‭ hapter 4, Domjan‬
C
‭Initial Responses to the Stimuli‬
‭Novelty of Conditioned and Unconditioned‬
‭Stimuli‬
‭The behavioral impact of a stimulus depends on‬
‭its novelty. If either the conditioned or the‬
‭unconditioned stimulus is highly familiar,‬
‭learning occurs more‬‭slowly‬‭than if the CS and‬
‭US are novel.‬
‭The Latent-Inhibition or CS-Preexposure‬
‭Effect -‬‭if a stimulus is highly familiar, it will‬
‭not be as effective as a CS that if it were novel.‬
‭-‬ ‭Lubow (2011)‬‭noted, latent inhibition‬
‭“appears to protect the organism from‬
‭information overload by attenuating the‬
‭processing of previously irrelevant‬
‭stimuli”‬
‭-‬ ‭Share some of the dopaminergic‬
‭neurobiological mechanisms with‬
‭schizophrenia. Which is why it has‬
‭become a major tool for studying‬
‭cognitive dysfunctions.‬
‭The US-Preexposure Effect -‬‭Conditioning‬
‭proceeded faster for the lever paired with the‬
‭novel food than for the lever paired with the‬
‭familiar food.‬
‭CS and US Intensity and Salience -‬‭More‬
‭vigorous conditioned responding occurs when‬
‭more intense conditioned and unconditioned‬
‭stimuli are used‬
‭ timulus Salience -‬‭The term salience is not‬
S
‭well defined, but it roughly corresponds to‬
‭significance or noticeability.‬
‭E.g. Studies of sexual conditioning with‬
‭domesticated quail illustrate this principle.‬
‭US - Female Quail, a sexual reinforcer‬
‭CS - arbitrary cue such as light or block of‬
‭wood.‬
‭Alternatively, the CS can be made more natural‬
‭or salient by adding partial cues of a female‬
‭ S-US Relevance, or Belongingness -‬‭extent to‬
C
‭which the CS is relevant to or belongs with the‬
‭US.‬
‭E.g.‬
‭(Cont’)‬
‭What Determines the Nature of the‬
‭Conditioned Response?‬
‭The US as a determining Factor for the CR‬
‭Stimulus Substitution -‬ ‭the association of a CS‬
‭with a US turns the conditioned stimulus into a‬
‭surrogate US.‬
‭ he CS as a Determining Factor for the CR‬
T
‭E.g. Timberlake and Grant (1975) - investigated‬
‭the classical conditioning in a lab rats with food‬
‭as the US and another rat as a CS.‬
‭ he CS–US Interval as a Determining Factor‬
T r‭ epeatedly paired with pellets of food. This US‬
‭for the CR‬
‭Conditioned Fear -‬‭is more likely with a short‬
‭CS-US interval‬
‭Conditioned Anxiety -‬‭is more likely with a‬
‭long CS-US interval‬
‭E.g.‬
‭Seeing a car coming toward you is a CS for‬
‭potential injury. How we react will depend on‬
‭how quickly the car moves.‬
‭1-2 seconds - will makes us panic and jump‬
‭15-20 seconds - will make an evasive action but‬
‭will not jump or panic.‬
‭ onditioned Responding and Behavior‬
C ‭associative strength of other cues present during‬
‭Systems‬
‭E.g.‬
‭Behavior Systems Theory‬
‭ -R Versus S-S Learning -‬‭conditioning‬
S
‭establishes a new stimulus-stimulus (S-S)‬
‭connection between the CS and US.‬
‭-‬ ‭According to this interpretation, the‬
‭participants respond to CS not because it‬
‭directly elicits a CR. But because it is an‬
‭active representation/ Memory of the‬
‭US.‬
‭US Devaluation -‬ ‭The strategy was employed‬
‭in a classic experiment by Holland and Rescorla‬
‭(1975).‬
‭E.g. Two groups of mildly food-deprived rats‬
‭received conditioning in which a tone was‬
‭devaluation was accomplished by giving the rats‬
‭sufficient free food to completely satisfy their‬
‭hunger.‬
‭ ey Terms:‬
K
‭blocking effect‬‭Interference with the‬
