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

Psych 360 : March 29 and March 31 Notes

by: Winny Lu

Psych 360 : March 29 and March 31 Notes Psych 360

Marketplace > University of Maryland Baltimore > Psychlogy > Psych 360 > Psych 360 March 29 and March 31 Notes
Winny Lu
View Full Document for 0 Karma

View Full Document


Unlock These Notes for FREE

Enter your email below and we will instantly email you these Notes for Motivational Psychology

(Limited time offer)

Unlock Notes

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Unlock FREE Class Notes

Enter your email below to receive Motivational Psychology notes

Everyone needs better class notes. Enter your email and we will send you notes for this class for free.

Unlock FREE notes

About this Document

These notes cover Aversion and Avoidance as well as the Punishment lecture.
Motivational Psychology
Bernard Rabin
Class Notes
Psychology, Aversion, Avoidance, punishment




Popular in Motivational Psychology

Popular in Psychlogy

This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Winny Lu on Saturday April 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 360 at University of Maryland Baltimore taught by Bernard Rabin in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 50 views. For similar materials see Motivational Psychology in Psychlogy at University of Maryland Baltimore.


Reviews for Psych 360 : March 29 and March 31 Notes


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: 04/02/16
Aversion and Avoidance I. Escape Learning a. Experimental design i. CS + (Conditioned stimulus) is paired with aversive stimulus ii. CS ­ is paired with aversive stimulus iii. Learned to escape CS (+) iv. Reinforcement: reduction in aversive stimulation II. Factors Affecting Escape Learning a. Amount of drive reduction  i. Relative reduction, not absolute 1. Example: reduce voltage that was inflicted on a rat by 100 a. But if the original voltage was 300200v b. It will be different it the original voltage was 1000 v ii. Greater reduction , faster learning b. Delay in reinforcement c. Incentive shift effects III. Theories of Escape Learning a. Drive i. Shock produces a drive ii. Drive reduction is reinforcing iii. Problem: rats can anticipate reductions 1. It is difficult to explain how rats can learn how to anticipate  reductions how does drive explain this? b. Incentive i. The answer to the above question is incentive. ii. “anticipatory relaxation” 1. The rats can anticipate the intensity of the stimulation 2. There are cues associated with the reduction in painful stimulus  conditioned to the environment.  IV. Avoidance Learning a. Experiment: i. Rats were place in a runway where there is a shock section and a safety  section ii. Shocks Safety iii. Found that after a number of trials in the same compartment, the rat does  not wait to get the shock. The rat avoids it by getting in the safety zone. iv. Problem: what is reinforcing the avoidance behavior? ( the rat left before  the aversive stimulus) V. Two­Factor Theory a. Part 1) i. Cues elicit fear b. Part 2) i. the reduction in fear is a reinforcement of avoidance response c. Administration of shock classically conditions fear to cues in the white  compartment d. Fear elicited by cues in white compartment elicited running to color compartment  (safety zone) e. Reduction in fear reinforces the avoidance response f. Basis of avoidance responding is fear i. If fear is preventedprevent avoidance learning VI. Support for Two Factor Theory a. Effect of Tranquilizers i. Tranquilizers can help reduce fear by lowering levels of anxiety 1. Diazpam can suppress avoidance behavior but NOT approach  behaviors a. It does not affect learning just avoidance behaviors b. Solomon and Wynne (1950) i. Cut the sympathetic nervous systems (no fear) before the training 1. Poor learning of the avoidance response ii. Cut the sympathetic nervous systems (no fear) after the training 1. No effect on the learning of the avoidance system a. Because they already learned it with the fear emotion  before the sympathetic nervous system was cut c. Solomon and Turner (1962)­ Curare Learning i. trained dogs to make avoidance responses by pairing tone and shock 1. gave dogs curare ( poison that paralyzed muscles) and paired a  tone with a shock 2. let the dog recover 3. presented the dog with the tone but without the shock a. the dogs ran because they have learned that it was  associated with the shock b. learned avoidance response even without the physical  experience when exposed to the aversive stimulus c. showed that the dogs learned avoidance through fear  because running away is a sign of fear within dogs VII. Problems with Two­Factor Theory a. Dissociation of fear and avoidance responding i. Using the above study (Solomon and Turner) 1. Condition avoidance response with light a.  CS to condition the second avoidance response 2. Associated the tone with light 3. The dogs responded to the light as if it was the tone BUT! It was  not conditioned to that aversive stimulus but rather anther stimulus b. Extinguish avoidance response without extinguishing fear VIII. Cognitive Interpretations a. CS becomes a signal for responding b. Expectancies c. Time to respond increases Example Exam Question: The two­factor theory of avoidance proposes that ___________ Fear elicits avoidance which is in turn reinforced by a reduction in fear  Punishment I. Definition a. Stimulus:   i .     Delivery of an aversive stimulus following some response ii. Organism is expected to suppress responding in order to avoid more  punishment iii. Problem: one has to know if the stimulus is aversive to the individual  (subjective) b. Response:  i .     Delivery of a stimulus that suppresses the behavior that precedes it ii.   