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;
44 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Escape behavior |
performance of the behavior terminates the aversive stimulus |
|
|
avoidance behavior |
performance of behavior prevents the aversive stimulus from occuring |
|
|
shuttle avoidance procedure |
animal shuttles back/forth in box to avoid aversive stimulus shock: cross barrier--> removal of shock SD: R-->SR Light: cross barrier-->avoidance of shock SD: R-->SR |
|
|
Two process theory of avoidance |
mowrer -first process: classical conditioning of fear response to CS --ex. Light:Shock--> Fear Light-->Fear -2nd: then forms basis for operant conditioning if CS generates fear, moving away should reduce fear, serve as a negative reinforcer for response problem: avoidance response persistent, even after shock ends, jump barrier, & if continue trials adept at avoidance response, no fear |
|
|
anxiety conservation hypothesis |
avoidance approaches occur so quickly, insufficient exposure to CS for fear to fully extinguish |
|
|
One-process theory |
act of avoidance's negatively reinforced by lower rate of aversive stimulation with which its associated does away with reference to internal state of fear ex. rats climb barrier to avoid shock, not fear |
|
|
species-specific theory |
bolles many avoidance behaviors are ellicited behaviors, not operant |
|
|
Mineka |
2 limitations in applying experimental avoidance in human phobias: 1. in experimental avoidance conditioned, animal avoids aversive US in humans avoid CS. 2. experimental avoidance behavior conditions less readily and less certain than avoidance behavior of phobias` |
|
|
Stampfl |
proposed adequate experiment of human phobia requires: reliable establishment of a fear response with only a single pairing, subsequent avoidance of CS and US, occurrence of successful avoidance on 100% of trials |
|
|
Exposure and Response Prevention |
OCD- persistent thoughts/impulses controlled by compulsions therapy prevents avoidance response from occurring, extinct anxiety while exposure to anxiety event -combines flooding and systematic desensitization |
|
|
Time out |
loss of access to positive reinforcement for brief time following occurence of problem behavior ineffective if setting's more reinforcing than before, often too long- can't reinforce appropriate behaviors |
|
|
Response Cost |
removal specific reinforcer following occurrence of problem behavior, easily adjust severity of punishment problem: must clearly identify reinforcer removed will impact behavior |
|
|
intrinsic punishment |
inherent aspect of behavior's punished |
|
|
extrinsic punishment |
not inherent aspect of behavior's being punished, simply follows behavior |
|
|
primary and secondary punishers |
primary: unconditioned event innately punishing, born to dislike ex. hot stove secondary: conditioned punisher because it's associated with other punisher in past ex. speed-->ticket generalized: event becomes punishing because its been associated with many punishers in past ex. glare from parents |
|
|
conditioned suppression theory |
skinner punishment generates emotional response that suppresses ongoing appetitive behavior. punishment doesnt weaken behavior, it produces emotional response that interferes with occurence of behavior |
|
|
avoidance theory of punishment |
punishment invovles avoidance conditioning, avoidance response consists of any behavior, other than punished behavior. punishment doesnt directly weaken behavior |
|
|
premack approach punishment |
a low probability punishment can be used to punish high probability punishment ex. every time break diet, run mile |
|
|
learned helplessness |
seligman/mayer -inescapable shock vs. escapable shock conditions, tied together --dogs that were in inescapable shock, gave up once put in different situation, cried learned helplessness: decrement in laerning ability results from repeated exposure to uncontrollable aversive events lack of contingency between response and certain outcomes ex. math |
|
|
masserman's experimental neurosis |
cats given unpredicted shcoks while eating, neurotic symptoms -normally active, now withdrawn passive -normally quiet- agitated, develop phobic responses to feeding, similar to PTSD |
|
|
Concurrent schedule of reinforcement |
simultaneously present 2/more independent schedules, each leading to reinforcer -organisms allowed to freely chose between responding on one sched vs another |
|
|
matching law |
proportion of responses emitted on a certain schedukle matches proportion of reinforcement on that schedule thus, pigeon emit 2x repsonses on VI 30 sec schedule as VI 60 sec schedule predicts consistent relationship |
|
|
undermatching |
less different, proportion responses on richer vs. poorer schedule is less different than predicted -if cost is little from switching to one sched to next -less behavior, more reinforcing |
|
|
changeover delay |
