Participants We used the Sniffy the virtual rat Pro Version 3.0 program by Wadsworth Cengage Learning. This program attempts to accurately simulate some of the psychological processes and behavioral phenomena found in rats. In this program, all of the subjects are always starved for food, regardless of how much it has eaten. This simplifies the process of operant conditioning by reducing the amount of time required to simply wait for the virtual rat to be hungry again.
For the following experiments, 44 virtual rat subjects, each supervised by its own experimenter, were subjected to operant conditioning techniques, followed by extinction, secondary reinforcement and spontaneous recovery. Since the same program was used for each of the 22 subjects,
…show more content…
Although there are various features within the operant chamber, the only components that are actively used in these experiments are the bar and food hopper. In order to conduct the 3 main experiments for this research, we must first conduct 2 precursor exercises to prepare the subject. The first precursor exercise is to magazine train the subjects to associate the sound of the magazine with the presentation of food. After launching the Sniffy Pro Version 3.0 program, we can observe the subject in the operant chamber. First, we open the Operant Associations mind window and the Cumulative Record to keep track of our data. We can then begin to train him by delivering a food pellet whenever he approaches the food hopper. We continue this procedure until the subject fully develops an association between the sound of the food hopper and the presentation of the food. The Operant Associations window displays the strength of the association at any particular time. Once the subject has completed developing the association, the sound of the food hopper can be used as a reinforcer to shape his …show more content…
In this experiment, we explore the effects of extinction on the subject. In previous exercises, the subject received a food pellet whenever it pressed the bar. However, in this experiment, the operant chamber is modified so that no food pellet will be delivered regardless of any bar pressing that may occur. Additionally, the pellet dispenser will also be muted so there will be no magazine sound that accompanies bar pressing. Therefore, both the primary reinforcer (food) and secondary reinforcer (magazine sound) are removed. For these experiments, the independent variable is the schedule of reinforcement and the dependent variable is the extinction rate. The schedule of reinforcement refers to the schedule that the reinforcer is provided, which in this case is never and the extinction rate refers to the time it takes for an operant response to be extinguished after the reinforcer is no longer provided. We considered extinction to be reached when the subject presses the bar no more than twice in a 5-minute period, as shown in the cumulative
Joey 's program will be based in Applied Behavior Analysis which was first introduced in 1913, when John Watson started a movement towards behaviorism with his article “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (Miltenberger, 2012). Based on Pavlov 's observations of classical conditioning, Watson suggested that human behavior could also be explained by the same means and that the process of classical conditioning was proper subject matter for psychology. He believed all human behavior were responses to external stimuli and environmental events (Miltenberger, 2012). B. F. Skinner took Watson 's theory of classical conditioning further to include operant conditioning. The highlight of Skinner 's theory is identifying what a behavior achieves through observing the behavior. It is only after the function of behavior is identified that we can alter the consequences to increase the probability of the desired behavior 's occurrence (Miltenberger, 2012). In operant conditioning behavior is changed through the manipulation of contingencies or the use of reinforcement or punishment after the desired or undesired response occurs (Miltenberger, 2012). Skinner was able to prove through his
Fear conditioning is a commonly used behavioral paradigm to test an organism’s ability to create associations and learn to avoid aversive stimuli. There are two methodologies: cue and contextual fear conditioning (Kim & Jung, 2006). In cued fear conditioning, a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) which activates a strong unconditioned fear responses (UR). After a continued training period, the neutral CS is now able to activate a conditioned response (CR). Similarly, context conditioning occurs when the background or context cues, during the condition training, is able to predict the US and activate the fear response. For example, a mice can be placed in a novel environment and given an aversive stimulus (e.g. footshock). When the mice is returned to that same environment, it will display a CR (e.g. freezing). The mice’s ability for contextual fear conditioning is dependent on whether it was able to learn and associate its environment with the aversive stimulus. (Curzon, Rustay, and Browman, 2009)
In the following essay I will be looking into the study conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on a small child known as ‘Little Albert’. The experiment was an adaptation of earlier studies on classical conditioning of stimulus response, one most common by Ivan Pavlov, depicting the conditioning of stimulus response in dogs. Watson and Rayner aimed to teach Albert to become fearful of a placid white rat, via the use of stimulus associations, testing Pavlov’s earlier theory of classical conditioning.
Reinforcement contingencies change the way in which the animal responds,” (Slater 10-11).
