35102022

35102022 - 10/16/08 Thomas G. Brown, Ph.D.   Concurrent...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 10/16/08 Thomas G. Brown, Ph.D.   Concurrent   Matching schedules law Present Positive Operation Remove Positive Reinforcement Negative Punishment Positive Punishment Negative Reinforcement Stimulus Negative Omission Escape Avoidance 1 10/16/08   I. Door open - no shock - baseline/operant level   II. Negative reinforcement –  Wander freely back and forth –  –  –  –    In white - door closed & shocked every 5 seconds In white - door open & shocked for 60 seconds In black - no shock Escape readily III. Escape –  Shock discontinued –  Placed in white –  Escape to black readily   IV. New behavior 1 –  –  –  –    Shock discontinued Door closed Turn wheel to open door Learn to do so readily V. New behavior 2 –  –  –  –  Shock discontinued Door closed Wheel ineffective Press lever to open door   Begins as escape –  Develops into avoidance?   But   Two no shock to avoid factor theory 2 10/16/08   Definition –  A type of negative reinforcement in which performing a response prevents an aversive stimulus from occurring in the first place.   Avoidance Paradox –  The puzzle about how nonoccurrence of an aversive event can serve as a “reinforcer” for an avoidance response.   Brogden,   Mowrer, Lipman, and Culler, 1938 1947 –  Two-Factor Theory   This states that both classical and operant conditioning are required for avoidance responding.   Problems: –  1) Avoidance without observable signs of fear –  2) Extinction of avoidance behavior   One-Factor Theory –  Avoidance of an aversive stimulus can in itself serve as a reinforcer; classical conditioning not necessary   Sidman Avoidance Task –  1953 –  Shock-shock interval   5 seconds –  Response-shock interval   30 seconds 3 10/16/08   Sidman, 1953 two factor theory   Challenges –  Where is the CS? –  Is there one to be paired with shock?   There is no external stimulus –  Anger, 1963   Herrnstein and Hineline, 1966 –  Shocks delivered according to one of two VI schedules (actually VT) –  If no response, shocks on a VI x” –  If response, shocks on a VI y” –  As long as y is greater than x   Less shock readily respond   Subjects   Hineline and Herrnstein, 1970 –  20 second cycles –  If no response,   Shock delivered every 20 seconds with lever continuously present –  If response,   Lever retracted immediately –  For remainder of 20 second cycle –  No shock 4 10/16/08   Hineline, 1970 –  20 second cycles   Lever   Lever in for 10 seconds out for 10 seconds –  If no response,   Shock delivered at 8 second point –  Lever retracted 2 seconds later for remaining 10 seconds –  If response,   Lever retracted immediately –  Shock delivered at 18 second point –  Lever reintroduced 2 seconds later   Hineline, 1970 Cognitive Theory of Avoidance   States that a subject’s behavior will change in an avoidance task whenever there is a discrepancy between expectancy and observation.   Two important expectations: –  1) about the consequences of a response –  2) about the consequences of not responding 5 10/16/08   Response Blocking or Flooding –  A behavior reduction procedure in which the individual is physically prevented from making an unwanted response.   To present the shock whether or not a response occurs   Species-Specific Defense Reactions –  SSDRs   Rapidly acquired –  Bolles (1970)   These behaviors are –  Freezing –  Fleeing –  Fighting   Others more slowly acquired –  Safety signals   Maier and Seligman (1967) experiment   Definition –  The impaired ability to learn an avoidance response that occurs after a subject has been exposed to inescapable aversive stimuli.   Applications –  Depression –  Domestic violence –  Athletic performance 6 10/16/08   Laboratory analogs of human psychopathologies   Symptoms –  Behavioral –  Physiological   Etiology   Cure   Prevention   Shuttle Box Leap Shock Grid   Pavlovian Safety harness and muzzle 7 10/16/08   Shuttle Box Shock Grid Safety   Failure to initiate activity learning   Lack of aggression and dominance   Loss of appetite   Loss of interest in social behavior and sex   Time course   Depleted levels of norepinephrine   Increased ulceration   Retarded   Symptoms   Cause   Cure   Prevention 8 10/16/08   Helplessness may be: –  specific or global –  attributed to internal or external factors –  stable or unstable   Brady   Yoked for shock delivery   One who could control shock (for both) developed ulcers   Contrary to learned helplessness