Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Psychology 435 Exam 2 (Rick Perkins) ULL

Terms in this set (125)

Rs that lead to . . .
satisfying state of affairs are "stamped in"
unsatisfying state of affairs are "stamped out"
Thorndike's Law of Effect (1890s)
respondent behavior vs. operant behavior
Skinner's Selection by Consequences (1920s)
learning in which
the future probability/intensity of a behavior
is affected by its consequences
Operant Conditioning
Operant Behavior
Operant Consequences
Operant Antecedents
Operant Conditioning
Child burps (R) Friends laugh (S)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping increases
Child burps (R) Mother frowns (S)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping decreases
Operant Behavior (AKA operant)
Child burps (R) when no one is around
Child burps (R) Mother frowns (S)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping maintains
Non-Operant Behavior
Reinforcers and Punishers
Child burps (R) Friends laugh (reinforcer)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping increases
Child burps (R) Mother frowns (punisher)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping decreases
Operant Consequences
Reinforcers and Punishers
extinction of an operant
Child burps (R) Friends laugh (SR)
Child burps (R) Friends don't laugh (removal of SR)
The effect: probability/intensity of burping decreases
Operant Consequences
What are the four types of contingencies?
positive (SR+)
negative (SR-)
positive (SP+)
negative (SP-)
contingency of reinforcement
positive (SR+)
negative (SR-)
contingency of punishment
positive (SP+)
negative (SP-)
Reinforcers and Punishers
reinforcer ≠ reinforcement
punisher ≠ punishment
Operant Consequences
Discriminative Stimuli (for Reinforcement)
Billy (SD): Child burps (R) Billy laughs (SR)
Tone (SD): Lever press (R) Food pellet (SR)
Discriminative Stimuli (for Reinforcement)
Father (SDp): Child burps (R) Gets sent to room (SP)
Tone (SDp): Lever press (R) Shock (SP)
Discriminative Stimuli for Punishment
Child burps (R) Friends laugh (SR)
Child burps (R) Friends don't laugh (removal of SR)
Teacher (S∆): Child burps (R) Friends don't laugh (removal of SR)
Lever press (R) Food pellet (SR)
Lever press (R) No food pellet (removal of SR)
Tone (S∆): Lever press (R) No food pellet (removal of SR)
Discriminative Stimuli for Extinction
operant R emitted
when stimulus similar to SD
Stimulus Generalization
operant R emitted
more in the presence of one stimulus (SD )
than another (S∆)
Stimulus Discrimination
the gradual creation
of new operant behavior
through reinforcement of
successive approximations to that behavior
Shaping
immediate - stronger influence on R
delayed - weaker influence on R
Immediate vs. Delayed
tied to basic physiological needs
primary (AKA unconditioned)
associated with another SR
CS that has been associated with appetitive US
SD that has been associated with a SR
associated with multiple SRs
secondary (AKA conditioned)
reinforced by performing the R
intrinsic
reinforced by consequence external to the R
extrinsic
given an extrinsic SR for intrinsically reinforcing activity
Lepper, Green, & Nisbett (1973)
4 groups of children who enjoyed drawing with markers:
expected reward; given reward
expected reward; not given reward
unexpected reward; given reward
unexpected reward; not given reward
Result?
Loss of interest in drawing with markers found for children in Group #1.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic: Lepper, Green, & Nisbett (1973)
given an extrinsic SR for intrinsically reinforcing activity
meta-analysis of 96 experiments
Extrinsic rewards have little effect on intrinsic motivation EXCEPT when . . .
the reward is expected.
the reward is tangible.
the reward is given for simply performing the activity.
intrinsic and extrinsic: Cameron & Pierce (1994)
typically provided consequence
natural SRs
deliberately arranged consequence
contrived SRs
operant conditioning chamber
key-pecking pigeons
schedule effects
Ferster & Skinner (1957)
organism first exposed to schedule
__________ patterns of R are produced
variable
after considerable exposure to schedule
_________ patterns of R are produced
steady-state
continuous reinforcement schedule (CRF)
each specified response is reinforced
intermittent (or partial) reinforcement schedule
only some responses are reinforced
Continuous Versus Intermittent Schedules
What are the four basic intermittent schedules ?
