D.T. Cerutti, in
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 Conditioned reflexes and
operant responses can be weakened by extinction. Operant behavior maintained by reinforcement can be reduced in frequency by terminating the reinforcement contingency or by delivering reinforcers independently of responses. Discontinuing a punishment contingency almost always results in the recovery of the punished behavior. A CS can be extinguished by presenting it without the US or by removing the correlation with the US. Extinction procedures do not erase the effects of
contingencies but instead produce additional learning. In the case of operant behavior, organisms stop responding because they learn that the operant contingency is broken—extinguished responses reappear without additional training when a reinforcement contingency is reinstated. In the case of Pavlovian extinction, the organism learns that the CS now signals the absence of the US. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767014716 Hebb, Donald Olding (1904–85)P.M. Milner, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 Hebb's major work, The Organization of Behavior (1949) contributed to the decline of neo-Pavlovian behaviorism, the theory that all behavior could be explained by conditioned reflexes, and to its replacement by a more realistic cognitive theory, based on the association of ideas. In Hebb's theory an idea was represented by activity in a group of neurons that he called a cell assembly. The neurons acquired connections with each other during early learning. Cell assemblies could then acquire connections with each other to form what he calledphase sequences, corresponding to trains of thought. Hebb postulated that the necessary learning involved changes in synaptic strength that occurred when a pre-synaptic terminal and a neighboring cell body were simultaneously active. Synapses having this property are now called Hebb synapses. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767002552 Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich (1849–1936)D.A. Powell, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 4 Pavlov's Influence on Modern PsychologyDuring his lifetime and immediately thereafter, Pavlov had a tremendous influence on physiology and the study of brain function. Many students were drawn to his laboratory during the early part of the twentieth century to study the basic laws governing the activity of the brain, and during this period of time Pavlov received worldwide acclaim and recognition. Pavlov's work was little affected by the Russian Revolution, which was also ongoing during this time. He maintained a skeptical attitude regarding politics and government, but nevertheless his worldwide recognition led the Communists to continue to fund his research at high levels. Thus, the Soviet Union became known for its support of the study of physiology, and it was during this time that a great center for the study of physiology with many distinguished workers was developed in the Soviet Union, primarily under Pavlov's leadership. It was his influence outside the Soviet Union, however, that resulted in Pavlov's most notable successes in science, primarily in the field of psychology, which Pavlov had previously rejected. Thus the conditioned reflex methodology was instrumental to the development of the behavioristic movement in psychology in the early part of the twentieth century. John Broadus Watson, one of the major pioneers in the development of behaviorism, utilized the conditioned reflex methodology to explain the entire subject field of psychology, which consisted, according to behaviorists, in the study of overt behavior without reference to subjective phenomena such as cognitions, learning, feelings, etc. The publication of Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It (1913) by Watson thus became instrumental in informing American and English scientists of Pavlov's work. The translation of Pavlov's Conditioned Reflexes (1927) by Anrep made his work available to English speaking scientists. As a result, experimental psychologists began to explore the new conditioned reflex methods for studying behavior at several academic centers in the USA. As was noted by Babkin (1949), however, much of the work done by the American researchers focused on skeletal reflexes, as opposed to the visceral reflexes, to which Pavlov and his students had previously devoted most of their work. One of the basic experiments developed by American psychologists was the classical eyeblink-conditioning paradigm. Using this methodology human or animal subjects are presented with a corneal airpuff, which causes reflexive closure of the eyelids. However, when this unconditioned stimulus is preceded by a conditioned stimulus such as a light or pure tone, eventually subjects began to show anticipatory eyeblinks during the conditioned stimulus, which occur even though the corneal airpuff is not presented. This paradigm came to be used extensively in the early 1940s and 1950s as behaviorism began to gather momentum. Its success in the hands of the American psychologists led to the de-emphasis on visceral changes as conditioned responses in the USA. However, Horsley Gantt, who had previously studied with Pavlov, demonstrated in his Johns Hopkins laboratory that both visceral and skeletal responses could be studied in the same organisms, and that the two responses differed greatly in their acquisition and the conditioning parameters required to elicit learning (Gantt 1960). Much of this early work on classical conditioning was, however, overshadowed by the emphasis given to operant conditioning by other behaviorists, such as B. F. Skinner and Clark Hull. Thus, it was only during the early 