New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Study Guide Exam 4

by: Elizabeth Heitmann

Study Guide Exam 4 Psyc 4450

Elizabeth Heitmann

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Review of material learned. Has the important stuff listed from the worksheet bolded
Christopher L. Hubbell
Study Guide
learning, psych, Psychology
50 ?




Popular in Learning

Popular in Psychlogy

This 16 page Study Guide was uploaded by Elizabeth Heitmann on Monday May 2, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to Psyc 4450 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute taught by Christopher L. Hubbell in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 17 views. For similar materials see Learning in Psychlogy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.


Reviews for Study Guide Exam 4


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 05/02/16
Study Guide Exam 4 Associative Learning: Theoretical Considerations I. Is Reinforcement Automatic? a. Is Contingency Sufficient? i. Superstition 1. Pigeons peck at a key in a certain way ii. Contingency vs. contiguity 1. Thomas (1981) a. Rats given food pellet every 20 seconds b. Could also bar press for a food pellet, but they would only be given food pellet every 40 seconds c. P(Food|Response)<P(Food|no response) d. Still responded at high rates iii. Implications for human behavior 1. Wasserman and Neunaber (1986) a. College students b. Earn points every time a light flashed in a room c. Pressing a telegraph key may increase the number of light flashes, but it might not d. Controllight flashed at a constant rate regardless of response e. Experimentalused the same procedure as Thomas i. Light flashed every 20 seconds, but pressing key meant light only flashed every 40 seconds ii. Pressed key twice as much as control f. Mislead by response and reinforcer contiguity II. Is Reinforcement Necessary for Learning? a. Learning without reinforcement i. Latent Learning 1. Tolman and Honzik (1930) a. Rats navigate a maze to a certain point b. R groupreinforcement a point c. N groupno reinforcement at point d. R group shows fewer mistakes on each trial e. N group shows no improvement f. NR groupno reinforcement on first 10 trials, switch and get reinforcement on next 10 trials g. Predictions i. Reinforcement Analysis: gradual learning ii. Cognitive Analysis: immediate improvement h. NR group shows no improvement in the first 10 trials, but on trial 11 when reinforcer is presented, there is immediate improvement in the next trial III. Avoidance a. Two-factor Theory i. Mowrer 1. Signaled avoidance a. Once task is done correctly, rat will never fail again 2. Both classical conditioning and reinforcement take place ii. Motivational Role of Fear 1. Rescorla and Lolardo (1965) a. Sidman Avoidance Task i. Shock every 10 sec. unless rat jumps ii. If shock is avoided, shock is turned off for 30 sec. iii. Once learned, start discrimination training 1. CS -shock or CS - no shock iv. Avoidance response doubled when CS+ presented v. Avoidance response eliminated when CS- presented iii. Escape from fear is reinforcing 1. Brown and Jacobs (1949) a. Control: light and tone-no shock b. Experimental: light and tone-shock c. Present stimuli in avoidance task d. Experimental group jumped faster when light and tone was presented b. Bolles’ SSDR Model i. Two-factor theory misinterpreted avoidance behavior ii. Animals have innate responses 1. Species specific defense reactions (SSDR) a. Rats will freeze, flee or fight 2. When bar pressing was response that turned off shock, rats couldn’t learn because bar pressing is not involved in one of their defense reactions c. The case of the nonchalant jumper i. Rats are no longer afraid once they figure out how the avoidance task works d. Seligman and Johnston(1973) i. Subjects develop initial expectation that shock occurs when the signal occurs ii. Develop new expectation that they don’t get shocked when they jump over the wall iii. Rats jump because they prefer no shock iv. Fear is present initially, but eventually they jump because it has a preferred effect IV. Instrumental Conditioning and Classical Conditioning: One process or Two? a. Do they involve the same contingencies? b. Do they affect the same response? c. Do they obey the same laws? Dimensions CC IC Same or Different Contingenci SS* RR* Different es Responses Autonomic>skelet Skeletal>autono Different al mic Principles Contiguity Contiguity same Frequency Frequency Intensity Intensity Contingency Contingency Preparedness Preparedness