Fixed Ratio Schedules
Variable Ratio Schedules
Fixed Interval Schedules
Variable Interval Schedules
reinforcement is contingent upon
a fixed, predictable
number of responses
low ratio requirement (reinforcer easily obtained)
high ratio requirement (reinforcer difficult to obtain)
Fixed Ratio (FR) Schedules
reinforcement is contingent upon
a varying, unpredictable
number of responses
Variable Ratio (VR) Schedules
reinforcement is contingent upon
the first response after a fixed, predictable
period of time
Fixed Interval (FI) Schedules
reinforcement is contingent upon
the first response after a varying, unpredictable
period of time
Variable Interval (VI) Schedules
fixed duration (FD) schedule
variable duration (VD) schedule
Duration Schedules
What are the three different response rate schedules?
differential reinforcement of high rates (DRH)
differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL)
differential reinforcement of paced responding (DRP)
Response-Rate Schedules
reinforcement contingent on rate of response
SR+ delivered independently of response
fixed time (FT) schedule
variable time (VT) schedule
Noncontingent (response-independent) Schedules
Skinner's (1948) experiment
hypothesis: Effect of FT schedule?
method: 8 pigeons placed on FT schedule
results: 6/8 pigeons displayed ritualistic patterns of R
conclusion: Rs developed as a result of coincidental presentation of food.
Noncontingent (response-independent) Schedules: Skinner
Ono's (1987) experiment
hypothesis: extend Skinner's (1948) work to humans
method:
booth containing three levers and a score board
"might get points for doing something"
"get as many points as possible"
results: temporary patterns of superstitious lever pulling
conclusion: Rs developed as a result of coincidental presentation of points.
Noncontingent (response-independent) Schedules: Ono
Rachlin & Baum's (1972) experiment
hypothesis: What happens when a noncontingent schedule is superimposed on a contingent schedule?
method:
pigeons placed on VI schedule
VT schedule also implemented
results: temporary decreased in R after VT schedule added
conclusion: temporary response reduction
Noncontingent (response-independent) Schedules:
Rachlin & Baum
a combination of two or more simple schedules
Complex Schedules of Reinforcement
What are the three types of complex schedules of reinforcement?
Conjunctive Schedules
Adjusting Schedules
Chained Schedules
requirements of 2 or more simple schedules
must be met before SR is delivered
Conjunctive Schedules
requirement changes
based on prior performance with SR
Adjusting Schedules
a sequence of two or more simple schedules
each schedule has its own SD
the last schedule results in a terminal reinforcer
Chained Schedules
an event is reinforcing
when associated with reduction in a physiological drive
Lever press (R) Food pellet (SR+)
if SR+ reduces hunger drive
then R strengthened
Hull's Drive Reduction Theory
a high-probability behavior (HPB)
can be used to reinforce
a low-probability behavior (LPB)
The Premack Principle (reinforcement)
Timberlake & Allison
A behavior can serve as a SR when . . .
(1) access to the behavior is restricted and
(2) its frequency would fall below its preferred level of occurrence
if the contingency is not met.
Response Deprivation Hypothesis
if R strengthened through reinforcement
same R can be weakened through
extinction
temporary increase in frequency, intensity, or variability of R
Extinction Burst
signs of agitation or frustration
Emotional Behavior
anger at animal/object blocking them from SR
Aggression
reappearance during extinction of other Rs that had once been effective in obtaining SR
Resurgence
low level of physical activity following the loss of a major SR
Depression
What are the side effects of extinction?
