1 / 17

PSY402 Theories of Learning

PSY402 Theories of Learning. Friday February 28, 2003. Criticisms of Two-Factory Theory. Avoidance behavior is extremely resistant to extinction. Should extinguish with exposure to CS without UCS, but does not.

damita
Download Presentation

PSY402 Theories of Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PSY402Theories of Learning Friday February 28, 2003

  2. Criticisms of Two-Factory Theory • Avoidance behavior is extremely resistant to extinction. • Should extinguish with exposure to CS without UCS, but does not. • Levis & Boyd found that animals do not get sufficient exposure duration because their behavior prevents it. • Avoidance persists if long latency cues exist closer to the aversive event.

  3. Is Fear Really Present? • When avoidance behavior is well-learned the animals don’t seem to be afraid. • An avoidance CS does not suppress operant responding (no fear). • However, this could mean that the animal’s hunger is stronger than the fear. • Strong fear (drive strength) is not needed if habit strength is large.

  4. Avoidance without a CS • Sidman avoidance task – an avoidance response delays an aversive event for a period of time. • There is no external cue to when the aversive event will occur – just duration. Temporal conditioning. • How do animals learn to avoid shock without any external cues for the classical conditioning of fear?

  5. Kamin’s Findings • Avoidance of the UCS, not just termination of the CS (and the fear) matters in avoidance learning. • Four conditions: • Response ends CS and prevents UCS. • Reponse ends CS but doesn’t stop UCS. • Response prevents UCS but CS stays. • CS and UCS, response does nothing (control condition).

  6. D’Amato’s Acquired Motive View • D’Amato proposed that both pain and relief motivate avoidance. • Anticipatory pain & relief responses. • Shock elicits unconditioned pain response RP and stimulus SP motivates escape. • Classically conditioned cues sP elicit anticipatory pain response rP that motivates escape from the CS.

  7. Anticipatory Relief Response • Termination of the UCS produces an unconditioned relief response RR with stimulus consequences SR. • Conditioned cues elicit an anticipatory relief response rR with stimulus consequences sR. • Example: dog bite elicits pain response, sight of dog elicits anticipatory pain, house elicits relief

  8. A Discriminative Cue is Needed • During trace conditioning no cue is present when UCS occurs and no avoidance learning occurs. • A second cue presented during avoidance behavior slowly acquires rR-sR conditioning. • Similarly, in a Sidman task, cues predict relief -- associated with avoidance behavior, not the UCS.

  9. How is rG Measured? • Anticipatory goal responses were initially measured as peripheral nervous system (ANS) response. • No consistent relationship between such measures and behavior could be found. • Now, Rescorla & Solomon propose that these anticipatory states are due to CNS activity (brain states).

  10. Guthrie’s Contiguity Theory • Guthrie rejected the necessity of reward. • Contiguity is enough to establish an S-R association. • A response that occurs when a stimulus is present will automatically become associated with it. • Learning is entirely governed by co-occurrences – contiguity in time.

  11. Impact of Reward • According to Guthrie, reward is important, but it does not strengthen the S-R association. • The effect of reward is to change the stimulus context present prior to reward. • New actions are conditioned to this revised stimulus context. • Reward prevents further conditioning of the undesired behavior.

  12. Guthrie’s View of Punishment • Punishment is a stimulus that can either be escaped or avoided. • If a response terminates punishment, it will replace the punished behavior next time that context occurs. • Punishment works only if the response elicited by the punishment is incompatible with the punished behavior.

  13. Importance of Practice • According to Guthrie, learning occurs in a single trial. • The strength of the S-R bond does not slowly increase with experience. • Performance increases because subjects must learn which stimuli are consistently present. • Over time, many different stimuli become associated with a response.

  14. Criticisms of Contiguity Theory • Guthrie conducted few studies to support his theory. • Accurate parts: • Punishment can intensify inappropriate behavior when it elicits a response compatible with the punished response. • Contiguity is essential to prevent conditioning of competing associations. • Not all environmental cues are noticed.

  15. Impact of Reward • Guthrie’s view of reward has been disproved. • If what happens after a response is not rewarding, an S-R association is not formed, even if the stimulus changes. • Noble – reward size predicts response better than recency or frequency (contiguity measures).

  16. Single-Trial Learning • All-or-nothing (single-trial) learning has been difficult to demonstrate. • Voeks – found single-trial learning of an eye-blink response in humans. • Other studies report gradual learning. • Spence proposed a threshold explanation of single-trial learning using incremental learning theory.

  17. Skinner • Emphasized the importance of environment (reinforcers & contingencies). • Validation of hypothetical constructs interferes with analysis of the variables controlling behavior. • Anti-theory

More Related