Description Imagine that you are a behavioral consultant at a community-based parenting center. You ...
Description Imagine that you are a behavioral consultant at a community-based parenting center. Your job is to review cases to determine if the behavioral interventions planned by the staff are appropriate. Review the brief case descriptions below: Scenario 1: Mrs. Levinsky has come to the clinic for help with her 9-year old son’s messiness. She is a working mother and doesn’t have time to pick up after her children. Her older girls are neat and tidy, but Leo is very messy. He never makes his bed and his toys are usually thrown on the floor. His school clothes lie in piles on his chair and his desk is usually so messy that he is often late for school because he has to search for his books and notebooks buried in the mess on his desk. He spends most of his afterschool hours texting his friends or playing computer games. His grades are good, but his personal habits are frustrating to his mother. Leo himself says that his mom is too picky and he has no problem with his room as it is. The consultant on the case, Kim Lee, suggests a behavior contingency program. Leo has until 5 p.m. everyday, when his mom comes home from work, to get his room clean and tidy. If the room is not tidy, then Leo will be punished by not being allowed outside to play. Scenario 2: Mr. and Mrs. Kamali are upset about their 3-year old son’s aggressive behavior. Lately, Basem has begun to smash his toys, or to bang on the doors and tables in the home and has actually managed to put some holes and scratches in some of the family’s furniture. The family has had to remove all decorative pieces from the coffee tables and keep all glasses and breakables out of his reach. He seems to take great delight in this behavior and laughs with glee while he smashes and crushes his toys and other belongings. His parents always react by scolding him or picking him up and taking him out of the room to make him busy with something else, depending on their mood. Mr. Kamali’s grandparents, who live in an upstairs apartment and take care of Basem until their parents return home from work in the afternoon, say that it’s nothing, he’s just being a boy. They find some of his antics even cute and often laugh when he goes into his aggressive mode. The caseworker suggests a program of extinction. The parents are to ignore the aggressive behavior altogether and neither scold Basem, nor pick him up and play with him when he does this. Scenario 3: Seven-year old Tania is always teasing her younger brother Derrick. She hides Derrick’s favorite blanket, taunts him, and always seems to know how to make him cry. Her mother can’t leave them alone for even a minute without worrying about what Tania will do to Derrick. She has never done anything violent or physically harmful, but she usually upsets Derrick so much that mother has to take time from her cooking or part time at home office work to calm the children. Whenever mother tries to scold Tania, Tania objects saying, “I didn’t do anything. I was just playing. Why do you always pick on me?” The caseworker suggests punishing Tania by sending her to her room any time she is in the room with Derrick when he starts to cry. Next, write a paper identifying which scenarios you would okay for further development, and which scenarios need to be reframed using different behavioral techniques. Explain your evaluations using principles learned in the readings. Include in your assessment what behavioral change principles are involved in the program each case worker is suggesting and explain why you believe the suggested principles would work or not. Then, choose one of these cases and develop a complete behavioral change program. In your behavioral change program, explain your program goals, how you would track progress, and what techniques or principles you would follow and why. 1 attachments Slide 1 of 1 attachment_1 attachment_1 UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , only system e s u Messages travel throughnthe human nervous of .both u electrical transmissions that run 8-0by6 way l 0 a ed(a) 3 u o 2 c s 0 r n 2 . e 5 P through individual neurons and (b) chemical@ transmissions o36 that traverse synapses between neurons. 7 3 3 1 Synapses in the spinal cord responsible for a few basic reflexes, but by and large the brain is the ino m.nare Summary coordination and decision-making center for the body. Using a growing arsenal of research methods, scientists have learned a great deal about how the brain ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , nly(e.g.,8recognizing otasks e people engage. Even small, seemingly simple understanding particular words) s -06 cuand u u l d 0 a e . n 3 o 2 s 0 r n 2 hemispheres e of the brain in both typically involve many P parts 5. together. 