depression, resurgence, aggression, emotional behavior, extinction burst
intermittent (partial) schedule
higher resistance
continuous schedule
lower resistance
CRF < FR (dense) < FR (sparse) or VR (dense) < VR (sparse)
Intermitten vs continuous in resistance to extinction
more SRs received for R
higher resistance
fewer SRs received for R
lower resistance
history of reinforcement
large-magnitude SR
higher resistance
small-magnitude SR
lower resistance
magnitude of reinforcement
greater level of deprivation
higher resistance
lower level of deprivation
lower resistance
degree of deprivation
subject has no previous experience with extinction
higher resistance
subject has previous experience with extinction
lower resistance
Experience with extinction
S∆ absent
higher resistance
S∆ present
lower resistance
distinctive signal for extinction
reappearance of an extinguished R
following a rest period after extinction
Spontaneous Recovery
a function of SDs associated with the start of a session
taken from home cage (SD)
weighed (SD)
placed in an operant chamber (SD)
Events before session (SDs): Lever press (R) Food (SR)
Spontaneous Recovery
Skinner (1950)
a target R is extinguished
a replacement R is reinforced
Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior
type of DRO procedure
replacement R incompatible with target R
Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior
type of DRO procedure
taught to communicate need for SR in an appropriate manner
Functional Communication Training
operant R emitted when stimulus similar to SD
1000-Hz Tone (SD): Lever press (R) Food (SR)
Stimulus Generalization
operant R emitted
more in the presence of one stimulus (SD )
than another (S∆)
1000-Hz Tone (SD): Lever press (R) Food (SR)
2000-Hz Tone (S∆): Lever press (R) No food (--)
Stimulus Discrimination
the peak of a generalization gradient
following discrimination training
shifts from the SD
to a stimulus further from the S∆ than the SD
Peak Shift Effect
relative values vs. absolute values
1000-Hz tone (higher pitched tone)
associated with food pellet
500-Hz tone (lower pitched tone)
associated with no food pellet
The Peak Shift Effect: Explanations
Kohler (1918)
the SD is similar to the S∆
1000-Hz tone still similar to 500-Hz tone
makes less attractive
1100-Hz tone less similar to 500-Hz tone
makes more attractive
The Peak Shift Effect: Explanations
Spence (1937)
two or more independent schedules presented in sequence, whereby . . .
each schedule has a distinctive SD
each schedule results in reinforcement
the schedules can be presented
random or alternating
for set periods of time
Multiple Schedules
FI 30-sec
Red key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
VI 30-sec
Green key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
FI 30-sec
Red key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
VI 30-sec
Green key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
Multpile schedules example
change in the rate of reinforcement on one schedule
produces a change in the rate of response on another
negative contrast effect
↑ rate of reinforcement on one component
↓ rate of response on another
positive contrast effect
↓ rate of reinforcement on one component
↑ rate of response on another
Behavioral Contrast
original multiple schedule
VI 60-sec
Red key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
VI 60-sec
Green key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
Etc.
Behavioral Contrast
negative contrast example
original multiple schedule
VI 60-sec
Red key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
VI 60-sec
Green key (SD): Key peck (R) Food (SR)
Etc.
Behavioral Contrast
positive contrast example
gradual training procedure
minimizes # of errors
reduces many of the adverse effects
2 important aspects:
S∆ introduced early in training
S∆ presented in weak form to begin (fading)
Errorless Discrimination Training
performance of R terminates aversive stimulus
escape behavior
performance of R prevents aversive stimulus
avoidance behavior
What are the steps of the shuttle avoidance procedure?