Extinction Extinction Generalization Generalization Discrimination Discrimination Partial Partial reinforcement reinforcement d. One Process? i. An E1E2 associative system 1. RS* or SS* ii. Are they separate or are they manifestations of the same underlying system? Associative Learning from an Evolutionary Perspective I. The General Process View a. Same associative processes used no matter CS or US b. Assumptions of the General Process View i. It is a general system ii. There is an interchangeability of events iii. There is generality across species iv. All learning is associative learning II. An Evolutionary Perspective a. Ethologists: behavioral biologists that watch animal behavior in nature b. Noticed the differences in animal behavior c. Principles of Evolution i. Niche: specific environments occupied by a species d. Learning and Evolution i. To the extent that species haves common ancestor, they share common behavior ii. To the extent that evolution involves divergence from a common ancestor, learning should have diverged equally iii. Learning differs cross-species iv. Imprinting 1. Ducks follow the first moving object they see after birth, usually their mother 2. Helps learn to recognize their species 3. Develop behaviors of the object 4. Irreversible v. Song learning 1. Sometimes it is innate 2. White crowned sparrows learn by listening to adults a. Exposed to adult song shortly after birth (10-50 days) b. Reproduce whichever song is heard during that time, even if it was not the song of their species vi. Adaptive role of learning 1. Imprinting important for safety 2. Song learning important for mating e. Summary i. Learning is not the same associative processes ii. It takes place in different forms in different species that occupy different niches III. The Challenge from within: Are CC and IC uniform processes? a. Classical Conditioning i. Gut defense vs. Skin Defense 1. The 2 parts of classical conditioning b. Instrumental Conditioning: Misbehavior of Organisms i. Unlickable cats 1. Thorndike couldn’t train cats to lick themselves ii. Puzzling monkeys 1. Harlow gave monkeys a puzzle box, with a lid 2. Opened box easily when nothing was present 3. Took monkeys longer to open the box when a raisin was inside iii. Miserly raccoons 1. Brelands couldn’t get raccoons to put a coin in a piggy bank for food c. Why does Instrumental Conditioning Fail? i. Inflexible reflexes 1. Can’t reinforce something that is reflex, because it only occurs under very specific conditions ii. Competition from conditioned responses 1. Fails because of an existing conditioned response 2. Raccoons wouldn’t put coin in piggy bank because of an existing conditioned response a. The coin was paired with food so the conditioned response was to treat the coin like food b. Raccoons wanted to keep the coin iii. Chapuis, Thinus Blanc and Paucet (1983) 1. L-shaped wall around food 2. Dogs could go around the wall at the short end or go the long way 3. When barrier was opaquedogs took shortest route 4. When barrier was meshroute choice was 50/50 5. Intense motivation made them so excited that rational thought was lost d. Summary i. Associative learning is not a general process ii. Animals seem to be prepared or at least predisposed to acquire certain knowledge more readily than other knowledge and that reflects the greater value of that knowledge in the animal’s environment IV. Variations on a theme a. An Adaptationist Approach i. Basic mechanisms for learning are the same but they have become specialized in different species due to environmental niches ii. The more similar the species the more similar they learn iii. Broad outlines of problems faced by species are remarkably similar b. CC and IC reconsidered i. There are exceptions to the rule that don’t fit the general process view c. An associative analysis of imprinting i. The role of perceptual learning 1. Process allows a duckling to form associations between different parts of their mother in order to recognize her Cognitive Considerations of Associative Learning: What is learned when a response is reinforced? I. S-R Theory a. The development of S-R Theory i. Thorndike’s Associative Analysis and Watson’s Behaviorism ii. S-R Theory 1. Combination of 2 ideas a. The associationist idea that learning is simple associations between stimuli b. The behaviorist idea that explanations for learning must be made in terms of visible overt behavior b. A cognitive rejoinder i. Cognitive psychologists rejected these assumptions ii. Believed learning was more complex