6working 3 o @ 7 133 ino The beginnings of the brain emerge in the first month of prenatal development; by the second trimester, m.nlate works. In human beings, the largest and most recently evolved part of the brain—the forebrain— predominates in consciousness, thinking, learning, and the many distinctly human mental activities in which most of the neurons a person will ever possess have formed and are migrating to their final locations. Synapses among neurons begin to form before birth; shortly after birth, the rate of synapse formation ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , ly -a0good of adapting to its environment and increasing its efficiency. development onAlthough 6 deal.ofebrain e s u u 8 l d 0 a n 3 u neurotransmitters continue o childhood2years, occurs during the prenatal period 02 braino3structures rsearly .ncand 5 Peand 6 7@ Genetic instructions largely drive to undergo significant changes in adolescence and 1 early 3adulthood. 3 o n i n m. but nutrition, environmental toxins, and new learning general developmental changes in the brain, increases dramatically, so much so that children have many more synapses than adults do. Over the course of childhood and adolescence, the brain cuts back (i.e., prunes) little-used synapses, apparently as a means experiences influence brain development as well. e. c u d o r standing human abilities (e.g., visual perception and language). ot repBut many recent human achievements (e.g., n o d , literacy and mathematics) can probably at any age, and certainly the ability to acquire new onbelyacquired 6 e 0 s u 8 l 0 a .edu that certain kinds of knowledge n 3 knowledge and skills remains throughout life. Some theorists hypothesize u o 2 c s 0 r n 2 . e 5 P 6 o3 essential for people’s basic survival (e.g., certain elements of language, basic knowledge about the physical @ 7 3 3 1 world)—or at least predispositions m.nino to acquire these things quickly and easily—may be biologically built in. Researchers have found evidence for critical or sensitive periods in the development of some basic, long- Many theorists believe that learning primarily involves the modification of existing synapses and the creation e. c u d o r t rep o n o d only, 0implications Some well-meaning educators have drawn unwarranted brain e s u u research. The early years 8-06 ncfrom l d a e . n 3 u o 2 s 0 r 2 programs . and preschoolers is unlikely to prevent are important, but providing for Pe intensive, structured 65infants 3 o @ 7 synaptic pruning, and any other potential 133 of such programs for neurological development have yet inobenefits n . m to be demonstrated. Furthermore, efforts to teach to the “left brain” or “right brain” are ultimately in vain of new ones, along with the occasional formation of new neurons. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that certain star-shaped glial cells known as astrocytes also play key roles in learning and memory. because the two hemispheres collaborate in virtually any activity. Findings from brain research have been useful in helping psychologists refine their theoretical explanations of learning and cognition, but they e. c u d o r not rep haven’t yet offered much guidance regarding effective instructional practices. d t rep o n o d nly, -06 o e s u al -08 5.ncu.edu n 3 o 2 s r 0 e 2 P 36 o @ 7 3 13 m.nino e. c u d o r t repTheories o n CHAPTER 3 Behaviorist Principles and o d only, 8-06 e s u u l a 2023-0o365.ncu.ed Person 37@ 3 1 Basic Assumptions in Behaviorism o n i n m. Classical Conditioning Classical Conditioning in Human Learning Common Phenomena in Classical Conditioning ce. odu r p e r t do no , y l n Operant Conditioning o use 23-08-06 cu.edu l a n o s Important Conditions 20 tooOccur Perfor Operant Conditioning 65.n 3 @ 7 3 13Classical Contrasting Operant Conditioning with Conditioning o n i n . m Eliminating Unproductive Classically Conditioned Responses Forms That Reinforcement Might Take Common Phenomena in Operant Conditioning Effects of Antecedent Stimuli and Responses in Operant Conditioning e. oduc r p e r t no o d , y l n se o 3-08-06 u.edu Punishment u l a n o s erPunishment 202 o365.nc Pof Potentially Effective Forms 37@ 3 1 o n i Ineffective Forms of Punishment m.n Avoidance Learning Cognition and Motivation in Behaviorist Theories Summary ce. u d o r p ot re n o LEARNING OUTCOMES d , only 8-06 e s u l 0 a .edu u c son 023-behaviorist n . 5 Perassumptions 3.1. Identify major that 2 underlie theories of learning. 