Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
2236 week eight
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| procrastination | the discomfort we often feel when we start working on a difficult assignment serves as positive punishment |
| motivating escape behaviours | that in turn result in negative reinforcement (removal of our discomfort) which in turn reinforces avoidance learning |
| escape | getting away from an aversive stimulus in progress - escape behaviour results in termination of an aversive stimulus |
| avoidance | behaviour occurs before aversive stimulus preventing the delivery of it |
| negative contingency | between response and aversive stimulus |
| results in an increase in operant conditioning (behaviour) | that is maintained by negative reinforcement |
| escape | in presence of aversive stimulus makes a response aversive event terminates action is negatively reinforced |
| what if there is no escape ? | neurosis, learned helplesness uncontrollable bad events -> perceived lack of control -> generalised helpless behaviour |
| but what if there is escape ? | you can anticipate the aversive evenet before it affects you and evade it? avoidance learning! |
| avoidance - active avoidance | actively making a response to avoid event eg running away! |
| active avoidance | in typical avoidance experiment rat is trained in a shuttle box with a hurdle in the middle |
| a tone | is presented for 10 seconds -> electric shock delivered through the floor of the cage |
| if rat jumps over the hurdle while the shock is on | the shock is immediately terminated |
| if the rat jumps before the shock comes on | then the tone is turned off and the scheduled shock is cancelled |
| thus depending on when the rat jumps over the barrier | it can either escape from the shock once it is on or avoid it altogether |
| the procedure is called signalled avoidance | because the experimenter provides a signal to indicate when the shock is imminent |
| discriminative avoidance | stimulus signals onset of aversive us |
| measuring avoidance learning | avoidance learning is measured in latency to respond to the signal this subject avoided shock on the 9th trial and continued to do so thereafter ! |
| can learn to use SD to avoid US | guinea pigs cs=tone us=shock(Stimulated running) ur=pain cr=running |
| classical conditioning group | cs followed by us |
| avoidance group | cs -> run -> no us cs -> don't run -> us |
| CC Gp - no opportunity to escape / avoid | avoidance group ran! |
| avoidance - passive avoidance | learning NOT to make response in order to avoid the event eg staying quiet to avoid conflict |
| passive avoidance | passive avoidance using shuttle box procedure |
| shuttle box procedure | it is a form of operant conditioning where the person/animal must abstain from an act or reaction - which will otherwise -> a negative outcome |
| the animals learn to suppress their normal dark seeking reflex | because their entry into a dark chamber is paired with a foot shock |
| learn to stay in bright side of box | (avoid shock) |
| obsessive compulsive disorder vs phobia | ocd typically involves an active avoidance response |
| phobic behaviour | typically involves a passive avoidance response |
| example: a person with ocd will clean frequently or compulsively check things | a person with phobia will avoid object of their fear (eg dogs or select units that don't involve giving a presentation) |
| avoidance 'paradox' | a response/behaviour is made before the aversive stimulus occurs |
| behaviour clearly increases | so is reinforced |
| but what is taken away (or delivered) to reinforce it? | "therefore not getting something can hardly, in and of itself, qualify as rewarding" bit of a problem for behaviourists who need to be able to specify a stimulus |
| the solution: secondary negative reinforcement | warning signal/stimulus, via its association with the punishment, produces a fearful response (ie it becomes a CS) |
| avoidance response | reduces the conditioned fear response so serves as a (secondary) negative reinforcer |
| not getting "punished" or "injured" | is rewarding if punishment is expected ie the subject is anxious or fearful and if this expectation in some ways get reduced ! |
| theories of avoidance | two factor theory: classical and operant learning experiences are involved in avoidance learning |
| one factor theory | relies solely on operant conditioning |
| mower's two process theory avoidance | explains avoidance learning in terms of two necessary processes: 1. first the subject learns to associate the warning stimulus with the aversive stimulus |
| this is a classical conditioning processs: | the warning stimulus of the light is the CS, the aversive stimulus (shock) is the US CS (light) -> US shock -> UR (fear) -> CR (fear) |
| 2. Now the subject can be negatively reinforced during the warning stimulus, this is the second, operant conditioning process | R removes -> CS ie escape fear R strengthens CS ie escape fear thus the two process theory reduces avoidance learning to escape learning! the organism learns to escape from the CS and the fear it elicits |
| Avoidance conditioning and phobias | Phobia - irrational fear of specific object or situation fear is disproportionate to real threat |
| acquisition - classical conditioning | elevator(CS): feeling trapped (US) -> Fear (UR) elevator(CS) -> fear (CR) |
| maintenance - avoidance (negative reinforcement) | elevator (Sd): avoid elevator (RR) -> reduced fear (SR) |
| support for two factor theory | two factor theory predicts that the avoidance responding will be learned only to the extent that the warning signal terminates when a response is made |
| Kamin (1957) trained four groups of rats in a two chamber avoidance apparatus | rats could avoid the shock (US) and terminate the warning signal (CS) Rats could avoid the shock, but the warning signal (CS) remained on |
| Rats received the shock but could terminate the warning signal (CS) | rats could neither avoid the shock nor terminate the warning signal (CS) |
| FIGURE 6.2 Kamin's (1957a results) | it shows that avoidance responding by rats is controlled by termination of the conditioned stimulus Terminates signal; avoids shock No termination of signal; avoids shock Terminates signal; does not avoid shock control |
| a significant amount of avoidance responding | occurred in the first group only (response terminates the signal and enables animal to avoid shock) |
| as predicted by two factor theory | avoidance responding was poor in the group that was able to avoid shock but could not terminate the signal |
| Further support for two factor theory | we know that delaying the onset of reinforcement reduces the effectiveness of reward |
| so it should be possible to reduce the level of reinforcement | by introducing a delay between the avoidance response and termination of the feared stimulus |
| after the avoidance response, the CS was terminated | (1) immediately (2) 2.5 seconds after the response (3) 5 seconds after the response (4) or 10 seconds after the response |
| as predicted | the animals in the zero delay condition successfully avoided shock on over 80% of the trials |
| animals in the 10 second delay condition | avoided shock on fewer than 10% of the trials |
| effectiveness of CS termination | to support avoidance was decreased by increasing delay |
| results suggest that the source of reinforcement in avoidance conditioning | was the reduction of fear generated by the termination of the CS |
| two factor theory and extinction of response | if the aversive stimulus is the unconditioned stimulus in the avoidance conditioning paradigm, then whenever an anticipatory (avoidance) response occurs, the US does not occur |
| based on what we know about extinction | the non occurrence of the US should lead to a decrease in the likelihood (Extinction) of the response |
| evidence against two factor theory | Solomon, Kamin & Wynne Conditioned avoidance responding in dogs Light CS: shock UCS -> fear UR light CS -> fear CR (fear response elcited by the CS) light SD: cross barrier R -> reduced fear SR |
| shock then disconnected | dogs jump barrier for 100s of trials to avoid shock!!! but R should extinguish because CS occurred without the US |
| the fearlessness problem | fear and avoidance are not as firmly linked at the theory believes: according to the theory, fear provides the motive to perform the avoidance response |
| early in experiments a dog would exhibit various signs of fear (whining, urination, shaking) when the tone was presented | BUT once the avoidance response is well learned subjects respond without apparent fear |
| alternation of behaviour (yo-yo) | two factor theorists came back with this scenario: every successful avoidance puts CS on extinction |
| Without extinction, fear drops, so motivation to avoid decreases | resulting in more shocks, strengthening CR again and increasing avoidance response - but we don't really see this |
| sidman free operant avoidance procedure | avoidance can be learned without a warning CS Shocks at random intervals responses gives safe time extensive training, but rats learn avoidance (Errors, high variability across subjects) |
| evidence against two factor theory | hernstein and hineline - rats placed in skinner box, electric shock delivered randomly (probability=.4 for every 2 second period that elapsed) probability of shock reduced from .3 to .1 if lever pressed |
| rats could not avoid or escape shock...just reduce number of shocks received | most rats learned the task and kept lower rate of shock probability |
| problem for two factor theory: avoidance learning in absence of CS! | avoidance learning can be explained by one factor - reduction in shock rate (operant conditioning!) |
| one factor theory | avoidance is negatively reinforced by the lower rate of aversive stimulation to which it is associated - reduction of aversive stimulation accompanying avoidance maintains avoidance |
| sidman free operant conditioning - modulated by CS | sidman free operant - bit of a problem for two factor theory BUT rescorla and Lolordo (1995) trained dogs using the sidman avoidance procedure (no waning stimulus and shock in programmed to occur at fixed time intervals) |
| in this study shocks were programmed to occur every 10 seconds | but every time the dogs jumped over the hurdle in the shuttle box they ensured a shock free period of 30 seconds |
| by jumping at least once every 30 seconds | the dogs therefore could ensure they would never receive a shock |
| Rescorla R.A and lolordo VM 1965 | once dogs learned the avoidance response, they were confined to one half of the shuttle box and given discriminative fear conditioning trials |