and subtle than simple associations being formed c. The issue i. Argument whether mental state should be involved II. A Test: Learning without Responding a. Rats in a Cart i. McNamara, Long and Wike (1956) 1. Rats in a T maze 2. Normal group 3. Yoked group in a cart pushed through the maze 4. Each rat in the yoked group was matched with a rat in the normal group and yoked rat was turned in the same directions as rat in the normal group turned 5. Test: both groups were free to run in the maze, but no food given for correct response 6. Predictions: a. S-R Theory: no learning should take place in yoked rats because running was not reinforced b. Cognitive Analysis: learning should have taken place because yoked rats observed the correct association 7. Results: preference for correct side was nearly equal in normal vs. yoked group64% vs. 66% b. Latent Extinction i. Seward and Levy (1949) 1. Straight Alley 2. All rats trained 3. When training was complete: a. Experimental rats placed in the goal box with no food b. Controls left alone 4. Predictions: a. S-R Theory: no difference between groups because the associations between alley cues and running is still intact b. Cognitive Analysis: experimentals should run slower because they have a lower expectation for food to be present 5. Results: experimentals ran slower III. Neobehaviorism a. Hull’s Contribution i. Intervening variables 1. Stimulus triggers intervening variable which leads to the response a. SXR 2. Eventually response is automatic and bypasses intervening variable 3. Viewed all internal events as covert responses a. Have the same properties and obey the same laws as overt responses 4. Possible to predict covert response and its impact on behavior ii. The rg-sgmechanism 1. Running in an alley for food 2. Over time eating responses happen before reaching the goal box 3. rg: fractional anticipatory goal response 4. sg: proprioceptive stimulus b. Explaining Latent Extinction i. Training: Principle Result Classical Conditioning Sfoo R goal S G rg d B Generalizatio SG n B S SB rg Proprioceptiv e Feedback s g S G rg Reinforcemen B t ii. In latent extincgion, r is extinguished because there is no food so eating cues don’t trigger g , so s never occurs 1. Should extinguish throughout the alley 2. Controls still run faster because both stimuli are still present 3. Experimentals run slower because only one stimulus is present in the start box rg Principle Result Extinction // Generalization S G rg B S SB // iii. When returned to the start box: Control Group Experimental c. The Case of the Masochistic Rats i. Fowler and Miler (1963) 1. Rats in an alley running for food in 3 groups a. Control b. Experimental group 1: front paw shock c. Experimental group 2: hind paw shock 2. Floor electrified in front of goal box 3. Predictions: a. S-R Theory: both experimental groups should run slower because of punishment b. Cognitive Analysis: both experimental groups should run slower because they expect shock c. Hull’s Model: front paw shock group will run slower than controls because they will jump back when shocked. Hind paw group will run faster than controls because they will jump forward when shocked 4. Results: front paw shock ran slower than control group. Hind paw shock ran faster than control group 5. Rats are running because of food II. A Cognitive Analysis a. Tolman’s Expectations i. Expectation exists but is difficult to measure and must be inferred ii. Docility: flexibility of behavior iii. MacFarlane (1930) 1. Rats trained to run in a slightly flooded maze 2. Completely flooded maze once training was complete 3. Rats still reached goal, but it took longer due to environmental changes and the need to swim 4. Rats flexibly chose the response due to the expectation of food a. Rats experience expectation when they use a different behavior to reach the goal iv. Disruption 1. Macfarlane’s rats still went to the food in the maze, but hesitate and explore the maze when it is fully flooded 2. Finklepaw (1928) a. Monkey trained to reach under one of 2 cups to get a reinforcer b. One cup has a piece of lettuce, the other has a banana c. Monkeys can watch experimenter place each food type under cups d. When monkey isn’t looking experimenter switched the cups so the monkey no longer knew where the banana was e. Monkey would get mad v. Reinforcer devaluation 1. Colwill and Rescorla a. Trained rats to make 2 different responses to get 2 different reinforcers i. Bar press/chain pull to get sucrose/food pellet b. Conditioned taste aversion in ½ the rats