36 o @ 7 3 nino13 occurs, recognize examples of classical conditioning and related 3.2. Explain how classical m.conditioning phenomena in action, and describe at least two different approaches a teacher or therapist might take to reduce or eliminate unproductive classically conditioned responses. 3.3. Describe what operant conditioning is and when it is most likely to occur; also, recognize examples of operant conditioning and related phenomena in real-life situations. e. c u d o r ot rep n o d , 3.4. Identify various examples of positive s reinforcement, and punishment; explain only negative e 6 reinforcement, 0 u u 8 l d 0 a e . n 3 so 02 o3are key ways in which negative and different. .ncu 2punishment 5 Perreinforcement 6 37@ 3 1 o n i n m. 3.5. Explain how cognitive and motivational factors sometimes play roles in contemporary behaviorist theories. When my children were small, they often behaved in ways they knew would improve their circumstances. ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , than his older brother, but he would readily clean up theodisaster if doing so nly area-0he6called his bedroom e s u u 8 l d 0 a enabled him to have a friend spendrthe n 2023- o365.ncu.e Pe sonight. 7@ 3led 3 1 o My children also learned not to engage in behaviors that to unpleasant consequences. For instance, n i .n m soon after my daughter Tina reached adolescence, she discovered the thrill of sneaking out late at night to For example, when Alex needed money to buy something he desperately wanted, he engaged in behaviors he never did otherwise, such as mowing the lawn or scrubbing the bathtub. Jeff had less interest in money join friends at a local park or convenience store. Somehow she thought she would never be missed if she placed a doll’s head on her pillow and stuffed a blanket under her bedspread to form the shape of a body. I can’t say for sure how many times Tina tried this, but on two occasions I found pseudo-Tina in bed and ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , nly -06 oafter e s u l for each infraction—and probably also her u mother -08 that .eduwasn’t totally clueless about her ona 23realizing c s r 0 n . e 2 5 P 6 seriously. devious schemes—Tina started taking her curfew o3more @ 7 3 3 ino1 n . m The idea that consequences affect behavior has influenced psychologists’ thinking for more than a century promptly locked the window that real-Tina had planned to use on her return. Both times the chilly night air left Tina no option but to ring the doorbell to gain entry into the house. After being grounded for two weeks and has been especially prominent in behaviorist learning theories. In this chapter we’ll consider several basic assumptions underlying behaviorist approaches and then turn to two prominent behaviorist theories. One of them, classical conditioning, explains how learning might come about through the simultaneous . duce o r p e r not o d , y l e oonnlearners’ s 06 u.edu examine the effects of aversive consequences -behaviors. u 8 l 0 a n 3 o 2 s .nc 20 5 Per 6 3 o 37@ 3 1 o n i n m. presentation of two stimuli in one’s environment. The other, operant conditioning, focuses on how rewarding (reinforcing) consequences can enhance learning and performance. Near the end of the chapter we’ll Basic Assumptions in Behaviorism uce. d o r p e r not relied o d As mentioned in Chapter 1 , early research on learning heavily on introspection, a method in which , y l n o 6 e 0 s u 8 duwere thinking. But in the early 1900s, alinside their -0and describe people were asked s too “look” heads what they e . n 3 u 2 c 0 r n 2 . e 5 highly subjective and not necessarily accurate—a P o36were some psychologists argued that such self-reflections @ 7 3 3 1 inoresearch contention substantiated (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Zuriff, 1985). Beginning with the mby.nlater efforts of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov and the American psychologist Edward Thorndike (both to be described shortly), a more objective approach to the study of learning emerged. These researchers looked primarily at behavior—something they could easily see and objectively describe and measure—and so the behaviorist movement was born. e. c u d o r Behaviorists haven’t always agreed on the specific processes that rep for learning. Yet many of them t account o n o d have historically shared certain basic assumptions. only, 08-06 e s u l a edu . n 3 u o 2 c s 0 r n 2 . e 5 P should apply equally to different 36 and to a variety of animal species. Many Principles of learning obehaviors @ 7 3 3 1human beings and other animals learn in similar ways—an behaviorists work on the assumption that m.nino assumption known as equipotentiality. Based on this assumption, behaviorists often apply to human learning the principles they have derived