1.rat placed in a chamber divided by a barrier
2.warning stimulus presented
3.mild electric shock
4.rat can escape shock by crossing the barrier
Shock (SD): Cross barrier (R) Removal of shock (SR-)
escape behavior
Light (SD): Cross barrier (R) Avoidance of shock (SR-)
avoidance behavior
Classical Conditioning
Light (NS): Shock (US) Fear (UR)
Light (CS) Fear (CR)
Operant Conditioning
Light (SD): Climb over barrier (R) Reduction in fear (SR-)
Mowrer's Two-Process Theory of Avoidance
What are the weaknesses to Mowrer's theory?
avoidance responses are often extremely persistent
avoidance responses continue in absence of fear
avoidance responses result in insufficient exposure to CS
Anxiety Conservation Hypothesis (Solomon & Wynne)
experience leads to less fear, but not lack of all fear
Less Fear vs. No Fear (Levis)
avoidance is negatively reinforced
because it lowers the rate of aversive stimulation
Light (SD): Climb over barrier (R) Reduction in shock (SR-)
One-Process Theory (Herrnstein)
avoidance behaviors are actually elicited behaviors
Light (NS): Shock (US) Avoidance (UR)
Species-Specific Defense Reaction Theory (Bolles)
characterized by . . .
obsessions: persistent thought, impulses, or images
compulsions: repetitive, stereotyped actions
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Classical Conditioning
Garbage (NS): Germ contamination (US) Anxiety (UR)
Garbage (CS) Anxiety (CR)
Operant Conditioning
Garbage (SD): Shower (R) Reduction in anxiety (SR-)
Mowrer's Two-Process Theory of Avoidance
What are the different types of punishment?
positive punishment (SP+)
negative punishment (SP-)
intrinsic
extrinsic
Does R grow weaker because . . .
performing R no longer leads to something?
extinction
performing R leads to the removal of something that you would otherwise possess?
negative punishment
negative punishment vs. extinction
punishment is an inherent aspect of the R being punished
intrinsic punishment
punishment simply follows the R
extrinsic punishment
S that is innately punishing
primary (or unconditioned) punisher
S becomes punishing because associated with an SP
secondary (or conditioned) punisher
S becomes punishing because associated with many SP
generalized (or generalized secondary) punisher
What are the problems with punishment?
1.Punishment of an inappropriate R doesn't strengthen appropriate R.may result in a generalized suppression of R.
2.Person delivering punishment could become an SD for punishment.
3. Punished individual may learn to avoid SDp.
4.Positive punishment typically elicits a strong emotional response.
5. Punishment can elicit an aggressive reaction.
6.Individual being punished might come to see punishment as a means of controlling behavior.
7.The use of punishment is often reinforced.
What are effective uses of punishment?
immediate, not delayed
consistently follow each occurrence of R
intense enough from the outset to suppress R
SP- preferable to SP+
more effective with explanation
DRO procedures recommended
Punishment (when used correctly) can . . .
lead to an increase is social behavior.
result in an improvement in mood.
increase attention to the environment.
What are the theories of punishment?
Conditioned Suppression Theory
Avoidance Theory of Punishment
The Premack Approach to Punishment
noncontigent punishment
Skinner (1938)
Punishment . . .
produces an emotional response that interferes with R.
is ineffective for producing a lasting change in R.
Conditioned Suppression Theory
Dinsmoor (1954)
Punishment involves . . .
a type of avoidance conditioning where R is any behavior other than the behavior being punished.
Lever press (R) Shock (SP+)
Lever press (R) Remove access to water (SP-)
Any behavior other than lever pressing (R) No shock (SR-)
Avoidance Theory of Punishment
Premack (1971)
LPB can be used to punish a HPB
HPB LPB (SP)
The Premack Approach to Punishment
Seligman & Maier (1967)
Noncontingent Punishment
the simultaneous presentation of two or more independent schedules, each leading to a reinforcer
VR 20 Red key: Key peck Food
VR 50 Green key: Key peck Food
changeover delay (2-sec)
VI 30-sec Red key: Key peck Food
VI 60-sec Green key: Key peck Food
changeover delay (2-sec)
Concurrent Schedules (of Reinforcement)
the proportion of Rs emitted on a schedule
matches the proportion of SRs obtained on that schedule
RA / RA + RB = SRA / SRA + SRB
proportion of responses emitted on schedule A
proportion of reinforcers earned on schedule A
RA = 119; RB = 58
119 / 119 + 58 = .67
SRA = 2800; SRB = 1450
2800 / 2800 + 1450 = .66
describes how behavior is distributed
NOT why this pattern occurs
The Matching Law
purpose: Foraging behavior of the pied wagtail.
procedure: Time spent foraging on river bank versus open meadow. Amount of food obtained in each location.
results: prop. of foraging time ≈ prop. of food obtained
conclusion: Evidence for the matching law in a more natural setting.