1960s that classical conditioning became a popular technique for studying behavior. This was due to the development by I. Gormezano of the classically conditioned nictitating membrane response in the rabbit (Gormezano 1966). The nictitating membrane is a third laterally moving eyelid found in the rabbit and some other mammals (e.g., cat). Using this animal preparation Gormezano and his students were able to demonstrate the parametric circumstances under which this kind of learning takes place and what kinds of visceral changes accompany them, e.g., conditioned changes in heart rate, blood pressure, etc. The popularity of this technique became even greater when integrated with the simultaneously developing field of behavioral neuroscience. Classical conditioning offers several advantages for studying concomitant brain function as well as new learned behaviors. For example, concomitant electrophysiological recording from single neurons in specific parts of the brain have led to the discovery that different brain structures are involved in visceral versus skeletal learning (Thompson 1991). Moreover, more recent brain scanning techniques in humans have demonstrated that even during simple classical eyeblink conditioning activation of several specific areas of the brain, which are known to be involved in learning and memory processes, occurs (e.g., Blaxton et al. 1996). Thus the use of the conditioned reflex techniques originally developed by Pavlov has come to be one of the major methods used in studying brain-behavior relationships in modern psychology. Pavlov's contribution to this new technology was at a basic level and much of his earlier conclusions regarding the results of his manipulations were, of course, erroneous. However, his contributions we now know were instrumental to the development of modern psychology. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076700317X LearningZhongzhi Shi, in Intelligence Science, 2021 7.2 The learning theory of the behavioral schoolBehavioral psychologists interpret learning as the formation of habit by using the relationship between stimulus and response by training. In their options, an unprecedented relation can be established between a certain stimulus and the related response, and such an establishing process is called learning. This kind of learning theory is therefore called stimuli–response theory, or the behavioral school. The learning theory of the behavioral school emphasizes the kind of behavior that can be observed. According to this theory, numerous happy or painful consequences of behavior can change an individual’s behavior. Pavlov’s classical conditioned reflex theory, Watson’s behaviorism view, Thorndike’s connection doctrine, Skinner’s operation conditioned reflex theory, etc. all classically belong to the behavioral school. Other psychologists do not agree that learning is the process of habit formation. In their options, learning is a cognitive process of individual cognizing relation among the things in its environment. So this kind of theory is known as cognitive theory. 7.2.1 Learning theory of conditioned reflexRussian physiologist Ivan Pavlov is the founder of the classical conditioning reflex theory (Pavlov Website). Pavlov was studying a dog’s digestive physiology phenomenon. The food was placed in front of the dog, and its effect on saliva secretion was measured. Usually the dog salivated when the food was about to be eaten. However, Pavlov accidentally discovered that the dog did not have to eat the food; just hearing the food breeder’s footsteps, they started to salivate. Pavlov did not ignore this phenomenon. He began to do an experiment. He tried making the dog listen to a ring, but the dog did not respond. But when the dog heard a ring immediately after the food was delivered, after many repetitions, with just a separate ring without the food, the dog “learned” to secrete saliva. The combination of the bell and the unconditional stimulus (food) changed from a neutral stimulus to a conditional stimulus, which caused the conditioned response of saliva secretion. Pavlov called this phenomenon conditioned reflex, that is, classical conditioned reflex. In the Pavlovian conditioned reflex, the physiological mechanism of the formation of the neural connection is temporary and learning is a temporary formation of neural connection. The impact of Pavlov’s classical conditioning theory has been enormous. In Russia, the theory based on Pavlov’s classical conditioned reflex theory dominated the circle of psychology for a long time. In the United States, behavioral psychologists Watson, Skinner, and others were all impacted by Pavlov’s conditioned reflex theory. 7.2.2 Learning theory of behaviorismBehaviorism was founded by America psychologist J. B. Watson in 1913 [5]. The characteristics of the theory are as follows: 1.It emphasizes that psychology is a science, so we should pay attention to experiment and observation in method and only observe and record the explicit behavior in the research subject. 2.The basis of explaining constitutive behavior is the individual’s external reaction, and the formation and change of the reaction is the course of restriction. 3.Paying attention to the influence of environment on individual behavior and not recognizing the importance of individual free will are regarded as determinism. 