primarily from research with such animals as rats and pigeons. In their discussions of learning, they typically use the term organism to refer generically to a member of any animal species, human and nonhuman alike. e. c u d o r ot rep n o d , only 08 the same way that chemists and physicists study phenomena in -the By focusing on two 6physical .world. e 0 s u u l d a e n 3 u in the environment and things they can observe and specifically, 202 by ofocusing .onncstimuli erso 5 Pmeasure—more 6 3 37@ can maintain this objectivity. Behaviorist responses that organisms make to those stimuli—psychologists 3 1 o n i n . principles of learning often describe m a relationship between a stimulus (S) and a response (R); hence, Learning processes can be studied most objectively when the focus of study is on stimuli and responses. Behaviorists believe that psychologists must study learning through objective scientific inquiry, in much behaviorism is sometimes called S–R psychology. Internal processes tend to be excluded or minimized in theoretical explanations. Many behaviorists believe that because we can’t directly observe and measure internal mental processes (e.g., thoughts and motives), we should exclude these processes from research investigations, and in some instances ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , only 08-06 e s u l a emerging from its it remaining .edaumystery.1 u 23-on inside c 0going r butonwith the things n 2 . e 5 P 36 should focus exclusively on stimuli and responses is This idea that the study of human behavior and o learning @ 7 3 3 1 nino sometimes called radical m.behaviorism. also from explanations of how learning occurs (e.g., Kimble, 2000; J. B. Watson, 1925). These behaviorists describe an organism as a black box, with stimuli impinging on the box and responses 1 Not all behaviorists take a strict black-box perspective. Some insist that factors within the organism (O), such as motivation and the strength of stimulus–response associations, are also important in understanding learning and behavior (e.g., Hull, 1943, 1952). These neobehaviorist theorists are e. oduc r p e r t o no sometimes called S–O–R (stimulus–organism–response) theorists rather than S–R theorists. Especially in recent decades, some behaviorists have acknowledged that they can fully understand both human and o nly, o e s u nal d 8 06 d us -06 cu.edu 8 0 3 2 20 1991). 65.n DeGrandpre, 2000; De Houwer, 2011; Rachlin, 3 o @ 7 3 13 o Learning involves a behavior change. In Chapter 1 , I defined learning as involving a long-term n i n . m al Person animal behavior only when they consider cognitive processes as well as environmental events (e.g., change in mental representations or associations. In contrast, behaviorists have traditionally defined learning as a change in behavior. And in fact, we can determine that learning has occurred only when we see it reflected in someone’s actions. ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , related, entities. A number of psychologists have suggested many laws are more only 0that e 06 behaviorist s u u 8 l d a e . n 3 u o c appropriately applied to an P understanding of what2 influences of learned behaviors, 02 othe3performance n . ers 5 6 @ 7 rather than what influences learning itself (e.g., W. K.3Estes, 1969; Herrnstein, 1977; B. Schwartz & 3 1 m.nino Reisberg, 1991). As behaviorists have increasingly brought cognitive factors into the picture, many have backed off from this behavior-based definition of learning. Instead, they treat learning and behavior as separate, albeit Organisms are born as blank slates. Historically, many behaviorists have argued that, aside from certain species-specific instincts (e.g., nest-building in birds) and biologically based disabilities (e.g., mental illness in human beings), organisms aren’t born with predispositions to behave in particular ways. Instead, they enter the world as a “blank slate” (or, in Latin, tabula rasa) on which environmental ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , y onl 08events. e s -06 Rather u l duuse the term learning, behaviorists Learning is largelyo the result of environmental than a e . n 3 u 2 c s 0 r n 2 . e Pof conditioning: An organism 365 by environmental events. The passive form of often speak isoconditioned @ 7 3 ino13 belief that because learning is the result of one’s experiences, this verb connotes many m.nbehaviorists’ experiences gradually “write.” Because each organism has a unique set of environmental experiences, so, too, will it acquire its own unique set of behaviors. learning happens to an organism in a way that is often beyond the organism’s control. Some early behaviorists, such as B. F. Skinner, were determinists: They proposed that if we were to have complete knowledge of an organism’s inherited behaviors, past experiences, and present uce. d o r p e ot r that genetic heritage and stimulus– nvariability o d , view, any organism’s behavior reflects a certain degree of y l on 08-06 e s u l du1991). Looking at how a response associations alone can’t explain (e.g., R.