‭conditioning of a novel stimulus because of the‬
‭presence of a previously conditioned stimulus.‬
c‭ omparator hypothesi‬‭s The idea that‬
‭conditioned responding depends on a‬
‭comparison between the associative strength of‬
‭the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the‬
‭training of the target CS.‬
c‭ onditioned compensatory-response‬‭A‬
‭conditioned response opposite in form to the‬
‭reaction elicited by the US and that therefore‬
‭compensates for this reaction.‬
c‭ onditioned diminution of the UR‬‭A reduction‬
‭in the magnitude of the response to an‬
‭unconditioned stimulus caused by presentation‬
‭of a CS that had been conditioned with that US.‬
‭ S-preexposure effect‬‭Interference with‬
C
‭conditioning produced by repeated exposures to‬
‭the CS before the conditioning trials. Also called‬
‭latent-inhibition effect.‬
‭ rug tolerance‬‭Reduction in the effectiveness of‬
d
‭a drug as a result of repeated use of the drug.‬
‭ igher-order conditioning‬‭A procedure in‬
h
‭which a previously conditioned stimulus (CS1)‬
‭is used to condition a new stimulus (CS2).‬
l‭atent-inhibition effect‬‭Same as‬
‭CS-preexposure effect‬
e‭ lative-waiting-time hypothesis‬‭The idea that‬
‭conditioned responding depends on how long‬
‭the organism has to wait for the US in the‬
‭presence of the CS, as compared to how long the‬
‭organism has to wait for the US in the‬
‭experimental situation irrespective of the CS.‬
s‭ timulus–response (S–R) learning‬‭The‬
‭learning of an association between a stimulus‬
‭and a response, with the result that the stimulus‬
‭comes to elicit the response directly.‬
s‭ timulus–stimulus (S–S)‬‭learning The learning‬
‭of an association between two stimuli, with the‬
‭result that exposure to one of the stimuli comes‬
‭to activate a representation, or “mental image,”‬
‭of the other stimulus.‬
‭ ensory preconditioning‬‭A procedure in which‬
S ‭G. P. Frolov -‬‭decided to find out the‬
‭one biologically weak stimulus (CS2) is‬
‭repeatedly paired with another biologically weak‬
‭stimulus (CS1). Then, CSl is conditioned with‬
‭an unconditioned stimulus. In a later test trial,‬
‭CS2 also will elicit the conditioned response,‬
‭even though CS2 was never directly paired with‬
‭the US.‬
‭ timulus salience‬‭The significance or‬
S ‭enemy. As a result, these nonsense words elicit‬
‭noticeability of a stimulus. Generally,‬
‭conditioning proceeds more rapidly with more‬
‭salient conditioned and unconditioned stimuli‬
‭ timulus substitution‬‭The theoretical idea that‬
S ‭away you get, the weaker the CR is likely to be.‬
‭as a result of classical conditioning participants‬
‭come to respond to the CS in much the same‬
‭way that they respond to the US.‬
‭ -preexposure effect‬‭Interference with‬
S ‭Test Trials - presenting the CS alone‬
‭conditioning produced by repeated exposures to‬
‭the unconditioned stimulus before the‬
‭conditioning trials.‬
‭ S devaluation‬‭Reduction in the attractiveness‬
U
‭of an unconditioned stimulus, usually achieved‬
‭by aversion conditioning or satiation.‬
‭Chapter 3, Chance‬
I‭ van Pavlov -‬‭from circulatory system to‬
‭physiology of digestion (where he won nobel‬
‭prize) to psychology.‬
‭●‬ ‭George Bernard Shaw said he was the‬
‭biggest fool he knew.‬
‭●‬ ‭H. G. Wells thought he was one of the‬
‭greatest geniuses of all time.‬
‭●‬ ‭But Ivan Pavlov described himself as‬
‭“an experimenter from head to foot”‬
