Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Neuroeconomics wikipedia , lookup
Developmental psychology wikipedia , lookup
Insufficient justification wikipedia , lookup
Verbal Behavior wikipedia , lookup
Behavior analysis of child development wikipedia , lookup
Educational psychology wikipedia , lookup
Psychophysics wikipedia , lookup
Learning theory (education) wikipedia , lookup
Eyeblink conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Psychological behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
7 CHAPTER Learning: How Nurture Changes Us Classical Conditioning Psychomythology: Chemical Transfer of Learning in Planaria 000 000 Operant Conditioning 000 Cognitive Models of Learning 000 New Frontiers: Mirror Neurons and Observational Learning Biological Influences on Learning 000 000 Classical and Operant Conditioning in Pop Psychology: Do Learning Fads Work? 000 Science in the News 000 Critical Points 000 References 000 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Before Reading Further Try your hand at the following four items. Just do your best. 1 Ivan Pavlov, the discoverer of classical conditioning, was well known as a (a) slow eater, (b) fast walker, (c) terrible cook, (d) I have no earthly idea. 2 John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, was tossed out of Johns Hopkins University for (a) plagiarizing a journal article, (b) stabbing one of his faculty colleagues, (c) having an affair with his graduate student, (d) I have no earthly idea. 3 Watson also believed that parents should do what to their children before bedtime? (a) spank them, (b) kiss them on the cheek, (c) shake their hands, (d) I have no earthly idea. 4 As a college student, B. F. Skinner, the founder of radical ehaviorism, once spread a false rumor that which of the following individuals was coming to campus? (a) silent movie comedian Charlie Chaplin, (b) psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, (c) President Theodore Roosevelt, (d) I have no earthly idea. Now, read the following paragraph. The three most famous figures in the psychology of learning were each colorful characters in their own way. The discoverer of classical conditioning, Ivan Pavlov, was a notoriously compulsive fellow. He ate lunch every day at precisely 12 noon, went to bed at exactly the same time every night, and departed St. Petersburg, Russia, for vacation the same day every year. Pavlov was also such a rapid walker than his wife frequently had to run frantically to keep up with him. The life of the founder of behaviorism, John B. Watson, was rocked with scandal. Despite becoming one of the world’s most famous psychologists, he was unceremoniously booted out of Johns Hopkins University for having an affair with his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner. Watson also had rather unusual ideas about parenting; for example, he believed that all parents should shake hands with their children before bedtime. B.F. Skinner, the founder of radical behaviorism, was something of a prankster in his undergraduate years at Hamilton College in New York. He and a friend once spread a false rumor that comedian Charlie Chaplin was coming to campus. This rumor nearly provoked a riot when Chaplin didn’t materialize as expected. Now go back and try again to answer the four questions at the beginning of this chapter. 102 BEFORE READING FURTHER If you got more questions right the second than the first time around - and the odds are high that you did - then you’ve experienced something that we all take for granted much of the time: learning (the answers in order, by the way, are b, c, c, and a). By learning, we mean a change in an organism’s behavior or thought as a result of experience. As we discovered in Chapter 4, when we learn our brains also change along with experience. Remarkably, your brain is physically different now than it was just a few minutes ago, because it underwent chemical changes that allowed you to learn novel facts. How did it happen? In this chapter, we’ll find out. Learning lies at the heart of just about every area of psychology. As we discovered in Chapter 1 when we crossed paths with the nature-nurture debate, virtually all behaviors are a complex stew of genetic predispositions and learning. Indeed, without learning, we’d be pretty much useless as human beings; we’d be unable to walk, talk, drive a car, ask someone out for a date, or for that matter, read an introductory psychology textbook chapter about learning. Psychologists have long debated, and continue to debate, the question of how many types are learning there are. We’re not going to try to settle this controversy here, so we’ll instead review the most important types of learning. We’ll start with the most basic. Before we do, though, we’d like you to place your brain “on pause” from this chapter for just a few moments. After reading this sentence, put down your pen or highlighter, close your eyes, and attend to several things that you almost never notice: the soft buzzing of the lights in the room, the feel of your clothing against your skin, the sensation of your tongue on your teeth or lips, perhaps even the faint smell of an unfamiliar odor wafting in the air. Unless someone draws our attention to these stimuli, we don’t even realize they’re there, because we’ve learned to ignore them. Habituation refers to the process by which we respond less strongly over time to repeated stimuli. It helps to explain why loud snorers can sleep through the night peacefully while keeping their irritated roommates wide awake for hours. Chronic snorers have become so accustomed to the sound of their snores that they no longer notice it. Habituation is the simplest form of learning, and we can find it even in the lowly single-celled amoeba that we see in our microscope. Shine a light on an amoeba and it will contract into a ball. But keep shining this light on it, and soon it will resume its normal activities, like swimming around on your microscope slide. Habituation is probably the first form of learning to emerge in humans. We can demonstrate habituation in unborn fetuses as young as 32 weeks old by applying a vibratory stimulator (which produces small but rapid shaking motions) to the mother’s stomach. At first, the fetus jerks around in response to the stimulus, but after repeated vibrations it stops moving (Morokuma et al., 2004). What was first a shock to the fetus’ system later became a mere annoyance that it could safely ignore. In research that earned him the Nobel Prize in 2000, neurophysiologist Eric Kandel uncovered the biological mechanism of habituation of Aplysia, a decidedly odd-looking sea slug that’s about 5 inches long. If you prick an Aplysia on a certain part of its body, it retracts its gill in a kind of defensive maneuver, much like a timid dog that pulls its paw away when you touch it. Yet if you touch Aplysia in the same spot repeatedly, it begins to ignore you. Kandel and his colleagues found that habituation was accompanied by a progressive decrease in release of the neurotransmitter serotonin (see Chapter 4) at the Aplysia’s synapses (Siegelbaum, Camardo, & Kandel, 1982). This discover helped psychologists to begin to unravel the neural bases of learning (Photograph 1). Habituation makes good evolutionary sense. We wouldn’t want to attend to every tiny sensation that came across our mental radar screens, because most sensations pose no threat to us. Yet we also wouldn’t want to habituate to stimuli that are potentially dangerous, so not all repeated stimuli lead to habituation. Only those that we eventually deem to be safe do. Indeed, some investigators have examined whether habituation occurs 103 Photograph 1 The habituation reflex of the sea snail, Aplysia, has helped psychologists to better understand the chemical bases of the simplest form of learning. habituation the process by which we respond less strongly over time to repeated stimuli CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US to strong stimuli, like very loud tones or painful electric shocks. As their dependent measure they’ve often assessed a variable known as the skin conductance response (in the old days this variable was known as the “galvanic skin response”), which is a measure of the electrical conductivity of the fingertips. As the fingertips become moist as a consequence of perspiration, they become better conductors of electricity. Because the skin conductance response is generally a decent barometer of anxiety, some researchers use it in studies of habituation. Most researchers have found that the skin conductance response habituates much more slowly to strong than to weak stimuli. In fact, in the case of extremely strong stimuli, like painful electric shocks, we often see no habituation at all, even over many trials (Lykken, Iacono, Haroian, McGue, & Bouchard, 1988). Indeed, in some cases repeated exposure to stimuli leads to sensitization – that is, responding more strongly over time to repeated stimuli – rather than habituation. Sensitization is most likely to occur when we find a stimulus to be dangerous, irritating, or both (incidentally, Aplysia show sensitization as well as habituation). Have you ever had the experience of trying to study when the person next to you was whispering, and the whispering just kept getting more and more annoying to the point that you found yourself on the verge of screaming (hopefully, that’s not happening while you’re reading this chapter)? If so, you’ve experienced sensitization. Classical Conditioning The story of habituation could hardly be more straightforward. We experience a stimulus, respond to it, and then stop responding to it after a while. We’ve learned something significant, but we haven’t actually learned to forge connections between two stimuli. Yet a great deal of learning in everyday life depends on associating one thing with another. If we never learned to connect one stimulus, like the sight of an apple, with another, like its smell, our worlds would remain what William James (1891) called a “booming, buzzing confusion” – a world of disconnected sensory experiences. Nevertheless, as a Russian scientist named Pavlov helped to show us, we forge such connections all of the time in daily life. BRITISH ASSOCIATIONISM skin conductance response a measure of the electrical conductivity of the fingertips sensitization responding more strongly over time to repeated stimuli British Associationists an entire school of thinkers who believed that we acquire virtually all of our knowledge by connecting one stimulus with another In the early history of psychology, an entire school of thinkers, called the British Associationists, believed that we acquire virtually all of our knowledge by connecting one stimulus with another: the sound of our mother’s face with her voice; the appearance of a peach with its fuzzy feel; and the smell of a juicy steak with its mouth-watering taste. One we form these associations, we need only recall one element of the pair to retrieve the other. Indeed, even thinking about a sensation often triggers it. For example, as you read the sentence before last you might have sensed the subtle flavor of a sirloin steak in your mouth. The British Associationists, who included David Hartley (1707-1757) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), believed that simple associations provided the mental building blocks for more complex ideas. Your understanding of this paragraph, they surely would have suggested, stems from thousands of linkages you’ve formed between the words in it - like “juicy” and “steak” - and other words, which are in turn linked to simple concepts, which are in turn linked to more complex concepts...and well, you get the picture. One type of association is especially crucial in learning. This is the kind of association we form when our heart starts to pound whenever we catch sight of the target of our romantic infatuation, or when we begin to feel queasy whenever we think of blood. How do we develop these associations? The Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov showed how. 104 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING PAVLOV’S DISCOVERIES The history of science teaches us that many great discoveries arise from serendipity or accident. Yet it takes a great scientist to capitalize on serendipitous observations; many lesser mortals simply overlook such chance observations, regarding them as meaningless flukes. As the great French microbiologist Louis Pasteur (who discovered the process of pasteurizing milk) observed, “chance favors the prepared mind.” So it was with Pavlov’s discoveries, which emerged from a set of unforeseen observations that were largely unrelated to his central research interests. Around the turn of the 20th century, Pavlov was busily studying the digestion of dogs. Interestingly, it was actually his discoveries concerning digestion, not classical conditioning, that earned Pavlov the Nobel Prize. Pavlov placed his dogs in a harness and inserted a cannula, or collection tube, into their salivary glands to study dogs’ salivary (spitting) responses to meat powder. Yet in the process of doing so, Pavlov observed something unexpected. Specifically, he found that his dogs began salivating not to the meat powder itself, but to previously neutral stimuli that had become associated with it, such as the research assistants who brought in their food. Indeed, Pavlov’s dogs even salivated to the footsteps of Pavlov’s research assistants approaching the laboratory room. The dogs seemed to be anticipating the meat powder and responding to stimuli that signaled its arrival. We call this process of association classical or respondent conditioning: a form of learning in which animals come to respond to a previously neutral stimulus that had been paired with another stimulus that elicits an automatic response. Yet Pavlov’s initial observations were merely anecdotal. So like any good scientist, Pavlov decided to put his informal observations to a more rigorous controlled test. THE CLASSICAL CONDITIONING PARADIGM Few findings in psychology are as replicable as classical conditioning. We can take the classical conditioning paradigm, apply it to almost any animal with an intact nervous system, and demonstrate it repeatedly without fail. If only all psychological findings were so dependable! Here’s how classical conditioning works, and here’s how Pavlov first demonstrated it systematically (Figure 1). First, we begin with an initially neutral stimulus called the conditioned stimulus or CS. It crucial to understand that this stimulus doesn’t elicit much, if any, response from the organism. Interestingly, the term “conditioned stimulus” is apparently a mistranslation from the original Russian. Pavlov actually referred to it as the conditional stimulus, because the animal’s response to it is conditional (that is, dependent) on learning. In the case of Pavlov’s dogs, the CS was usually a metronome (a clicking pendulum that keeps time), although Pavlov also found that tuning forks and whistles did a serviceable job as well. Incidentally, many introductory psychology textbooks refer incorrectly to Pavlov’s CS as a bell. In fact, when Western scientists first visited Pavlov’s Moscow laboratory in the 1990s, a bell was nowhere to be found. Then, we pair the CS – again, in Pavlov’s case the sound of a metronome - again and again with an unconditioned stimulus or UCS. This term was “unconditional stimulus” in the original Russian, because the animal responds to it unconditionally – that is, all of the time. In the case of Pavlov’s dogs, the UCS was the meat powder. The UCS elicits an automatic, reflexive response that we call the unconditioned response or UCR, in this case salivation. The key point is that the animal doesn’t need to learn to respond to the UCS with the UCR. The UCR occurs without any training at all, because the response is a product of nature, not nurture. After repeated pairing of the CS and UCS, Pavlov observed something remarkable. If he now presented the CS (the metronome) alone, it elicited a response, namely salivation. We call this new response the conditioned response or CR. Learning has occurred. The dog, 105 Replicability classical or respondent conditioning a form of learning in which animals come to respond to a previously neutral stimulus that had been paired with another stimulus that elicits an automatic response conditioned stimulus or CS a neutral stimulus, eliciting little, if any, response from the organism unconditioned stimulus or UCS a stimulus that is always responded to unconditioned response or UCR an automatic, reflexive response conditioned response or CR a product of nurture, not nature CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US CLASSICAL CONDITIONING BEFORE CONDITIONING No salivation response Tone Food powder(CS) UCR (salivation) DURING CONDITIONING Photograph 2 The Rolling Stones may the only major rock band to accurately describe the process of classical conditioning. One of their well-known songs features the lyrics: ”When you call my name, I salivate like a Pavlov dog.” ADAPTIVE VALUE OF CLASSICAL CONDITIONING Tone (CS) + Food powder(CS) UCR (salivation) AFTER CONDITIONING Tone (CS) CR (salivation) Figure 1 Pavlov’s classical conditioning scheme, with a tuning fork as the CS and meat powder as the UCS. Photograph 3 The film “A Clockwork Orange” portrays a terrifying example of aversive conditioning, in which violent films (CSs) were paired with a nausea-eliciting drug (the UCS). The conditioning succeeded – temporarily, that is. aversive conditioning classical conditioning using an unpleasant UCS the breakdown of alcohol, causing alcohol to go directly to the “drinker’s head” (Fuller & Roth, 1979). As a consequence, upon drinking, disulfiram triggers an exceedingly unpleasant “flushing response” characterized by a red face, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness (as we’ll learn in Chapter 18, some individuals, especially of Asian descent, experience this flushing response naturally as a result of a genetic mutation). The idea here relies on classical conditioning: by pairing the CS (alcohol) with the UCS (a nausea-inducing drug), the CS itself eventually comes to elicit the CR (nausea). Nevertheless, in controlled studies the evidence for disulfiram’s effectiveness has been disappointing. Although it seems to work for some alcoholics, the big problem is that many individuals don’t comply with the treatment. That is, rather than not drinking, many simply avoid taking disulfiram (MacKillop, Lisman, Weinstein, & Rosenbaum, 2003). (Photograph 4). which previously did nothing when it heard the metronome except perhaps turn toward it, now salivates when it hears the metronome. The CR, in contrast to the UCR, is a product of nurture, not nature. In most cases, the CR is fairly similar to the UCR. But it is rarely identical; for example, Pavlov found that the amount of salivation in the CR was less than that in the UCR (we’ll later learn about one strange case in which the UCR is actually the opposite of the CR). (Photograph 2). AVERSIVE CONDITIONING Incidentally, we can classically condition organisms not only to positive UCSs, like food, but to negative UCSs, like pain or nausea. While in graduate school, one of the authors of your book was a victim of such aversive conditioning, that is, classical conditioning using an unpleasant UCS (Emmelkamp & Kamphuis, 2005). Back then, she videotaped infants as part of a study of language development. Prior to each participant’s arrival, she walked over to the video recorder and pushed the eject button to insert a tape. Perhaps because the air in the room was dry, the recorder consistently gave her nasty electric shock whenever she pushed the eject button. Because the shock usually occurred in the midst of a busy series of events in anticipation of the participant’s arrival, she barely paid any attention to it. Nevertheless, one day she reached to push the eject button and noticed herself jerking her hand back reflexively as it approached the button. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, provides an unforgettable example of aversive conditioning involving the main character, Alexander de Large, portrayed by actor Malcolm McDowell. de Large’s prison captors, who hoped to eradicate his bloodthirsty lust for violence, forced him to watch film clips of aggressive individuals, like the members of Hitler’s army marching in unison, while experiencing nausea induced by injections of a serum. The aversive conditioning worked – but only for a while (Photograph 3). In real-life rather than on the big screen, psychologists have applied aversive conditioning with mixed success to the treatment of alcoholism. They’ve sometimes given alcoholics a medication known as disulfiram (better known as Antabause), which blocks 106 Why should we care about classical conditioning? Because it’s evolutionarily essential for us. Without classical conditioning, we couldn’t develop physiological associations to stimuli that signaled biologically important events, like things that we want to eat or want to eat us. Many of the physiological responses we display in classical conditioning are biologically adaptive. Salivation, for example, aids in the digestion of food. Although skin conductance responses aren’t terribly adaptive for us today, they were to our primate ancestors (Stern, Ray, & Davis, 1980), who found that moist fingers and toes came in handy for grasping tree limbs while escaping from predators (slightly wet fingertips help us to adhere to things, as you’ll discover if you moisten the tip of your index finger while turning to the next page of this book). Moreover, without classical conditioning, we can’t learn many important associations. Take the example of people with psychopathic personalities, whom we encountered in Chapter 2 and will revisit in Chapter 18. As you might recall, such people (often called “psychopaths” for short) tend to be guiltless, callous, and dishonest, and they often commit impulsive crimes. Half a century ago, David Lykken (1957) found that psychopaths tend to show extremely weak classical conditioning to painful electric shocks. Lykken first presented psychopaths and nonpsychopaths with repeated tones (CSs), followed almost immediately by electric shocks (UCSs) to the fingertips (the shocks really sting there, because our fingertips are brimming with nerve endings). Not surprisingly, both psychopaths and nonpsychopaths showed a whopping skin conductance response (UCR) to the shocks. Lykken repeated this process over and over: tone-shock, tone-shock, toneshock, and on and on. Then, he presented his participants with the tones (CSs) alone, and measured their skin conductance responses, which were now the CRs. In contrast to nonpsychopaths, who showed pronounced skin conductance responses (CRs) to the tones alone, psychopaths exhibited weak skin conductance responses or none at all. Lykken’s finding may help to explain why psychopaths don’t learn from punishment and often find themselves in trouble with the law again and again (Hare, 2003; Newman & Kosson, 1986): they don’t develop conditioned fear to signals of punishment. Whereas the rest of us may shudder in fear at the mere sight of a police car appearing suddenly in our rear-view mirror, psychopaths typically shrug off this visual stimulus with nonchalance. As a consequence of their indifference to signals of threat, psychopaths don’t inhibit irresponsible and even criminal behaviors that the rest of us do (Fowles, 1987; Lykken, 1995). (Photograph 5). Photograph 4 Dilsufiram (Antabuse) is sometimes used as a treatment for alcoholism. It relies on classical conditioning principles. Photograph 5 TBD Perhaps because they don’t easily acquire classically conditioned fear reactions, many psychopaths are slow to learn from punishment. ACQUISITION, EXTINCTION, SPONTANEOUS RECOVERY Pavlov noted, and others have since confirmed, that classical conditioning occurs in three major phases. We’ll discuss each in turn. Acquisition. The first phase of classical conditioning is acquisition: the process by which 107 acquisition the process by which we gradually learn the CR 1 2 3. . . Trials . . .n Figure 2 Acquisition. As the CS and UCS are paired repeatedly, the CR increases progressively in strength. Amount of saliva (cc) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Unreinforced trials 6 Figure 3 Extinction. When, following conditioning, the CS is presented by itself repeatedly, the CR gradually disappears. acquisition the process by which we gradually learn the CR delay conditioning in which the CS precedes the UCS, but overlaps with it in time trace conditioning in which the CS precedes the UCS and is separated from it by a short period of time simultaneous conditioning in which CS and UCS occur at precisely the same time backward conditioning in which we present the UCS prior to the CS extinction in which the CR decreases in magnitude and eventually disappears spontaneous recovery the release of the CR on presentation of the CS we gradually learn the CR. If you look