Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psych > Learning Theories > Flashcards

Learning Theories Flashcards

1
Q

What’s classical conditioning?

A

Learning by association.
NS repeatedly pair with UCS. NS eventually produce same response as UCS.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Process of classical conditioning

A

UCS triggers in reflex response that NS doesn’t produce.
UCS pair up with NS repeatedly.
NS turn to CS and cause CR.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What’s extinction?

A

CS and UCS have not been paired for a while.
CS stops to elicit CR.
Has a survival value.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What’s spontaneous recovery?

A

Extinct response reappear without a new paring.
Weaker than original ones e.g. dribble rather than salivate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What stimulus generalization?

A

Conditioned to one stimulus, begin to respond to similar stimulus.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Developmental psych in terms of classical conditioning?

A

Explains our taste.
Associations we make during development.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Classical conditioning credibility

A

Supported by Watson and Rayner.

Strictly scientific, everything is observable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Objections

A

Some details are open to question. Pavlov believe essential factor linking NS to UCS was contiguity but Rescorla found that contiguity is less important than contingency.

Only explain simple reflex responses acquisition but not more complex behavior e.g. maintenance of fear and avoid to encounter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Differences

A

Classical and operant conditioning has many similarities.

Classical explain acquisition of involuntary actions and operant explain how behavior learned by consequences, more voluntary behaviors.

SLT explain using role models but classical looks at how behavior gets paired.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Application

A

Therapeutic application

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Who developed the classical conditioning?

A

Pavloff (1927)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Classical conditioning aim

A

The role of condition reflexes in eating behavior of dogs.
How salvation become associated with new stimuli that’s related to food.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Procedure

A

Collecting saliva from salivary glands off add immobilized dog.
Lab setting so saliva is easily observed and measured by volume or number of drops.
Soundproof chamber.
Baseline measuring salvation to NS.
NS pair with UCS around 20x.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Findings

A

NS don’t initially cause salvation response, UCS caused immediate salvation.
Salvation reflex became associated with NS if dog was alert and undistracted.
Reduced salvation after repeated presentation of CS without UCS.
Response to CS spontaneously recovered on some occasions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Conclusion

A

Link likely to be made in brain between CS and NS that occurred just before UCS.
Signalization, survival value, prepares them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Developmental psych

A

Behaviors can be learned at any time during lifespan.
But stage theory argue certain behavior can only be acquired in certain age so failed to do a step that failed to learn.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Pavlov’s study generalizability

A

Humans are more complex.

Little Albert show it work on human.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Reliability

A

Lab setting, standardized procedure.

Pavlov repeated use different stimuli, CS still produce CR.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Application

A

Practical application e.g. SD.

Clinical application to understand eating behavior problems.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Validity

A

Last ecological validity.

High validity as a reduced extraneous variables.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Ethics

A

Unethical.

But there weren’t any ethical guidelines for psychologist and early 20th century.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What’s operant conditioning?

A

Behavior cause a consequence and can lead to inc or dec probability of behavior being repeated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What’s pos reinforcement?

A

Introduced something pleasant following a behavior.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What’s neg reinforcement?