model   Weaknesses in subject selection –  Not random (accidental)   Shock is universally used   Introduction –  Low initial intensity –  “fade” it in   Intensity and duration –  Greater intensity = greater suppression –  Greater duration = greater suppression   Schedules of punishment –  Little research 9 10/16/08   E.L. Thorndike – Law of Effect   Connections “stamped in” and “stamped out” and annoyers have equal and opposite effects   Associative role - not just motivational   Satisfiers – Truncated Law of Effect - 1940   Spanish vocabulary experiment punishment   De-emphasized   B.F. Skinner –  Relative ineffectiveness –  Transient effects –  Side-effects   1938 experiment –  Two 2-hour sessions –  Group 1   At onset of extinction,   No further punishment for responses –  FR 1 for pmt for 10 responses –  Group 2   No punishment in extinction –  Findings:     Mild punishment reduced the number of responses Punishment produces temporary suppression of behavior   Manner of introduction of punishment   Schedule of punishment   Motivation to respond   Availability of alternative behaviors   Punishment as a discriminative stimulus   Immediacy 10 10/16/08   Conclusions –  Effective only if continuously applied –  No effect after its removal –  Only delays response (suppresses)   Skinner study flawed –  Punishment - too mild –  Same for Thorndike?   Can elicit several emotional effects –  (e.g., fear and anger) –  These emotions can hamper learning   Can lead to general suppression of all behaviors.   Demands the continual monitoring of an individual’s behavior.   Can sometimes lead to aggression against either the punisher or whomever happens to be around.   Removal of punishment –  First suppression –  Then recovery - unless severe shock   Transient increase upon removal Azrin (1960) –  VI 1’ for food –  FR 1 for shock Responses per Minute   VI VI FR VI Time 11 10/16/08   Honig and Slivka (1964) 37.5” for food on 7 colors (490-610 nm)   FR 1 for shock on 550 nm   VI Responses Baseline 7-9 4-6 1-3 Wavelength SD information   Holz and Azrin (1961)   Responses –  Two daily sessions –  VI 2’ for food FR 1 for shock (concurrent) –  EXT EXT EXT VI FR EXT Time   VI 2’ - food –  VI 6’ - 15” tone ending in shock –  Later used 2” tone as punisher –  CER - conditioned emotional response   Negative   Positive conditioned suppression conditioned suppression –  Conditioned facilitation - if longer stimulus   VI 6’ - food (if houselight off, no food) –  Every 15’ red light turned on for 3’ –  If respond in last 20 of red light, 60’ timeout –  If no response, go back to food schedule 12 10/16/08   Fear   Escape   Discrimination   Competing or alternative response –  One factor –  Two factor     Positive punishment Negative punishment –  Response Cost –  Time out   Overcorrection   Extinction   Response Blocking Extinction   Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior   Stimulus satiation   Escape 13 10/16/08   Controversy focus –  People who are mentally retarded or developmentally disabled   Debate –  1) Punishment is sometimes the only effective way to control and improve functioning –  2) On legal and ethical grounds that punishment is never acceptable and alternative treatments should be used   Begin with a food reinforcement schedule top of that, deliver shock according to a FR schedule   On 1000 150 Responses 100 50 FR 25 Time   VI for food with FI for shock VI FI 14 10/16/08   Squirrel monkeys trained on Sidman avoidance lever press –  Non-discriminated avoidance –  Shock-shock interval - 10 seconds –  Response-shock interval - 30 seconds Concurrently, FI 10’ for shock Scalloping develops slowly   Then discontinue avoidance, scallop remains   30” time-out enhanced scallop       Squirrel monkeys 2’ for food   Concurrently, FI 10’ for shock   Scallop begins to appear   VI –  Not inverted as before   Eliminate VI, scallop continues shock, responding extinguishes   Reinstate shock, responding returns   Eliminate   UMO Dissertation –  Multiple FI FI with choice 15 10/16/08   Maintains responding under a variety of schedules   Decreases responding in absence   Provides a frustration effect   Scalloping effects in SD and S∆ components   Seems schedule of presentation is more important than the consequent stimulus   Guthrie? 16 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/24/2008 for the course PSY 351 taught by Professor Brown during the Spring '08 term at Utica.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online