-Epstein, 1991; Rachlin, e . n 3 u o 2 c s 0 r n 2 . e 5 can certainly help us understand why P 36stimuli o organisms have learned previously to respond to@ different 7 3 o13as they do, but we’ll never be able to predict their future people and other animals currently m.ninbehave environmental circumstances, we would be able to predict the organism’s next response with 100% accuracy. But more recently, most behaviorists have rejected the idea of complete determinism: In their actions with total certainty. The most useful theories tend to be parsimonious ones. According to behaviorists, we should explain the learning of all behaviors, from the most simple to the most complex, by as few learning principles as possible. This assumption reflects a preference for parsimony (conciseness) in explaining learning and ce. rodu p e r t o do n , y l n o use 023-08-06 cu.edu l a n o s 2 Per 65.n 3 o @ 7 133 m.nino behavior. We’ll see an example of such parsimony in the first behaviorist theory we explore: classical conditioning. ce. odu r p e r t do no , y l n o use 023-08-06 cu.edu l a n o s 2 Per 65.n 3 o @ 7 133 o n i n . m Classical Conditioning e. c u d o r In the early 1900s, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov conducted t repa series of experiments with dogs to o n o d , determine how salivation contributes to thely digestion of food. His approach typically involved making a on e 6the dog’s.esaliva s 0 u 8 l du in a small cup), strapping the dog 0 a n surgical incision inrasdog’s mouth (allowing collection of 3 u o 2 c 0 n . e 2 5 P 6 and then measuring the amount of saliva the dog o3meat, @ into an immobile position, giving it some powdered 7 3 3 o1a few of these experiences, a dog would begin to salivate as soon as the ninafter produced. Pavlov noticed m.that lab assistant came into the room, even though it hadn’t yet had an opportunity to see or smell any meat. Apparently, the dog had learned that the lab assistant’s entrance meant that food was on the way, and it responded accordingly. Pavlov devoted a good part of his later years to a systematic study of this learning process on which he had so inadvertently stumbled, and he eventually summarized his research in his book Conditioned Reflexes (Pavlov, 1927). ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , y 1. He first observed whether a dog salivated to a particular stimulus—perhaps to a flash of oninl response e 6 s 0 u 8 l dusake, we’ll continue with our 0 a e . n 3 u o light, the sound ofe a rtuning fork, or the ringing of a bell. For simplicity’s 2 c s 0 n . 2 P 65 o3 @ discussion using a bell as the stimulus3 in3 question. As you might imagine, the dog didn’t find the 7 .nino1and thus didn’t salivate to it. mappetizing ringing of a bell especially Pavlov’s early studies went something like this: 2. Pavlov rang the bell again, this time immediately following it with some powdered meat. Naturally, the dog salivated. Pavlov rang the bell several more times, always presenting meat immediately afterward. The dog salivated on each occasion. 3. Pavlov then rang the bell without presenting any meat, and the dog salivated. Thus, the dog was now responding to a stimulus to which (in Step 1) it had previously been unresponsive. There had been a uce. d o r p e not r o d , y l on e known s -06 conditioning. u 8 l 0 The phenomenon Pavlov observed is now commonly as classical a edu 2 Let’s analyze the . n 3 u o 2 c s r 0 n . e 2 5 P o36did: three steps in Pavlov’s experiment in much the same way that Pavlov @ 7 3 3 .nino1 m Some psychologists instead use the term respondent conditioning, a label coined by B. F. Skinner to reflect its change in behavior as a result of experience; from the behaviorist perspective, then, learning had taken place. 2 involuntary-response-to-a-stimulus nature. 1. A neutral stimulus (NS) is identified—a stimulus to which the organism doesn’t respond in any noticeable way. In the case of Pavlov’s dogs, the bell was originally a neutral stimulus that didn’t elicit a salivation response. ce. u d o r p ot re n o d , y l onbecause unconditioned response (UCR), the responds to the stimulus unconditionally, e 6 s 0organism u u 8 l d 0 a e . n 3 u o 2 nc meat powder was an unconditioned stimulus ershad to learn to 2do0so. For o without P having Pavlov’s 5.dogs, 6 3 @ 7 to which they responded with salivation response. 