A

Remove something unpleasant following a behavior.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What’s pos punishment?
Introduce something unpleasant following a behavior.
26
What’s neg punishment?
Remove something nice. Some are deliberately introduced to change behavior e.g. prison.
27
Operant condoning credibility
Skinner’s study on pigeons. Token economy programs.
28
Objections
Only explain how existing behavior are strengthened or weekend, not acquisition. Ignores cognitions e.g. Freud.
29
Differences
SLT include cognition and behaviors but operant state children learn by rewarding. SLT and operant overlap in vicarious learning, seeing a role model being rewarded.
30
Application
Practical application, reinforcement systems are used in range of places. SD, gradually shape behavior through pos reinforcement.
31
What’s reinforcement schedule?
A plan of how often and when reinforcement will be provided.
32
What’s continuous impartial reinforcement?
Reinforcement follows a behavior. Rapid behavior change but not for long.
33
What’s partial reinforcement?
Irregular reinforcement. Can be ratio or interval. Partial schedule are written as F or V with a number indicating.
34
What’s fixed ratio reinforcement?
Reward give it after specialized number of behavior.
35
What’s variable ratio reinforcement?
Reward given after unpredictable number of behaviors that vary around main value. Fast and long term change.
36
What’s fixed interval reinforcement?
Consistent between reinforces
37
What’s variable interval reinforcement?
Unpredictable time between reinforces. Slow but consistent response.
38
Individual differences in reinforcement.
Some abnormal behavior can be explained by reinforcement schedule experienced.
39
What’s behavior modification?
Use of operant to change the frequency of desired behavior.
40
What is shaping?
Encourage complex behaviors. Start reinforcing vaguely. Only continue reinforcement if behavior become closer to target behavior.
41
Operant conditioning strengths
Latham and Dossett, mountain Beavers trappers responded better to variable ratio than fixed pay ratio. Can be used to treat behavior e.g. autism. Therapist and client agree on what behavior they are working towards so it’s ethical.
42
Operant conditioning limitations
Fail to consider intrinsic motivation. Gives a therapist power to determine client’s future behavior.
43
What are the 4 stages of learning behavior?
Attention. Retention-stores in memory Reproduction-appropriate situations Motivation
44
What’s vicarious reinforcement?
Observer witness model being rewarded.
45
Modeling in SLT
Not all models are imitated, likely to be imitating same-sex, age or high status as they identify with the model.
46
Observation and imitation in SLT.
Observer must respond to behavior for learning take place. Observer choose to focus their attention. Imitation, most important.
47
SLT strengths 
Supported by Bobo doll. Nicol and Pope, chicken selectively imitate high status, same sex model. Explains the effect of media violence. Bandura didn’t entirely ignore biological factors.
48
SLT limitations
Failed to consider genetic factors.
49
Bandura et al (1961) aim
If aggre behavior can be acquired through observation of aggre models. If children were more likely to show aggre when observed aggre. If selectively imitate same sex. If boys were more likely to acquire aggre.
50
What was the sample?
36 boys and 3 girls aged 3-6
51
What was the IV and DV?
IV, modeling of aggre, sex of model, same or different sex of model and observer.
52
What was the 3 conditions?
Aggre group Non aggre group Control group
53
Procedure
Lab experiment, matched pair. Children’s aggre rating determined beforehand. Children placed in 3s, randomly allocate to a condition. Observed through one-way mirror. Categorized as imitative aggre, partially imitative and non-imitative.
54
What were the 3 stages of the procedure?
Stage 1 Children brought in a room, with observation window, played with/without a model present. Stage 2 Taken to another room, deliberately frustrated. Stage 3 Taken into play room, range of toys and bobo doll.
55
Findings
Children witnessed aggre, likely fully or partially imitative. Non aggre model and no model show sig less violence, non in 70% cases. Children in aggre group, slightly more likely engage in non imitative aggre. Boys likely imitate same sex and physical aggre.
56
Conclusion
Social behavior can be acquired by imitation of model. Likely imitation of same sex.
57
Bandura et al (1961) generalizability
Large sample in all 3 studies. Can’t generalize children.
58
Reliability
Standardize procedures, Bandura replicated his own study. 2 observers behind one way mirror.
59
Application
Explain how children acquire from adult models. Media censorship.
60
Validity
High validity, matched groups. Lack ecological validity.
61
Ethics
Distressed when deliberately frustrated. But distress is short-lived and mild.
62
Bandura et al (1963) aim
If a filmed model would have same affect as a live model on children’s aggre. Is cartoon aggre would have similar impact to realistic filmed aggre.
63
Procedure
Lab experiments, independent group. Randomly allocate to 1 of 4 conditions. Same procedure as original study.
64
What was the sample?
48 boys and 48 girls aged 3-4.
65
What was the IV and DV?
IV, life/filmed/cartoon model. DV, aggre displayed.
66
What was the 4 conditions?
Live aggre Filmed realistic aggre Cartoon aggre Control group
67
Findings
All experimental group inc aggre. Mean total number of aggre acts, 83 (live), 92 (filmed realistic), 99 (cartoon). Differ sig from control (54)
68
Conclusion
Exposure to live/filmed/cartoon inc likelihood of aggre.
69
What was the main difference between Bandura et al (1965) and the 1961 and 1963 studies?
1965 studied influences of model’s reinforcement.
70
Bandura et al (1965) aim
If reinforcement and punishment of aggr models influence aggre shown by children in response to frustration.
71
Procedure
Randomly allocated to 1 of 3 conditions. All watching film of adult aggressing to a bobo doll. Same procedure as original study but all groups later offered rewards to show aggre to doll.