Stage 3: After Conditioning. Now the conditioned stimulus (CS) has been associated with the unconditioned stimulus (US) to create a new conditioned response (CR).” (McLoed. 2008)
Skinner argues that ‘learning is accelerated by reinforcement: a stimulus that increases the probability of a response’ called ‘operant conditioning’ and it is not reliant on what triggered the response but...
Using operant conditioning in middle 3 days. Because I am extremely fond of eating steak. Therefore, I decided to use steak as the stimulus for this experiment. If I could sleep before 12o’ clock, I would get steak the next noon; however if I could not sleep on time, I would only have normal lunch in dining hall the next day.
Ivan Pavlov developed a theory called classical conditioning which proposes that learning process occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus. Classical conditioning involves placing a neutral signal before a naturally occurring reflex like associating the food with the bell in Pavlov experiment. In classical conditioning, behavior is learnt by association where a stimulus that was originally neutral can become a trigger for substance use or cravings due to repeated associations between those stimuli and substance use (Pavlov, 1927).
Although arguments could be made for the influence of operant conditioning on disordered eating, classical conditioning is assumed to a major component in the development of maladaptive eating behaviors (Greeno & Wing, 1994; Jansen, 1998). Empirical evidences supports classical conditioning models of eating desires. For instance, Van Gucht et al. (2008) tested the ability to condition serving trays (i.e., neutral stimuli) of different shapes and colors to elicit chocolate cravings. Conditioning consisted of three phases:
...epeated pairing or exposure to consequence-based procedures such as extinction. That is, consistent exposure to extinction or other consequence-based interventions may establish high-p instructions as discriminative stimuli for compliance (Wilder, Allison, Nicholson, Abellon, & Saulnier, 2010). Lastly, while the studies presented established the effectiveness of positive reinforcement on noncompliance, it will be of interest to find out if there are conditions in which positive reinforcement contingencies are not as effective. For example, it may be less effective when given a more difficult or highly aversive tasks. In addition, most of the research conducted has used edible reinforcers, so future research should attempt to determine the effects of other positive reinforcers on escape-maintained problem behavior. Future research could examine these possibilities.
I. Introduction of classical conditioning Classical conditioning also called as Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning. It is a kind of learning a new behavior through association that when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) and evokes a conditioned response (CR). It also is a learning process that occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus (Cherry, 2014). Classical conditioning has much strength such as can help to explain all aspects of human behavior and many of advertisers will use classical conditioning to advertise their produces, however it also have some weaknesses such as all classical conditioning responses must involve a reflex and classical conditioning is a completely physical process, learning is not important as reflected in scenario. This paper will talk about the strengths and the weaknesses of classical conditioning theory followed by a brief description of the scenario and the strengths and weaknesses of applying classical conditioning on it.
What is Skinner’s Operant Conditioning? Skinner was the first to discuss operant conditioning. McLead (2007) explained that an operant condition means that using reinforcements given after a desired response could change behavior. There were three types of responses that can follow the behavior. Neutral operants, reinforces, and punishers were the three types of responses. According to McLead (2007), Skinner invented a box with levers and lights to test his theory. He placed a hungry rat inside where the rat learned to press the levels for different responses. One level would give it a piece of food and the rat would not receive food when the light was off. This box demonstrated the shaping of behaviors through operant conditioning.
Skinner designed an experiment to test operant conditioning, known as a ‘Skinner box’ (Gross 2005). In the box, animals, such as rats, would be conditioned into certain behaviour. For example, by pressing a lever to receive food (Gross 2005).
Learning through operant conditioning allows a conditioned behaviour to increase or decrease in the presence of reinforcement or punishment. However, this process can be affected by instinctive behaviours that would disrupt the conditioned behaviour. According to a study conducted by Breland and Breland (1961) they tried to condition a raccoon to pick up coins and drop them into a container. The raccoon however spent time rubbing the coins together and rubbing the coin on the inside of the container before finally dropping it in and receiving its food reinforcement. Even after conditioning, the raccoon’s need to rub the coins together became worse as he spent more and more time just rubbing the coins. This is known as instinctive drift where the raccoon’s instinctive behaviours limited its ability to perform the conditioned response. Therefore the raccoon failed to learn due to its innate tendencies that acted as a biological constraint and operant conditioning failed in teaching the raccoon through reinforcement.
This essay will first explore what classical conditioning is by using Ivan Pavlov’s famous experiment with dogs to explain how it works. It will then go on to describe how classical conditioning led to more research by Edward L. Thorndike and B.F. Skinner in the study of instrumental behaviour (Gleitman et al. 2011). It will also mention briefly what similarities can be found between operant and classical conditioning before explaining in detail what operant conditioning is (Skinner’s experiment with the operant