4.In education, it advocates both reward and punishment, neglects internal motivation, and emphasizes the training value of external control. Behaviorism became popular in the United States and extended to the whole world in the 20th century, until nearly all of psychology was dominated by behaviorism, which is also known as behavioral psychology. Behavioralism changed later, due to different points of view in explaining behavior, to radical behaviorism and the new behaviorism (neo-behaviorism). Watson is the first American psychologist who regarded Pavlov’s classical conditioned reflex theory as the theoretical foundation of learning. He believes that learning is the process of establishing conditioned reflex by replacing one stimulus with another. Except for the concentrated conditioned reflex (such as sneezing and knee jerk reflex) at birth, all human behaviors are formed by establishing a new stimulus response connection (S-R connection) through conditioned reflex. Watson used the principle of conditioned reflex to create fear in a baby in order to prove his point. The experimental objects were an original pair of rabbits and a human baby without any fear. In the experiment, whenever the rabbits appeared in front of the baby, there was at the same time a terrible voice. After many repetitions, the baby felt fear once he saw a rabbit, even just the hair. 7.2.3 Association learning theoryFrom the end of 19th century to the beginning of 20th century, Thorndike’s learning theory had occupied the leadership in American psychological circles for nearly 50 years. Thorndike is the pioneer of animal psychology at Harvard University. Since 1896, he systematically studied animal behaviors by using a chicken, cat, dog, fish, etc., thus first putting forward the most intact learning theory in learning psychology. Through the scientific experiment method, he found that individual learning is via a kind of “try to be successful accidentally by mistake.” In this way, a kind of connection or combination between stimulus and response is established through repeated responses to a stimulus. In Thorndike’s view, the essence of learning lay in forming the association between situation and response. So this kind of learning theory is known as association theory. The situation, denoted by S, is sometimes called the stimulus, which includes the cerebral internal situation, the external situation, thought, and emotion. Response, denoted by R, includes internal response, such as “the activities of muscles and glands,” and internal response, such as idea, will, emotion, and attitude. The so-called connection includes association, relation, inclination, meaning that a certain situation can only arouse a certain response and cannot arouse other responses. By the symbol “→” we mean “arouse.” The formula of association is expressed by S→R. The relation between situation and response is the causality. The relation is a directed association without any intermediary. Thorndike thought that association is an instinctive combination. He applied such association to human being’s learning. In his terms, all the thoughts, behaviors, and activities of human beings can be resolved into the connection of the basic unit of stimulus with response. The difference between the learning of human being and that of an animal is that “the learning process of the animal is blindfolded” and “does not need the idea as a medium,” while the human being’s learning needs the idea as a medium and is conscious. But the essential distinction lies in suppleness and complexity as well as in the number of associations. The law of an animal’s learning is still suitable for human learning [6]. The association between stimulus and response is subject to three principles: 1.The number of the practices 2.The individual’s own preparation state 3.The result after the response These three principles are known as Thorndike’s famous three laws: practice law, prepare law, result law. Practice law means that the more often an individual responds to a certain stimulus, the stronger the association is. Prepare law is in fact a motivation principle. Motivation is an inherent process that causes individual activity and maintains this activity. Result law, the core of association theory, mainly emphasizes that the power of association is determined by the result of the response. If an individual obtains a satisfactory result, the association is strengthened after the response; otherwise is weakened. After 1930, Thorndike had modified the practice law and result law. He thought that practice cannot strengthen the association between situation and response unconditionally. Practice is helpful only when accompanied by a sense of satisfaction. For result law, an unsatisfactory sense cannot directly weaken the association but just admits that satisfaction can strengthen the association. In Thorndike’s terms, association is built by trial and error. Learning is a gradual and blindfolded process. In this process, with the gradual increase of the right response and the gradual reduction of error response, the firm association between stimulus and response is finally formed. Thorndike carried on the experiment with different animals, and the results were quite consistent. Therefore, he thought that the forming of association followed a certain law. Thorndike still proposed accessional laws of learning, including (1) selection response law, (2) multiple response law, (3) fixed response law, (4) apperception response law, and (5) associative transference law. Thorndike’s learning theory is the first comparatively intact learning theory in the history of educational psychology. It was great progress that he used experimentation instead of the argument method to study learning. His theory has caused the academic controversy about learning theory, promoting the development of learning theory. Association theory has helped to establish the key position in the theoretical system and has helped accordingly to set up the discipline system of educational psychology, promoting the development of educational psychology. Association theory is based on