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: Conditioned and Unconditioned Stimuli Become Associated? Group 1) Group 1 2) Group 2 The Kamin Blocking Effect Phase 1 Phase 2 Light + Tone + Light + Tone and Light + Test Light/ToneLight/Tone- The Kamin Blocking Effect Rescorla & Wagner (1972) Model • The effectiveness of an unconditioned stimulus is determined by it “surprisingness” • An event is surprising when it is unexpected • ΔV = k(Lamda – V) – Lamda = asymptote of learning supported by a US – V = associative value of stimuli that precede the US – K = salience of the CS and US The Comparator Hypothesis • During Conditioning 3 associations are formed – Target CS and the US – Target CS and other stimuli (e.g., contextual) – Other stimuli and the US • Conditioned responding is determined by the relative strength of the 3 associations – Performance Model The Comparator Hypothesis Target CS 1 2 Comparison Comparator Stimuli 3 Indirect US Representation CR US Representation The Comparator Hypothesis and the Blocking Effect Target CS “Tone” 2 Comparison Comparator Stimuli “Light” 3 Indirect US Representation “Shock” CR “Fear” 1 US Representation “Shock”...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/10/2010 for the course PSYCH 110 taught by Professor Rauhut during the Spring '10 term at Dickinson.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online