Slide 1Slide 2Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11Slide 12Slide 13Slide 14Slide 15Slide 16Slide 17Slide 18Slide 19Slide 20Slide 21Slide 22Slide 23Slide 24Slide 25Slide 26Slide 27Slide 28Slide 29Slide 30Slide 31Slide 32Slide 33Slide 34Slide 35Slide 36Slide 37Slide 38Slide 39Slide 40Slide 41Slide 42Slide 43Slide 44Slide 45Slide 46Slide 47Slide 48Slide 49Slide 50Slide 51Slide 52Slide 53Slide 54Slide 55Slide 56Conditioning & LearningFinal ExamAvoidance - a response which delays/blocks the onset of some undesireable outcome•Ex: Avoid running out of gas by putting gas in your car•Very prevalent, but not often considered because we’re very good at effective avoidance responding•Avoidance behavior is very common, but we don’t think about it much•Avoidance behavior is very persistent (when was the last time you ran out of gas? Chances are it was a while ago)•Once you have a response down, you engage in it forever•Ex: Prof. is no longer scared of the zoo b/c he knows to avoid tigers he shouldn’t go in their cage•Avoidance is a form of aversive control•Avoidance has a long history of being described with inadequate theories until about 1973Classical (Pavlovian) Theory (1927)•Earliest lab experiment on avoidance (Pavlov)•Active avoidance response•Finger on a metal plate •Tone comes on for 10sec, and shock comes after•Subject lifts finger after shock (escape from shock)•After a few (2-3) trials, subject begins to lift finger before the shock when the tone comes on•Pavlov believed avoidance responding is no more than reflex transfer•Components of theory:•Shock elicits response which terminates shock•CS, through classical conditioning, elicits same response shock elicits•CS produces an avoidance responseActive vs. Passive Avoidance Response•Active = you have to do something to avoid an outcome•Passive = you have to not do something to avoid an outcomeAvoidance responding is persistent - tends to never go away•So what’s the issue with the classical (Pavlovian) theory?•Because classical conditioning predicts that the subject learns this response and would eventually press the metal plate again (cyclic behavior)•Pavlov predicts that occasionally you should run out of gas, buy gas for a while without consequences, stop buying gas again...etc•However, the subjects never stopped lifting their fingersExample: Box with 2 sides•If animal stays on the left side when the tone comes on, he will be shocked•If the animal goes through the door, he won’t be shocked•Naturally, the rat walks to the right side when the tone comes on every time•What can I do to get the animal to stop running to the other side?•1. Shock the other side of the box too•2. If you close the door, the animal elicits a fear response•What if you close the door and don’t deliver a shock?•Goes against the animal’s expectations•Why would you move if nothing happens? You wouldn’tExample: set out to test the idea of extinction•Brogden ’33•Two running wheels•First wheel, the animal can escape from the shock if he runs to turn the wheel•Second wheel, the animal can escape shock if he runs to turn the wheel, but he also can avoid the shock if he runs during the tone•The rat in the second wheel will quickly learn to avoid the shock and run while the tone is playing•The rat in the first wheel will always get the shock•If Pavlov is correct, there should be huge reflex transfer in wheel 1 rats since the tone is always followed by a shock, and there should be no reflex transfer in the wheel 2 rats since there is never a shock once they avoid it•However, wheel 2 rats run more of the time and wheel 1 rats almost never run during the tone•PROBLEMS w/ Classical conditioning theory•He predicts extinction, but extinction never happens•Classical conditioning theory demands the UR should transfer to the CS, so the avoidance response should be runningNew Parameters for same experiment:•Wheel 2 rats can avoid shock by remaining still, so by full learning the animal will freeze during the tone, making the CR the exact opposite of the UR•No reflex transfer•The classical conditioning theory can be rejected because it does not pass the “common sense test” and is inconsistent with dataTwo-factor Theory (Mower ’47)•1. CS + Shock•2. Animals fear shock•3. CS elicits fear through this process of classical conditioning•Animal is really just escaping from fear during avoidance behavior•Makes no assumption of the animal’s behavior form•Does what it needs to do to get away from the fear-evoking stimulus•There is some truth about the animals trying to escape the fear-evoking stimulus•Problems:•1. Predicts that the response should extinguish, but it doesn’t•2. Presumes that fear motivates the animal’s behavior, but the rat doesn’t exhibit any obvious fear •If he’s not afraid, then what’s he trying to escape from? - THEORY FAILS•Any good theory of avoidance should account for the fact that the response isn’t persistent (doesn’t extinguish), the response is flexible, a well-trained animal is not afraid anymore, if escape is blocked the response ceases, and if the animal is shocked anyway it will stop respondingLet’s Revisit the example of the box w/ 2 sides•Shuttle box - Pavlov thought the animal was just learning a conditioned response (Tone-Running) BUT the animal continues to run forever even when it doesn’t receive a shock•2 factor theory of avoidance (Mowrer)•CS is paired w/ shock (Pavlovian)•Animal fears shock, thus fears the CS•Animals respond to escape fear (operant)•2 factor b/c it consists of a Pavlovian & an operant factor•Mowrer argues that the animals are trying to escape from fear; BUT the well-trained animals don’t exhibit fear•The animal’s expectancy is violated•We must account for response blocking - if response if blocked (if door is closed) the animal exhibits panic and eventually stops responding•If the animal is shocked regardless, it will stop making the response•We must accept the fact that animals have an expectancy & expectancies determine the choices we make•Problems w/ 2 factor method: predicts extinction and assumes the animal is motivated by fearCognitive/Expectancy Theory (Seligman and Johnson ’73)•1. Animals prefer no shock to shock•2. Animals EXPECT that if they respond (go to the other side) then no shock will occur•3.
View Full Document
Unlocking...