72
What were the 3 conditions?
Model rewarded Model punished No consequence
73
What was the sample?
33 boys and 33 girls aged 4-6 from same nursery as before.
74
Findings
Model punished group sig less than other 2. But reward wiped difference, inc sig for all.
75
Conclusion
Vicarious reinforcement reduce aggre. But reinforcement more powerful on aggre
76
Bandura et al (1965) strengths
Highly controlled e.g. observing child one at a time. Role model to promote behavior e.g. same sex.
77
Bandura et al (1965) limitations
Short-term affects. Procedure may told children how they expected to behave.
78
What are the 2 processes of phobia and what’s based on?
Based on learning theory. Acquisition of phobia by classical conditioning. Maintenance by operant conditioning.
79
Acquisition of phobias by classical conditioning
Learning to link 1 stimulus with another
80
Maintenance by operant conditioning
Acquired responses decline over time. Pos and neg reinforcement inc frequency of behavior. Neg reinforcement for avoidance behavior.
81
Individual differences in phobia learning
Different in avoidance learning. Reinforcement sensitivity theory.
82
Social learning of phobias
Observational learning
83
What did Rachman (1998) develop?
Phobia acquisition model
84
What’s phobia acquisition model?
Incorporating classical conditioning and social learning. More complete explanation as it incorporates both process and no model cases.
85
Phobia strengths
Animal and human studies prove classical conditioning and social learning. Real world applications and therapies.
86
Phobia limitations
Fail to explain all aspects of phobia, some no model, some predispose.
87
What is systematic desensitization?
Behavior therapy, reduce phobia anxiety through classical conditioning. New response to phobic stimulus is learned. Can’t be a afraid and relaxed at same time, one prevent other.
88
What are the 3 processes of SD?
Anxiety hierarchy Relaxation Exposure
89
SD strengths
Compared SD and a control group, do you become less fearful.
90
SD limitations
Not effective with all cases. Time-consuming.
91
What’s flooding?
Immediate exposure. Without gradual build up. One session 2-3 hours. Stop response quickly as lack avoidance option. Extinguished learned response when CS encounter without UCS.
92
Flooding strengths
Quicker and effective. Done with informed consent.
93
Flooding limitations
Not effective for all phobias. Unpleasant experience.
94
Classic study: Watson and Rainer (1920) aim
If fear to harmless obejects could be classically condition.
95
What was the IV and DV?
IV, presence or absence of a loud noise paired with rat. DV, his response.
96
Procedure
Baseline emotional responses to range of objects. No fear. Filmed each session. Response to a loud noise then tested.
97
What happened in the 5 sessions?
Session 1 11 months old, when reach rat, bar struck loudly. Session 2 A week later, exposed 5x to rat and loud noise. Tested with blocks, no fear. Session 3 5 days later assessed response to rat and other objects. Session 4 New environment, 5 days later, assessed responses to various objects. Session 5 A month later, 12 months old.
98
Findings
No fear a baseline but responded to loud noise. Session 1, cried to loud noise. Session 2, cautious to rat. Session 3, reach to white furry objects. Session 4 and 5, fear to white furry objects, less extreme when in different environments and after time.
99
Conclusion
Easy to condition emotional response. Two sessions were enough to produce fear and stimulus generalizations.
100
Individual differences in classical conditioning
People develop range CR in childhood and affect adult characteristics.
101
What’s gulf war syndrome?
Pain, depression and confusion widely reported after 1st gulf war. Gulf war characterized by smells from burning oil and pesticides.
102
Watson and Rayner (1920) generalizability
One participant and it’s a child
103
Reliability
Standardized
104
Application
Explain how phobia developed through pairing. Develop effective therapies.
105
Validity
Well controlled. Some not well controlled eg dog pushed towards him. High ecological validity eg noise. Artificial setting.
106
What’s Bulimia nervosa (BN)?
Mental disorder. Binging and purging.
107
Contemporary study:Becker et al (2002) aim?
Impact of western attitudes on eating behavior and related attitudes of teenage girls.
108
What was the IV and DV?
IV, exposure to western TV but not controlled by researchers. DV, eating behavior.
109
Procedure
Attitude difference before and after TV. Questioned a group when TV was introduced to Fiji in 1995. Another group questioned 3 years later. EAT-26 and semi structured interviews. Initial sample, 63 Fijian girls, second sample 65 Fijian girls, all aged 17. Translator present. Measured weight and height. 1998, asked additional questions.
110
Findings
Weight didn’t differ between 2 groups. 11% reported dysfunctional eating in 1998, none in 1995. 74% fell to large in 1988 so some thing west brought over. Interviews, girls considered TV characters role models.
111
Conclusion
Western female role model on TV led to dysfunctional eating attitude. Eg of harm caused by rapid social change.
112
TV makes us fatter
Consume sig more calories when eat in front a screen.
113
Individual differences in body shape
All have a mental representation of our body. Link with attractiveness and self-esteem. Media representation link with our perception.
114
Becker et al (2002) generalizability
2 groups in 60s, large sample. From 1 culture. Naive Fijian girls, west are media savvy.
115
Reliability
Standardized procedures. Interviews, tape recorded and transcribed. EAT–26 doesn’t detect some eating disorders e.g. binge.
116
Application
Media restriction. Application for health workers.
117
Validity
Natural experiment. Independent group design. EAT-26 doesn’t predict eating disorder in Brazilian women.
118
Ethics
Researchers, not specialist in eating disorder or competent to diagnose anorexia. Harm not minimized.

Psych (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions