CS that has been repeatedly associated with the primary response (a-process) to a US will eventually come to elicit a compensatory response (b-process)

Front 12

Understanding Compensatory Response Theory and Heroin

Back 12

- Heroin (US) --> Decreased BP (US/UR) --> Increased BP (UR)

What happens in compensatory conditioning is that heroin - related cues, such as being in a certain room, become associated not with the heroin but with the primary response to heroin

Front 13

Conditioning of Heroin Related Cues

Back 13

- Heroin Relate Cues(NS): Decreased BP(US) --> Increased BP(UR)

- Heroin Relate Cues(CS) --> Increased BP (CR)

Front 14

Why do Heroin Relate Cues condition to the compensatory response?

Back 14

- compensatory response ==> return to homeostasis

- if the compensatory response occurs before US is presented it is more effective at returning to homeostasis

- allows body to prepare to for the onslaught of the drug

Front 15

Compensatory Responses are an extreme form what S-S theory?

Back 15

- preparatory - response theory

Front 16

How does heroin cause tension and anxiety?

Back 16

- compensatory response (b process) to the primary response (a process) of the drug

Front 17

what are withdrawal symptoms according to the compensatory response theory?

Back 17

- cues for drug use (CS) ex. --> rattling of a bottle <-- elicit the b processes of the drug (CR) --> agitation/tension/increased heart rate <--

- an addict who is craving is in part craving homeostasis

Front 18

Tolerance and Compensatory Response

Back 18

- the effect of cues

- when cues are present they become CS for compensatory responses that prepare (extreme preparatory response ) the user physiologically creating a higher tolerance

- example: expected environment vs unexpected environment

Front 19

Expected Environment vs Unexpected Environment

Back 19

- related cues in the expected condition elicited compensatory reactions that partially compensated for the effects of the alcohol

- removed from the expected condition your compensatory reactions are reduced significantly

Front 20

Are their exceptions to drug related cues providing compensatory responses?

Back 20

- Yes, sometimes cues provide primary responses (coked-up rat "little Sigmund")

- sometimes related cues(CS) can produce A and B process (decaf)

Front 21

Are the circumstances in which conditioning results in druglike reactions vs drug-compensatory reactions are..

Back 21

- complex and not understood fully

Front 22

Associative Value

Back 22

- the amount of conditioning that can be distributed from a US to available CS's

Front 23

In the Rescorla-Wagner Theory, the Stronger the US...

Back 23

- the more conditioning it can support

ex food that is more desirable can produce a higher CR

Front 24

Modeling conditioning using Rescorla-Wagner Theory and tone/food/salivation.

Back 24

(V = associative value)
(max = maximum amount of associative value that can be supported by US once conditioning is complete)

Tone (V= 0) : Food( max =10) --> Salivation

Tone (V= 10) --> Salivation

Front 25

V always in terms of ...

Back 25

- the CS

- a neutral stimulus has a V score of 0

- a CS has a maximum possible V score as determined by the MAX ( maximum associative value that can be supported by the US once conditioning is complete)

Front 26

According to the Rescorla-Wagner Theory, when a compound stimulus is conditioned the associative value gained through conditioning must be...

Back 26

- distributed between the two component members of the compound

Front 27

How does the Rescorla-Wagner Theory relate to overshadowing?

Back 27

- US has only so much associative value available

- the more salient stimulus in the compound picks up most of the associative value

- little associative value left for the less salient stimulus

Front 28

How does the Rescorla-Wagner Theory relate to blocking?

Back 28

- If a CS already has the MAX in a compound stimulus no associative value can be ascribed to the other stimulus(NS)

Front 29

Rescorla-Wagner (cognitive view)

Back 29

- "CS has a high associative power" = "it is a strong predictor of the US"

- the subject strongly "expects" the US whenever it encounters the CS

- associative value = level of expectation of US

Front 30

In general what is the cognitive view on conditioning?

Back 30

- building the subjects expectations

Front 31

If the two CS that have associative values(V) of Vmax to the US are combined to form a compound stimulus what happens to the V value for each stimulus?

Back 31

- they both decrease to total MAX

- the associative value of the compound stimulus must decrease to match the maximum value that can be supported by the US. According to the Recorla-Wagner Theory, after several pairings of the compound stimu. with food, the total val. of the comp stimu. will be reduced to MAX

Front 32

Overexpectation Effect

Back 32

- the decrease in the CR that occurs when two separately conditioned CS's are combined into a compound stimulus for further pairings with the US

- expectations modified downwards to compensate for the unfullfilment of expectations

bday + xmas --> if celebrated on the both day --> expectations are modified downwards (something like that but not totally... SupperFacial)

Front 33

Phobias

Back 33

- fearful of events that are not at all or minimally dangerous

- extreme, irrational fear reactions

- usually require only one pairing with US and CS and often they grow stronger with time

- Little Albert in attempt to develop a phobia

Front 34

Little Albert and phobia development

Back 34

- Rat(NS) : Loud Noise(US) --> Startle Reaction(UR)