Independent of whether or not this stimulus is shown to be aversive II. Relationship to behavior a. Traditional view i. Reward strengthens the S­R (stimulus­ response) bond ii. Punishment weakens S­R bond b. Moral and ethical view adopted by psychology c. Thorndike i. Split a group of college student into to two groups ii. In one group when the answers to the questions were right he would tell  them that they were correct iii. In the second group when the answers to the questions were right he  would tell them that they were wrong (punishment) iv. Result: both groups learned at the same rate 1. Thorndike was initially accepted but because he viewed telling  college students that they were wrong as a punishment which is not necessarily true later rejected a. Biphasic “law of effect” III. Experiments a. Estes (1944) i. Split rats into two groups  1. One group receive electric shocks during the process of extinction 2. Second group does NOT receive electric shocks during the process extinction 3. Results:  a. The electric shocks did not affect the speed extinction i. It took the same number of trials to reach extinction b. Punishment does not accelerate extinction b. Holz and Azrin (1961) i. Pigeons were trained to pick a key for food 1. When they pick the key they get a shock immediately ii. the group of pigeons were then split into 2 groups 1. one group received electric shock during the process of extinction  2. second group received NO shock during extinction iii. result: 1. group 1: maintained responding for a longer time 2. group 2: maintained responding for a shorter time iv. The electric shock functions as a secondary reinforce leading to the first  group to maintain responding for a longer time. 1. The pigeon associated the shock to the primary reinforce of food 2. The punishment facilitates responses in this situation v. Punishment does not weaken the stimulus and response bond IV. Alternate Response hypothesis a. “A punishment response is less likely to occur because it has been replaced, at  least temporarily, by some other response that it more likely to occur” i.  Response to severe punishment is fear ii. Fear competes with punishmentthe punishment is effective in altering  behavior b. Fowler and Miller (1963) i.  Placed rats in a straight runway 1. Rats were food deprived 2. In the goal box was food ii. There is an electric grid  between the start and goal box 1. Electrify front paws the rat jumped back ( performance is  impaired) 2. Electrify back paws  jump forward faster (performance is  improved) iii. Whether or not punishment hinder performance depends on the  nature of the punishment 1. Response of punishment competes with running forwardimpaired behavior 2. Electric shock can hinder of facilitate responses iv. If the punishment leads to fear, then the reduction of fear is reinforcing V. Punishment paradigms a. Response contingent i. Immediate presentation of aversive stimulus following response b. Stimulus contingent (non­contingent) i. Presentation of an aversive stimulus following some specified stimulus 1. The punishment depends on the presence of the stimulus in the  environment a. Example: i. A child broke a vase, mother said “wait until your  father comes back” 1. The punishment depends on the presence of  the father ii. Conditioned Emotional Response CS the presence of light Response contingentwhen the light  turned on there was an immediate  shock  Stimulus Contingen  the light turned  on and there is a random electric shock The response contingent  had a little  more response than the stimulus  contingent No light Response contingent there was an  increase in responses because the rats  learned that only in the presence of   light there is the shock  Stimulus Contingent  there was not a  significant increase because the rats did not know what caused the shock Extinction: have light but no shocks Response contingent there was good  extinction curve, the rats learned that  the shock has stopped and is no longer  associated with the light; increase in  response  Stimulus Contingent there was not as  much response because the rats never  learned what caused the shock,  therefore they did not know that the  shocks really did stopped VI. Learned Helplessness a. Seligman (1967) i. Gave dogs shocks with no possible escape ii. When tested later (dogs can run to the other side of the runway to escape  the shock) only 33% of the dogs attempted to escape compared to the 94% of the naïve dogs 1. Learned that escape is not possible and does not attempt iii. Helplessness is a function of lack of control iv. Characteristics of dogs that did not escape 1. Passivity 2. Associative retardation (learning problems) 3. Decreased aggressiveness VII. Applications of Learned Helplessness a. Groups or individuals may fail to try to improve their positions when such  attempts are likely to be successful i. Minorities ii. Abused spouses b. Animal model for reactive depression i. Passive ii. Negative cognitive set iii. Decreased competitiveness c. BUT!! i. Not clear that depressed individuals believe that their behavior is  ineffective ii. Characterized by self­blame 1. Not consistent with the lack of control a. Is it self­blame or depression? VIII. Conditioned immobility a. Alternate interpretation to learned helplessness (Iverson,1987) i. Dogs with inescapable shock ii. Dogs learned that a specific response is not effective 1. Using a different response leads to a more rapid behavior a. The dogs with the inescapable shock learn to poke their  nose in a hole in the wall ( stops the shock) faster than  naïve dogs (dogs that were not place in the harness  previously for no escape) i. The dogs who learned faster ,previously learned that large motor movements do not stop the shock b. Seligman used a path that the dogs already knew did not work c. Iversonlearned that specific responses did not work therefore different  responses leads to faster learning 


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

0 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."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

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.