for sucrose and ½ for food c. Ceased making the response that coordinated to the reinforcer they had an aversion to i. Knew which response got each reinforcer III. Synthesis a. Why was the theoretical debate so difficult to resolve? i. Theoretical convergence 1. Overtime each argument became too similar to separate 2. Became a matter of semantics ii. Theoretical Ambiguity 1. Clear definitions were never given 2. Hull and Tolman were vague and a lot of assumptions were made iii. 2-format hypothesis 1. Maybe they were both right b. Habits and Awareness in human behavior i. Controlled vs. Automatic processing 1. When humans first learn something they engage in controlled processing and are very cognitively involved and focused 2. Eventually the responses involved with that task become automatic ii. Procedural vs. declarative memories 1. Anterograde amnesia: inability to make new memories 2. Have the ability to learn new things, they just don’t remember learning them a. Becomes a procedural memory Information Processing: A Model of Associative Learning I. The concept of Information Processing a. Computer Analogy i. Solve complex problems by breaking them into smaller pieces ii. Possible human thinking happens the same way b. Coding, storage and retrieval i. Use these 3 steps as the starting point for modelling of human information processing II. Stimulus Coding: Relational and Configural Learning a. S-R and Cognitive Theories of learning i. In S-R theory, each stimulus directly connects to the response ii. In Cognitive Theory, each stimulus is connected to a coded response, which then connects to the physical response b. Transposition i. Cognitive theory sums up a stimulus in a context 1. Transposition ii. Evidence 1. Wolfgang Kohler a. Trained chimps to discriminate between 2 different sized cards i. Picking the bigger one got a reinforcer b. Training cards: 9x12 and 12x16 c. Test cards: 12x16 and 15x20 d. Predictions i. S-R: 12x16 chosen because picking that card was reinforced ii. Cognitive: 15x20 because they were reinforced to pick the bigger card e. Results: chimps picked the 15x20 card iii. Spence’s S-R Model of Transposition 1. Reinforcement 2. Extinction 3. Generalization 4. Spence (1937) a. Pick 2 cards i. S+: 256 cm 2 ii. S-: 160 cm 2 b. Results showed 2 generalization curves where the s- curve was inhibitory to the s+ curve to a certain point i. More likely to pick the card that was 655 cm 2 because there was no inhibitory response c. Explained why Kohler’s monkeys picked the biggest card in the test, not the one they were reinforced to pick iv. Testing the Model 1. Hanson (1959) a. Trained pigeons to peck a lit key b. Control: 550nm c. Discrimination: i. S+: 550nm ii. S-: 590nm d. Results: pigeons in the discrimination group pecked the key the most frequently at 540 nm 2. Lawrence and DeRivera (1954) a. Rats in a T maze b. Had a card that told them which way to turn c. Configural Learning i. Evidence that stimuli are not coded independently ii. Woodbury (1943) 1. High pitched buzzer: responsefood 2. Low pitched buzzer: responsefood 3. Both buzzers: responseno food 4. Results showed a decrease in responses after about 600 trials when both buzzers sounded Stimuli get coded according to independent properties and relationships. They can get associated with any and all responses. III. Stimulus Coding: Attention a. Selective Attention i. Reynolds (1961) 1. Pigeons key pecking 2. One bird only focused on the color, while the other bird focused on the shape 3. Couldn’t pay attention to both s+ stimuli b. A Perceptual Model of Attention i. The Dimensional Model 1. Can only attend to so many stimuli at once 2. Make an observing response based on what stimuli were attended 3. Not only does red get associated with the response but, the dimension of color becomes dominant ii. ED vs. ID shifts 1. Intradimensional shifts (ID): from one problem to another, the dimension doesn’t change 2. Extradimensional shift (ED): the dimension changes from one problem to another 3. Eimas (1966) a. Group 2 had a harder time learning the task in Phase II because they had an ED shift c. Blocking: Attention as a Central Process i. Kamen (1969) 1. Controls: no pre-training 2. Experimentals: 16 noise-shock 3. Both groups went through conditioning with 8 noise & light-shock 4. In test, only controls responded to the light 5. Had evidence that the experimentals attended to the light a. The final pre-training had an SR=.02 b. The first conditioning trial had an SR= .15 6. Testing the hypothesis a. Another