1an33unconditioned o n i n . m 2. The neutral stimulus is presented just before another stimulus—one that does lead to a response. This second stimulus is called an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and the response to it is called an uce. d o r p e ot r n o d , y onl 8-06 e s u l a -0 5.ncu.edu n 3 o Figure 3.1 2 s r 0 e 2 P 36learned. o @ A classical conditioning analysis of how Pavlov’s dogs 7 3 .nino13 stimulus, the previously neutral stimulus now elicits a munconditioned 3. After being paired with an response and thus is no longer “neutral.” The NS has become a conditioned stimulus (CS) to which the organism has learned a conditioned response (CR).3 In Pavlov’s experiment, after several pairings with meat, the bell became a conditioned stimulus that, on its own, elicited the conditioned response of salivation. The diagram in Figure 3.1 classical conditioning perspective. shows graphically what happened from a e. c u d o r p conditional response, but the mistranslations to “unconditioned” remain in most of classical t rediscussions o n o d conditioning. only, 8-06 e s u l a -0 5.ncu.edu n 3 o 2 s r 0 e 2 P o36 @ Since Pavlov’s time, other behaviorists have observed3classical conditioning in many species—for instance, 7 3 1 o n i n . & Kaye, 1964; Reese & Lipsitt, 1970), human fetuses still in newborn human infants (Boiler, 1997;m Lipsitt 3 Pavlov’s original terms were actually unconditional stimulus, unconditional response, conditional stimulus, and in the womb (Macfarlane, 1978), laboratory rats (Cain, Blouin, & Barad, 2003), rainbow trout (Nordgreen, Janczak, Hovland, Ranheim, & Horsberg, 2010), and snails (Samarova et al., 2005). The applicability of classical conditioning clearly extends widely across the animal kingdom. As Pavlov’s experiments illustrated, classical conditioning typically occurs when two stimuli are presented at approximately the same time. One of these stimuli is an unconditioned stimulus: It has previously been shown to elicit an unconditioned response. The second stimulus, through its association with the ce. u d o r p ot rItebecomes a conditioned stimulus that brings unconditioned stimulus, begins to elicit a response as well: n o d , y nl conditioning ocases, e about a conditioned response. Insmany 06 occurs u u quickly; it isn’t unusual for an 8 l dfairly 0 a e . n 3 u o 2 c s r 0 n . e 2 organism to show the P a conditioned response after 65stimuli have been presented together only five or six 3two o @ 7 3 13pairing (Rescorla, 1988). times, and sometimes after only one m.nino Classical conditioning is most likely to occur when the conditioned stimulus is presented just before the unconditioned stimulus—perhaps half a second earlier. For this reason, some psychologists describe classical conditioning as a form of signal learning. By being presented first, . duce o r p e r not o d , y l e on -08-06 s u l a n 2023 65 ncu.edu Perso 3 20 cu.e n . 5 6 3 @o 7 3 3 1 o in Per m.n e. c u d o r t rep o n o d nly, -06 The conditioned stimulus may serve as a signal thatethe stimulus is coming. ounconditioned s u 8 l 0 a edu . n 3 u o 2 c s r 0 n . e 2 5 6 is coming, much as Pavlov’s o3stimulus the conditioned stimulus servesPas a signal that the unconditioned @ 7 3 3 o1 that tasty meat powder was on its way. inindicated dogs might have learned that the soundm of .an bell Classical conditioning usually involves the learning of involuntary responses—responses over which the learner has no control. When we say that a stimulus elicits a response, we mean that the stimulus brings about a response automatically, without the learner having much choice in the matter. In most cases, the conditioned response is similar to the unconditioned response, with the two responses differing primarily in terms of which stimulus initially elicits the response and sometimes in terms of the strength of the response. Occasionally, however, the CR is quite different from—perhaps even opposite to—the UCR (I’ll give you an uce. d o r p e example shortly). But in one way or another, the conditioned ot r response allows the organism to anticipate and n o d , y nl will soon-0follow. othat prepare for the unconditioned stimulus e 6 s u 8 l du 0 a e . n 3 u o 2 c s r 0 n . e 2 P 365 o @ 7 3 Classical Conditioning inin Human 13 Learning m.n o We can use classical conditioning to help us understand how people learn a variety of involuntary responses, especially responses associated with physiological functioning or emotion. For example, people can develop aversions to particular foods as a result of associating those foods with an upset stomach (Garb & Stunkard, 1974; Logue, 1979). To illustrate, after associating the taste of creamy cucumber salad