instinct, and the association between situation and response is interpreted as the supreme principle of learning. It is the determinism of heredity and instinct doctrine [6]. But it obliterates the sociality, consciousness, and dynamic role of human beings and fails to open up the essence of the human being and the essential distinction between an animal’s learning and a human being’s learning. It is a mechanical doctrine. It ignores the roles of cognition, idea, and understanding in the learning process and does not accord with the reality of learning. But test-error theory is still regarded as a kind of the form of learning until today, especially playing an important role in the learning of motor skill and social behavior. Thorndike’s learning theory seems a bit simple and cannot explain the essential law of learning. But there are some corrections too. Even today, some of the laws are still of directive significance. 7.2.4 Operational learning theoryOperational learning theory was proposed by the US new behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner in Verbal Behavior [7]. This theory is based on the operate conditioning reflex experiment that is carried on with an animal. During this experiment, the organism encounters a special kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing stimulus or simply a reinforcer. This special stimulus has the effect of increasing the operant, that is, the behavior occurring just before the reinforcer. This is operant conditioning: The behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the organism’s tendency to repeat the behavior in the future. By this theory, the power of child’s ability to speaking is owing to acquired learning. Like studying other behaviors, it is acquired by operational conditioned reflex. Skinner thought that there are two kinds of conditioning: Pavlov’s classical conditioning and operational conditioning. Pavlov’s classical conditioned reflex is a responsive (or irritant) conditioned reflex process. It is a reaction first caused by a known stimulus and a process of combining reinforcement and stimulus. Reinforcement strengthens the stimulus. Skinner's operant conditioning is a process of reactive conditioning. There is no known stimulus. It is a spontaneous response by the organism itself. It is a process of combining reinforcement and response. Reinforcement enhances the response. Skinner thought that all behaviors were made up of reflection. There are two kinds of behaviors and then two kinds of behaviors: responsive behavior and operational behavior. Therefore, there are two kinds of learning: responsive learning and operational learning. Skinner paid more attention to operational learning. He thought that operational behavior could better reflect a human being’s learning, which is all operational learning. Therefore, the most effective method to study behavioral science is to investigate the forming of operational behavior and its law. In Skinner’s terms, reinforcement is an important means by which operational behavior is formed. Reinforcement plays an extremely important role in Skinner’s theory. It is the foundation and core of Skinner’s theory and is also called reinforcement theory or reinforcement doctrine. Its basic law is as follows: If reinforcement stimulus appears after an operation happens, the strength (the probability of reacting) of this operation is increased. The change of learning and behavior is an intensive result, and behavior can be controlled by controlling enhancing. Reinforcement is the key to molding behavior and keeping up behavioral intensity. The process of molding behavior is a learning process; education is the molding of behavior. As long as we can control the intensity of behavior, it is possible to optionally mold people’s and animal’s behaviors. In 1954 in his paper “The Art of Teaching Science and Learning,” Skinner criticized traditional teaching according to his reinforcement theory [7]. Hence Skinner strongly maintained that class teaching should be reformed by performing procedure teaching and machine teaching. The learning content should be programmed as a procedure and installed in a machine, according to the operate conditioning reflex principle. Students could complete their learning by using the installed procedure. The process of procedure learning is to divide a big problem into several small questions and addressing them in a certain order and asking students to answer each question. In this way, students can receive related feedback information. The question is equivalent to “stimulus” in the forming process of the conditioned reflex, while the student’s answer is then equivalent to the “response,” and feedback information is equivalent to “reinforcement.” The key to procedure learning is to program good procedure. For this reason, Skinner proposed five basic principles in establishing a procedure: 1.Small step principle: Divide total learning content into teaching materials that consist of pieces of knowledge, which are sorted in ascending order by the knowledge’s difficulty, thus enabling students to learn step by step. 2.Positive reaction principle: We should make students react positively to what they have learned and deny the view that “although they have not shown any reaction, they really understand.” 3.Reinforcement in time (feedback) principle: The response to students should be reinforced in time, so that they can get feedback information. 4.Making the step by oneself principle: Students determine their learning progress by themselves according to their own learning situations. 