switch schedules, lose time, delay |
|
|
overmatching |
more different, proportion of responses on richer sched vs. poorer sched is more different that predicted, occur when cost of moving from one alternative to other's high more behavior, less reinforce |
|
|
bias from matching |
occurs when one response alternatively attracts a higher proportion of response than would be predicted buy matching, regardless of sched ex. cute boy |
|
|
maximization theory |
matching law occurs because it somehow mazes out overall level of reinforcement (Rachlin) |
|
|
melioration |
distribution of behavior in a choice situation shifts toward alternative with higher value regardless of overall effect on reinforcement -behavior shifts until 2 alternatives have about equal value in costs and benefits ex. pigeon 1st confronted with concurrent VI 30 and VI 60, equal responses, chose VI 30 because higher value in reinforcement |
|
|
reduction in reinforcement: |
alternative may not require as much responding as one is distributing towards it to obtain all reinforcers ex. guy spends too much time courting easy clients, instead of more time on hard clients bc of attractiveness of task -overindulgence in highly reinforcing alternative can result in longterm habituation to that alternative, reducing value as reinforcer -poor, cant eat lobster now rich can eat it, lose interest bc eat so much -behavior being too strongly governed by immediate consequences as opposed to delay |
|
|
self control |
skinner views as not issue of willpower, issue involving conflicting outcomes, managing conflict between outcomes-controlling response, only bring $10 to bar -deprive yourself -alternative behavior -self reinforcement, self punishment |
|
|
Rachlin |
self reinfocement makes completion of intended behavior more salient, enhancing value as secondary reinforcer, also more effective when others watch |
|
|
Temporal Issue |
lack of self control arises from fact our behaviors more influenced by immediate consquences, delay of gratification- choosing between two alternatives |
|
|
Mischel's delay of gratification |
Marshmallow experiment |
|
|
Anslie-Rachlin |
preference between small/soon and large/late rewards can shift over time ex. say you'll study in afternoon, once afternoon comes wanna scrump and don't study - reversal of prefernce -value of reward's a hyperbolic function of its delay, upwardly scalloped -early point in time, both rewards distant, LLR preferred, as time passes SSR immeninent, increase in value |
|
|
changing shape of delay function for LLR |
Preference reversal occurs because LLR has low value at long delays, deeply scalloped, if delay is less scalloped, value of LLR didn't decline so drastically, stand better chance of outweigh temptations |
|
|
Variables affect shape of dealy |
hernstein -differences among species -differences among individuals -people less impulsive with age -repeated experience at responding delayed rewards -availability of other sources of reinforcement influences impulsiveness -easily manage responding for distant goal by setting subgoals |
|
|
commitment response |
action carried out at an early point of time that serves to eliminate/reduce value of temptation ex. give shrimpy $20, keep it if i dont run -behavioral contracting |
|
|
small-but-cumulative effects model |
each individual choice on self-control task has small, cumulative effect on likelihood of obtain longterm outcome ex. diet, if eat bad in every "oh its rainy" day, be fat |
|
|
contagious behavior |
reflexive behavior triggered by occurence of the same behavior in another individual ex. orienting responses, bonding, yawning |
|
|
stimulus enhancement |
probability of behavior changed because of individual attention is drawn to a certain item/location by behavior of another individual ex. couple gets appetizer, you see it as you walk in now you get it |
|
|
vicarious emotional responses |
responses that result from seeing those emotional responses by others ex. jellyfish: look of fear in others-->fear in onself NS: US-->UR Jellyfish-->fear in oneself CS-->CR |
|
|
observational learning in operant conditioning |
aquisition: observer pay attention to behavior of model - whether we're sensitive to consequences of model's behavior -whether the observer receives reinforcement for behavior of attending to model -whether the observer has sufficient skills -personal characteristics of model can strongly influence |
|
|
performance |
reinf/punish modify our behavior in modeling: -more/less likely to perform model behcaior when we've observed experience reinf/punish for that behavior -more/less likely to perform modeled behavior when we, ourselves experience reinf/pun -our own history of reinf/pun for perfered model behaviors |
|
|
imitation |
true: form of observational learning that involves close duplication of a novel behavior generalized: tendency to imitate how modeled behavior with no specific reinforcer for doing so |