- Rat(CS) --> Startle Reaction(CR)

- Albert generalized to similar objects

(Faults) took several pairings; fear response diminished in time; easily countered with thumb sucking :::: real phobia = usually just one pairing and stronger with time

Front 35

Phobias (more than conditioning)

Back 35

- several additional variables

- observational learning, temperament, preparedness, history of control, incubation, US revaluation, and selective sensitization

Front 36

Observational Learning (Phobia)

Back 36

- tendency to acquire conditioned fear reactions through observation may be inherited

Front 37

Temperament (Phobia)

Back 37

- an individual's base level of emotionality and reactivity to stimulation

- large extent genetically determined

- temperament seems to affect how easily a conditioned response can be acquired (Pavlov)

- individuals with certain temperaments may be more genetically susceptible than others to the development of conditioned fears

Front 38

Preparedness (Phobia)

Back 38

- genetically based predisposition to learn certain kinds of associations more easily than others

Front 39

Temperament vs Preparedness (Phobia)

Back 39

Temperament

- differences between people
- how emotionally reactive they are
- in turn affects how easily they can develop a phobia

Preparedness

- how extensively a particular person can acquire a phobia

Temp vs Prep )::--> while preparedness affects how easily a particular type of phobia can be acquired

Front 40

History of Control (Phobia)

Back 40

- history of being able to control important events in one's environment

- monkeys --> control over environment = less fearful of mechanical toy monster

Front 41

Incubation (Phobia)

Back 41

- strengthening of a conditioned fear response as a result of brief exposures to the aversive CS

- covert exposure may result in incubation

Front 42

US Revaluation (Phobia)

Back 42

- exposure to a US of a different intensity than that used during conditioning can alter the strength of the response to a previously conditioned CS

- direct exposure, indirect exposure (observational learning/information transmission)

Front 43

Selective Sensitization (Phobia)

Back 43

- increase in one's reactivity to a potentially fearful stimulus following exposure to an unrelated stressful event

Front 44

Counter-conditioning

Back 44

- CS that elicits one type of response is associated with an event that elicits an incompatible response

- Wolpe's :: experimental room originally elicited a fear response because of its association with shock

- positive emotional reaction after it had become associated with food

Front 45

What is the underlying process in counterconditioning is...

Back 45

- reciprocal inhibition

Front 46

Reciprocal Inhibition

Back 46

- certain responses are incompatible with each other, and the occurrence of one response necessarily inhibits the other

- PROCESS

- one CR counters another

Front 47

Who is Wolpe?

Back 47

- counter conditioning

- reciprocal inhibition

- systematic desensitization

Front 48

Systematic Desensitization

Back 48

- Training in relaxation

- Creation of a hierarchy of imaginary scenes that elicit progressively intense levels of fear

- Pairing of each item in the hierarchy with relaxation

Front 49

Systematic Desensitization

Back 49

- a behavioral treatment for phobias that involves pairing relaxation with a succession of stimuli that elicit increasing levels of fear

Front 50

Imaginal vs In vivo desensitization

Back 50

- imaginary stimuli vs real phobic stimuli

- imaginal you have to worry about generalizing to real world condition, depends on clients ability to imagine stimuli

Front 51

Systematic desensitization tends to be quite effective with patients who have ...

Back 51

- relatively few phobias

- specific in nature

(not good for social phobias)

Front 52

what two mechanisms could be involved in systematic desensitization?

Back 52

- extinction(argued by Eysneck) and counter conditioning (++ relaxation = better treatment)

Front 53

Flooding Therapy

Back 53

- a behavioral treatment that involves prolonged exposure to a feared stimulus, thereby providing maximal opportunity for the conditioned fear response to be extinguished

- not gradual

- based on extinction

Front 54

Two types of Flooding

Back 54

imaginal and in vivo

Front 55

Imaginal Flooding

Back 55

- visualize feared event

- the greater the fear induced by scenario the better

Front 56

in vivo Flooding

Back 56

- consists of prolonged exposure to the actual feared event

ex:: afraid of ballons.. house of ballons

Front 57

Flooding vs Systematic Desensitization

Back 57

- in flooding their is no relaxation pairing (counter conditioning) and it involves prolonged exposure instead of gradual

Front 58

flooding procedure must be sufficiently... ..

Back 58

- long (30-45mins)

Front 59

Exposure based treatments

Back 59

- combines several aspects of each along with additional processes such as observational learning

- in vivo exposure (gradual flooding)

- guided participation/ participant modeling (demonstrations of how to interact with feared stimulus )

Front 60

Aversion Therapy

Back 60

- reduces the attractiveness of a desired event by associating it with an aversive stimulus

- use of emetic with alcoholism (antabuse)

Front 61

Relapse Prevention

Back 61

- person learns to identify and cope with situations in which there is a high risk or resuming the problematic behavior

Front 62

Aversion Therapy (imaginal stimuli)

Back 62

- this version is called "covert sensitization"

- dependent on clients ability to visualize