at Figure 2, you’ll see that as the CS and UCS are paired over and over again, the CR increases progressively in strength. There are four different methods of pairing the CS and UCS. The first is delay conditioning, in which the CS precedes the UCS, but overlaps with it in time. In Pavlov’s conditioning paradigm, this means that the tone came first but stayed on while the dog encountered the meat powder. This kind of learning generally works well, especially when the delay between CS and onset of the UCS is brief. The optimal delay varies depending on what stimuli we’re pairing, but for many stimuli it’s about half of a second. The second means of pairing stimuli is trace conditioning, in which the CS precedes the UCS and is separated from it by a short period of time. Trace conditioning also works well, although it’s generally not as effective as delay conditioning. Many students understandably find the difference between delay and trace conditioning to be befuddling, because the terms “delay” and “trace” lend themselves to confusion. We can think of it this way: in delay conditioning, the CS and UCS overlap but are staggered in their presentation, whereas in trace conditioning the CS and UCS show no overlap at all, so the organism must rely on a “memory trace” - hence the name - of the original CS. The third method of pairing stimuli is simultaneous conditioning, in which CS and UCS occur at precisely the same time. This kind of conditioning usually works rather poorly. Fourth and finally, there’s backward conditioning, in which we present the UCS prior to the CS. Backward conditioning almost always works the most poorly of all forms of pairing. Although it sometimes results in learning (Spetch, Wilkie, & Pinel, 1981), it sometimes produces no learning at all (Lieberman, 1990). The ineffectiveness of backward conditioning makes good evolutionary sense, because in this kind of conditioning, the CS doesn’t signal anything. If you always encountered a stop sign immediately after – rather than before – you drove into a crowded 4-way intersection, you’d be unlikely to learn how to avoid traffic accidents, because the signal comes after the threat to life and limb. Extinction. What happens when, following the repeated pairing of CS and UCS, we present the CS by itself, without the UCS? As we’ve seen, the animal initially produces a CR. But what if we keep repeating the process by presenting the CS again and again by itself? Eventually, we observe a process called extinction: the CR decreases in magnitude and eventually disappears (Figure 3). Following conditioning, after numerous presentations of the metronome without meat power, Pavlov’s dogs eventually stopped salivating. No meat, no spit. Extinction may also explain why the effectiveness of Alexander de Large’s aversive conditioning treatment in A Clockwork Orange eventually wore out. Without the UCS (nausea-inducing serum), the CS (violence) no longer signaled the CR (nausea). Most psychologists once believed that extinction is pretty much the same thing as forgetting: the CR merely fades away over repeated trials, just as many memories decay gradually in strength over time. Yet we now know that the truth is more complicated and more interesting than that, because extinction turns out to be an active rather than a passive process. That is, during extinction the new response, which in the case of Pavlov’s dogs was the absence of salivation, gradually “writes over” or inhibits the CS, namely salivation. The extinguished CS doesn’t vanish completely; it remains there all along, still waiting in the wings. This is contrast to most forms of traditional forgetting, in which the memory itself disappears. Interestingly, Pavlov had proposed this hypothesis in this writings, although few people believed him at the time. How do we know that he was right? Spontaneous Recovery. We know it in several ways, but the most dramatic illustration comes from the phenomenon of spontaneous recovery. If we wait a while following extinction, and then present the CS again, something surprising happens. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the CR spookily reappears! So the CR was indeed there all along, just 108 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING “waiting” to be released following another presentation of the CS. For example, following classical conditioning, Pavlov (1927) presented the CS (tone) again and again, thereby completely extinguishing the CR (salivation). Yet when he waited two hours and then presented the CS again, the CR (salivation) returned. The animal hadn’t really forgotten the CR, just suppressed it. Closely related to spontaneous recovery is the renewal effect, which occurs when we extinguish a response in a setting different from that in which the animal acquired it, but then restore the animal to the original setting. Upon doing so, the extinguished response reappears (Bouton, 1994). The renewal effect may help to explain why people with phobias - intense, irrational fears - that have been successfully treated sometimes experience a sudden reappearance of their symptoms upon returning to the environment in which they acquired their fears (Denniston, Chang, & Miller, 2003). Even though it may lead to a return of phobias in some circumstances, the renewal effect is often adaptive. If you’ve been bitten by a snake in one part of a forest, it makes good evolutionary sense to experience fear when you find yourself there again, even years later. That same snake or his slithery relatives may still be lying in wait next to the same tree. 60 Percent of trials on which CR was made Strength of response CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US 40 20 400 1200 2000 Test stimuli (hertz) Figure 4 A generalization gradient. The more similar the CS is to the original CS, the stronger the conditioning. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION After the first Gulf War in 1992, in which the United States attacked Iraq following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, a large number of Vietnam Veterans traumatized by that war reported that their anxiety symptoms suddenly reappeared. How could the phenomenon of spontaneous recovery help to explain the return of their symptoms? STIMULUS GENERALIZATION AND DISCRIMINATION As adaptive as it is, classical conditioning would be virtually useless if we couldn’t apply it to novel stimuli. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus reminded us, ”we never step into the same river twice.” No two stimuli are entirely identical; even our friends look a tiny bit different every time we see them. So we need to learn to respond to stimuli that differ from those we originally encountered during conditioning. Stimulus generalization. Pavlov found that following classical conditioning, his dogs salivated not merely to the original metronome sound, but to sounds that were similar to it. We call this phenomenon stimulus generalization: the process by which CSs similar, but not identical, to the original CS elicit a CR. Stimulus generalization occurs along a generalization gradient: the more similar to the original CS is the new CS, the stronger the CR (Figure 4). For example, Pavlov found that his dogs showed their largest amount of salivation to the original sound, with progressively less salivation to sounds that were less and less similar to it in pitch. Similarly, if you’ve been in a scary car accident, you may feel your heart pounding while watching stories about other car accidents on television. Stimulus generalization is adaptive, because it allows us to transfer what we’ve learned to novel stimuli. Yet like all good things, we can take it too far. For example, people with phobias are often afraid not merely of the original stimulus that may have triggered their fear, but of stimuli only remotely resembling it. One of the authors of this book treated a woman whose phobia of rats was so severe that she couldn’t even glance at a drawing of a cute rat from a distance without experiencing marked discomfort. Some U.S. Vietnam War veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, a condition marked by severe anxiety reactions resulting from exposure to a terrifying stressor, still - over 30 years later - hide under their beds when they hear the sounds of distant helicopters in their home cities (Spitzer, Gibbon, Skodol, Williams, & First, 1994). They’ve generalized their fears to stimuli – like traffic helicopters – that pose no threat to them. 109 renewal effect in which an extinguished response is restored on return to an original setting phobias intense, irrational fears stimulus generalization the process by which CS’s similar, but not identical, to the original CS elicit a CR generalization gradient measures strength of stimulus generalizations - more similar to the original CS the new CS, the stronger the CR CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US 60 40 20 400 1200 2000 Figure 5 TBD Photograph 6 Upon returning to the United States, most Vietnam veterans with heroin addictions quickly lost their addictions. Photograph 7 Advertisers make copious use of the principles of higher-order conditioning, often pairing their products with image of sexy and scantily clad models. Stimulus discrimination is the flip side of the coin to stimulus generalization; it occurs when we exhibit a CR to certain CSs, but not others. You can see stimulus discrimination in Figure 5, which demonstrates that Pavlov’s dogs learned to respond less, or not at all, to metronome sound that was markedly different from the original sound. Stimulus discrimination also helps us to understand why we can enjoy scary movies. Although we may sweat and hyperventilate just a bit while watching a great white shark chase after a swimmer in Jaws or other waterlogged movie thrillers, we don’t respond nearly as strongly as we would if that shark were pursuing us in a tank in our local aquarium. We’ve learned to discriminate between a motion picture stimulus and a real-life, flesh-and-blood (forgive the choice of words) stimulus. Higher-order conditioning We’re not done with classical conditioning just yet, because organisms also learn to develop conditioned associations to other CSs that are associated with the original CS. Say, for example, that following Pavlov’s conditioning paradigm, we paired a picture of a circle with the original CS, the tone. Eventually, the dog will salivate to the circle as well as to the tone. This example illustrates the phenomenon of higher-order conditioning: the process by which organisms develop classically conditioned responses to CSs associated with the original CS (Gewirtz & Davis, 2000). As you might expect, secondorder conditioning - in which one new CS is paired with the original CS - tends to be weaker than garden-variety classical conditioning, and third-order conditioning - in which a third CS is paired with the second-order CS - is even weaker. Fourth-order conditioning and beyond is often difficult or impossible. Higher-order conditioning allows us to extend classical conditioning to a host of stimuli in our environments. For example, it probably helps to explain why we feel thirsty after someone merely says the word “coke” on a sweltering summer day. We had already come to associate the sights, sounds, and smells of a Coca-cola with quenching our thirst, and we in turn eventually came to associate the word “coke” with these other CSs. The phenomenon of higher-order conditioning also helps us to explain some surprising findings concerning addictions to heroin and other drugs. Many drug addictions are shaped in part by higher-order classical conditioning, with the situational context in which drugs are taken serving as a higher-order CS. For example, in the case of heroin addiction, although the needle serves as the CS, the setting in which the addict injects the drug (for example, alone versus with friends) is a higher-order CS. Behaviorists refer to these higherorder CSs as occasion setters, because they refer to the setting in which the CS occurs. Although public perception has it that “breaking the grip” of heroin addiction is difficult or impossible, research evidence suggests otherwise (Sullum, 2003). For example, sociologist Lee Robins and her colleagues (Robins, Helzer, & Davis, 1975) examined 451 Vietnam veterans who had returned to the United States with cases of serious heroin addiction. Although many mental health experts confidently predicted a rash of heroin addiction upon Vietnam veterans’ return to America, this epidemic never materialized. In fact, in Robins’ sample, 86% of heroin-addicted Vietnam veterans lost their addiction shortly after returning to the United States. What had happened? Because the occasion setters had changed from Vietnam to the United States, the veterans’ classically conditioned responses to heroin extinguished (Photograph 6) Applications of Classical Conditioning to Daily Life Classical conditioning applies to myriad domains of everyday life. We’ll consider four such applications: advertising, the acquisition of fears, the acquisition of fetishes, and disgust reactions. higher-order conditioning the process by which organisms develop classically conditioned responses to CSs associated with the original CS Classical Conditioning and Advertising. Few people grasp the principles of classical conditioning, especially higher-order classical conditioning, better than advertisers (Photograph 7). By repeatedly pairing the sights and sounds of products with photographs of handsome hairy hunks and scantily clad beauties, the marketing whizzes of Madison 110 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING Avenue try to establish classically conditioned connections between their brands and positive emotions. They do so for a good reason: it works. For example, one researcher (Gorn, 1982) paired slides of either blue or beige pens (the CSs) with music that participants had rated as either enjoyable or not enjoyable (the UCSs). He then gave participants the opportunity to select a pen upon their departing the lab. Whereas 79% of participants picked the pen that had been paired with music they liked, only 30% picked the pen that had been paired with music they disliked. Another researcher (Grossman, 1998) randomly assigned participants to two conditions: one in which they saw a fictitious brand of mouthwash (the CS) paired repeatedly with pleasant visual images, like a relaxing tropical scene (the UCSs), and a second in which they saw the CS and UCSs jumbled up in random order. Compared with the random presentation of CS and UCS, the repeated pairing between CS and UCS resulted in a significantly greater preference for the mouthwash three weeks later. Nevertheless, not all researchers who have paired products with pleasurable stimuli have succeeded in demonstrating classical conditioning effects (Smith, 2002). For example, two researchers (Gresham & Shimp, 1985) paired various products, like Coke, Colgate toothpaste, and Grape Nuts cereal, with television commercials that had been rated as generating pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral emotions. They failed to find much evidence that these pairings affected participants’ preferences for the ads. Nevertheless, their negative findings are open to an alternative explanation: latent inhibition. Latent inhibition refers to the fact that when we’ve experienced a CS alone many times, it’s difficult to classically condition it to another stimulus (Vaitl & Lipp, 1997). Because Gresham and Shimp relied on brands with which participants were already familiar, their negative findings may be attributable to latent inhibition. Indeed, when researchers have used novel brands, they’ve generally been able to demonstrateD classical conditioning effects (Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987). Photograph 8 Prior to Watson and Rayner’s classical conditioning, Little Albert liked rabbits. After classical conditioning, he reacted with fear. Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis The Acquisition of Fears. We’ve seen that classical conditioning can help to explain how we develop preferences for certain things, like products advertised on television. But can classical conditioning also help to explain the origins of abnormal behaviors, like phobias, fetishes, and extreme disgust reactions? There’s considerable evidence that it can. The Strange Tale of Little Albert. The person who first demonstrated this point was none other than our old friend John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism. In 1920, Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner performed what by any standard must be regarded as one of the most ethically problematic studies in the history of psychology. Here’s what they did. Watson and Rayner (1920) began with a 9th month old infant who will forever be enshrined in the psychological literature as Little Albert. Little Albert, it so happened, was fond of furry little creatures, like white rats. Well, Watson and Rayner were about to change that. Watson and Rayner first allowed Little Albert to play with a rat. But only seconds afterwards, Watson snuck up behind Albert and struck a gong with a steel hammer, creating an ear-splitting noise and startling poor Little Albert out of his wits. After seven such pairings of CS (rat) and UCS (sound from gong), Little Albert exhibited a CR (fear) to the rat alone. This fear was still present when Watson and Rayner exposed Little Albert to the rat five days later. Moreover, Watson and Rayner observed that Little Albert had become a victim of stimulus generalization, because he had begun to fear not merely rats, but also a rabbit, a dog, a furry coat and, to a lesser extent, a Santa Claus Mask and John B. Watson’s hair. Fortunately, Little Albert also demonstrated at least some stimulus discrimination, as he didn’t display much fear toward cotton balls or the hair of Dr. Watson’s research assistants (Photograph 8). Watson and Rayner’s Little Albert demonstration is only a case study. As we noted in 111 occasion setters the setting in which the CS occurs Latent inhibition negative responses that are difficult classically condition CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Replicability Chapter 3, case studies are extremely limited in the conclusions they allow; for example, we can’t generalize from Little Albert’s case to the development of phobias in other children. Nevertheless, the Little Albert case provides an existence proof (see Chapter 3) that classical conditioning can produce phobia-like states in humans. Admittedly, not everyone has successfully replicated Watson and Rayner’s findings (Harris, 1979; Jones, 1930). This fact doesn’t mean that Watson and Rayner were wrong to claim that Little Albert’s fears arose from classical conditioning, but it does imply that there may be more to developing phobias than classical conditioning alone. We’ll come back to this point later in the chapter. Incidentally, you might be wondering whatever became of Little Albert. As it turns out, the Little Albert story is the source of numerous psychology urban legends (Gilovich, 1991). For example, some textbooks state that Watson and Rayner removed Little Albert’s fear using deconditioning: pairing the CS (rat) with a pleasant UCS (such as food). This happy Hollywood-style ending never happened (Harris, 1979). In fact, we’ll probably never know Little Albert’s fate, because his mother, perhaps understandably fed up with Watson and Raynor’s madcap experimental adventures, withdrew him from the study about a month after it began, never to be heard from again. Needless to say, because inducing a phobia-like condition in an infant raises a host of serious ethical questions, Watson and Rayner’s Little Albert study would never get through a modern-day college or university IRB (see Chapter 3). Phobias. Do you suffer from a serious case of paraskavedekatriaphobia? If so, don’t be overly concerned, because you aren’t the only person in the world who is mortally afraid of Friday the 13th. Because of stimulus generalization and higher-order conditioning, classical conditioning is remarkably flexible. As a consequence, we can develop fears of many stimuli, although certain phobias, such as those of snakes, spiders, heights, water, and blood, are considerably more widespread than others (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Other phobias, like fear of being tickled by feathers (pteronophobia), fear of clowns (coulrophobia), fear of flutes (aulophobia), and fear of bald people (peladophobia), are downright strange, although such fears are rarely severe (see Table 1). Alliumphobia: Fear of garlic Iatrophobia: Fear of doctors Arachibutyrophobia: Fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth Lachanophobia: Fear of vegetables Bathmophobia: Fear of stairs Brontophobia: Fear of thunderstorms Bufonaophobia: Fear of toads Catoptrophobia: Fear of mirrors Cynophobia: Fear of dogs Elurophobia: Fear of cats Epistaxiaophobia: Fear of nosebleeds Melissophobia: Fear of bees Ophidiophobia: Fear of snakes Peladophobia: Fear of bald people Pogonophobia: Fear of beards Rhytiphobia: Fear of getting wrinkles Samhainophobia: Fear of Halloween Taphephobia: Fear of being buried alive Xyrophobia: Fear of razors Table 1 Phobias Galore illustrates just how enormously varied people’s fears can be. Many of these phobias may be acquired at least partly by classical conditioning. deconditioning pairing the CS with a pleasant UCS The good news is that we can not only develop phobias in part through classical 5: conditioning, we can also eliminate them through classical conditioning. One of Watson’s students, Mary Cover Jones, treated a 3 year old named Little Peter, who had a phobia of rabbits. Fortunately, Little Peter’s story had a happier ending did Little Albert’s. Jones (1924) successfully treated Peter’s fear by giving him a piece of his favorite candy each 112 THE BRAIN she moved a white rabbit closer to him. Eventually, the sight of the rabbit came to elicit a new CR: pleasure rather than fear. Modern day psychotherapists, although rarely feeding their clients candy, use similar principles to eliminate phobias. For example, they may pair feared stimuli with relaxation or other pleasurable stimuli (Wolpe, 1990; see Chapter 16). Photograph 9 Fetishes appear to be acquired in part by means of classical conditioning. Although the range of objects to which fetishes are attached are enormous, most seem to center around women’s sexuality. Fetishes. Just as classical conditioning can lead us to develop fears of certain objects, it may also lead us to develop sexual attractions to other objects. Indeed, there’s good reason to believe that fetishism – sexual attraction to nonliving objects – often arises in part from classical conditioning (Akins, 2004). The same goes for a related condition, partialism, which is excessive sexual preoccupation with one part of the body to the exclusion of others, such as the breasts, feet, legs, or buttocks. For reasons that scientists do not fully understand, men have a virtual monopoly on fetishes (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Like phobias, fetishes can take a remarkably wide variety of forms. Most fetishes involve stimuli associated with women’s sexuality, like stockings, bras, and shoes. Nevertheless, others are far more difficult to explain. For example, one man achieved sexual gratification from looking at British SUV cars (de Silva & Pernet, 1992) and another from looking at flags (Lange, 1991). (Photograph 9). Some conditions apparently related to fetishes are even more unusual. For example, individuals with apotemnophilia (or body integrity identity disorder) are almost constantly preoccupied with the idea of becoming amputees, and sometimes even amputate their own limbs to achieve that morbid goal. For certain individuals, the intense fascination with becoming an amputee appears to contain a sexual component. For example, some apotemnophilics appear to receive sexual gratification from thinking of themselves as future amputees (First, 2005). Individuals with yet another condition called autoerotic axphyxiation (or hypoxyphilia) derive sexual satisfaction from depriving themselves of oxygen while engaged in sexual activity, such as masturbation or intercourse. Many of them engage in strangulation, hanging, suffocation, or choking to achieve oxygen deprivation, which appears to intensify the sexual experience. Tragically, a number of individuals with this condition have died as a consequence of accidental oxygen deprivation (Hucker & Blanchard, 1992). Although the origins of human fetishes are controversial, Michael Domjan and his colleagues were successful in classically conditioning fetishes in male Japanese quail. In one study, they presented male quails with a cylindrical object made of terrycloth, followed by a female quail with which they happily and promptly mated. After 30 such pairings, about half of the male quail attempted to mate repeatedly with the cylindrical object when it was presented alone (Koksal, Domjan, et