The Matching Law
Houston (1986)
purpose: Communicative behavior of humans.
procedure: Confederates varied the frequency of their verbal approvals when a volunteer was talking.
results: prop. time looking ≈ prop. verbal approvals
conclusion: Evidence for the matching law having an influence on human behavior.
The Matching Law
Killeen (1974)
What are some deviations from matching?
undermatching
overmatching
bias from matching
the proportion of responses on each schedule is less different than would be predicted by matching
When does undermatching occur?
when there is little cost for switching from one schedule to another
undermatching
the proportion of responses on each schedule is more different than would be predicted by matching
When does overmatching occur?
when there is a high cost for switching from one schedule to another
overmatching
one response alternative attracts a higher proportion of responses than would be predicted by matching
bias from matching
maximize overall amount of reinforcement
Maximization (or Optimization) Theory (Rachlin, 1978)
behavior shifts toward alternatives of higher value
regardless of overall amount of reinforcement
Evidence that value makes a difference:
too much responding on alternatives
that don't require that much responding
that provide immediate SRs
highly valued SRs
overconsumption
habituation
Melioration Theory (Herrnstein, 1990)
involves choosing between conflicting outcomes
managing this conflict involves two types of responses
controlling response and controlled response
physical restraint
depriving and satiating
doing something else
self-reinforcement and self-punishment
Skinner on self-control
involves choosing between conflicting outcomes, especially between delayed and immediate outcomes
immediate consequences
more certain
"smaller sooner reward"
"smaller sooner punishment"
delayed consequences
less certain
"larger later reward"
"larger later punishment"
self-control as a temporal issue
typical experiment
present 2 options
less preferred
more preferred
attain more preferred IF wait for experimenter
option to choose less preferred item at any time
Mischel's Delay of Gratification Paradigm
Green, Fisher, Perlow, & Sherman (1981)
purpose: Are non-human animals susceptible to the effects predicted by the Ainslie-Rachlin model?
procedure: Pigeons have choice of 2 schedules.
Experiment 1: when SSR further away
red key - 20-sec delay - 2-sec access to grain [SSR]
green key - 24-sec delay - 6-sec access to grain [LLR]
Experiment 2: when SSR imminent
red key - 2-sec delay - 2-sec access to grain [SSR]
green key - 6-sec delay - 6-sec access to grain [LLR]
results:
Experiment 1: when SSR further away
red key - 20-sec delay - 2-sec access to grain [SSR]
green key - 24-sec delay - 6-sec access to grain [LLR]
Experiment 2: when SSR imminent
red key - 2-sec delay - 2-sec access to grain [SSR]
green key - 6-sec delay - 6-sec access to grain [LLR]
conclusion: Are non-human animals susceptible to the effects predicted by the Ainslie-Rachlin model? Yes.
The Ainslie-Rachlin Model
Changing the Shape of the Delay Function for the LLR
Herrnstein (1981)
humans less impulsive than other animals
individual differences in impulsivity
people become less impulsive as they grow older
repeated experience with delayed rewards reduces impulsivity
lack of other sources of reinforcement may increase impulsivity
subgoals can help control impulsivity
The Ainslie-Rachlin Model
Changing the Shape of the Delay Function for the SSR
commitment response
an action carried out at an early point in time
serves to eliminate or reduce the value of an upcoming temptation
The Ainslie-Rachlin Model
ways to improve self-control
have a plan to handle choosing an SSR over an LLR
rules distinguishing acceptable and unacceptable Rs
The Small-But-Cumulative Effects Model
Other sets by this creator