learning theory (LT)

• pavlov - classical conditioning (dogs)

  a = investigate how conditioned responses are learned
• classical conditioning

  1. neutral stimulus = no response
  2. unconditioned stimulus = unconditioned response
  3. neutral stimulus + unconditioned stimulus = unconditioned response
  4. conditioned stimulus = conditioned response
• classical conditioning (pavlov)


  NS - no response

  bell

  UCS - UCR

  food salivation

  NS + UCS - UCR

  bell + food = salvation

  CS - CR

  bell salvation
• assumptions

  • all behaviour is learnt
  • the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth - john locke
• theories

  • classical conditioning
  • operant conditioning
• classical conditioning 


  learning via association
• operant condtioning

  learning via reinforcement
• pavlov - clasical conditioning (dogs)


  p = experimenters built a special chamber for the dog, so they couldn't hear anything outside the room (isolate all variables).

  Put meat into the dogs mouth to test salivation.

  Pavlov paired a metronome with food about 20 times

  Then checked if the dog would salivate from just hearing the metronome
• pavlov - classical conditioning (dogs)


  f = metronome alone, salivation started after 9secs, and 1l drops had been collected by 45secs.

  the dog had to be alert with no other stimuli present to distract them for conditioning.
• pavlov - classical conditioning (dogs)


  c = after several repetitions of stimulations, the dogs started to salivate from just the metronome alone, marking a successful conditioning. this is as the dog has made the association between the sound of the metronome and the food
• strengths of pavlov

  • carefully controlled environment, standardised to avoid extraneous variables affecting the dog. the experiment could be replicated, so is reliable and has high internal validity
  • repeated many classical conditioning experiments on dogs so his results are reliable as theyve been replicated. continuously found that CS produce CR, so its proven that its not just a particular NS.
• weaknesses of pavlov 


  • brain activity cannot be measured- had to assume what happens in the cerebral cortex, so no numerical or quantitate evidence could be used to compare and contrast, possibly decreasing its validity
  • low ecological validity, dog was in an isolated chamber with no natural variables so real life behaviour was not tested and lab study so was artificial and didnt mirror how dogs would usually behave- lacks mundane realism
• generalistion

  transferring phobia to similar things (e.g a phobia of rats, into furry things)
• skinner


  • claimed all behaviour is learnt as a result of consequences in our environment (operant conditioning)
  • learning through positive and negative consequences of behavioural respposes
• operant conditioning concerned with use of consequences (rewards or punishment) to shape behaviour
• skinners - operant conditioning (box) 


  a = test if behaviour is learnt by positive and negative reinforcement
• skinners - operant conditioning (box) 


  p = hungry vs not hungry rat, both placed in isolated box with a lever

  condition 1- pushing lever = food

  condition 2- electric shock introduced, the rats were shocked until they pushed the lever

  condition 3- lever replaced with wheel, rats were shocked until they spin the wheel

  condition 4- rats shocked until they started fighting
• skinner

  f = condition 1- the food acted as positive reinforcement, a reward for the behaviour

  the hungry rat, was not active as it had more drive than the not hungry rat to find food

  condtion 2- both rats were active, as the electric shock was negative reinforcement. the drive of fear of the electric shock was more than that of hunger

  condition 3/4 - same as 2, the drive of fear is stronger than hunger so responses were faster. end of punishment, reinforces response
• skinner - operant conditioning (box)


  c = motivation effects drive, which influences response.

  hungry rat, was motivated to find food, not hungry rat, wasn't

  negative reinforcement had a stronger effect, as both rats had a faster response to electic shock than hunger
• reinforcement 


  anything with the effect of increasing likelihood of the behaviour being repeated
• positive reinforcement 


  pleasant consequences when they happen (e.g sweets)
• negative reinforcement 


  consequences that are pleasant when they stop (behaviour that makes something unpleasant go away, a deterrent ) e.g aspirin
• punishment 


  effect of decreasing likelihood of behaviour being repeated, using consqueunces that are unpleasant when they happen (e.g phone taken away)
• pros

  • real world applications- lead to development of treatments to reduce anxiety and phobias. CC used for child rearing practices/ education
  • scientific- theories are testable and supported by rigorous experimental research, the use of experimental method establishes cause and effect meaning measurements are objective
• cons 


  • approach ignores important mental processes involved in learning- assumes all behaviour is determined by past experiences that have been conditioned, ignoring the influence of free will
  • ethics- animals were exposed to stressful and adverse conditions which may have affected how they reacted.
  • experiments were conducted on animals so how far can finding be applied to humans?
• little albert - watson 


  a = find out whether a fear response could be conditioned in a child.
• little albert - watson 


  p = at 9 months, shown the rat- no response (albert was an emotionally stable child)

  at 11 months old, shown the rat again. As he reached for the rat, an iron bar was struck behind his ear.

  five days after, Albert was presented with the rat alone. Then the rat with the noise.

  After Albert had seen the rat with the noise five times, when he saw the rat with no noise being heard, he began to cry.
• little albert - effect of time

  p = five days after, Albert was presented with the rat. The crying response was weaker so Albert was conditioned again.

  One month later, Albert still cried at being presented with the objects.
• little albert - changed location 


  p = Albert was also taken to a theatre lecture room which was well lit like the lab to see if the response to the objects was the same.
• little albert - generalisation of phobia 


  p = They wanted to see if the fear could be generalised so he was shown a dog, a rabbit and a Santa mask and his building blocks. He enjoyed playing with the blocks but cried at the other furry stimuli.
• little albert 


  f = due to association of the bang, he became scared of the rat alone
• little albert 


  c = only a child and only one participant was tested for the fear response, it is not representative.

  However, Albert was chosen because he was emotionally stable so could be seen to represent how normal people would react to this.
• advantage of little albert 


  standardised procedure and everything was carefully documented through film so could be replicated therefore it is reliable. It has not been

  replicated due to ethical reasons.
• pavlov 1927


  classical conditioning with dogs
• skinner 1953


  operant conditioning with rats
• people

  pavlov, skinner, watson