5.Low wrong rate: Students must make the correct response each time, and the wrong rate must be minimized as much as possible. Skinner thinks that procedural teaching has the following advantages: step by step learning; learning speed and learning capacity of the same; correcting student’s mistakes in time, speeding up learning; conducive to improving student learning initiatives; students’ self-learning abilities and habits. Procedural teaching is not perfect. Since it makes the acquisition of knowledge the main goal of individualized learning styles, three aspects of it have been criticized: It makes students acquire more rigid knowledge; collective classes lack interpersonal contacts and are not conducive to the socialization of children; it neglects the role of teachers. 7.2.5 Contiguity theory of learningEdwin R. Guthrie largely agreed with the view of behaviorism in psychology. In 1921, he explained behaviors mainly in terms of the association between stimulus and response. In his view, there are two forms of learning. The first one is active adaptation, that is to say, the organism will react constantly in order to adapt to the environment. But this is just the reprint of Watson’s theory. The second one is the condition function. This is similar to Pavlov’s learning theory. Guthrie thought that all responses were initially caused by a certain unconditioned stimulus. Such stimulus also may be an existing neutral stimulus. The essence of the condition function is to replace unconditioned stimulus with neutral stimulus in order to cause response. In a sense, this formula is suitable for all learning. So conditional function has become synonymous of learning in fact. This was the creed of nearly all theoreticians at that time. In 1935 Guthery published his book “Psychology of Learning” [8]. In this book, he had proposed the learning theory with his own characteristics. Guthrie’s contiguity theory specifies that a combination of stimuli which has accompanied a movement will on its recurrence tend to be followed by that movement. According to Guthrie, all learning was a consequence of association between a particular stimulus and response. Furthermore, Guthrie argued that stimuli and responses affect specific sensory motor patterns; movements are learned, not behaviors. In contiguity theory, rewards or punishment play no significant role in learning since they occur after the association between stimulus and response has been made. Learning takes place in a single trial (all or none). However, since each stimulus pattern is slightly different, many trials may be necessary to produce a general response. One interesting principle that arises from this position is called postremity, which specifies that we always learn the last thing we do in response to a specific stimulus situation. Contiguity theory suggests that forgetting is due to interference rather than the passage of time; stimuli become associated with new responses. Previous conditioning can also be changed by being associated with inhibiting responses such as fear or fatigue. The role of motivation is to create a state of arousal and activity that produces responses that can be conditioned. Contiguity theory is intended to be a general theory of learning, although most of the research supporting the theory was done with animals. Guthrie did apply his framework to personality disorders [9]. 7.2.6 Need reduction theoryAmerican psychologist and behaviorist Clark Leonard Hull conducted research demonstrating that his theories could predict and control behavior. His most significant works were the Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning (1940) and Principles of Behavior (1943), which established his analysis of animal learning and conditioning as the dominant learning theory of its time. Hull created the “hypothetic-deductive” systematic method, after the observation and elaboration of hypotheses [10]. This method brought him precise definitions and conceptualized axioms that helped him develop his theories. He believed that behavior was a set of interactions between an individual and the environment. He analyzed behavior from a perspective of biological adaptation, which is an optimization of living conditions through need reduction. Hull’s need reduction theory emphasizes that the learning process consists of four elements: motivation, tips, response, and reward. Motivation is a driving action of the internal stimulus produced in an individual. Some incentives are biological in nature—not academic—such as pain, thirst, hunger, etc., and some have to do with learning to manage, such as fear, social needs. Motivation is the basis of behavior; without incentives, individuals do not act, there would be no learning. Tips lead to individual responses and determine when, where, and what kind of reaction an individual will have. The value of a hint lies in its characteristics. A hint can be the goal of an individual action and the inspiration to achieve that goal, and it can also have the preceding two functions. Incentives to promote the individual’s reaction are in the form of the reward paid after reaction. The same reaction will continue to be generated if the individual continues to receive remuneration, and habits can be formed. If the reaction is not to be paid, the reaction is reduced, along with the tendency to repeat. Therefore, reducing the incentive reward for repeating the reaction constitutes learning. The incentive for reduction is the individual’s need for satisfaction; that is, the individual seeks to meet the needs of his or her needs. This theory is therefore known as the need reduction theory. Hull’s theory system is presented in three main works: “Behavioral Principle,” “Behavioral Foundation,” and “Behavioral System.” There are 17 formulas and 17 inferences in the most basic form of this system. These forms are used for the symbol units, which