| one tone CS+ was followed by shock | and another tone CS- was not |
| sidman avoidance training was resumed | and once dogs were responding reliably, CS+ and CS- were occasionally presented for five seconds |
| when the CS+ was presented the rate of jumping doubled | when the CS- was presented the rate of responding fell to almost zero |
| rescorla and lolordo 1965 | CS+ can amplify avoidance CS- can reduce avoidance |
| evidence that the conditioned stimuli have acquired drive properties | supports the two factor theory's position that it is the CS that drives the avoidance response ! |
| problems for theory | fear is a necessary component but fear reduces with experience |
| cognitive theory of avoidance learning | cognitivists believe avoidance responding is based not on fear but on the subjects expectation that a response will avoid shock |
| during initial training | when the warning stimulus is followed by shock, it is assumed that subjects form an expectation that shock will occur when the stimulus is presented |
| when the animal eventually jumps over the barrier to avoid shock | a new expectation forms (shock does not occur if the response is made) |
| so the next time the warning stimulus is presented | the animal recalls both expectations (shock occurs if it doesn't jump but not if it does) |
| and because it prefers not to be shocked | it will perform the response that produces this outcome |
| cognitive explanation of avoidance learning based on expectations | thus fear has little role in this theory.. it can therefore account for the shortcomings of two factor theory. First, regarding the disappearance of fear during training |
| two factor theory assumes | that once the avoidance response is learned and the warning stimulus is no longer followed by shock, the fear conditioned to this stimulus will extinguish |
| but the animals continue to jump | because it still expects shock to occur if it doesn't jump, and prefers to avoid this outcome |
| cognitive explanation of avoidance learning | second, regarding the difficulty of extinguishing avoidance behaviour this also follows directly from a cognitive analysis |
| the theory says that avoidance depends on two expectations | in the absence of a response shock will occur; BUT if the response is made shock will not occur |
| early in extinction | the dog holds both of these expectations and therefore responds |
| and when shock doesn't occur | its expectation that responding will not be followed by shock is confirmed and it therefore continues to jump |
| with each new trial | this expectation receives further confirmation, so if anything the tendency to jump should be strengthened |
| response prevention -> extinction | if the analysis is right then animals continue to respond during extinction because they never get a chance to learn what would happen if they didn't respond |
| Katzev and Berman | trained rats to avoid shock in a shuttle box and then gave them 50 extinction trials during which the CS was still presented but shock no longer followed |
| control group: was still allowed to jump over the barrier during the phase to terminate CS | response prevention/flooding group: had a barrier placed above the hurdle so that they could not jump |
| Katzev and Berman 1974 | rats that could control the termination of the conditioned stimulus (CS) showed faster extinction of avoidance behaviour |
| longer durations of CS exposure without the shock | led to more rapid extinction of the avoidance behaviour |
| the combination of longer CS exposure and the ability to control its termination | was most effective in extinguishing avoidance behaviour |
| cognitive theory of avoidance | the fact that fear plays a minor role in this theory allows it to explain the continuation of avoidance responding in the absence of fear |
| but for the same reason | it has difficulty explaining evidence that fear does influence avoidance |
| in the rescorla and Lolordo experiment described earlier | for example, presenting a stimulus that had previously been paired with shock doubled subjects rate of responding (even though they were already avoiding shock effectively) |
| other factors to consider: the response problem | one difficulty arose when experimenters tried to teach rats to press a bar to avoid shock |
| we know that rats are very good at pressing bars to obtain food | they can also learn to jump over a hurdle or run down an alley to avoid shock |
| so if bar pressing is an easily learned response and avoidance of shock is a very powerful reinforcer | then you might think that it would be easy to train rats to press a bar to avoid shock yet hundreds of trials are needed to learn to press a bar to avoid shock and many never do |
| Bolles and SSDRs | because each species has somewhat different innate responses for coping with danger he called these Species Specific Defense Reactions |
| so the particular SSDR that occurs depends on | 1. The nature of the aversive stimulus 2. The response opportunities provided by the environment |
| SSDR - species specific defense reactions | innate responses; evolved if an effective means of escape is available (eg an open field) the animal is most likely to flee for cover when it encounters the stimulus |
| without a familiar escape route (eg a confined space) | freezing will be the predominant defensive response |