‭ igher-Order Conditioning -‬‭The procedure of‬
H
‭pairing a neutral stimulus with a‬
‭well-established CS.‬
‭higher-order conditioning.‬
‭ uman Application: Classical experiment of‬
H
‭Carolyn and Arthur Staats (1957)‬‭where they‬
‭pair “yof” and “Xeh” to positive and negative‬
‭meanings respectively. Positives such as beauty,‬
‭gifts, etc. Negatives include thief, sad, and‬
‭emotional responses akin to the emotional value‬
‭of the words being paired.‬
‭Note: We can get as far as CS(5) through‬
‭associating it with shock. However, the further‬
‭ easuring Pavlovian Conditioning‬
M
‭Latency - the interval between the onset of the‬
‭CS and the first appearance of saliva‬
‭Amplitude - measuring the intensity or strength‬
‭Pseudoconditioning - is the tendency of a neutral‬
‭stimulus to elicit a CR after a US has elicited a‬
‭reflex response.‬
‭ S-US Contingency -‬‭an if-then statement.‬
C I‭ n some cases a hundred or more pairings‬
‭One event, X, is contingent on another event, Y,‬
‭to the extent that X occurs if and only if Y‬
‭occurs.‬
‭ S-US Contiguity -‬‭the closeness in time or‬
C
‭space between two events. This interval; is‬
‭called the‬‭interstimulus interval (ISI)‬
‭ timulus Features‬
S ‭shorter ones.‬
‭Compound Stimulus -‬‭is paired with the US for‬
‭one or more trials.‬
‭Overshadowing -‬‭the effect of one [stimulus]‬
‭was found very commonly to overshadow the‬
‭effect of the others almost completely.‬
‭-‬ ‭The overshadowed stimulus does not go‬
‭entirely unnoticed, it simply does not‬
‭become an effective CS.‬
‭-‬ ‭The bright light is more effective than‬
‭the soft light. A strong odor or flavor‬
‭works better than a mild one.‬
‭Prior Experience with CS and US‬
‭Latent Inhibition - s‬‭uggests that novel stimuli‬
‭(stimuli with which the individual has had little‬
‭or no experience) are more likely to become‬
‭conditioned stimuli‬
‭Blocking -‬‭resembles overshadowing in that one‬
‭stimulus interferes with the ability of another to‬
‭become a CS. The effect is due to prior‬
‭experience with one part of a compound‬
‭stimulus.‬
‭-‬ ‭We are merely ignoring duplicate‬
‭signals.‬
‭Sensory Preconditioning -‬‭a neutral stimulus‬
‭can affect later conditioning. Suppose,‬
‭partnering two neutral stimuli such as bell and‬
‭light. Then you partner tone with a mild shock‬
‭and successfully condition it to elicit a CR. The‬
‭organism may elicit CR also to the light when‬
‭presented along with US.‬
‭Number of CS–US Pairings‬
‭produce only a weak CR; in others, a single‬
‭pairing is effective.‬
‭E.g. Spider bite (US) and avoiding it (CR) is a‬
‭single pairing.‬
I‭ ntertrial Interval -‬‭time from the end of first‬
‭trial to the start of the next.‬
‭-‬ ‭Longer intervals are more effective than‬
‭ ssentially, variables that affect the rate of‬
E
‭conditioning are:‬
‭●‬ ‭How the CS and US are paired;‬
‭●‬ ‭CS–US contingency;‬
‭●‬ ‭CS–US contiguity;‬
‭●‬ ‭stimulus features;‬
‭●‬ ‭prior experience with CS and US;‬
‭●‬ ‭number of CS–US pairings;‬
‭●‬ ‭intertrial interval;‬
‭●‬ ‭age;‬
‭●‬ ‭Temperament (the more excitable the‬
‭dogs learned faster)‬
‭●‬ ‭emotional state/stress.‬
‭Extinction of Conditional Responses‬
‭Extinction -‬‭the procedure of repeatedly‬
‭presenting the CS alone. In other words, the CS‬
‭is paired with the absence of the US.‬
‭-‬ ‭The CR is getting weaker and weaker.‬
‭-‬ ‭Pavlov is the first one to discover.‬