expound the following issues [11]: 1.The association between stimulus and response and the feeling of ability that organism takes to learning situation 2.The process of motivation and the state of inner drive that can effectively strengthen behaviors 3.The law of forming habit 4.The elements that influence no-association caused by response 5.The reverse condition inhibition that response trends toward 6.The elements causing both habit strength and response trend to be complicated 7.When more than one stimulus appears at the same time, the elements causing the excitability of stimulus to be complicated is greater than the constant alterations in formulas caused by individual differences. Enhancing principle is the foundation of this system. The strengthening principle is the cornerstone of this system. In its initial form, Hull strengthened the hypothesis that a response to basic needs or driving force is due to a tendency to be met and enhanced. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323853804000075 Behavioral NeuroscienceR.F. Thompson, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 3.1 PavlovLashley's pessimistic conclusions in his 1929 monograph put a real damper on the field concerned with brain substrates of memory. But there were other major traditions developing. Perhaps the most important of these was the influence of Pavlov. His writings were not readily available to Western scientists, particularly Americans, until the publication of the English translation of his monumental work Conditioned Reflexes in 1927. It is probably fair to say this is the most important single book ever published in the field of behavioral neuroscience. Pavlov developed a vast and coherent body of empirical results characterizing the phenomena of conditioned responses, what he termed ‘psychic reflexes.’ He argued that the mind could be fully understood by analysis of the higher order learned reflexes and their brain substrates. W. Horsley Gantt, an American physician, worked with Pavlov for several years and then established a Pavlovian laboratory at Johns Hopkins. He trained several young psychologists, e.g., Roger Loucks and Wolf Brogden, who became very influential in the field. Perhaps the most important modern behavioral analyses of Pavlovian conditioning are the work of Robert Rescorla and Allan Wagner. Although Pavlov worked with salivary secretion, most studies of classical conditioning in the West tended to utilize skeletal muscle responses, à la Bechterev. Particularly productive have been Pavlovian conditioning of discrete skeletal reflexes (e.g., the eyeblink response) characterized behaviorally by Isadore Gormezano and Allan Wagner and analyzed neuronally by Richard Thompson and his many students; and fear conditioning, first characterized behaviorally by Neal Miller and analyzed neuronally by several investigators (see Sect. 3.6). Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767034057 Behaviorism
G.A. Kimble, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 1.1 EmpiricismInstead of consciousness, Watson asked psychology to limit its inquiry to observables: ‘Why don't we make what we can observe the real field of psychology? Now what can we observe? Well, we can observe behavior (responses)—what the organism says or does [and the situations (stimuli) in which behavior occurs’] (Watson 1924, pp. 6–7). This insistence on observation had consequences that often were unpopular. 1.1.1 Rejection of mental statesThe psychology of Watson's time often analyzed the contents of the mind into Plato's three human talents: knowing, feeling and doing, which modern psychology calls cognition, affect, and reaction tendencies (Kimble 1996). Watson objected to such mentalistic concepts and translated them into conditioned reflexes: ‘laryngeal (language) reflexes’ for cognition, ‘visceral (emotional) reflexes’ for affect, and ‘manual (motor) reflexes’ for reaction tendencies. 1.1.2 Rejection of physiological statesWatson put physiological mechanisms in the same category of unobservables as mental states. He had little hope that behavior can be reduced to physiology and blamed the structuralists for the promotion of the fiction that it can be: ‘[For a structuralist] the nervous system…has always been a mystery box—whatever he couldn't explain in “mental” terms he pushed over into the brain’ (Watson 1924, p. 43). ‘Until [the physiologist has reduced the various phenomena of psychology] to electrical and chemical processes…he cannot help us very much’ (p. 169). 1.1.3 Radical environmentalismWatson's methodological empiricism led naturally to the conclusion that most human traits are learned. He expressed this sentiment in his famous statement:
Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076701634X Lorenz, Konrad (1903–89)W.M. Schleidt, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001 2.2 Behavioral ModulesLorenz considered behavior to be composed of basic modules: e.g., classical reflexes, species specific Instinktbewegung ‘Fixed Action Pattern’ (FAP), in later years Erbkoordination, erbkoordinierte Bewegung (1978) (in English: ‘fixed motor pattern’), specific circuits for the environmental control of reflexes and FAPs: ‘Innate Releasing Mechanisms’ (IRM, angeborener Auslösemechanismus), ‘appetites and aversions’ (Stimmungen), etc. Such modules provide each organism with basic behavioral skills to navigate within its environment, detect necessary resources, avoid danger, and interact with conspecifics. Learning can enter in various ways at the level of each of these modules, e.g., in the case of a reflex as ‘conditioned reflex.’ This FAP/IRM diad is basically an extension of the classical Stimulus/Response concept, enhanced by several new features: the classical reflex, activated only by a specific external stimulus, cannot account for the observation that ‘a healthy animal is up and doing’ (as W. McDougall so aptly remarked). Consequently, the spontaneous nature of behavior, in general, and especially in many typical FAPs (locomotion, courtship behavior, certain types of bird song, etc.) became a topic of special interest (FActionP). FAPs constitute much more complex patterns than any of the classical reflexes (FAPatterns) and particular spatiotemporal parameters of FAPs are highly stereotyped within any one species (FixedAP), but different between species. Lorenz exemplified the complex interaction between internal and external variables in his ‘psychohydraulic’ model (1950a, 1978), and applied this reasoning to explain the control of aggression in animals and humans (1963). It was basically for this work on behavior modules, which are central to ethology, that Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and Karl von Frisch shared the distinction of winning the 1973 Nobel Prize for Medicine ‘for their discoveries concerning the organization and elicitation of individual and social behavior patterns.’ Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767002904 Eysenck, Hans JürgenRod Buchanan, in Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 2005 Crime, Social Behavior and AstrologyDuring his long career, Eysenck also took time to research and write on a variety of other topics, including crime and personality, marriage and sex. In the mid-1960s, he raised eyebrows by suggesting that criminality was related to personality and was therefore partly hereditary. For Eysenck, conscience was a conditioned reflex rather than the result of rational learning. Certain personality types, those with a lower capacity for conditioned learning (i.e., extraverts), were slower to develop prosocial behavior. Moreover, emotionally labile persons (i.e., high N) with antisocial tendencies were more likely to act out than emotionally stable people with similar tendencies. He backed up this contention with data suggesting that prisoners, psychopaths, and unwed mothers tended to lie in the extraverted-neurotic quadrant. High P scorers also came to be associated with the persistence and severity of criminality and the external attribution of blame. Eysenck drew several key implications from this work, notably that punishment by itself will seldom work as deterrent and that any attempt at rehabilitation should take personality into account. Less than influential outside an academic context, Eysenck's suggestions helped stimulate research into the psychological causes of crime rather than its prevention or control. Eysenck made various contributions to many other topics—collaborating with a wide range of colleagues and always attempting to integrate new findings within his increasingly elaborate, tightly defined dimensional model. Studies of sexual behavior linked individual preferences to different personality types; for example, certain gender specific traits complement each other, whereas other traits in either sex predicted marital unhappiness. Eysenck also took a serious look at astrology, defending various suggestions and results up to a point and championing Gauguelin's finding that planetary positions at birth and professional eminence were correlated. One last set of writings looked at genius, creativity, and madness, exploring their link with P and their biological underpinnings. Over the years, Eysenck authored a number of extremely popular paperbacks explaining psychology as he saw it to a lay audience. He also made numerous media appearances discussing issues relevant to his expertise. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0123693985004825 The value of studying laboratory mealsFrance Bellisle, in Context, 2019 10.2 A brief historical perspectiveThe laboratory investigation of appetite was born in the 19th century physiology laboratory. In the mid-19th century, Claude Bernard posed the foundations of the study of experimental medicine (Bernard, 1865) and realized important physiological studies (particularly in the physiology of nutrition) that led to the concept of the “milieu intérieur,” the internal environment. In animal species, the constancy of the milieu intérieur is an essential condition for survival. Many parameters of this internal status need to be regulated within the narrow limits of what Cannon (1932) later called “homeostasis”: the body temperature and glycemia for example. It soon became evident that while powerful physiological processes come into play to insure regulation, they need to be complemented by the animal's active behavior in order to complement internal processes. While the pancreas releases hormones to maintain glycemia within regulated limits, food intake has to take place periodically in order to supply the organism with adequate energy and nutrients. Following the scientific investigation of the various internal mechanisms involved in energy and nutrient regulation under strict laboratory conditions, it became evident that research had to extend its domain to behavioral responses that complement internal ones. In this perspective, behavior appears to be a natural extension of regulatory mechanisms. For many heirs of the physiological tradition, the laboratory appeared a logical place to study its role, under the strict rules of the experimental method. The search of physiological factors that affect and even define motivational constructs such as hunger and satiety (Blundell, 1979; Le Magnen, 1992) was at the origin of laboratory research. The nature of the “hunger signal’ that triggers food intake has generated much research. In turn, identifying the laws governing