| SSDRs predominate in initial stages of avoidance | hierarchy if first SSDR works, keep it if not, try next |
| summary - positive punishment/aversive events motivate escape behaviours which are strengthened via negative reinforcement | avoidance learning involves avoiding the aversive event before it occurs |
| learned avoidance can take passive or active form | there are number of theories of avoidance |
| two factor theory | classical and operant conditioning are involved in avoidance learning avoidance is driven by an escape from fear, not prevention of aversive event |
| cognitive theory of avoidance | avoidance responding is based not on fear, but on the subjects expectation that a response will avoid an aversive stimulus |
| what is punishment? | positive punishment and negative punishment |
| types of negative punishment | time out and response cost |
| Whats the difference between negative punishment and extinction ? | types of negative punishment intrinsic vs extrinsic punishment primary vs secondary punishers |
| limitations of the use of punishment | effective use of the use of punishment theoretical accounts of how punishment works |
| behaviour: consequences: escape and avoidance learning | positive: adds something to the environment negative: removes something from the environment |
| reinforcement: increases the behaviour that precedes it punishment: decreases the behaviour that precedes it | presentation of a favourable outcome removal of an aversive stimulus adding an aversive outcome removal of a desirable stimulus |
| punishment definition | punishment is the weakening of a behaviour through either the: 1. application of an aversive stimulus (positive punishment) or 2. removal of an appetetive stimulus (negative punishment) |
| re-cap: positive punishment | consists of the presentation of an aversive event following a response this leads to a decrease in the future strength of that response |
| examples | a child having to do the dishes for talking back to their parents a person being reprimanded by their boss for missing an important deadline |
| recap: negative punishment | consists of the removal of an appetitive event following a response this then leads to a decrease in the future strength of that response |
| examples | a loss of employment for being obnoxious a loss of money (fine) for overstaying parking time |
| punishment | bear in mind that the "to be punished" behaviour is enjoyable to the individual doing the misdemeanour and they won't want to stop |
| and what we have seen from extinction | is that we cannot unlearn a behaviour - can only hope to suppress or inhibit it; or train individual to omit it |
| two types of negative punishment | 1. time out - loss of access to positive reinforcers following problem behaviour (Eg send child to room) |
| 2. response cost - aka omission training | removal of reinforcer for inappropriate behaviour the stimulus that is removed must decrease the frequency of the operant behaviour (by definition -> punisher!) |
| time out | the loss of access to positive reinforcers for a brief period of time following the occurrence of a problem behaviour |
| example | punish a child's misbehaviour by sending them to the bedroom or by making them sit in a corner for several minutes |
| it is likely to be ineffective | if the time out setting is actually more reinforcing time outs that are too long will interfere with the development of more appropriate behaviours |
| time out ineffective | if the time out setting is more reinforcing |
| response cost | the removal of a valued reinforcer following the occurrence of a problem behaviour - the stimulus that is removed must decrease the frequency of the operant behaviour (by definition -> punisher!) |
| aim: offender learns to omit the problematic behaviour | examples: taking a child's toys away for misbehaving having to put money in a jar for swearing speeding/parking ticket |
| response cost - it is easy to adjust the punishment to suit the 'size' of the problem behaviour | time out -> suspension -> expulsion school: time out -> suspension -> expulsion speeding in school zone: 10km/h $389 20km/h $632 (+ demerits) |
| you must clearly identify a reinforcer | that, if removed, will have an impact on targeted behaviour |
| negative punishment vs extinction | similarities both involve removal of reinforcers both result in decreasing strength of behaviour |
| differences - extinction | behaviour that previously produced the reinforcer no longer does and behaviour stops (Eg whining no longer produces lollypop) |
| negative punishment - performing the behaviour | results in loss of reinforcer that is already possessed (eg whining results in lollypop being taken away) |
| negative punishment vs extinction | does the behaviour grow weaker because performing it: no longer leads to something? then extinction! |
| or leads to the removal of something that you would otherwise possess? | then negative punishment! |
| intrinsic vs extrinsic punishment | intrinsic punishment - the behaviour being performed is inherently punishing (eg less likely to lift a heavy object if you experience pain last time object was lifted) |
| extrinsic punishment | the event that follows the behaviour is punishing (eg being chastised after posting inappropriate message on a discussion board) |
| primary vs secondary punishers | primary punishers - events that are inherently / innately punishing eg pain, intense heat, loud noises, hunger pangs |
| secondary (Conditioned) punishers | an event that has become punishing because it has in the past been associated with some other punisher |
| Eg CER paradigm stage 1 | tone CS: Shock UCS -> fear UCR tone CS -> fear CR |
| stage 2: rat is in a skinner box bar pressing for food | tone CS sounds -> rat stop responding |
| secondary or conditioned punisher | some human examples: eg an icy stare! or a speeding ticket |
| problems with the use of punishment | 1. punishment of an inappropriate behaviour does not directly strengthen the occurrence of appropriate behaviour it may result in a general suppression of behaviour eg punishing swearing might decrease all verbal interactions |
| 1. the person delivering the punishment | could become a discriminative stimulus - SD - for punishment the unwanted behaviour is suppressed only when that person is present |
| SD or signal for punishment | eg excessive speed is only curbed when speed cameras are present |
| Problems with the use of punishment | 3. punishment might simply teach the individual to avoid the person who delivered the punishment, or choose a different route |
| 4. punishment is likely to elicit a strong emotional response | this might intefere with any subsequent attempts to teach appropriate behaviours - parking tickets not well received! |
| 5. punishment can sometimes elicit an aggressive reaction | the aggression may be directed at the punisher or another target |
| 6. The use of punishment | might teach the person that punishment is an acceptable means of controlling behaviour - employee goes home and takes out on their partner |
| 7. the use of punishment is often strongly reinforced | the punisher may be enticed to punish more often because they like the results - ie the behaviour of punishing is reinforced so it is likely to continue and strengthen |
| however, when punishment doesn't work | it can result in the punisher making the punishment more, intense, frquent or lasting triggering an escalating spiral |
| benefits of punishment | Gois et al investigated the impact of reward and punishment in collective endeavours that require minimum collective effort to ensure benefits |
| in such case | everyone shares the ensuing benefits and thereby individuals can free ride on the effort of others eg strategic decisions by individuals to limit their emissions to mitigate climate change |
| rewards (positive incentives) | were found to be essential to initiate cooperation, mostly when the perception of risk is low |
| but sanctions (negative incentives) | are instrumental to maintain cooperation |
| best results are obtained | when both rewards and sanctions (punishment) are synergistically combined into a single policy |
| but there can be benefits | lang and melamed published a study in which they can use punishment to stop psychogenic vomiting and rumination in a 9 month old boy who was hospatilised for frequent vomiting |
| rumination is repeated regurgitation without nausea | or associated gastrointestinal illness with concomitant weight loss and malnutrition |
| lang and melamed | instituted a treatment consisting of brief and repeated mild shocks applied to the boy's leg at the first signs of vomiting and ended when the vomiting ceased |
| by the third treatment session | one or two brief shocks were enough to stop the vomiting |
| by the fourth day of treatment | vomiting stopped, so treatment was discontinued |
| two days later | some vomiting occurred so the procedure was reinstated for three sessions |
| five days later | the child was dismissed from the hopsital |
| effective use of punishment | 1. punishment should be immediate rather than delayed this aids the association between the punishment and the unwanted behaviour |
| 2. punishment should be intense enough from the outset to suppress the target behaviour | this can help avoid the use of very intense, abusive punishment |
| 3. punishment should consistently follow each occurrence of the unwanted behaviour | (remember the behaviour is enjoyable to the perpetrator!) |
| empty threat-punishment intensity too low! | responding to a behaviour with a mild punishment often has little effect |
| to modify future occurrences of the behaviour | a more intense punishment is needed than would have been necessary at the outset |
| other factors to keep in mind | 4. negative punishment is generally preferable to positive punishment - this is less likely to produce many of the harmful side effects of punishment |
| 5. punishment is more effective when accompanied by an explanation | - thus, it easier to avoid punishment in the future |
| 6. punishment of inappropriate behaviour should be combined with positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviour | eg timeout for being naughty should be supported with praise for good behaviour |
| summary | there are two main types of negative punishment - time out and response cost |
| punishment can be intrinsic or extrinsic | punishers can be primary or secondary (conditioned) |
| there are a number of important problems/limitations of punishment | for punishment to be effective it needs to be administered immediately, consistently and be of sufficient intensity to suppress the behaviour ! |
Created by:
brendonpizarro1