experimental group that received a second shock 5 seconds after the noise&light-shock b. Attentional analysis said that second shock should have no effect c. Kamen said the second shock would be surprising and should become associated with the light because it is the only new stimuli. i. Correct ii. Blocking in Humans 1. Trabasso and Bower (1968) a. Presented people with 16 four-letter strings (ex: SLHR) b. Read out loud and had to determine if it was in group A or group B c. During pre-training; i. If second letter is Lgroup A ii. If second letter is Bgroup B d. Conditioning: i. If second letter is L and fourth letter is Rgroup A ii. If second letter is B and fourth letter is Wgroup B e. Test: second letter is omitted i. Pretraining group failed to recognize the pattern with the fourth letter IV. The Role of the Reinforcer: Surprise a. S-R Theorists i. Hull: any reinforcer is presented learning occurs ii. Kamen: only unexpected reinforcers are effective b. Cognitive Theorists: i. Tolman: constantly exploring the world and learning features even if a reinforcer is not present c. A surprising hypothesis i. Surprise triggers a memory search which makes learning more effective d. Marking i. Lieberman, McIntosh and Thomas (1979) 1. Rats running in a T maze a. Turn rightfood after a 1 min. delay b. Turn leftnothing 2. Failed to learn to turn right 3. Only learned if they were removed from the maze for that minute and placed back in the maze to get the food a. Surprise of being handled help them learn to associate turning right with food V. Retrieval a. Effects of Rehearsal on Learning i. Stimulus Duration 1. Grant (1976) a. Delay Matching to Sample(DMTS) b. Pigeons c. As delay increases performance decreases d. Longer the sample is presentedperformance increases ii. Stimulus Predictability 1. Maki (1979) a. Pigeons and discrimination training b. Phase I i. Get food before trialpeck red key & get food ii. Don’t get food before trialpeck green key & get food c. Phase II i. Peck Horizontal lines(s-)no food ii. Peck Vertical lines(s+)get food d. Phase III: modified Phase I i. S+get food before trialpeck red or green key for food ii. S- get food before trialpeck red or green key for food e. Paid better attention when s- was presented and they got food due to surprise i. Better performance b. Interference i. Motor Learning 1. Shea and Upton (1979) a. Moveable dowel in a box b. Control: move dowel 100mm then 200mm, given feedback for improvement c. Experimental: extra movements in between moving 100mm and 200mm, given feedback for improvement d. Didn’t learn as well ii. Classical Conditioning 1. Revusky (1971) a. Rats drink saccharin solution, then given lithium chloride an hour later to condition taste aversion b. Another group drinks saccharin solution then drinks vinegar solution and given lithium chloride to induce taste aversion c. All rats allowed to drink saccharin for 1 hour i. Rats that drank another solution besides saccharin drank more saccharin ii. Vinegar solution interfered with taste aversion c. Retrieval Cues i. Lett (1977) 1. Rats in a T maze 2. Made choiceremoved from maze and placed back in home cage a. Correct choicefed in home cage b. Incorrect choicefed in the start box Further Complexities I. Cognitive Maps a. Tolman and Honzik (1930) b. Olton Radial Arm maze i. Octagon with arms pointing from each side ii. The end of each arm had a piece of bait iii. Rats averaged 7.9/8 arms before repeating an arm iv. High average continued on more complex mazes and when rats were removed from maze c. Morris Water maze i. Kiddie pool filled with milky liquid and a coffee can inside ii. Rats could find where the coffee can was no matter where they were dropped in the pool iii. Would go to original spot first when can was moved d. Rats in a maze: i. Speedvery fast ii. Number of armsvery efficient iii. Resistant to disruption e. Clark’s Nutcrackers i. Birds that need to store 2500 caches of seeds for food in the winter 1. Do they randomly find them or do they remember where seeds are hidden ii. Van Der Wall (1982) 1. Field 2 meters long and 1 meter wide 2. 2 birds allowed to hide seeds, other 2 birds kept away from field 3. Let all 4 birds search for seeds a. Birds that hid the seeds75% successful i. Usually found their caches b. Birds that didn’t hide seeds10% successful 4. Stretched field and moved objects proportionally after birds hid the seeds 5. Still found seeds a. Able to adjust digging sights proportionally with the change in size


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.