al., 2004) (Photograph 10). This research doesn’t demonstrate, of course, that classical conditioning explains the acquisition of fetishes in humans; it’s an awfully long way from quails mating with terrycloth cylinders to humans 113 Photograph 10 The research of Michael Domjan and his colleagues suggests that fetish-like behaviors can be classically conditioned in male quail. fetishism sexual attraction to nonliving objects CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US getting excited by shoes. Nevertheless, there’s good evidence that at least some people acquire fetishes by repeatedly pairing neutral objects with sexual activity (Rachman & Hodgson, 1968; Weinberg, Williams, & Calhan, 1995). Photograph 11 This looks like a pretty ordinarily jacket. Would you wear it if someone told you that Adolph Hitler had previously worn it? Disgust reactions. Imagine that a researcher asked to you to try on a 70 year old sweater that was perfectly preserved. No problem, right? Well, let’s instead imagine that this researcher asked to you try on this jacket, but informed you that Adolph Hitler had worn it. If you’re like most subjects in the studies of Paul Rozin and his colleagues, you’d hesitate (D’Amato, 1998). (Photograph 11). Indeed, Rozin (who has earned the nickname of “Dr. Disgust”) and his colleagues have found that humans develop disgust reactions with surprising ease. In most cases, these reactions are probably the product of classical conditioning, because CSs associated with disgusting UCSs come to elicit disgust themselves. In many cases, these disgust reactions appear to be tied to stimuli that are biologically important to us, such as animals or objects that are dirty or potentially poisonous (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). For example, Rozin and his colleagues found that subjects who happily gobble up a delicious piece of fudge suddenly express a decided reluctance to do so when this piece of fudge is molded into the shape of dog feces (Rozin, Millman, & Nemeroff, 1986). In another study, Rozin and his collaborators asked participants to drink from two glasses of water, both of which contained sugar (sucrose). In one case, the sucrose came from a bottle arbitrarily labeled “sucrose”; in another, the sucrose came from a bottle arbitrarily labeled “Sodium Cyanide, Poison.” The investigators told subjects that both bottles were completely safe. Moreover, they even asked subjects to attach the arbitrary labels on the two glasses themselves, thereby allowing them to select which label went with which glass. Even so, subjects were extremely reluctant to drink from the glass that contained the sucrose labeled as poisonous (Rozin, Markwith, & Ross, 1990). Participants’ responses in this study were irrational, but perhaps understandable: they were probably relying on the heuristic “better safe than sorry.” Classical conditioning helps keep us safe, even though it goes too far on occasion. PSYCHOMYTHOLOGY Chemical Transfer of Learning in Planaria You’ve probably heard that “you are what you eat,” but in the 1950s the flamboyant psychologist James McConnell took this proverb quite literally. McConnell become convinced that he had discovered a means of chemically transferring learning from one animal to another. Indeed, for many years psychology textbooks informed undergraduates that scientists could chemically transfer learning across animals. McConnell’s animal of choice? The planaria, a flatworm that’s typically no more than a few inches long. Using classical conditioning, McConnell and his colleagues exposed planaria to a light, which served as the CS, while pairing it with a 1 second electric shock, which served as the UCS. When planaria receive an electric shock, they contract reflexively. After a number of pairings between light and shock, the light itself seems to cause planaria to contract (Thompson & McConnell, Photograph 12 Photograph of planaria 1955). (Photograph 12) 114 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING Then, McConnell wanted to find out whether he could chemically transfer the memory of this classical conditioning experience to another planaria. His approach was brutally simple. Relying on the fact that many planaria are little cannibals, he chopped up already trained planaria and fed them to their fellow worms. Remarkably, McConnell (1962) reported that planaria who had gobbled up classically conditioned planaria acquired classical conditioned reactions to the light more quickly than planaria who hadn’t. Understandably, McConnell’s memory transfer studies generated enormous excitement. Imagine if McConnell were right! You could sign up for your introductory psychology class, swallow a pill containing all of the basic psychological knowledge you’d need to get an A, and....voila, you’re now an expert psychologist. Indeed, McConnell went directly to the general public with his findings, proclaiming in Time, Newsweek, and other popular magazines that scientists were on the verge of developing a “memory pill” (Rilling, 1996). Yet it was not before long that the wind went out of McConnell’s scientific sails. There was one big hitch in McConnell’s grand plans for a memory pill: scientists couldn’t replicate his findings. Moreover, researchers brought up a host of alternative explanations for his results, some of which he hadn’t fully considered. For example, McConnell hadn’t completely ruled out the possibility that his findings were attributable to pseudoconditioning, which occurs when the CS by itself triggers the UCR. That is, McConnell hadn’t excluded the possibility that the light itself caused the planaria to contract (Collins & Pinch, 1993), perhaps leading him to the false conclusion that the cannibal planaria had acquired a classically conditioned reaction to the light. Eventually, after years of intense debate in the scientific literature and failed replications, most researchers concluded that McConnell was wrong: he had fooled himself into seeing a finding that was never there. McConnell’s planaria lab closed in 1971. Strange as it was, the McConnell story has an even stranger twist. On November 15, 1985, McConnell went to his mailbox to open an innocent-looking package. When he opened it, it exploded. Fortunately, McConnell was not seriously injured, although he suffered permanent hearing loss from the bomb. The package, it turns out, had been sent by a man named Theodore Kaczynski, better known as the “Unabomber.” Kaczynski, a former mathematics professor later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, had mailed bombs to several individuals around the country who were ardent proponents of technological innovation. Apparently, Kaczynksi had read McConnell’s popular writings concerning the possibility of using memory pills and other revolutionary behavior change techniques for transforming modern society, and identified him as a target (Rilling, 1996). FA C T A N D F I C T I O N I N PSYC H O LO GY SE L F -T EST 1 (1) Habituation to meaningless stimuli is generally adaptive. (2) In classical conditioning, the conditioned stimulus (CS) initially yields a reflexive, automatic response. (3) In delay conditioning, the CS precedes the UCS and is separated from it by a short period of time. (4) Extinction is produced by the gradual “decay” of the CR over time. (5) Heroin addiction may sometimes be “broken” by dramatically altering the setting in which addicts inject the drug. pseudoconditioning occurs when the CS by itself triggers the UCR The answers printed upside down on the bottom of the following page 115 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US 1 Using bird feed as a reward, a behavioral psychologist teaches a pigeon to distinguish paintings by Monet from paintings by Picasso. By the end of the training, the pigeon is a veritable art aficionado. 2 3 4 Using fish as a treat, a trainer teaches a dolphin to jump out of the water, spin three times, splash in the water, and propel itself through a hoop. 5 6 A chimpanzee learns to signal “Amy want banana” whenever she’s hungry. In his initial attempt at playing tennis, a frustrated 12 year old hits his opponent’s serve into the net the first 15 times. After 2 hours of practice, he successfully returns his opponent’s serve more than half of the time. A woman in a stormy relationship makes manipulative suicidal threats (“If you break up with me, I’ll kill myself!”) whenever her boyfriend is about to leave her. Feeling sorry and concerned for her, he returns each time. A hospitalized patient with dissociative identity disorder (known formerly as multiple personality disorder), displays features of an “alter” personality whenever staff members pay attention to him. When they ignore him, his alter personality seemingly vanishes. The answer: all six are cases of operant conditioning (the first example, incidentally, comes from an actual study; Watanabe, Sakamoto, & Wakita, 1995). Operant conditioning is learning that is controlled by its consequences. These six examples, superficially different as they are, have one important thing in common. In all cases, the organism’s behavior is shaped by what comes after it, namely reward. Psychologists also refer to operant conditioning as instrumental conditioning, because the organism’s response serves an instrumental function. That is, the organism “gets something out” of the response, like food, sex, attention, or avoiding something unpleasant. We’ll soon discover how operant conditioning works, as well as how different subtypes of operant condition affect our behavior in different ways. Behaviorists refer to the behaviors emitted by the animal in response to reward as operants, because the animal “operates” on its environment to get what it wants. So, your dropping 65 cents into a soda machine to get a Diet Coke is an operant, as is your asking out an appealing classmate on a date. In both cases, you’re engaging in a behavior to obtain a desired consequence. OPERANT CONDITIONING: WHAT IS IT AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM CLASSICAL CONDITIONING Operant conditioning learning that is controlled by its consequences operants behaviors emitted in response to reward Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in three important ways. First, in classical conditioning, the organism’s response is elicited; that is, “pulled out” of the organism by the UCS, and then later, the CS. Remember that in classical conditioning, the UCR is a reflexive and automatic response that doesn’t require training. In contrast, in operant conditioning, the organism’s response is emitted; that is, generated by the organism in a seemingly voluntary fashion. Second, in classical conditioning, the animal’s reward is independent of what the animal does; Pavlov gave his dogs meat powder regardless of whether, or how much, they salivated. In contrast, in operant conditioning, the animal’s reward is contingent - that is, 116 THE LAW OF EFFECT Generations of introductory psychology students have diligently recited the famous Law of Effect, put forth by psychologist E.L. Thorndike. The Law of Effect is the first and most important commandment of operant conditioning. Here it is: If a response, in the presence of a stimulus, is followed by a satisfying state of affairs, the bond between stimulus and response will be strengthened. At first blush, that sentence seems about as clear as mud. Yet it is actually isn’t all that complicated, because it means only that if an event that precedes something we do is followed by a reward, we’re more like to repeat it. As a consequence, psychologists sometimes refer to early forms of behaviorism as S-R psychology (S stands for stimulus, R for response). According to S-R theorists, most of our complex behaviors reflect the accumulation of connections between stimuli and responses: the sight of a close friend and saying hello, the smell of a delicious hamburger and reaching for it on our plate, the soft feel of a comfortable blanket and pulling it over our body at night. Almost everything we do voluntarily, S-R theorists maintain, like driving a car, eating a sandwich, and planting a kiss on someone’s lips, results from the gradual build-up of S-R bonds. Thorndike (1898) discovered the law of effect in a classic study of cats and puzzle boxes. He placed a hungry cat in a box, and dropped a tantalizing piece of fish or bowl of milk immediately outside of it. To escape from the box, the cat needed to hit upon (literally) the right solution, which was pressing on a lever or string inside the box (Figure 6). When Thorndike first placed one of his cats in the puzzle box, it typically flailed around aimlessly in a frantic effort to escape. Then, by sheer accident, the cat eventually found the correct solution, ran out of the box, and gobbled up its delectable reward. Thorndike wanted to find out what would happen to the cat’s behavior over time. Once it figured out the solution to the puzzle, would it get it right every time after that? As Figure 7 shows, the results were surprising, at least to most psychologists of the time. Thorndike found that cats’ time to escape from the puzzle box decreased only gradually over 60 trials. According to Thorndike, his cats were learning entirely by trial and error. Indeed, Thorndike and many other S-R theorists went so far as to conclude that all learning, including all human learning, occurs by trial and error. For them, S-R bonds are gradually “stamped into” the organism by reward. This graph, Thorndike concluded, also provides convincing evidence against the hypothesis that cats learn by insight, that is, by grasping the nature of the problem. Had his cats possessed insight into the nature of the problem, the results presumably would have looked more like what we see in Figure 8. This figure illustrates what psychologists often term the aha reaction: “Aha – I got it!” Once the animal solves the problem, it gets it correct just about every time after that. Yet Thorndike found no hint of an aha reaction, so he concluded that cats had no clue as to what they were doing. They acted pretty much like mindless robots. Nevertheless, Thorndike may have jumped the gun by concluding that cats don’t learn by insight. Here’s the problem: Thorndike constructed the puzzle box in such a way that 117 Figure 6 Thorndike’s puzzle box. The cat needs to press on the lever to escape and grab its reward. 360 Latency (seconds) What do the following six examples have in common? dependent on - what the animal does. If the animal doesn’t emit a response in an operant conditioning paradigm, it comes out empty handed (or in the case of a dog, empty-pawed). Third, in classical conditioning, the organism’s responses mostly involve the autonomic nervous system (see Chapter 4). In contrast, in operant conditioning, the organism’s responses mostly involve the skeletal muscles. That is, in contrast to classical conditioning, in which the learning involves changes in heart rate, breathing, perspiration, and other bodily systems, in operant conditioning the learning involves changes in voluntary motor behavior. Nevertheless, as we’ll discover in Chapter 9, there may be exceptions to this neat and tidy distinction. 240 120 0 20 Trial 40 60 Figure 7 Thorndike discovered that learning in his puzzle box task occurred gradually over 60 trials, suggesting a pattern of trialand-error learning. 360 Latency (seconds) Operant Conditioning OPERANT CONDITIONING 240 120 0 20 40 60 Figure 8 TBD Insight learning. The animal appears to have an “aha” reaction, figuring out the problem suddenly and getting it right every time after that. Law of Effect If a response, in the presence of a stimulus, is followed by a satisfying state of affairs, the bond between stimulus and response will be strengthened. S-R psychology complex behaviors reflect the accumulation of connections between stimuli and responses insight learning by grasping the nature of the problem Answers to questions on previous page: (1) T; (2) F; (3) F; (4) F; (5) T CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US it was virtually impossible for cats to figure out the relationship between their response - pressing the lever or pulling a string - and the outcome - escaping from the puzzle box (Kohler, 1925). So Thorndike hadn’t ruled out an alternative hypothesis, namely, that the learning occurred by trial and error simply because the cats had no other means of learning. We’ll come back to the issue of insight learning later in the chapter. B.F. SKINNER AND REINFORCEMENT Photograph 13 Using his famous “Skinner box,” B.F. Skinner (shown here) plotted out responses of rats and other animals to operant conditioning. Although Thorndike’s pioneering discoveries laid the groundwork for research on operant conditioning, the field of behavioral psychology didn’t emerge in full form until the research of Harvard University psychologist B.F. Skinner. Although Skinner appreciated the importance of Thorndike’s work, he found Thorndike’s experimental set-up to be unwieldly, because the researcher had to stick around to put the unhappy cat back into the puzzle box following each trial. This limitation made it difficult to study ongoing operant behavior over long time periods, like hours, days, or weeks. Skinner therefore developed what came to be known as a Skinner box, a small chamber that permitted the study of operant conditioning over lengthy spans of time. Indeed, to study an animal’s behavior in a Skinner box, the experimenter doesn’t even need to be in the room. She can simply leave the animal in the Skinner box overnight and come back in the morning to find a cumulative record – an electronically recorded graph of the animal’s responses over time. The Skinner box could hardly be simpler. For rats, it contains a bar for pressing food, a tiny food dispenser for giving out pellets, and often a light that signals when reward is forthcoming (Photograph 13). Using the Skinner box, Skinner studied the operant behavior of rats, pigeons, and other animals, and mapped out their responses to reward. His discoveries forever altered the landscape of psychology. TERMINOLOGY OF OPERANT CONDITIONING To understand Skinner’s research, we need to introduce you to a bit of psychological jargon. There are three key concepts in Skinnerian psychology: reinforcement, punishment, and discriminant stimulus. We’ll explain each in turn. Photograph 14 Skinner box a small chamber that permits the study of operant conditioning over lengthy spans of time cumulative record an electronically recorded graph of an animal’s responses over time reinforcement any outcome that strengthens the probability of a response Positive reinforcement the presentation of a pleasant outcome negative reinforcement the withdrawal an unpleasant outcome Reinforcement. Up to this point, we’ve used the term “reward” to refer to any pleasant consequence that makes a behavior more likely to occur. Skinner would have disapproved of our language, because he found the term “reward” to be hopelessly imprecise and subjective. For example, the opportunity to eat a bowl of tofu might be rewarding for someone who loves the taste of tofu, but not for someone who finds the taste of tofu curiously reminiscent to that of a piece of kitchen sponge soaked in water. What’s rewarding is in the eye of the beholder – or in the case of tofu, the taste of the eater. So rather than the term “reward,” Skinner (1953, 1971) preferred the term reinforcement, which means any outcome that strengthens the probability of a response. If we gave you an M & M each time you read a page of this chapter, and that made you more likely to read about the psychology of learning, then these M & M’s would be reinforcers (the term for anything that provides reinforcement). Skinner distinguished between two types of reinforcement: positive and negative. Positive reinforcement is the presentation of a pleasant outcome, such as giving a rat a tasty piece of cheese each time it navigates through a maze correctly. In contrast, negative reinforcement is the withdrawal an unpleasant outcome, such as removing a misbehaving child from a “time out” once he’s stopped whining. So, in positive reinforcement, we giveth (something good), whereas in negative reinforcement, we taketh away (something bad). In both cases, the outcome for the organism is pleasurable (Photograph 14). Legions of psychology students over the years have demonstrated the power of reinforcement using a rather unconventional participant: their professor. In the game “Condition Your Professor” (Vyse, 1997), a class of introductory psychology students agrees to provide positive reinforcement – like smiling or nodding their heads – to their 118 professor whenever he or she moves in a particular direction, such as toward or away from the student audience. One of us knows of a famous introductory psychology teacher who spent much of time lecturing from behind his podium. During one class, his students decided to smile profusely and nod their heads vigorously whenever he began to venture out from behind the podium. Sure enough, by the end of the class, the professor was spending most of his time well away from the podium. You and your classmates might want to attempt a similar stunt with your introductory psychology professor: just don’t mention that we suggested it. Punishment. Many students – and even a few rusty psychology professors – confuse negative reinforcement with punishment, which means any outcome that weakens the probability of a response. To remember the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment, just remind yourself that negative reinforcement, like all kinds of reinforcement, strengthens the probability of a response. Punishment, in contrast, weakens it. Just to make sure that you have a good grasp on the difference between these two concepts, try labeling each of the following examples as an instance of either negative reinforcement or punishment (you can find the answers written upside down at the bottom of this page): (1) A boy keeps making noise in the back of a classroom despite a teacher’s repeated warnings. The teacher finally tells him to leave the room. When he returns two hours later, he’s much better behaved. (2) A parent who was withholding a child’s allowance for not performing his household chores decides to restore his allowance after he’s performed his household chores two weeks in a row. He now does his household chores even more consistently. (3) A parole board releases a previously aggressive criminal from prison for being a “model citizen” within the institution over the past 5 years. Upon his release, his hostile impulses toward others decrease sharply. (4) A woman yells at her roommate for leaving dirty clothing scattered all around her apartment. Her roommate apologizes and never makes a mess again. Answers: Printed upside down at bottom of the page As in the case of reinforcement, there are two types of punishment. First, we can punish the organism by presenting it with a negative stimulus. For example, we could administer an electric shock to a rat each time it walks over to one section of the cage, or we could loudly say “No!” to a child who is behaving disruptively (this form of punishment goes by the strange name of positive punishment). Second, we can punish the organism by withdrawing a positive stimulus. For example, we could take away food from a child every time he misbehaves in a restaurant, or we could deduct money from an employee’s holiday bonus each time he shows up late for work (this form of punishment is sometimes called response cost). A second frequent error is to confuse punishment with the disciplinary practices often associated with it. Skinner, who always insisted on precision in his language, was quick to remind readers that certain actions that might superficially appear to be punishments are actually reinforcements. Skinner defined reinforcements and punishments solely in terms of their consequences. For example, let’s imagine that a mother rushes into her 3 year old child’s bedroom and yells “Johnny, stop that!” each time that he demands angrily that she come in to play with him. Is mommy punishing Johnny’s demanding behavior? There’s no way to know without looking at the consequences. In some cases, Johnny’s demanding behavior may actually increase following mommy’s scolding, perhaps because she’s paying attention to him. If so, she’s reinforcing, not punishing, his angry demands. Behaviorists who use parent training – a set of techniques for teaching parents how to 119 punishment any outcome that weakens the probability of a response parent training a set of techniques for teaching parents how to curb the problematic behaviors of oppositional children (1) punishment, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) negative reinforcement, (4) punishment]. Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis OPERANT CONDITIONING CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Correlation Doesn’t Imply Causdation curb the problematic behaviors of oppositional children – often start by teaching parents the difference between discipline and punishment (Forehand & Long, 1988). That’s because many parents who discipline their children don’t realize that they’re sometimes reinforcing them accidentally for bad behavior. They may think that telling Sally to “Go to your room!” whenever she acts up is an effective disciplinary technique, but they be forgetting that when Sally goes to her room she can play all of her favorite music CDs and video games to her heart’s content. As a result, they may be making her more likely to act up in the future. Does punishment work in the long run? Popular wisdom tells us that it usually does: “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Yet Skinner (1953) and most of his followers argued against the routine use of punishment to change behavior, because they believed that they could effectively shape most human behaviors for the better by means of reinforcement alone. According to Skinner, punishment has several distinct disadvantages. First, it only tells the organism what not to do, not what to do. That is, punishment isn’t especially informative. For example, when we punish a young child for throwing a temper tantrum when he gets frustrated, he may learn not to throw a temper tantrum again. But he won’t learn how to deal with his frustration in a more constructive manner. Second, punishment often creates anxiety, which in turn interferes with future learning. Third, punishment may teach the organism only to become sneakier about the situations in which it can and can’t display forbidden behavior. For example, a child who is punished by Daddy for grabbing his brothers’ toys may learn to grab his brother’s toys when Daddy isn’t looking. Fourth, punishment from parents may provide a model for children’s aggressive behavior (Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). As a consequence, children whose parents spank them harshly may “get the message” that spanking is acceptable. Indeed, numerous researchers have reported that the use of physical punishment by parents is positively correlated with aggressive behavior in children (Gershoff, 2002). For example, across many studies, Murray Strauss (1996) and his colleagues found that parental spanking is associated with a higher number of behavioral problems in children. In a study of 1575 subjects drawn from the general population, Cathy Widom and her colleagues further found that children who are physically abused are at heightened risk for becoming aggressive in adulthood (Widom, 1989a, 1989b). Many researchers contend that this finding demonstrates that spanking and early physical abuse cause aggression. For example, Widom (1989a) concluded that her findings reveal the operation of a “cycle of violence,” whereby parental aggression begets childhood aggression. When these children become parents, many become abusers themselves. Similarly, Elizabeth Gershoff (2002) conducted a meta-analysis (see Chapter 3) of 88 studies of corporal punishment based on a whopping 39,309 participants. Although she found some evidence that corporal punishment is associated with short-term improvements in children’s behavior, she also reported that a history of such punishment in childhood is associated with an increased probability of becoming an abuser in adulthood. Yet we must remember that the findings of Strauss, Widom, and Gershoff are merely correlational and don’t prove causality. Other interpretations are possible. For example, because children share half of their genes with each parent, and because aggression is partly heritable (Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001), it’s possible that the correlation between parent’s physical aggression and their children’s aggression is due to the fact that parents who are physically aggressive pass on this predisposition to their children (DiLalla & Gottesman, 1991). It’s also conceivable that the causal arrow is reversed. For example, children who are extremely aggressive may be difficult to control and may therefore elicit spanking from their parents. This hypothesis doesn’t excuse spanking or imply that it’s acceptable, of course, but it may help to explain why it occurs. In addition, it’s possible that mild levels of punishment are effective, but that severe forms of punishment, including abuse, aren’t (Baumrind, Larazelere, & Cowan, 1992). 120 OPERANT CONDITIONING CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION How would you attempt to test the hypothesis that parents’ spanking actually causes greater aggression in their children? Making matters still more complicated, the association between spanking and childhood behavior problems depends on both race and culture. Although spanking and other forms of physical discipline are positively correlated with childhood behavior problems in White families, they are negatively correlated with childhood behavior problems in AfricanAmerican families (Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Petit, 2004). Apparently, physical discipline means something different – perhaps a deep commitment to rearing children properly - in African-American than in White families. Moreover, spanking tends to be more highly correlated with childhood aggression and anxiety in countries in which spanking is rare, like China or Thailand, than in countries in which spanking is common, like Kenya or India (Lansford et al., 2005). The reasons for this difference aren’t clear, although children who are spanked in countries in which spanking is more culturally accepted may feel less stigmatized than children in countries in which spanking is culturally condemned. So when, if ever, is punishment effective in the long-term? Most research suggests that punishment works best when it (a) is delivered consistently and (b) follows the undesired behavior promptly. For example, in a correlational study of crime and punishment in a sample of over 28,000 men in Denmark, Patricia Brennan and Sarnoff Mednick (1994) found that consistently delivered prison sentences were associated with lower rates of reoffending than were inconsistently delivered prison sentences. In contrast, the length or severity of the prison sentence was unrelated to the risk of reoffending. Discipline may not need to be harsh to be effective (Photograph 15). Discriminant stimulus. One other key term in operant conditioning lingo is the discriminant stimulus, typically abbreviated simply as Sd. A discriminant stimulus is any stimulus that signals the presence of reinforcement. When you snap your fingers at a dog in the hopes of having it come over to you, the dog may approach you to get a muchappreciated petting. For the dog, your finger snapping is an Sd: it’s a signal that if it comes near you, it will receive reinforcement (Photograph 16). According to behaviorists, we’re responding to Sds virtually all of the time, even if we’re not consciously aware of it. For example, let’s say that while walking across campus tomorrow you encounter a friend who smiles or waves at you. Most likely, you’ll either smile or wave back, and if you’re not busy you might walk over to say hello. By smiling or waving, your friend has given you the “green light” to say hello; that green light is his Sd. In the very next sentence, you’re about to learn something interesting. The previous sentence was also an Sd, because it was a signal that if you read this sentence, you’d be reinforced by acquiring a piece of intriguing knowledge. See, it worked. Acquisition, extinction, spontaneous recovery, and stimulus generalization and discrimination. If you feel that you’re experiencing a case of déjà vu (see Chapter 8), don’t be concerned, because you’ve indeed seen all of these terms before. Acquisition, extinction, spontaneous recovery, and stimulus generalization and discrimination apply just as much to operant conditioning as to classical conditioning. For example, in operant conditioning, extinction occurs when we stop delivering reinforcement to a previously reinforced behavior. Gradually, this behavior declines in frequency and disappears. Let’s imagine that you’re a behavioral psychologist assigned to help two exasperated parents eliminate the yelling behavior of their 4 year child, Jimmy. After observing the family for a few days, you notice something curious: every time Jimmy 121 Photgraph 15 the length or severity of the prison sentence was unrelated to the risk of reoffending Photograph 16 As any household pet owner soon discovers, intelligent animals learn to respond to a wide range of discriminant stimuli. discriminant stimulus any stimulus that signals the presence of reinforcement CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCEMENT Using the Skinner box as his miniature laboratory, Skinner uncovered a variety of general principles of behavior. To demonstrate one of them, first try to answer a little quiz question. If you wanted to train a dog to perform a trick, like catching a Frisbee, would you reinforce it for (a) every successful catch or (b) only some of its successful catches? If you’re like most people, you’d answer (a), which seems to dovetail with our common sense notions regarding the effects of reinforcement. It seems logical to assume that the more consistent the reinforcement, the more consistent should be the resulting behavior. extinction burst shortly after withdrawing reinforcement undesired behavior initially increases in intensity partial reinforcement behaviors reinforced only occasionally are slower to extinguish than behaviors reinforced continuously Partial reinforcement. Nevertheless, Skinner’s principle of partial reinforcement, sometimes called Humphrey’s paradox after psychologist Lloyd Humphreys (1938) who first reported it about 7 decades ago, shows that our intuitions about reinforcement are backwards. According to the principle of partial reinforcement, behaviors that we reinforce only occasionally are slower to extinguish than are behaviors that we reinforce continuously, that is, every time. So if we want an animal to maintain a trick for a long time, we should reinforce it for correct responses only occasionally. This principle may 122 Time Cumulative responses Variable interval Cumulative responses Time Cumulative responses Cumulative responses Cumulative responses Time Fixed interval Variable ratio Fixed ratio 600 300 0 Time Figure 9 The four major schedules of reinforcement discovered by B.F. Skinner also help to explain why some people remain trapped for years in horribly dysfunctional relationships. Some relationship partners provide intermittent reinforcement to their significant others, treating them miserably most of the time but treating them well on rare occasions. This pattern of partial reinforcement may keep individuals “hooked” in relationships that aren’t working (Photograph 18). Schedules of reinforcement. Skinner (1938) also found that animals’ behaviors vary as a function of different schedules of reinforcement, that is, patterns of delivering reinforcement. Remarkably, the effects of these reinforcement schedules are consistent across species as diverse as cockroaches, pigeons, rats, and humans. Although there are numerous schedules of reinforcement, we’ll discuss four here. The principal reinforcement schedules vary along two dimensions: (1) the consistency of administering reinforcement and (2) the basis of administering reinforcement. Let’s explain. With regard to consistency of administering reinforcement, some reinforcement contingencies are fixed, whereas others are variable. That is, in some cases the experimenter provides reinforcement on a regular (fixed) basis, whereas in others the experimenter provides reinforcement on an irregular (variable) basis. With regard to the basis of administering reinforcement, some reinforcement schedules operate on ratio schedules, whereas others operate on interval schedules. In ratio schedules, the experimenter reinforces the animal depending on the number of responses it has emitted. In interval schedules, the experimenter reinforces the animal depending on the amount of time that has elapsed since its last response. We can cross these two dimensions to arrive at four major schedules of reinforcement (Figure 9). In a fixed ratio (FR) schedule, we provide reinforcement after a regular number of responses. For example, we could give a rat a pellet after it presses the lever in a Skinner box 15 times. In a fixed interval (FI) schedule, we provide reinforcement after a regular period of time. For example, assuming that he’s done her job well, we could pay a worker in a factory every two weeks. In a variable ratio schedule, we provide reinforcement after an irregular number of responses. For example, we could give a pigeon a piece of bird feed after 6 pecks, then after 15 pecks, then after 1 peck, then after 35 pecks, and so on. Finally, in a variable interval schedule, the experimenter provides reinforcement after irregular time intervals. For example, we could give a dog a treat for performing a trick after 7 minutes, then 1 minute, then 20 minutes, then 3 minutes, and so on. Skinner discovered that these reinforcement schedules yielded distinctive patterns of responding (Figure 10). For example, he found that ratio schedules tend to yield higher rates of responding than do interval schedules. In addition, variable schedules tend to yield more consistent rates of responding than do interval schedules. Two other features of reinforcement schedules are worth noting. First, fixed interval schedules tend to be associated with a “scalloped” pattern of responding. This FI scallop reflects the fact that the animal “waits” for a time after it receives reinforcement, and then jacks up its rate of responding as it begins to anticipate reinforcement (Figure 11). Second, as you can see in Figure 10, variable ratio (VR) schedules tend to yield the highest rates of responding of all reinforcement contingencies. Indeed, there’s one place 123 10 Minutes 20 Figure 10 The “FI scallop.” The three short diagonal lines indicate the occurrence of reinforcement. In fixed interval schedules, the animal slows down after receiving reinforcement (behaviorists call this a “post-reinforcement pause”) and then speeds up as reinforcement approaches. One often sees the same scalloped pattern of productivity among employees who get paid at regular intervals. Average errors Photograph 18 TBD screams, the parents give him his favorite toy robot in a desperate effort to shut him up. It works, and Jimmy indeed quiets down in the short term. But having read Chapter 6 of your introductory psychology text, you have a sneaking suspicion that their practice may be backfiring, because it may be reinforcing Jimmy’s screaming in the long term. So you instruct the parents to stop giving Jimmy his toy robot each time he acts up. Sure enough, if they wait long enough his screaming behavior will gradually extinguish. Interestingly, though, in such cases we often see an extinction burst. That is, shortly after withdrawing reinforcement: the undesired behavior initially increases in intensity. That’s probably because the child is “upping the ante”: by screaming even more intensely, he’s trying harder to get reinforcement. So there’s some truth to the saying that things sometimes need to get worse before they get better (Photograph 17). Stimulus discrimination and generalization also occurs in operant conditioning. As we mentioned earlier, using food reinforcements, one group of investigators trained pigeons to distinguish paintings by Monet from those of Picasso (Watanabe et al., 1995). That’s stimulus discrimination, because the pigeons are learning to tell the difference Photograph 17 between two different types of stimuli. Interestingly, the the child is “upping the ante”: by investigators also found that these pigeons exhibited stimulus screaming even more intensely, he’s trying harder to get generalization. Following operant conditioning, they were reinforcement. also able to distinguish paintings by artists similar to Monet, such as Renoir, from paintings by artists similar to Picasso, such as Braque. The similarities between classical and operant conditioning, including the fact that we find acquisition, extinction, stimulus generalization, and so on, in both, have led some theorists to argue that these two forms of learning aren’t as different as some psychologists believe (Brown & Jenkins, 1968; Staddon, 2003). Although there certainly are important similarities between classical and operant conditioning, brain imaging studies demonstrate that these two forms of learning are rooted in different brain regions. For example, classically conditioned fear reactions are based largely in the amygdala (LeDoux, 1996; Veit, Flor, Erb, Lotze, Grodd, & Birbaumer, 2002), whereas operant conditioned responses are based largely in the nucleus accumbens and related limbic systems linked to reward (Robbins & Everitt, 1998; see Chapter 4). OPERANT CONDITIONING 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Days of experience in maze Figure 11 Graphs from Tolman and Honzik’s classic study of latent learning in rats. Pay particular attention to the orange line. The rats in this group weren’t reinforced until day 11; note the sudden drop in the number of their errors upon receiving reinforcement. The rats were learning all along, even though they weren’t showing it. schedules of reinforcement that is, patterns of delivering reinforcement CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Photograph 19 Although they may not realize it, most or all of the people in this casino are under the spell of a variable ratio schedule. where you can be guaranteed to find a VR schedule: a casino. Roulette wheels, slot machines, and the like deliver cash rewards on an irregular basis, and they do so based on the gambler’s responses. Sometimes the gambler has to pull the arm of the slot machine (the so-called “one-armed bandit”) hundreds of times before receiving any money at all. At other times, the gambler the pulls the arm only once and makes out like a bandit himself, perhaps walking off with hundreds of dollars for a few seconds of work. The extreme unpredictability of the VR schedule is precisely what keeps gamblers hooked, because reinforcement can come at any time (Photograph 19) The VR schedule also keeps pigeons hooked. For example, Skinner (1953) found that pigeons placed on VR schedules sometimes continued to peck on a disk for food after more than 150,000 nonreinforced responses. In some cases, they pecked the disk so many times that they grounded down their beaks. Like desperate gamblers in a Las Vegas casino hoping for a huge payoff, they wouldn’t give up despite repeated disappointments. For Skinner, much of what we term “persistence” is merely a consequence of being on a reinforcement schedule that is difficult to extinguish, especially a VR schedule. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION How might the effect of VR schedules help to explain why some people continue to believe in psychic experiences despite the absence of strong evidence for their existence? Before reading any further, here’s another little quiz question. Imagine that you’ve flipped a penny 10 times in a row and that it’s come up tails all 10 times. What are the odds that it will come up heads the 11th time? The answer? 50%. If your answer was higher than 50%, don’t feel bad. Scores of highly intelligent people make this understandable mistake, which is called the gambler’s fallacy. The gambler’s fallacy is the incorrect belief that random events have a memory (Ayton & Fischer, 2004; Schulman, 2002). Along with the seductive power of VR schedules, this fallacy contributes to the perennial allure of dice and craps tables. The gambler’s fallacy is a reasoning error because the odds that a penny will come up heads – or tails – remain exactly 50% with each flip. Many gamblers believe mistakenly that following a long string of unsuccessful rolls of the dice they are “due”: the next roll is bound to turn out in their favor. Nevertheless, the dice don’t “remember” their previous rolls, so the probability starts anew with each roll. Or take the case of parents who’ve had 5 boys in a row, but want a girl desperately. They may try to have a 6th child, believing that their next child is almost certain to be a girl. Because the odds of having a girl stay at just about 50% each time, they may be in store for another disappointment. The gambler’s fallacy probably stems in part from a misapplication of the representativeness heuristic (see Chapter 3). To understand why, consider the following two sequences of 10 successive penny flips, with H being heads and T being tails. HHHHHHHHHH HHHTHHHTHT Which of these sequences is more likely? gambler’s fallacy the incorrect belief that random events have a memory shaping by successive approximations reinforcing progressively closer versions of a desired response In fact, both sequences are equally probable, because the odds of an H and a T with each flip are each 50%. Nevertheless, many people assume that the second sequence is more likely, because this sequence seems more representative, that is, more typical of a random sequence of coin flips. After several consecutive heads, a tail somehow seems more probable. It isn’t. 124 OPERANT CONDITIONING APPLICATIONS OF OPERANT CONDITIONING. There’s an old joke that just as magicians pull rabbits out of hats, behavioral psychologists pull habits out of rats, and there’s a grain of truth to this one. By means of operant conditioning, behaviorists train rats and other organisms to develop learned habits. They typically do so by means of a procedure called shaping by successive approximations, often called shaping for short. Using shaping, we reinforce progressively closer versions of a desired response. Typically, we shape an organism’s response by initially reinforcing most or all correct responses, and then gradually fading (that is, decreasing the frequency of) our reinforcement over time. When you learned to drive a car, your Driver’s Ed instructor (or perhaps one of your parents, depending on who taught you) used shaping to help you learn how to parallel park. Your instructor first taught you to pull up aside another car, then put the car in reverse, then turn the steering wheel by a certain amount, then gradually back up the car while looking behind you, and so on, all the while reinforcing you verbally (“Good, that’s better...” “Yes, that’s right...keep going”). Eventually, you learned the complete sequence of steps required to parallel park a car. By means of shaping, Skinner taught pigeons to play ping-pong, although they weren’t exactly Olympic-caliber table tennis players. During World War II, Skinner also taught dolphins to steer torpedoes toward enemy ships by pecking a target whenever the torpedo got closer to the bulls-eye, although the U.S military never ended up adopting his creative approach to naval warfare (Photograph 20). In both cases, Skinner began by reinforcing initial approximations to the desired response. For example, when teaching pigeons to play ping-pong, he first reinforced them for turning toward the rackets, then approaching the rackets, then placing the rackets in their mouths, then picking up the rackets with their mouths, then swinging the racket, and so on. As you might imagine, shaping complex animal behaviors requires patience, as the process may take days or weeks. Still, the payoff can be substantial, because one can train animals to engage in numerous behaviors that lie well outside their normal repertoire. Indeed, all contemporary animal trainers rely on Skinnerian shaping principles (Photograph 21). Behaviorists do more than pull habits out of rats, because they also pull habits out of humans. Indeed, one of the great triumphs of modern psychology has been the application of operant conditioning to myriad domains of modern life. We’ll look at four applications here: the Premack principle, superstitious behavior, token economies, and teaching language to autistic children. Photograph 20 During World War II, Skinner taught pigeons to guide torpedoes toward enemy ships. Photograph 21 By using shaping techniques, animal trainers have taught animals, such as squirrels and hamsters, to perform a wide variety of amusing tricks. Premack principle. Be honest: did you put off reading this chapter until the last possible moment? If so, don’t feel ashamed, because procrastination is one of the most frequent study problems that college students report. Although widespread, procrastination may not be harmless. It may be bad for your psychological health, not to mention your grades. One group of researchers found that chronic procrastinators reported lower stress levels and fewer physical illnesses early in the semester, but higher stress levels and more physical illnesses later in the semester, when the weight of their overdue work came crashing down on their heads. Moreover, procrastinators tend to perform more poorly in their classes than do early birds (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Although these findings are correlational and don’t establish that procrastination is bad for you, they certainly suggest that putting things off isn’t likely to be good for you. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION What third variables could account for the correlation between procrastination and poor grades? Premack Principle positively reinforcing a less frequently performed behavior with a more frequently performed behavior 125 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Photograph 22 Triskaidekaphobia, or fear of the number 13, is so prevalent that some tall buildings skip from the 12th to the 14th floor. How can we overcome procrastination? We hope you won’t put off reading the next two paragraphs, because we have a possible remedy for dilly-dallying. Although there are many potential solutions to procrastination, one of the best is probably the Premack Principle, discovered by David Premack (1965) in his research on monkeys. This principle states that we can positively reinforce a less frequently performed behavior with a more frequently performed behavior (Danaher, 1974). Although not a foolproof rule (Knapp, 1976), this guideline typically works surprisingly well. The Premack Principle is also known as “Grandma’s Rule,” because our grandmother reminded us that we need to finish our vegetables before moving onto dessert. If we give children the opportunity to choose between spinach and chocolate ice cream, they’ll vote with their mouths, and choose to eat chocolate ice cream at a much higher frequency than they eat spinach. In this way, we can get children to eat spinach by reinforcing them with chocolate ice cream if, and only if, they’ve finished their spinach. Similarly, we can help to overcome our schoolwork procrastination by engaging in a higher-frequency behavior once we’ve completed our assignments. So, if you find yourself putting off a reading or writing task, try to think of behaviors that you’d typically perform if given the chance – perhaps hanging out with a few of your close friends, watching a favorite TV program, or munching down an ice cream cone. Then, reinforce yourself with these higher frequency behaviors only after you’ve completed your homework. Research indicates that this approach may help people to avoid putting off things they’ve long dreaded, like going to the dentist (Ramer, 1980). So if you’re procrastinating in your schoolwork and are contemplating using the Premack Principle to help you get over it, don’t put off trying it. Superstitious behavior. How many of the following behaviors do you engage in? • Never opening an umbrella indoors. • Not walking under a ladder. • Crossing the street whenever you see a black cat. • Carrying a lucky charm or pendant. • Going out of your way not to step on cracks in the sidewalk. • Knocking on wood. • Crossing your fingers. • Avoiding the number 13 (like not stopping on the 13th floor of a building). superstitious behavior behavior linked to reinforcement by sheer coincidence If you perform several of these behaviors, you are “very superstitious,” in the words of singer Stevie Wonder. So are quite a few Americans. For example, 12% of Americans are afraid of walking under a ladder, while 14% are afraid of crossing paths with a black cat (Vyse, 1997). So many people are afraid of the number 13 (incidentally, the technical name for this fear is triskaidekaphobia) that the floor designations in many tall buildings skip directly from 12 to 14 (Hock, 2002). This phobia isn’t limited to North America; in Paris, triskaidekaphobics who are going out to dinner with 12 other people can hire out for a quatorzieme, a person paid to serve as a 14th guest (Photograph 22). Many college students also adopt superstitious rituals prior to their exams. Psychologist Stuart Vyse (1997) found that 62% of undergraduates had used a “lucky” pen or had worn a “lucky” piece of jewelry or clothing before an exam. Thirty-one percent had performed a specific sequence of actions (like saying certain words) prior to a test, and 26% ate a special food. How do superstitions relate to operant conditioning? In a classic study, B.F. Skinner (1948) placed 8 food-deprived pigeons in a Skinner box while delivering reinforcement (bird feed) every 15 seconds independent of their behavior. In other words, the birds received reinforcement regardless of what they did. After a few days, Skinner found that 6 of the 8 birds had acquired remarkably strange behaviors. In the words of Skinner: One bird was conditioned to turn counterclockwiseabout the cage, making two or 126 OPERANT CONDITIONING three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a tossing response as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body in which the head was extended forward and swing from right to left....(p. 168). When Skinner extended the reinforcement interval to a few minutes, one of the pigeons even performed a miniature “dance” of sorts while awaiting food. You may have observed similar odd behaviors in large groups of birds that people are feeding in city parks; for example, some pigeons prance around or walk rapidly in circles in anticipation of reinforcement. According to Skinner, his pigeons had developed superstitious behavior: that is, behavior linked to reinforcement by sheer coincidence (Morse & Skinner, 1957). There’s no actual association between superstitious behavior and reinforcement, although the animal behaves as though there is. The behavior that the pigeon just happened to be performing immediately prior to reinforcement was strengthened - remember that reinforcement increases the probability of a response - so the pigeon kept on doing it (this kind of accidental operant conditioning is sometimes called superstitious conditioning). Skinner argued that operant conditioning accounts for many human superstitions. For example, Skinner (1948) noted that bowlers often angle and twist their bodies in peculiar ways as the ball rolls down the alley. In some cases, they may tilt their heads in the direction they want the bowling ball to go. They almost seem to be trying to “coax” the ball into the pins, although this behavior of course has no effect whatsoever on where the ball ends up. Moreover, studies show that operant conditioning can produce superstitious behaviors in children. For example, two investigators (Wagner & Morris, 1987) placed children in a room with a mechanical clown, who periodically (either every 15 or every 30 seconds) dispensed marbles that the children could later cash in for an attractive toy. The researchers used covert observation by watching the children through a two-way mirror. They found that about three-fourths of the children developed superstitious behaviors; some touched the clown’s face, others made faces at him, and another kissed him. Few people are more prone to superstitions than athletes. That’s probably because the outcome of so many sporting events, even those requiring a great deal of skill, depends heavily on chance. As we learned in Chapter 2, baseball Hall of Famer Wade Boggs became famous for eating chicken prior to each game; he also performed practice runs in the outfield at precisely 7:17 P.M. before each evening game. Hall of Fame football player Jim Kelly forced himself to vomit before every game, and basketball player Chuck Persons ate exactly two candy bars (always Snickers or KitKats) before every game (Vyse, 1997). Superstar golfer Tiger Woods always wears a red shirt when playing on Sundays (Photograph 23). Interestingly, the prevalence of superstitions in sports seems to depend heavily on the extent to which the outcomes are due to chance. That’s exactly what Skinner would have predicted, because as we’ve already discovered, partial reinforcement schedules are more likely to produce enduring behaviors than are continuous reinforcement schedules. In baseball, hitting is much less under the player’s control than is fielding: even the best hitters only succeed about 3 out of 10 times, whereas the best fielders succeed 9.8 or even 9.9 out of 10 times. Putting it differently, hitting is controlled by a partial reinforcement schedule, whereas fielding is controlled by something very close to a continuous reinforcement schedule. As you might expect, baseball players have far more hitting-related superstitions – like drawing a favorite symbol in the sand in the batter’s box - than fielding-related superstitions (Gmelch, 1974; Vyse, 1997). Of course, human superstitions aren’t due entirely to operant conditioning. Many superstitions are spread partly by word-of-mouth. If our mother tells us over and over again that black cats cause bad luck, we may become wary of black cats that cross our 127 Photograph 23 Like many athletes, superstar golfer Tiger Woods is superstitious: he always wears a red shirt on Sundays. In this case at least, his superstition seems to have worked. CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US paths. Still, word-of-mouth explanations for beliefs have one major problem: they don’t tell us how these beliefs originated. For many superstitions, operant conditioning may provide the answer. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION How might superstitious conditioning help to explain why some people continue to read their horoscopes or consult with crystal ball readers despite the absence of evidence that these practices are effective? Photograph 24 TBD Photograph 25 token economies remain controversial, because the behaviors learned in these institutions don’t always transfer to the outside world token economies systems, often set up in psychiatric hospitals, for reinforcing appropriate behaviors and extinguishing inappropriate behaviors Secondary reinforcers neutral objects that patients can later trade in for primary reinforcers primary reinforcers things that are naturally pleasurable, like a favorite food or drink applied behavior analysis ABA) a set of techniques based on operant conditioning principles that relies on the careful measurement of behavior before and after implementing interventions Token economies. One of the most successful applications of operant conditioning has been the development of token economies. These are systems, often set up in psychiatric hospitals, for reinforcing appropriate behaviors and extinguishing inappropriate behaviors (Carr, Fraizier, & Roland, 2005; Kazdin, 1982). In token economies, staff members reinforce patients who behave in a desired fashion using tokens, chips, points, or other secondary reinforcers. Secondary reinforcers are neutral objects that patients can later trade in for primary reinforcers - things that are naturally pleasurable, like a favorite food or drink (Photograph 24) Typically, psychologists who construct token economies begin by identifying certain target behaviors, that is, actions that they wish to make more frequent. One psychiatric hospital unit in which one of the authors of your textbook worked consisted mostly of children with serious behavior problems, which included yelling and cursing at staff members. In this unit, one target behavior in the token economy was being polite to staff members. So whenever a children was especially polite to a staff member, he was rewarded with points, which he could later trade in for something he wanted, like ice cream or attending a movie with staff members. Whenever a child was rude to a staff member, he was punished with a loss of points (as you may recall from earlier in the chapter, this type of punishment is called response cost). Research suggests that token economies are often effective in improving behavior in hospitals, group homes, and juvenile detection units (Allyon & Milan, 2002). Nevertheless, token economies remain controversial, because the behaviors learned in these institutions don’t always transfer to the outside world (Carr et al., 2005). That’s especially likely if the patients return to environments in which they’re reinforced for socially inappropriate behaviors (Photograph 25). Teaching language to autistic children. As we learned in Chapter 3, infantile autism (known officially as autistic disorder) is a severe condition marked by shortcomings in social attachment, capacity for imagination, and language. About three-fourths of autistic individuals are mentally retarded, and most are profoundly linguistically impaired. As we also learned in that chapter, many well-meaning mental health professionals have used facilitated communication or other pseudoscientific methods in an effort to teach language to autistic individuals (Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995). Although these techniques are ineffective, the good news is that applied behavior analysis (ABA) can be quite helpful in remedying the language deficits of individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. ABA is a set of techniques based on operant conditioning principles that relies on the careful measurement of behavior before and after implementing interventions (Romanczyk et al., 2003). ABA for autism makes extensive use of shaping techniques; mental health professionals reinforce autistic individuals with food and other primary reinforcers as they reach progressively closer approximations to certain words and eventually, complete sentences. Ivar Lovaas and his colleagues at the University of California-Los Angeles have pioneered by far the best known ABA program for autism (Lovaas, 1987; McEachlin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993). The results of Lovaas’ work have been promising, as they indicate that an experimental group of children with autism who undergo ABA training 128 OPERANT CONDITIONING emerge with superior language and intellectual skills compared with control groups of children with autism who do not undergo such training (Green, 1996; Matson, Benavidez, Compton, Paclowaskyj, & Baglio, 1996). (Photograph 26). Nevertheless, ABA researchers haven’t been immune from making exaggerated claims regarding the effectiveness of their treatment. For example, although Lovaas (1987) claimed that many of the children he treated “recovered” from autism, this conclusion is questionable. For one thing, because Lovaas didn’t randomly assign children with autism to experimental and control groups, his findings are vulnerable to an alternative explanation: perhaps the children in the experimental group had higher levels of functioning to begin with. Indeed, there’s evidence that this was the case (Schopler, Short, & Mesibov, 1989). The current consensus is that ABA isn’t a miracle cure for the language deficits of children with autism, but that it can be extremely helpful in some cases (Herbert, Sharp, & Gaudiano, 2002). Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis TWO-PROCESS THEORY: PUTTING CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING TOGETHER Up to this point, we’ve discussed classical and operant conditioning as though they were two entirely independent processes. Yet the reality is much more complicated. In everyday life, classical and operant conditioning often interact with one another. To see how, let’s revisit the question of how people develop phobias. We’ve pointed out that certain phobias arise in part by classical conditioning: a previously neutral stimulus (the CS) - like a dog - is paired with an unpleasant stimulus (the UCS) – a dog bite – producing the CR of fear. So far, so good. Yet this neat and tidy scheme doesn’t answer an important question: Why doesn’t the CR of fear eventually extinguish? Given what we’ve learned about classical conditioning, you might expect the CR of fear to gradually fade away over time with repeated exposure to the CS of dogs. Yet this often doesn’t happen (Rachman, 1977). Many people with phobias remain deathly afraid of their feared stimulus for years, even decades. For example, only about 20% of untreated adults with phobias ever get over their fears (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Why? Enter two-process theory to the rescue as an explanation for this mystery (Mowrer, 1947). According to two-process theory, we need both classical and operant conditioning to explain the persistence of phobias and other anxiety disorders over time. Here’s how it works. First, people acquire phobias by means of classical conditioning. Second, once people are phobic, they start to avoid their feared stimulus any time they see it. For example, if they have a dog phobia, they may cross the street whenever the see someone walking toward them with a huge German shepherd. When they do, they experience a reduction in anxiety – a sense of relief - which negatively reinforces their fear. Remember that negative reinforcement, which is one type of operant conditioning, is the removal of an unpleasant stimulus, in this case anxiety. So, by avoiding dogs whenever they see them, dog phobics are negatively reinforcing their fear – and thereby operantly conditioning themselves to make their fears more likely to endure! According to two-process theory, we can think of anxiety disorders as produced by short-term gain at the cost of long-term pain. The sufferer purchases immediate relief at the price of a long-term fear. Although two-process theory probably doesn’t explain the persistence of all phobias (Barlow, 2001), it’s proven useful for generating ideas for treating them. As we’ll discover in Chapter 17, one effective strategy for treating phobias is to encourage individuals to confront, rather than avoid, the feared stimulus. By doing so, we stop the person from negatively reinforcing her fear, and transform the equation into short-term pain at the price of long-term gain (Foa & Kozak, 1986 129 Photograph 26 Applied behavior analysis has yielded at least some success in treating the deficits of children with autism. Here a teacher uses operant conditioning techniques to help a child with autism name the objects or animals shown in a set of photographs. two-process theory using both classical and operant conditioning to explain the persistence of phobias and other anxiety disorders over time CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US FA C T A N D F I C T I O N I N PSYC H O LO GY SE L F -T EST 2 (1) In classical conditioning, responses are emitted; in operant conditioning, they are elicited. (2) Negative reinforcement and punishment are superficially different, but they produce the same short-term effects on behavior. (3) The correlation between spanking and children’s behavioral problems appears to be positive in Whites but negative in African-Americans. (4) The principle of partial reinforcement states that behaviors that are reinforced only some of the time tend to extinguish more rapidly than behaviors that are reinforced continuously. (5) According to the Premack principle, we can reinforce low frequency behaviors with higher-frequency behaviors. Answers printed upside down on the bottom of the following page Cognitive Models of Learning Up to this point, we’ve omitted one word when discussing how we learn: thinking. That’s not entirely accidental, because the early behaviorists didn’t believe that thought played much of a causal role in learning. methodological behaviorism focussing exclusively on overt (observable) behaviors radical behaviorism For radical behaviorists, overt behavior, thinking, and emotion are all governed by the same laws of learning, namely classical and operant conditioning COGNITIVE MODELS OF LEARNING Fiction Fact Skinner believed that genes played no role in human behavior Skinner acknowledged that genes affected the ease with which people affected the ease with which people learn habits, although he felt that the study of genes was of little relevance to psychology Skinner did not believe in thinking or emotion Skinner believed that humans and other intelligent animals think and experience emotions, although regarded thinking and feeling merely as covert (unobservable) behaviors Skinner favored the use of punishment as a behavioral technique Skinner opposed the use of punishment for shaping human behaviors, and believed that reinforcemen should always be used whenevert possible Skinner believed that any human behavior could be conditioned Skinner never argued this, although his predecessor John Watson came close to doing so Skinner denied the uniqueness Skinner openly acknowledged that all individuals are unique, as they of individuals are the product of unique genetic predispositions and unique learnin histories Skinner’s vision of society was devoid of morality Skinner explicitly advocated a society in which people would be reinforced for ethical and cooperative behavior From DeBell and Harless (1992); Wyatt (2001) WATSON, SKINNER, AND THOUGHT Table 2 B.F. Skinner may be the misunderstood of all famous psychologists. Actually, Watson and Skinner held two somewhat different views on this matter. Watson (1913) was an advocate of methodological behaviorism. According to this school of thought, psychology should focus exclusively on overt (that is, observable) behaviors. From Watson’s perspective, thinking and emotion lay outside the domain of scientific psychology. There’s an old joke about two methodological behaviorists who meet at a conference. They find themselves attracted to each other and end up sleeping together. Upon awakening, one of them asks, “That was great for you. How was it for me?” The point here is that methodological behaviorists studied only what they could observe: what you see is what you get. In contrast, Skinner (1953) was a proponent of radical behaviorism. For radical behaviorists, overt behavior, thinking, and emotion are all governed by the same laws of learning, namely classical and operant conditioning. For Skinnerians (the term often used for radical behaviorists), thinking and emotion are behaviors, they are just covert (that is, unobservable) behaviors. One frequent misconception about Skinner, held not only by many students but even some psychology professors, is that he didn’t believe in thinking. In fact, Skinner isn’t merely one of the most famous of all psychologists; he is also one of the most misunderstood (DeBell & Harless, 1992; Wyatt, 2001; see Table 3). To the contrary, Skinner clearly thought - he wouldn’t have objected to our use of that word here - that humans and other intelligent animals think, but he believed that thinking was no different from any other behavior. At times, Skinner went even further. In a talk to the American Psychological Association given only 8 days before his death, Skinner (1990) likened proponents of cognitive psychology, who believe that thinking plays a central role in causing behavior (see Chapter 1), to pseudoscientists. Cognitive psychology, he argued, invokes unobservable and ultimately meaningless concepts – like the “mind” – to explain behavior. By doing so, Skinner said, it doesn’t get us any closer to the true causes of behavior, any more than invoking a mysterious higher power gets us any closer to explaining the origin and development of species. learning in humans is incomplete without at least some role for cognition, that is, thinking (Bolles, 1979; Kirsch, Lynn, Vigorito, & Miller, 2004). Over the past two or three decades, psychology has moved increasingly away from a simple S-R psychology to a more complex S-O-R psychology, with “O” being the organism that interprets the stimulus before producing a response (Woodworth, 1929). For S-OR psychologists, the link between S and R isn’t mindless or automatic. Instead, how the organism responds to a stimulus depends on what this stimulus means to the organism. The S-O-R principle helps to explain a phenomenon we’ve probably all encountered. You’ve probably had the experience of giving one of your friends a mildly critical piece of feedback (like “It bothers me a little bit when you show up late”) and another one of your friends the same feedback, but found that they reacted quite differently. Perhaps one of your friends accepted your gentle criticism gracefully with a polite apology, whereas the other became defensive or even argumentative. In attempting to explain these different reactions, Skinnerians would probably invoke your friends’ different learning histories. Perhaps your first friend had repeatedly been reinforced by others for apologizing (“That’s so nice of you to apologize; I really appreciate it”), whereas your second friend had repeatedly been reinforced by others for becoming defensive when criticized (“Oh, I’m really sorry I brought that up; I’ll try to be less critical of you in the future’). In contrast, S-O-R theorists, who believe that cognition is central to explaining at least some forms of learning, would contend that the differences in your friends’ reactions stem from their differences in how they interpreted your criticism. Your first friend may have viewed your criticism as constructive feedback, whereas your second friend may have viewed it as a personal attack. S-O-R theorists don’t deny that classical and operant conditioning occur, but they believe that these forms of learning usually depend on thinking. Let’s imagine that we classically conditioned a person using a tone paired repeatedly with an electric shock: tone-shock, tone-shock, tone-shock, and on and on. As we noted earlier in the chapter, the person – unless he or she is a psychopath - will show a pronounced skin conductance response to the tone alone, which extinguishes gradually over time. But what do you think would happen if we suddenly informed the subject that “Don’t worry – no more shocks are coming”? If you guessed that the skin conductance response extinguishes much more S-O-R PSYCHOLOGY Today, few psychologists share Skinner’s exceedingly harsh assessment of cognitive psychology. In fact, a substantial majority of psychologists now agree that the story of 130 131 S-O-R psychology For S-O-R psychologists, the link between S and R is how the organism responds to a stimulus depends on what this stimulus means to the organism. CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US rapidly, you’d be right (Grings, 1973). This phenomenon of cognitive conditioning, whereby our interpretation of the situation affects conditioning, suggests that conditioning is more than an automatic, mindless process (Brewer, 1974). To explain psychology’s gradual transition from behaviorism to cognitivism, we first need to tell the story of a pioneering psychologist and his rats. LATENT LEARNING Photograph 27 Edward Chase Tolman, one of the unsung giants of modern psychology. Tolman’s discoveries concerning latent learning helped lay the groundwork for modern cognitive theories of learning. Figure 12 Photograph 28 Children, like the child who produced this drawing, possess cognitive maps of their home neighborhoods. cognitive conditioning whereby the interpretation of the situation affects conditioning, latent learning that is, learning that isn’t directly observable cognitive maps spatial representations One of the first serious challenges to the radical behaviorist account of learning arose from research conducted by Edward Chace Tolman (1886-1959), who is one of the unsung giants of modern psychology (Photograph 27). Although few psychology undergraduates (aside from those at the University of California at Berkeley, where the psychology building bears his name) have ever heard of Tolman, his contribution to the psychology of learning is difficult to overestimate. Tolman suspected that, contrary to Watson, Thorndike, and others, reinforcement wasn’t the be-and-end-all of learning. To understand why, let’s imagine that we asked you a question based on your reading of the previous paragraph: “After what psychologist is the University of California at Berkeley psychology building named?” If you’ve been paying attention, you hopefully answered “Tolman.” Yet before we asked that question, you knew the answer, even though you hadn’t had the chance to demonstrate it. According to Tolman (1932), you had engaged in latent learning, that is, learning that isn’t directly observable (Blodgett, 1929). We learn many things without showing them. Putting it a bit differently, there’s a crucial difference between competence – what we know - and performance –showing what we know (Bradbard, Martin, Endsley, & Halverson, 1986). Why is this distinction important? Because it implies that reinforcement is not necessary for learning. To demonstrate this point systematically, Tolman and Honzik (1930) ran three randomly assigned groups of rats through a maze over a three week period (see Figure 12). One group always received reinforcement – cheese – when it got to the end of the maze. A second group never received reinforcement when it got to the end of the maze. The first group made far fewer errors; there’s certainly no great surprise there. But Tolman and Honzik’s third group of rats was the most interesting. This group received no reinforcement for the first 10 days, and then started receiving reinforcement starting on the 11th day. As you can see in Figure 12, the rats in this group showed a large and abrupt drop in their number of errors upon receiving their very first reinforcement. In fact, within only a few days the number of their errors was not significantly different – and was even slightly less than – the number of errors among the rats always receiving reinforcement. According to Tolman, this finding means that the rats in the third group had been learning all along. They just hadn’t bothered to show it because there was nothing to be gained. Once there was something to be gained – cheese - they suddenly became miniature maze masters. How did they do it? According to Tolman (1948), the rats had developed cognitive maps – that is, spatial representations – of the maze. If you’re like most undergraduates, you were hopelessly confused the first day you arrived on campus. Perhaps you went to your first class, and then got lost in the middle of campus trying to make it to your second class. Perhaps you later started walking confidently toward what you thought was the campus library, only to realize that you were headed directly toward the cafeteria. Over time, however, you probably developed a mental sense of the layout of the campus, so that you now hardly ever become lost. That internal spatial blueprint, according to Tolman, is a cognitive map (Photograph 28). In an especially clever demonstration of cognitive maps, three investigators (McNamara, Long, & Wilke, 1956) had one set of rats run repeatedly through a maze to get reinforcement. They put another set of rats in little moving “trolley car,” in which the rats could observe the layout of the maze but not obtain the experience of running through 132 COGNITIVE MODELS OF LEARNING it. When the researchers later gave the second group of rats the chance to run through the maze, they did just as well as the rats in the first group. As rodent tourists in trolley cars, they had acquired cognitive maps of the maze. The latent learning research of Tolman and others struck a serious blow to strictly behavioral models of learning, because this work suggested that learning could occur without reinforcement. It also suggested that thinking, in the form of cognitive maps, plays a central form in at least some forms of learning. OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING According to some psychologists, one important variant of latent learning is observational learning: learning by watching others (Bandura, 1965). In many cases, we learn by watching models: parents, teachers, and other figures who are influential to us. Many psychologists regard observational learning as a form of latent learning because it allows us to learn without reinforcement. We can merely watch someone else being reinforced for doing something, and take our cue from them. Observational learning makes awfully good evolutionary sense, because it spares us the expense of having to learn everything first-hand (Bandura, 1977). The authors of your book are not particular experts in skydiving, but from our observations of people who have gone skydiving we have the distinct impression that it’s generally advisable to have a parachute on before one jumps out of a plane. Note that we did not have to learn this useful tidbit of advice by trial and error. If we had made such an error, we wouldn’t be here to tell you about it. As a result, observational learning can spare us from serious, even lifethreatening, mistakes. Nevertheless, observational learning can also facilitate our learning of maladaptive habits. Observational learning of aggression. In classic research in the early 1960s, Alfred Bandura and his colleagues demonstrated that children can learn to act aggressively by observing aggressive role models (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). In one study, they exposed preschool boys and girls to an adult (the model) whom they placed in a room with a large Bobo doll, a doll that bounces back to its original position after being hit (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). The experimenters randomly assigned some children to watch the Photograph 29 A panel of photographs from Bandura and colleagues (1963) classic study on the observational learning of aggression. Top panel: adult model attacking the Bobo doll. Bottom two panels: a boy and a girl emulating the adult model by attacking the Bobo doll in much the same fashion. 133 observational learning learning by watching others (1) F; (2) F; (3) T; (4) F; (5) T CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US adult model playing quietly and ignoring the Bobo doll, and others to watch the adult model punching the Bobo doll in the nose, hitting it with a mallet, sitting on it, and kicking it around the room. As though that weren’t enough, the model in the latter condition shouted out insults to the Bobo doll while inflicting violence: “Sock him in the nose,”, “Kick him,” “Pow.” (Photograph 29). Bandura and his co-workers then brought the children into a room with a variety of appealing toys, including a miniature fire engine, jet fighter, and a large doll set. Just as the children began playing with these toys, the experimenter interrupted them, informing them that they needed to move to a different room. This interruption was intentional, as the investigators wanted to frustrate the children to make them more likely to behave aggressively. Then the experimenter brought them into a second room, which contained a Bobo doll identical to that they had seen previously. On a variety of dependent measures, Bandura and colleagues found that previous exposure to the aggressive model triggered significantly more aggression against the Bobo doll than did exposure to the nonaggressive model. The children in the former condition hit and yelled at the doll much as the adult in the film clip had done, and they even imitated many of the adult model’s verbal insults. In a later study, Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura et al., 1963) found essentially the same results when they displayed the aggressive models to children on film rather than in person. Correlation Doesn’t Imply Causdation longitudinal designs tracking individuals’ behavior over time Media violence and real-world aggression. The Bandura studies and scores of later studies of observational learning led psychologists to examine a theoretically and socially important question: Does exposure to media violence, such as films or movies, contribute to real-world violence – or what Bushman and Anderson (2001) call “violence in the reel world”? The research literature addressing this question is as vast as it is confusing, and could easily take up an entire book. So we’ll only briefly summarize some of the key findings and issues here. Hundreds of researchers using correlational designs have reported that children who watch many violent television programs are more aggressive than other children (Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). These findings, though, don’t demonstrate that media violence causes real world violence (Freedman, 1984). They could simply indicate that highly aggressive children are more likely than other children to tune into aggressive television programs. Alternatively, these findings could be due to a third variable, such as children’s initial levels of aggressiveness. That is, highly aggressive children may be more likely than other children to both watch violent television programs and to act aggressively. Investigators have tried to get around this problem by using longitudinal designs, which track individuals’ behavior over time. Longitudinal studies have shown that children who watch many violent television shows commit more aggressive acts years later than do children who watch fewer violent television shows, even when children are equated in their initial levels of aggression (Huessman, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). (Figure 13). These studies offer somewhat more compelling evidence for a causal link between media violence and aggression than do simple correlational studies, but even they don’t prove the existence of this link. For example, it’s possible that an unmeasured personality variable, like impulsivity, or a social variable, like weak parental supervision, accounts for these findings. Moreover, just because variable A precedes variable B doesn’t mean that variable A causes variable B (if you really want to impress your friends at parties, you can tell them that the error of concluding that variable A causes variable B because variable A precedes variable B is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which we can translate as the “after this, because of this fallacy”). For example, if we found that most common colds start with a scratchy throat and a runny nose, we shouldn’t conclude that scratchy throats and runny noses cause colds, only that they are early signs of a cold. Still other investigators have tried to examine whether the link between media models and later aggression holds up under strictly controlled conditions within the laboratory. 134 COGNITIVE MODELS OF LEARNING In most of these studies, researchers have exposed subjects to either violent or nonviolent media presentations, and then examined whether subjects in the former groups behaved more aggressively, such as by yelling at the experimenter or delivering electric shocks to another subject when provoked. In general, meta-analyses (see Chapter 3) of these studies strongly suggest a causal association between media violence and laboratory aggression (Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). Finally, some investigators have conducted field studies of the link between media violence and aggression. In field studies, researchers examine the relation between naturally occurring events and aggression in the real world. For example, sociologist David Phillips (1983) found that the number of homicides increased by approximately one-eighth following widely publicized boxing matches. Moreover, he found that when a white boxer defeated an African-American, the victim of the murder was more likely to be an AfricanAmerican, whereas the converse was true when an African-American boxer defeated a White. Nevertheless, some researchers have questioned these findings because the spike in homicides was evident only on the third day after these fights, but not on other days (Baron & Reiss, 1985). Thus, it’s possible that these results were due to chance. Another investigator (Mitchell, 1986) conducted a field study of a small, isolated mountain town in Canada that had no television prior to 1973 (she called it “Notel,” short for “No Television”). Compared with school-age children in two other Canadian towns that already had television, children in Notel showed a marked increase in physical and verbal aggression two years later. Nevertheless, these findings are difficult to interpret in light of a potential confound: at around the same time that Notel received television, the Canadian government built a large highway that connected Notel to nearby towns. This highway might have introduced the children in Notel to negative outside influences, including crime from other cities. So what can we make of the literature on media violence and aggression in the “reel world”? We have four lines of evidence – correlational studies, longitudinal studies, laboratory studies, and field studies – each with has its own strengths and weaknesses. Correlational, longitudinal, and field studies tend to be strong in external validity, that is, generalizability to the real world, and weak in internal validity, that is, the extent to which they permit cause-and-effect inferences. Laboratory studies, in contrast, tend to be weak in external validity and strong in internal validity. Yet despite their shortcomings, all four types of studies point in the direction of at least some causal relation between media violence and aggression (Anderson et al., 2003). Scientific conclusions are usually the most convincing when we base them on findings from very different research designs, each with a slightly different set of imperfections (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). As a result, most psychological scientists today agree that media violence contributes to aggression in at least some circumstances (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Nevertheless, as we’ll learn in Chapter 12, it’s equally clear that media violence is only one small piece of a complex and multifaceted puzzle. We can’t explain aggression by means of media violence alone because the substantial majority of individuals exposed to high levels of such violence don’t become aggressive (Herrnstein & Wilson, 1985). Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis NEW FRONTIERS Mirror Neurons and Observational Learning You find yourself alone in a new city, standing on line behind someone using an automated teller machine. Like so many other cash machines, this one is slightly – and annoyingly - different from all of the other ones you’ve seen. You watch intently as the person in front of you swipes her card, pushes a few field studies study of events and aggression in the real world 135 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US buttons, and grabs her money from the slot at the bottom of the machine. Now it’s your turn, and you know exactly what to do. You learned by watching. But how? The question of how our brains engage in observational learning is still shrouded in mystery. Nevertheless, neuroscientists have recently begun to pinpoint a potential physiological basis for imitation. When a monkey watches another monkey perform an action, such as reaching for an object, a group of neurons in its prefrontal cortex, not far from its motor cortex (see Chapter 4), become active (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996). These cells are termed mirror neurons because they’re the same cells that would have become active had the monkey performed the same movement. It’s almost as though these neurons are “imagining” what it would have been like to engage in the behavior. Mirror neurons appear to be remarkably selective in their activation. They don’t light up when a monkey sees another monkey that remains stationary, nor do they light up when a monkey sees a piece of food that another monkey grabbed. Instead, they light up only when a monkey sees another monkey engaging in an action, like grabbing a piece of food. Moreover, these neurons seem to be tuned to extremely specific behaviors. For example, investigators have found one mirror neuron in monkeys that fires only when either the monkey himself or a person he’s observing grabs a peanut, and a different mirror neuron that fires only when either the monkey himself or a person he’s observing eats a peanut (Winerman, 2005). Using PET scanning, researchers have identified a similar mirror neuron system in humans (Gallese & Goldman, 1998), although they’ve yet to identify specific individual mirror neurons, as they have in monkeys (Photograph 30). No-one knows for sure what mirror neurons do or why they’re in our brains. But some neuroscientists have conjectured that such neurons play a central role in our capacity for empathy (Azar, 2005; Ramachandran, 2000). When you see an athlete suffer an injury during a televised sporting event, like a baseball player grimacing in agony after a bruising slide into home plate, you wince in pain along with him. In some sense, you may be “feeling his pain,” because the mirror neurons in your brain that correspond to his motor areas are becoming activated. mirror neurons a group of neurons in the prefrontal cortex, not far from the motor cortex that become active Photograph 30 In humans, the mirror neuron system lights up when we see someone performing a task, like reaching for an object. This is the same area of the brain that would light up if we reached for the object ourselves. 136 COGNITIVE MODELS OF LEARNING Some authors have gone further to speculate that mirror neuron abnormalities play a central role in infantile autism (see Chapter 3), which is marked not only by deficits in language and thinking, but in the capacity to adopt the perspective of others (Dingelfelder, 2005). Interestingly, one group of investigators found that the mirror neuron areas of autistic individuals become less active than those of non-autistic individuals when observing people’s hand movements (Theoret et al., 2005). Still, such findings are only correlational. They don’t necessarily show that mirror neuron deficits cause or contribute to autism; perhaps they are merely a consequence of the fact that autistic individuals are less interested in others’ actions than are non-autistic individuals. Even so, the discovery of mirror neurons may ultimately provide valuable insights into how we and other intelligent animals learn from others. This discovery also helps us to appreciate that even when we’re alone, we’re often not really alone. Even when you’re sitting by yourself on your couch watching television, your brain and the brain of that baseball player sliding into home plate may well be in sync, with your mirror neurons and his lighting up in unison. Latent learning and observational learning were by no means the only shots fired across the bow of behaviorism. Another was fired by a mysterious German psychologist during the First World War INSIGHT LEARNING During World War I, the German government assigned Wolfgang Kohler (1887-1967) to the Canary Islands, not far off the coast of Africa (you might recall from Chapter 5 that Kohler was one of the founders of Gestalt psychology). There, he served as director of a primate facility. Some scholars believe that Kohler also served as a spy for the German government while there (Ley, 1990), but nobody knows for sure. Around the same time as psychologists were conducting the first latent learning studies, Kohler (1925) was busily posing various problems to four chimpanzees. His favorite of the four was an Einstein of ape named Sultan, who was especially adept at solving puzzles. For example, in one case Kohler placed a tempting bunch of bananas outside of the cage, well out of Sultan’s reach, along with two bamboo sticks inside of the cage. Neither stick was long enough to reach the bananas. After what appeared to be some heavy-duty pondering, Sultan suddenly figured out the solution: stick one bamboo stick inside the other, creating one extra-long bamboo stick (Photograph 31). In another case, Kohler suspended a bunch of bananas from the ceiling of the cage, well out of reach of his hungry chimps. At the same time, he placed several boxes in the cage. Again, after some thought, the chimps quickly figured out the answer to the problem: pile the boxes on top of one other, treating them as what Kohler called “climb-up-ables,” ascend to the highest box, and then jump up to grab the bananas (Photograph 32). What was notable, according to Kohler, was that his chimpanzees appeared to experience the “aha reaction” we discussed earlier. Their solutions to his problems didn’t appear to reflect trial and error, as it did with Thorndike’s cats, but rather insight. That is, their solutions seemed to resemble what we saw in Figure 8 (p.000). The chimps seemed to suddenly “get” the solution to the problem, and from thereon in they got it right just about every time. Still, Kohler’s findings and conclusions weren’t without their shortcomings. Because Kohler only videotaped some of his chimpanzees’ problem-solving, it’s difficult to rule out the possibility that at least some of this his chimps had engaged in trial and error before 137 Correlation Doesn’t Imply Causdation Photograph 31 Kohler found that Sultan, his “star” chimpanzee, discovered how to insert one bamboo stick inside another to create an extra-long stick, thereby allowing him to obtain food. Photograph 32 Kohler’s apes also figured out how to get to a banana suspended well above their heads: stack a bunch of boxes atop each other, and then climb to the top box. CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Figure 14 TBD The results of the study by Trabasso and Bower (1963) show that graphs, such as those in Figure 13, can be misleading. The subjects in Figure 13 were actually learning by insight, not trial-and-error, but they were learning at different times. By lumping together the results of all of the subjects, as was done in Figure 13, we end up with a misleading picture. figuring out each problem (Gould & Gould, 1994). Moreover, because the chimps were often in the same cage, they may have engaged in observational learning. Still, Kohler’s work strongly suggests that at least some smart animals can learn through insight rather than trial and error. There’s also good evidence that humans learn many problems through insight (Dawes, 1994). Many researchers didn’t initially recognize this phenomenon, because they were fooled by their own graphs. If you look at Figure 14 you’ll see the results of a typical investigation of problem-solving. In this kind of study, the researchers ask human participants to sort various cards that differ in their shape (round, triangular, square, and so on), color (green, blue, red, and so on), and number (1, 2, 3, and so on) into piles. Participants need to figure out which of these three categories the experimenter has in mind. On each trial, participants receive feedback from the experimenter about whether they’re right or wrong. Figure 14 shows the results averaged across many participants. This graph seems to provide evidence of gradual, trial-and-error learning, doesn’t it? Don’t be fooled by this graph, because appearances can be deceiving. If you look at the pattern of learning within each subject in Figure 14, you can see that individuals actually are learning by insight. They figure out the answer suddenly, and then almost always get it right after that. By lumping together the results across all subjects, the graph misleadingly suggests a gradual, rather than a sudden, decline (Restle, 1962; Trabasso & Bower, 1963). So people often do learn through insight, they just do so at different rates. CONTIGUITY vs. CONTINGENCY Both latent learning and insight learning provided compelling evidence that learning is more than just an automatic, reflexive process. Yet another persuasive piece of evidence for the role of cognition in learning derives from research on conditioning and how it works. Figure 15 TBD Demonstration of blocking. When a new CS is completely redundant with a preexisting CS, no learn to the new CS occurs. contiguity belief that, learning depends simply on associating stimuli with responses that are close to them in time blocking the effect of one CS upon another CS Contiguity. Some early psychologists, such as the behaviorist Edwin Guthrie (1886-1959), believed that all learning was simply a matter of contiguity. That is, learning depends simply on associating stimuli with responses that are close to them in time (Guthrie, 1930). So, according to Guthrie, if we run away from a scary-looking cat the first we see it, we’re more likely to do it again in the future. So long as stimulus (cat) and response (running away) are close to each other in time, we’re more likely to repeat that response each time we see that stimulus. Guthrie turned out to be wrong. Blocking. The first hint that contiguity wasn’t the whole story came from research on a classical conditioning paradigm called blocking (Kamin, 1969). If we repeatedly present a rat with a CS of a light, followed by a UCS of an electric shock, it will eventually begin to exhibit a CR of fear every time it sees the light (in these studies, researchers typically measure fear by the extent to which the animal stops pressing a bar for food in the presence of the CS). That’s standard aversive conditioning. But imagine that we now introduce another CS – a tone that occurs at exactly the same time as the light – and pair it repeatedly with the light, along with the electric shock again as the UCS. What happens when we now present the second CS – the tone? (Figure 15). The answer is surprising: nothing. The rat shows no response at all the tone, and happily keeps pressing away at the bar for food. What happened? Because the tone was completely redundant with the light, the light blocked the effects of the tone. The research on blocking is important because it indicates that contiguity by itself can’t explain learning. For a stimulus to be effective in producing learning, it must predict new information. Because the second CS – the tone - didn’t predict anything new that the first CS – the light – didn’t, learning didn’t take place. Redundant information isn’t informative. This redundancy principle applies to many domains of human learning. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government Department of Homeland Security introduced a color-coded scheme of terrorist threat levels, with green being low, blue being 138 COGNITIVE MODELS OF LEARNING guarded, yellow being elevated, and so on. The scheme was spectacularly unsuccessful, and quickly became the butt of jokes on late-night talk shows. Had the Department of Homeland Security boned up on their psychology of learning, they might have known why. Because the colors are completely redundant with the words for threat levels (low, guarded, elevated, and so on), they don’t convey any new information. As a consequence, almost nobody remembered them (Photograph 33). Contigency. The final nail in the coffin of the idea that contiguity explains learning comes from ingenious work by Robert Rescorla (1967, 1988). In this research, Rescorla wanted to distinguish between two different processes in classical conditioning: contiguity– the closeness in time between the CS and UCS – or contingency – the extent to which the CS predicts the UCS (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). Rescorla astutely observed that high levels of contiguity between CS and UCS can occur without any contingency between them. To see why, look at Figure 16. There, you’ll see a series of CSs (tones) and UCSs (shocks) that occur in close proximity to one another, but in which the correlation between CSs and UCSs are zero. That is, in this case, the presence of the CS doesn’t predict the UCS at all. To find out whether contiguity is sufficient to account for classical conditioning, Rescorla (1967) presented rats with several different sequences of CSs (tones) and UCSs (shocks) (see Figure 17). In all of them, the contiguity between CS and UCS remained the same, because the CS was equally close in time to the UCS in all cases. Yet the contingency - or correlation - between CS and UCS varied, with this association being low in some cases and high in others. That is, in some cases CS barely predicted the UCS at all; in others, it predicted it quite well. Rescorla found that contingency made a big difference in learning. The better the CS predicted the UCS, the more fear the rats showed. So when we hold contiguity constant, contingency matters. This finding is important because it suggests that classical conditioning isn’t merely a mechanical, automatic process of connecting CSs to UCSs, as many early behaviorists believed. Instead, classical conditioning and perhaps all forms of learning occur when organisms experience surprise, that is, when they find out that a stimulus predicts something novel (Kamin, 1968; Rescorla, 1991). So from a cognitive perspective on learning, organisms try to determine contingencies between stimuli: does this stimulus tell me something useful or not? If it does, and only if it does, will learning occur (Miller & Matzel, 1988). Still, this doesn’t mean that all forms of learning require cognition. Because scientists have observed classical conditioning in very simple animals, such as our sea snail friend Aplysia (Carew, Hawkins, & Kandel, 1983) and perhaps even in single-celled organisms such as protozoa (Bergstrom, 1969), it’s likely that certain forms of conditioning are automatic or mechanical (Kirsch et al., 2004). When it comes to humans and other intelligent animals, however, conditioning probably depends heavily on thinking. FA C T A N D F I C T I O N I N PSYC H O LO GY SE L F -T EST 3 (1) According to Skinner, animals do not think or experience emotions. (2) Proponents of latent learning argue that reinforcement is not necessary for learning. (3) Research on observational learning demonstrates that children can learn aggression by watching aggressive role models. (4) Contiguity appears to be sufficient for learning. Answers printed upside down on the bottom of the following page Photograph 33 The color-coded threat system developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Because the colors are completely redundant with the threat words, most people don’t remember them. Stimuli that do not provide new information are difficult to learn. Figure 16 TBD Figure 17 TBD Schematic diagram from Robert Rescorla’s work. In all four panels, the contiguity between CS and UCS is identical, but as we move from panels 1 to 4, the contingency from CS to UCS increases – that is, the CS becomes increasingly predictive of the UCS. contingency the extent to which the CS predicts the UCS 139 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Biological Influences on Learning For many decades, most behaviorists regarded learning as entirely distinct from biology. The animal’s learning history and genetic make-up were like two ships passing in the night. Yet we now recognize this view as naïve, because our biology influences the speed and nature of our learning in complex and fascinating ways. Here are three powerful examples. Photograph 34 A blue-jay eating a monarch butterfly – which is poisonous - then vomiting several hours later. The blue-jay will avoid monarchs from now on. Interestingly, some nonpoisonous butterfly species have evolved to resemble monarchs to avoid being eaten by birds. conditioned taste aversion the fact that classical conditioning can lead us to develop avoidance reactions to the taste of food. scapegoat food a novel, unliked food CONDITIONED TASTE AVERSIONS In the 1970s, University of Pennsylvania psychologist Martin Seligman went out for dinner with his wife. He ordered a filet mignon steak flavored with Sauce Béarnaise, his favorite sauce. Approximately 6 hours later, while at the opera, Seligman felt nauseated and become violently ill. He and his stomach recovered, but his love of Sauce Bearnaise didn’t. From then on, Seligman couldn’t even think of, let alone taste, Sauce Bearnaise without feeling like throwing up (Seligman & Hager, 1972). The Sauce-Bernaise syndrome, also known as the phenomenon of conditioned taste aversion, refers to the fact that classical conditioning can lead us to develop avoidance reactions to the taste of food. Yet before reading on, ask yourself a question. Does Seligman’s story contradict the other examples of classical conditioning we’ve discussed, like that of Pavlov and his dogs? (Photograph 34). In fact, it does in at least three ways (Garcia & Hankins, 1977). First, in contrast to most classically conditioned reactions, which require repeated pairings between CS and UCS, conditioned taste aversions typically require only one trial to develop. This difference makes good evolutionary sense. We wouldn’t want to have to experience horrific food poisoning again and again to learn a conditioned association between taste and illness. Not only would doing so be incredibly unpleasant, but in some cases, we’d be dead after only the first trial. Second, the delay between CS and UCS in conditioned taste aversions can be as long as 6 or even 8 hours (Rachlin, 1991). Again, this makes good evolutionary sense, because food poisoning often sets in many hours after eating toxic food. Third, conditioned taste aversions tend to be remarkably specific, and show little evidence of stimulus generalization. One of the authors of your book’s earliest childhood memories is that of eating a delicious piece of lasagna and then becoming violently ill several hours later. For over 20 years, he avoided lasagna at all costs while thoroughly enjoying spaghetti, manicotti, veal parmigiana, pizza, and virtually every other kind of Italian food. He finally forced himself to get over his lasagna-phobia, but not without a momentous struggle. Many conditioned taste aversions aren’t rational. For example, such aversions are a particular problem among cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy, which frequently induces nausea and vomiting. As a consequence, these patients frequently begin to avoid any food that preceded chemotherapy, even though they realize that it bears no logical connection to the treatment. Fortunately, health psychologists (see Chapter 9) have developed a clever way of getting around this problem. Capitalizing on the specificity of conditioned taste aversions, they get cancer patients to eat an unfamiliar scapegoat food – a novel food of which they aren’t fond – prior to the chemotherapy. In general, the taste aversion becomes conditioned to the scapegoat food rather than to the patient’s preferred foods (Andresen, Birch, & Johnson, 1990). In an especially ingenious article, John Garcia and one of his colleagues helped to unravel the mystery of conditioned taste aversions (Garcia & Koelling, 1966). Interestingly, other scientists considered their findings so implausible that numerous journals rejected their paper outright (Sternberg, 2003) before a relatively obscure outlet (Psychonomic Science) finally accepted it. Nevertheless, Garcia eventually got his measure of intellectual revenge. His article has been cited approximately 1100 times by other researchers in their publications, which is an astonishing number considering that the modal number of citations for a psychology journal article is 0 (very few psychology articles are cited as many 140 BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON LEARNING as 100 times). In psychology, as in other sciences, revolutionary ideas aren’t always well received, at least initially. Garcia and his co-author found that rats that had been exposed to X-rays – which make them feel nauseated – developed conditioned fear reactions to the taste of water, whereas rats that had been exposed to bright lights and buzzers don’t (Garcia & Koelling, 1966). The bottom line is that conditioned taste aversions make evolutionary sense. In the real world, poisoned drinks and foods, not sights and sounds, make animals feel sick. As a consequence, animals develop conditioned taste aversions only to stimuli that tend to trigger nausea in the real world (Figure 18). This finding contradicts the assumption of equipotentiality – the claim that all CSs can be paired equally well with all UCSs – a belief held by many traditional behaviorists (Plotkin, 2004). Garcia and others had found that certain CSs, such as those associated with taste, are easily conditioned to certain UCSs, such as those associated with nausea. Psychologists call this phenomenon belongingness: certain stimuli are more likely than others to go together with certain responses (Thorndike, 1911; Rachman, 1977). Recall that following his night out with his wife, Martin Seligman felt nauseated at the thought of Sauce Bernaise, but not at the thought of opera singers (in contrast, those of you who feel nauseated at the very thought of going to the opera might experience a different reaction). Figure 18 TBD The work of John Garcia and his colleagues demonstrated that animals tend to develop conditioned taste aversions only to certain stimuli, namely those that tend to trigger nausea in the real world. PREPAREDNESS A second serious challenge to the equipotentiality assumption comes from research on phobias. If we look at the distribution of phobias in the general population, we find something curious: the most widespread phobias aren’t those with which people have had the most frequent negative experiences. Phobias of the dark, heights, snakes, spiders, deep water, and blood are commonplace, even though many people who fear these stimuli have never had a frightening encounter with them. In contrast, phobias of razors, knives, the edges of furniture, ovens, and electrical outlets are extremely rare, although many of us have had annoying, painful, or embarrassing experiences with them. Seligman (1971) argued that we can explain the distribution of phobias in the population by means of preparedness: we are evolutionarily predisposed to fear certain stimuli more than others. According to Seligman, that’s because certain stimuli, like steep cliffs and poisonous animals, posed a threat to our early human ancestors (Ohman & Mineka, 2001). In contrast, household items and appliances didn’t. In the words of Susan Mineka (1993), prepared fears are “evolutionary memories,” that is, emotional legacies of natural selection. In one intriguing demonstration of preparedness, Mineka and Cook (1993) showed lab-reared rhesus monkeys, who had no previous exposure to snakes, a videotape of other monkeys reacting in horror to snakes. Within less than half an hour, the monkeys had acquired a fear of snakes by means of observational learning (surprisingly, rhesus monkeys who’ve never been exposed to snakes show no fear to them). By means of some clever editing, Mineka and Cook altered the videotape to show the same monkeys reacting in horror, but this time in response to flowers, a toy rabbit, a toy snake, or a toy crocodile. They then showed these new videotapes to different groups of rhesus monkeys. The monkeys who observed these altered videotapes acquired fears of the toy snake and Photograph 35 Mineka and Cook (1993) showed that monkeys can acquire fears of snakes by means of observational learning. Nevertheless, these monkeys didn’t acquire fears of nondangerous stimuli, like flowers, suggesting a role for evolutionary predispositions in the development of fears. 141 equipotentiality the claim that all CSs can be paired equally well with all UCSs belongingness certain stimuli are more likely than others to go together with certain responses preparedness evolutionary predisposition to fear certain stimuli more than others (1) F; (2) T; (3) T; (4) F CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Figure 19 TBD The Great Fourfold Table of Life helps to explain how preparedness can lead us to defelop illusory correlations between stimuli and feared outcomes. If we’re afraid of snakes, we often tend to attend too highly to the upper left-hand cell of the table, in which snakes co-occur with frightening consequences. Photograph 36 Will this protester develop a phobia of dogs? Research suggestes that the answer depends substantially on his genetic predisposition toward fearfulness. Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis toy crocodile, but not to the flowers or toy rabbit. From the standpoint of preparedness, this finding is entirely understandable. Snakes and crocodiles were dangerous to primate ancestors, but flowers and rabbits weren’t (Ohman & Mineka, 2003). (Photograph 35). Preparedness may also render us likely to develop illusory correlations between fearprovoking stimuli and negative consequences (Tomarken, Mineka, & Cook, 1989). Recall from Chapter 3 that an illusory correlation is a statistical mirage; it’s the perception of an association between two variables when this association is absent. One team of investigators administered intermittent electrical shocks to subjects – some of whom feared snakes and some of whom didn’t – while they were watching slides of snakes and damaged electrical outlets. The pairings of the slide stimuli with the shocks were entirely random, so that the actual correlation between them was zero. Yet subjects with high levels of snake fear perceived a marked correlation between the occurrence of the snake slides, but not the electrical outlets, and the electric shocks. Subjects with low levels of snake fear showed no such tendency toward illusory correlation (Tomarken, Sutton, & Mineka, 1995). If you think back to the Great Fourfold Table of Life we discussed in Chapter 3 (see p. ...), the highly snake-fearful subjects probably attended too highly to the uppermost lefthand cell of the table (Figure 19). Because they were afraid of snakes, they were on the lookout for any threatening stimuli that might be associated with snakes. As a consequence, they overestimated how often snake slides co-occurred with electric shock. Interestingly, they showed no such overestimation for electrical outlets, even though such outlets are more closely linked in our minds than snakes to electric shock. This finding suggests that preparedness may be at work, because snakes, but not electrical outlets, posed threats to our ancestors (Tomarken et al., 1995). CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION Could the tendency of fearful people to develop illusory correlations between their feared stimuli and unpleasant outcomes actually be adaptive in certain circumstances? If so, how? Nevertheless, the laboratory evidence for preparedness hasn’t been completely consistent. For example, when researchers have paired either prepared stimuli - like snakes or spiders - or unprepared stimuli - like flowers or mushrooms - with electric shocks, they haven’t always found that subjects more rapidly acquire fears to the prepared than unprepared stimuli (Davey, 1995; McNally, 1987). Moreover, some authors have proposed that preparedness findings may be due to an alternative explanation: latent inhibition. As you’ll recall from earlier in the chapter, latent inhibition refers to the fact that CSs that have appeared alone (that is, without a UCS) many times are especially difficult to classically condition to a stimulus. Because we regularly encounter electric sockets, stoves, knifes, and the like, without experiencing any negative consequences, such stimuli may be especially resistant to classical conditioning. In contrast, because few of us have daily encounters with snakes, cliffs, deep water, and the like, such stimuli may be more easily to classically condition to negative outcomes (Bond & Siddle, 1996). Aside from preparedness, genetic influences seem to play an important role in the acquisition of phobias. For example, dog phobics and non-dog phobics don’t differ in their number of negative experiences with dogs, such as bites (DiNardo et al., 1988). Moreover, only about half of dog phobics have even had a scary encounter with a dog; the same findings hold for people with many other phobias. These results make it unlikely that classical conditioning alone can explain all cases of phobia, although it almost certainly plays some role. Instead, some people appear to be predisposed genetically to develop certain phobias given a history of certain classical conditioning experiences (Kendler, Neale, Kessler, Heath, & Eaves, 1992). (Photograph 37). 142 CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING IN POP PSYCHOLOGY CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION How might you attempt to test the hypothesis that both a genetic predisposition toward phobias and a traumatic classical conditioning experience – but neither alone - are required for the development of phobias? INSTINCTIVE DRIFT Marian and Keller Breland were Ph.D students of B.F. Skinner at Harvard. Both went on to become well-known animal trainers. Using traditional methods of operant conditioning, such as shaping, they taught chickens, raccoons, pigs, and a host of other creatures to perform scores of tricks – much like those one might see on David Letterman’s “Stupid Pet Tricks” - for circuses and television advertisers. Yet in the process of their animal training adventures, the Brelands discovered that their little mammalian charges didn’t always behave as anticipated. For example, in one case they attempted to train raccoons to drop tokens into a piggy bank. Although they were successful in training the raccoons to pick up the coins using food reinforcement, they soon ran into an unexpected problem. Despite repeated reinforcement to pick drop the coins into the piggy bank, the raccoons began rubbing the coins together, dropping them, and rubbing them together again (Photograph 38). The raccoons had apparently reverted to an evolutionarily selected behavior, namely rinsing. They were treating the tokens like little pieces of food, like the small hard shells that raccoons extract from the beds of ponds and streams (Timberlake, 2006). Breland and Breland (1961) referred to this phenomenon as instinctive drift: the tendency for animals to return to evolutionarily selected behaviors following repeated reinforcement. Researchers have observed various forms of instinctive drift in a number of other animals, including rats (Powell & Curley, 1984). The reasons for such drift aren’t fully understood. Nevertheless, instinctive drift demonstrates that reinforcement has its limits. When it comes face to face with evolution, evolution often emerges victorious. Classical and Operant Conditioning in Pop Psychology: Do Learning Fads Work? Those of you persevering souls who have made it all the way to this point in the chapter know that learning new information is hard work. To have followed the material we’ve presented on earning took an enormous amount of mental energy and concentration on your part. Perhaps because learning new things requires so much time and effort, many mental health professionals have marketed a variety of techniques that supposedly help people to learn more quickly, or more easily, than they currently do. Do these newfangled methods work? We’ll find out by examining three of the most popular techniques. SLEEP-ASSISTED LEARNING Imagine that you could master all of the information in this book while getting a few nights of sound sleep. You could pay someone to tape record the entire book, play the recording over the span of several weeknights, and you’d be all done. You could say goodbye to late nights in the library or dorm room reading about psychology. As in many areas of psychology, hope springs eternal. Indeed, many proponents of sleep-assisted learning – learning new material while asleep – have made some 143 instinctive drift the tendency for animals to return to evolutionarily selected behaviors following repeated reinforcement sleep-assisted learning learning new material while asleep CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US extraordinary claims regarding this technique’s potential. For example, one Web Site (http://www.sleeplearning.com/) informs visitors that Sleep learning is a way to harness the power of your subconscious while you sleep, enabling you to learn foreign languages, pass exams, undertake professional studies and implement self-growth by using techniques based on research conducted all over the world with great success....It’s the most incredible learning aid for years. Hume’s Dictum Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis The Web site offers a variety of CDs that can purportedly help us to learn languages, stop smoking, lose weight, reduce stress, or become a better lover, all while we’re comfortably catching up on our zzzzs. The site even goes so far as to say that the CDs work better when people are asleep than awake. These assertions are certainly quite remarkable. Does the scientific evidence for sleepassisted learning stack up to its proponents’ claims? As is so often the case in life, things that sound too good to be true often are. Admittedly, the early findings on sleep-assisted learning seemed to yield encouraging results. For example, one group of investigators exposed sailors to Morse Code (a shorthand form of communication that radio operators sometimes use) while asleep. These sailors mastered Morse Code three weeks faster than did other sailors (Simon & Emmons, 1955). Numerous other studies from the former Soviet Union also appeared o provide support for the claim that people could learn new material, such as words or sentences, while listening to tape recordings during sleep (Aarons, 1976). (Photograph 39). Nevertheless, these early positive reports neglected to rule out an important alternative explanation: the tape recordings may have awakened the subjects! The problem is that almost of the studies showing positive effects didn’t monitor subjects’ electroencephalograms (EEGs; see Chapter 4) to ensure that they were actually asleep while listening to the tapes (Druckman & Swets, 1988, 1994). When researchers have monitored subjects’ EEGs to make sure that they’re fully asleep, they’ve typically produced little or no evidence for sleep-assisted learning. Therefore, to the extent that sleep-learning tapes actually “work,” it’s probably because subjects hear snatches of them while drifting in and out of sleep. As for that quick fix for reducing stress, we’d recommend just going to sleep and forgetting about the tapes. ACCELERATED LEARNING Hume’s Dictum Ruling Out Alternative Hypithesis Still other companies promise consumers ultra-fast techniques for learning. These methods, known as Superlearning or Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching Techniques (SALTT), supposedly allow people to pick up new information at anywhere from 25 to several hundred times their normal speed of learning (Wenger, 1983). SALTT relies on a mixture of different several techniques, such as inducing expectations for enhanced learning (telling students that they’ll learn more quickly), getting students to visualize information that they’re learning, playing classical music during learning, and even breathing in a regular rhythm while learning (Lozanov, 1978). When combined, these techniques supposedly allow learners to gain access to intuitive and creative aspects of their minds that otherwise remain inactive. Again, however, the evidence for the effectiveness of SALTT doesn’t come close to matching the extraordinary claims. Almost all studies show that SALTT doesn’t result in enhanced learning (Dipamo & Job, 1990; Druckman & Swets, 1988). Moreover, even when researchers have reported positive results for SALTT, these findings have been open to several alternative explanations. That’s because many of the studies conducted on SALTT compared this method with a control condition in which the students did little or nothing. As a result, the few positive results reported for SALTT could be attributable to placebo effects (see Chapter 3), especially because one of the major components of SALTT is raising 144 CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING IN POP PSYCHOLOGY learners’ expectations. These scattered positive results could also be due to the Hawthorne effect (again, see Chapter 3), because all of the students exposed to SALTT knew that they were being studied, and knew that the experimenter expected them to learn faster (Druckman & Swets, 1998). CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION If you were studying the effects of accelerated learning methods, like SALTT, how would you attempt to rule out the possibility of the Hawthorne effect? LEARNING STYLES Few claims about learning are as widespread as the belief that all individuals have their own learning style – their preferred means of acquiring information. According to proponents of this view, some students are “analytical” learners who excel at breaking down problems into different components, whereas others are “holistic” learners who excel at viewing problems as a whole. Still others are “verbal” learners who prefer to talk through problems, whereas others are “spatial” learners who prefer to visualize problems in their heads (Cassidy, 2004; Desmedt & Valcke, 2004). Moreover, some educational psychologists have claimed that they can dramatically boost learning by matching people’s learning styles to different methods of instruction. So, for example, children who are verbal learners should learn much faster and better with written material, whereas children who are spatial learners should learn much faster and better with visual material. As appealing as these assertions are, they haven’t held up well in careful research. For one thing, it’s difficult to assess learning style reliably (Snider, 1992; Stahl, 1999). As you’ll recall from Chapter 3, reliability refers to consistency in measurement. In this case, researchers have found that different measures designed to assess people’s learning styles often yield very different answers about people’s preferred mode of learning. In part, that’s probably because few people are purely analytical or holistic learners, verbal or spatial learners, and so on; most of us are a mixture of both kinds of styles. Moreover, studies have generally revealed that tailoring different methods to people’s learning styles doesn’t result in enhanced learning (Kavale & Forness, 1987; Tarver & Dawson, 1978). Like a number of other fads in popular psychology, the idea of learning styles appears to be more fiction than fact (Stahl, 1999). Photograph 38 Proponents of sleep-assisted learning claim that their products will allow users to learn large amounts of new material while asleep? Does the evidence support their claims? FA C T A N D F I C T I O N I N PSYC H O LO GY SE L F -T EST 4 (1) Many conditioned taste aversions are acquired in only a single trial. (2) Most research now suggests that the assumption of equipotentiality, held by many traditional behaviorists, is false. (3) The phenomenon of preparedness helps to explain why virtually all major phobias are equally prevalent in the general population. (4) With progressively more reinforcement, animals typically drift further and further away from their instinctual patterns of behavior. (5) There is little evidence that people can learn new information while sound asleep. Answers printed upside down on the bottom of the following page learning style preferred means of acquiring information 145 CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US CRITICAL POINTS Habituation pages 000-000 “Tough Dames” • Habituation refers to the process by which we respond less strongly over time to repeated stimuli. “Apparently, southern magnolias aren’t the only women who are made of steel. According to researchers at the University of Michigan, women with severe heart disease are as likely to rate their condition “mild to moderate” as men with less-severe illness. Eva Kline-Rogers, MS, RN, one of the researchers who performed the study, points out that the women who labeled their disease “mild to moderate” were sicker overall than the men who rated their disease the same way. In the past few years, we have come to know that women typically experience heart disease differently than men, reporting fatigue, back pain and shortness of breath rather than the classic male symptoms of chest pain and numbness in the arm. This study raises still more questions about gender difference in heart disease. Are women less inclined to complain? Are they unwilling to admit to weakness? Researchers can’t answer those questions yet, but some suspect the answers might shed light on why heart disease in women is often underdiagnosed and untreated.” (Newsweek, February 13, 2006).” Analysis. This brief article deals with the important issue of gender differences in health and illness. It provides an alternative explanation for an intriguing and potentially important gender difference, and it calls attention to the need for future research on gender issues and the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. Critical thinking questions. Can you think of any other alternative explanations for the gender differences? What sorts of additional studies would further our understanding of the differences in symptom reports of men and women? • It is the simplest form of learning, and is evident in amoebas and unborn fetuses. • Habituation is evolutionarily adaptive, as it helps us to ignore stimuli that pose no threat to us. Classical conditioning pages 000-000 • Classical conditioning was discovered largely by accident by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov. • Classical conditioning is a form of learning in which animals come to respond to a previously neutral stimulus that had been paired with another stimulus that elicits an automatic response. • In classical conditioning, the conditioned stimulus (CS) is a previously neutral stimulus that yields no particular response from the organism. After repeated pairings with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), which elicits an automatic, reflexive, response from the organism, the CS comes to elicit a conditioned response (CR). • Aversive conditioning is one variant of classical conditioning. It involves pairing a CS with an unpleasant UCS. • Classical conditioning has adaptive value. For example, psychopaths seem largely unable to develop certain classically conditioned reactions to aversive stimuli. As a consequence, they experience difficulty learning from punishment. • The three major phases of classical conditioning are acquisition, extinction, and spontaneous recovery. • Acquisition is the process by which we gradually learn the CR. • There are four different methods of acquisition: delay conditioning, trace conditioning, simultaneous conditioning, and backward conditioning. Delay and trace conditioning tend to be more effective than simultaneous and backward conditioning. 146 • The converse of habituation is sensitization, which refers to responding more strongly over time to repeated stimuli. • Extinction is the process whereby following repeated presentation of the CS alone, the CR decreases in magnitude and eventually disappears. • Extinction appears to involve not a decay of the CR, but rather an “overwriting” of the CR by new information. • Spontaneous recovery occurs when we wait a period of time following extinction and then present the CS alone; when we do so, the CR reappears. • Closely related to spontaneous recovery is the renewal effect, which occurs when we extinguish a response in a setting different from that in which was acquired, but then place the animal back in the original setting. • Stimulus generalization refers to the process by which CSs similar, but not identical, to the original CS elicit a CR. It occurs along a generalization gradient, whereby the more similar the new CS is the original CS, the stronger the CR. • Stimulus discrimination is the flip side of the coin from stimulus generalization; it occurs when we exhibit a CR to certain CSs but not others. • Higher-order conditioning occurs when organisms develop classically conditioned responses to other CSs associated with the original CS. • Advertisers frequently make us of higherorder conditioning to pair images of products with pleasant CSs. 147 Critical Points SCIENCE IN THE NEWS • Many fears and phobias appear to stem in part through classical conditioning. John B. Watson and Rosalie Raynor’s ethcally questionable case study of Little Albert provided an existence proof of this point, although not all researchers successfully replicated their observations. • Classical conditioning also appears to contribute to the acquisition of fetishes in animals and perhaps humans. • Many disgust reactions are probably acquired by classical conditioning. • Research also indicates that phobias can be eliminated through deconditioning. Operant conditioning pages 000-000 • Operant conditioning is learning that is controlled by its consequences. • Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in three major ways: (1) the response is emitted by the organism rather than elicited from it, (2) the reward is contingent on the animal’s behavior, and (3) the organism’s responses most involve the skeletal muscles rather than the autonomic nervous system. • Thorndike’s Law of Effect tells us that if a response, in the presence of a stimulus, is followed by a reward, it is likely to be repeated. According to this law, operant conditioning involves the gradual “stamping in” of S-R connections. • Thorndike discovered this law in his classic research on cats and puzzle boxes. This work appeared to indicate that cats learned by trial-and-error rather than insight. • B.F. Skinner pioneered the study of operant conditioning through his development of the Skinner Box, which permitted a cumulative record of the animal’s behavior. • Reinforcement refers to any outcome that strengthens a response. • There are two types of reinforcement: positive, which involves the presentation of a pleasant outcome, and negative, which involves the withdrawal of an unpleasant outcome. • According to Skinner, punishment has several disadvantages. It only tells the organism what not to do, what to do. In addition, punishment often creates anxiety, which interferes with future learning. Punishment can also teach the organism to become sneakier about which situations in which to exhibit forbidden behavior. Finally, punishment can provide a model for children’s aggressive behavior. • Although studies indicate that parental punishment is associated with childhood behavior problems, this correlational research is open to multiple interpretations. • Punishment seems to work best when it is delivered consistently and follows the desired behavior promptly. • A discriminant stimulus is any stimulus that signals the presence of reinforcement. • Acquisition, extinction, spontaneous recovery, and stimulus generalization and discrimination apply to operant conditioning as well as classical conditioning. These similarities have led some scholars to propose that operant and classical conditioning may not be as different as once thought, although it is worth noting that these two forms of learning appear to depend on different brain areas. • Negative reinforcement shouldn’t be confused with punishment, which refers to an outcome that weakens a response. • Skinner uncovered numerous principles of reinforcement, including the principle of partial reinforcement, which indicates that behaviors reinforced only occasionally are slower to extinguish that behaviors that we reinforce continually. • Punishment must also be distinguished from the disciplinary practices that are often associated with it, because some forms of discipline are actually reinforcing. • Skinner also discovered various schedules (contingencies) of reinforcement, including fixed ratio, fixed interval, variable ratio, and variable interval schedules. 148 CRITICAL POINTS • These schedules tend to yield distinctive patterns of responding; for example, fixed interval schedules tend a scalloped pattern of responding, whereas variable ratio schedules tend to yield the highest overall rate of responding. • The gambler’s fallacy is the incorrect belief that random events have a memory. Along with variable ratio schedules, it probably contributes to some individuals’ susceptibility to gambling. • Behaviorists train animals to learn habits using shaping by means of successive approximations (shaping), with which we reinforce progressively closer version of a desired response. • According to the Premack Principle, we can reinforce lower frequency behaviors with higher frequency behaviors. • Many superstitions may stem from operant conditioning; they may arise when behavior is linked to reinforcement by sheer coincidence. • An important application of operant conditioning is the use of token economies: systems, often set up in psychiatric hospitals, for reinforcing appropriate behaviors and extinguishing inappropriate behaviors. • Using shaping, behaviorists have also used operant conditioning techniques to teach language to autistic individuals. • Two-process theory involves both classical and operant conditioning, and helps to explain why many phobias do not extinguish. Individuals may acquire fears through classical conditioning, then avoid situations that trigger anxiety, thereby negatively reinforcing their phobic behavior. Cognitive models of learning pages 000-000 • Watson was an advocate of methodological behaviorism; he believed that psychology should focus exclusively on overt behavior, and exclude thinking. Skinner, in contrast, was an advocate of radical behaviorism; he believed that psychology should examine thinking, but he regarded thinking as a behavior, subject to the same laws of conditioning as all other behaviors. • S-O-R psychologists reject Skinner’s belief that thinking is no different from any other behaviors. They accord a central role to the organism’s interpretation of stimuli. • Tolman’s work on latent learning, which demonstrated that animals can learn without reinforcement, represented a major challenge to the radical behaviorist view of learning. • Tolman believed that animals develop cognitive maps – spatial representations – of the world around them. Such maps, he argued, are central to maze learning. • Many psychologists regard observational learning – learning by watching others – as an important form of latent learning. • Research from correlational studies, longitudinal studies, laboratory studies, and field studies suggest that media violence contributes to aggression. Although each type of research has its flaws, they all point in the same direction. Nevertheless, media violence is only one of many causal contributors to aggression. • Kohler’s work suggested that apes can learn through insight, and later work with humans suggests the same conclusion. This research calls into question Thorndike’s conclusion that all learning occurs through trial and error. • Some early behaviorists argued that all learning depends on contiguity, that is, proximity between stimuli and responses. • Nevertheless, research on blocking indicates that contiguity cannot by itself explain learning. The CS must predict new information to lead to learning. • Rescorla’s work on the CS-UCS contingency points to the same conclusion. CSs that are highly predictive of UCSs lead to the best learning. • Research suggests that individuals can acquire aggressive behavior by means of observational learning. 149 Critical Points Critical Points CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US Biological Influences on Learning pages 000-000 • Most psychologists have increasingly recognized that our biology, especially our genetic endowment, influences learning. • Conditioned taste aversions refer to the phenomenon whereby classical conditioning can lead us to develop avoidance reactions to the taste of food. • Such aversions differ from traditionally classically conditioned reactions in three ways: they typically require only one trial to develop, they can develop even after long delays in the CS-UCS pairing, and they tend to show little stimulus generalization. • John Garcia and his colleagues showed that conditioned taste aversions violate the principle of equipotentiality, because they demonstrated that certain CSs are more easily conditioned to certain UCSs. Psychologists call this phenomenon belongingness. • Research on preparedness also contradicts the equipotentiality assumption, because it suggests that we are evolutionarily predisposed to fear some stimuli more than others. • Preparedness can also lead us develop illusory correlations between fearprovoking stimuli and negative consequences. • Nevertheless, laboratory research on preparedness has not been entirely consistent, and some researchers have suggested alternative explanations for preparedness findings. • In the process of training animals to perform tricks, the Brelands discovered the phenomenon of instinctive drift: following repeated reinforcement, some animals tend to return to evolutionarily selected behaviors. Learning Fads: Do They Work? pages 000-000 • Proponents of sleep-assisted learning claim that individuals can lead new material while sound asleep. • Nevertheless, most research on sleepassisted learning is negative. Early reports of successful learning during sleep appear to be attributable to a failure to carefully monitor subjects’ EEGs to ensure that they were actually asleep while listening to the tapes. • Studies of accelerated learning techniques also show few or no positive effects. Positive reports appear to be attributable to placebo effects, Hawthorne effects, and other artifacts. 150 • Some educational psychologists claim to be able to boost learning by matching individuals’ learning styles with different teaching methods. • Nevertheless, learning styles are difficult to assess reliably; moreover, studies that have matched learning styles with teaching methods have typically yielded negative results. REFERENCES Anderson, C.A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L.R., et al (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4,81-110. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2378. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross,S.A. (1963). Imitation of film mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11. Blodgett, H. C. (1929). The effect of the introduction of reward upon the maze performance of rats. University of California Publications in Psychology, 4, 113-134. Bouton, M.E. (1994). Context, ambiguity, and classical conditioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 1-5. Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1966). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16, 681-684. Brennan, P.A., & Mednick, S.A. (1994). Learning theory approach to the deterrence of criminal recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 430-440. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489. Denniston, J.C., Chang, R., & Miller, R.R. (2003). Massive extinction prevents the renewal effect. Learning and Motivation, 34, 68-86. Druckman, D., & Bjork, R.A. (Eds.). (1994). Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Druckman, D., & Swets, J.A. (Eds.) (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Emmelkamp, P.M.G., & Kamphuis, J.H. (2005). Aversion Relief. In M. Hersen & J.Rosqvist (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavior modification and cognitive behavior therapy. Volume I: Adult clinical application (pp. 39-40).. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Fuller R.K. & Roth, H.P. (1979). Disulfiram for the treatment of alcoholism. An evaluation in 128 men. Annals of Internal Medicine, 90, 901-904. Garcia, J., & Koelling, R.A. (1966). The relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123-124. Gewirtz, J.C., & Davis, M. (2000). Using Pavlovian “higher-order” conditioning paradigms to investigate the neural substrates of emotional learning and memory. Learning and Memory, 7, 257-266. Gorn, G.J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach. Journal of Marketing, 46, 94-101. Gresham, L.G., & Shimp, T.A. (1985). Attitude toward the advertisement and bran attitudes: A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 14, 10-17, 49. Hock, R.R. (2002). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations into the history of psychological research (4th edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kamin, L.J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimuli. Miami, FL: University of Miami Press. Kirsch, I., Lynn, S.J., Vigorito, M., & Miller, R.R. (2004). The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 369-392. Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Harcourt. Lieberman, D.A. (1990). Learning: Behavior and cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lykken, D.T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6-10. Lykken, D.T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mineka, S., and Cook, M. (1993). Mechanisms involved in the observational conditioning 151 References Critical Points CHAPTER 7 LEARNING: HOW NURTURE CHANGES US