behavior, not only eating but also other regulatory or non-regulatory behaviors, owes a lot to the laboratory investigation of physiological responses associated with eating. The discovery and mechanistic analysis of the conditioned reflex by Pavlov (1927) is the example par excellence. A dog salivates when meat is ingested (an unconditioned response) and also in anticipation of eating, when various characteristics of the environment have become associated with the imminent access to meat (a conditioned response). Conditioned responses such as salivation and other aspects of the “cephalic phase of digestion” (Powley & Berthoud, 1985; Teff, 2011) in turn affect digestive processes, and food motivation in future ingestive episodes. The sensory characteristics of familiar foods themselves become conditioned cues that predict the postingestive effects of consumption. Their predictive value is constantly updated via successive exposures so that they determine a person's food preferences and motivation at various moments of the lifetime, what recent science calls “liking” and “wanting” (Berridge, 2004; Finlayson, King, & Blundell, 2007). The study of gastric secretions at the time of meals in dogs led to the demonstration of a far reaching mechanism of adaptation to the environment, the conditioned reflex, that applies in numerous areas of life. Subsequent developments in behavioral science used laboratory tests of food consumption in animals or humans to demonstrate and elucidate the mechanisms of instrumental conditioning. From Watson (1926) to Skinner (1938), the demonstration of the laws of instrumental learning, which clearly reach well beyond food consumption responses, were studied in laboratory settings, where independent factors (type, number, duration, frequency, intensity of food rewards) could be demonstrated to elicit measurable and predictable changes in strictly measured, dependent consumption responses (number, frequency, intensity, persistence, etc.). Examining animals in their natural environment confirmed the validity of laws of learning identified from laboratory observations, and showed how species-specific fixed action patterns and environment-specific influences modulated the performance of learned responses (Domjan & Burkhard, 1986). In the history of behavioral science, food intake was viewed as the behavioral mechanism insuring regulation of critical parameters of the internal milieu. Classic theories of food intake control focused on specific regulated parameters. Jean Mayer's glucostatic theory of eating behavior held that, while the blood glucose level is regulated within narrow limits by hormonal mechanisms, food consumption is triggered periodically by decreases in the rate of use of glucose (Mayer, 1953). The most direct test of the glucostatic hypothesis, the observation of a hungry animal's or person's eating behavior following an injection of glucose, can only be performed under strict laboratory conditions. Mayer's early works have led to the search for glucose sensors in the brain, and of the brain structures that command eating behavior as a response to changes in glucose utilization. Early research identified a “hunger center” and a “satiety center” in the hypothalamus, whose activation/inhibition stimulated or inhibited eating (Anand & Brobeck, 1952; Hetherington & Ranson, 1940; Hoebel & Teitelbaum, 1962; Stellar, 1954). Other physiology-oriented theories of food intake control followed. The lipostatic theory, originally proposed by Kennedy (1953), held that the amount of fat in the body was the regulated parameter that stimulated or inhibited eating in order to maintain the body fat mass constant. The discovery of leptin, the “hormone of satiety” secreted by the adipose tissue and capable of inhibiting food intake, has since brought support to the lipostatic theory (Zhang et al., 1994). From the early days of the regulatory theories up to the present, the notion that eating is triggered and controlled by the fluctuations of physiological parameters in the brain or in the periphery of the body has led to the development of laboratory methods to test the influence of nutrients, hormones, peptides, and so forth on characteristics of eating behavior in the context of a laboratory in which both independent and dependent variables can be measured with precision. Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128144954000106 What do we call innate responses in classical conditioning?The unconditioned response is innate and requires no prior learning. The conditioned response will occur only after an association has been made between the UCS and the CS. The conditioned response is a learned response.
What is it called when a conditioned response stops occurring?Extinction is one explanation. In psychology, extinction refers to the gradual weakening of a conditioned response that results in the behavior decreasing or disappearing. In other words, the conditioned behavior eventually stops.
What is the term for a conditioning process in which an organism learns to respond differently to stimuli that differs from the conditioned stimulus on some dimension?stimulus discrimination - A conditioning process in which an organism learns to respond differently to stimuli that differ from the conditioned stimulus on some dimension.
What is it called when you have a conditioned response to a related stimulus?The American Psychological Association defines a conditioned response (CR), also sometimes called a conditioned reflex, as "the learned or acquired response to a conditioned stimulus."1.
|
When an organisms innate response tendencies interfere with the conditioning process it is referred to as?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 WIKIFI Inc.