dressing (CS) with the nausea I experienced during pregnancy (UCS), I developed an aversion (CR) to cucumber dressing that lasted for several years. e. c u d o r t repsome of the fears and phobias o Classical conditioning also provides a useful perspective for explaining n o d nly, whenever oexample, people develop (Mineka & Zinbarg, l2006). For flies near me, I scream, wave my e s -06 caubee u u 8 d 0 a e . n 3 o 2 s r like a wild woman. .n I would be better off if I remained 20 Yes,oyes, arms frantically, and run around know, Pe 6I 5 3 @ 7 3 My overreaction to bees is probably a result of several perfectly still, but somehow I just can’tin o13myself. n control . m bee stings I received as a small child. In classical conditioning terminology, bees (CS) were previously associated with painful stings (UCS), such that I became increasingly fearful (CR) of the nasty critters. In a similar way, people who are bitten by a particular breed of dog sometimes become afraid of that breed, or even of all dogs. Probably the best-known example of a classically conditioned fear is the case of “Little Albert,” an infant who learned to fear white rats through a procedure used by John Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920). Albert . duce o r p e r not pro e r t o n , do 6 lyrat, n o e s was shown a white rat. As he reached outa and touched the behind -0 steelcbar u him was struck, l u 023-0a8large d e . n u o s r .nstartling noise. Nevertheless, he e Albert jumped, obviously 2 producing a loud, unpleasant P noise. upset 6by5the 3 o @ 7 3 bar was struck once again. After five more 13steel reached to touch the rat with his other hand, inothe m.nand was an even-tempered, 11-month-old child who rarely cried or displayed fearful reactions.4 One day, Albert pairings of the rat (CS) and the loud noise (UCS), Albert was truly rat-phobic: Whenever he saw the rat he cried hysterically and crawled away as quickly as he could. Watson and Rayner reported that Albert responded in a similarly fearful manner to a rabbit, a dog, a sealskin coat, cotton wool, and a Santa Claus mask with a fuzzy beard, although none of these had ever been paired with the startling noise. (Watson and Rayner never “undid” their conditioning of poor Albert. Fortunately, the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association now prohibit such negligence. In fact, they would probably prohibit the study altogether.) uce. d o r p e ot r naverage o d , y Evidence has recently come to light that Albert was not an infant but probably had significant neurological l n o e 6 s 0 u 08 2012)..ncu.edu al Beck, Goldie, n 3 o impairments (e.g.,e see Fridlund, & -Irons, 2 s r 0 2 P 365 o @ 7 3 o13of classical conditioning (e.g., Walther, Weil, & Düsing, 2011). In one inresult Attitudes, too, can be partly m.nthe 4 study (M. A. Olson & Fazio, 2001), college students sat at a computer terminal to watch various unfamiliar cartoon characters from the Pokemon video game series. One character was consistently presented in conjunction with words and images that evoked pleasant feelings (e.g., “excellent,” “awesome,” pictures of puppies and a hot fudge sundae). A second character was consistently presented along with words and images that evoked unpleasant feelings (e.g., “terrible,” “awful,” pictures of a cockroach and a man with a knife). Other characters were paired with more neutral words and images. Afterward, when the students e. c u d o r t rep o n o d nly, -06 o e s u l than the character associated o with aunpleasant2stimuli. -08 5.ncu.edu n 3 2 s r 0 e P o36 @ 7 3 3 Think about the many television commercials you’ve seen that have evoked an emotional, “Awww, how nino1 . m sweet!” response in you, perhaps by showing puppies, adorable little children, or a tender moment between were asked to rate some of the cartoon characters and other images they had seen on a scale of –4 (unpleasant) to +4 (pleasant), they rated the character associated with pleasant stimuli far more favorably a loving couple. If such commercials clearly display a particular product at the same times—say, a certain beverage, junk food, or medicine—they can capitalize on classical conditioning to engender positive attitudes toward the product and thereby increase sales (Aiken, 2002; J. Kim, Lim, & Bhargava, 1998). Earlier I mentioned that a conditioned response is sometimes quite different from an unconditioned response. We find an example in the effects of certain drugs on physiological functioning. When organisms uce. d o r p e ot r n o d , y onl 8-06 e s u l a these drugs—perhaps a light, a tone,sor the environmental context edu to elicit an -0 more5generally—begin . n 3 u o 2 c r 0 n . e 2 P 36presumably to prepare for—i