‭At first glance, extinction is akin to‬‭forgetting.‬
‭However,‬‭forgetting‬‭refers to a deterioration in‬
‭performance following a period without practice‬
‭E.g. We discontinue training a dog for a year,‬
‭and test the dog once again. If the dog no longer‬
‭elicit CR, then forgetting has occurred.‬
‭-‬ ‭Extinction on the other hand, the‬
‭practice continues, but the CS is no‬
‭longer partnered with the US.‬
‭-‬ ‭The contingency has dissolved.‬
‭ pontaneous recovery -‬‭the reappearance of a‬
S
‭CR after extinction.‬
 ‭-‬ ‭ ultiple extinction may eliminate‬
M ‭ .g. One unconditional response to electric‬
‭spontaneous recovery. But not entirely‬
‭undone. Because CR usually can be‬
‭reestablished far more readily than it‬
‭was established initially‬
‭ heories of Conditioning (mostly on‬
T ‭the UR is an innate response designed to deal‬
‭response)‬
‭Stimulus Substitution Theory -‬‭Pavlov’s‬
‭attempt to understand conditioning focused on‬
‭the nature of the conditional response.‬
‭-‬ ‭He proposed that conditioning involves‬
‭the formation of a new neurological‬
‭connection between the CS neurons and‬
‭the US neurons.‬
‭Study that supports this theory:‬
‭●‬ ‭Pavlov repeatedly pairs the lightbulb‬
‭with the food. Later on, the dog licks the‬
‭lightbulb. One possibility is that the‬
‭lightbulb had become a substitute for‬
‭food.‬
‭●‬ ‭However, CR and UR are not the same,‬
‭the conditional response is weaker than,‬
‭occurs less reliably than, and appears‬
‭more slowly than the UR.‬
‭●‬ ‭A more serious problem for Pavlov’s‬
‭theory is the finding that the CR is‬
‭sometimes the opposite of the UR‬
E
‭shock, for example, is an increase in heart rate,‬
‭whereas a CS that was paired with shock elicits‬
‭a decrease in heart rate.‬
‭ reparatory Response Theory -‬‭proposed that‬
P
‭with a US, but the CR is a response designed to‬
‭prepare for the US.‬
‭E.g. freezing (CR) of rats whenever they hear‬
‭the tone (CS), and jumping (UR) when‬
‭experienced the shock (US)‬
‭ ompensatory Response Theory -‬‭Siegel‬
C
‭(1972) offers‬‭a variation of preparatory theory.‬
‭E.g. The unconditional response to morphine,‬
‭for instance, includes decreased sensitivity to‬
‭pain, but the CR to stimuli associated with‬
‭morphine is increased sensitivity to pain (Siegel,‬
‭1975). In this case, the person prepares for the‬
‭drug by suppressing the body’s response to it.‬
‭-‬ ‭The absence of the CS meant a stronger,‬
‭nearly fatal, reaction to the drug.‬
‭ onditional Awareness -‬‭This view of‬
C
‭conditioning assumes that a conditional response‬
‭is the result of an awareness of the CS–US‬
‭connection.‬
‭-‬ ‭A student might say “After all,” the‬
‭student is likely to say, “why would the‬
‭dog salivate unless it knew food was‬
‭coming?”‬
‭-‬ ‭Another problem arises when simple‬
‭animals undergo conditioning such as‬
‭roundworms and flatworms. They can‬
‭be conditioned really well, but it is hard‬
‭to believe they have awareness.‬
‭Theories of Conditioning (CS)‬
‭ escorla-Wagner Model -‬ ‭argues that there is‬
R
‭a limit to the amount of conditioning that can‬
‭occur in the pairing of two stimuli.‬
‭ .g. Pairing a tone with a juicy steak will elicit‬
E ‭-‬
‭more salivation than pairing it with dry bread.‬
‭E.g. Bees sting: If you were to see bees five‬
‭times and were stung on all five occasions, you‬
‭would probably be about as afraid of bees as you‬
‭could get. Being stung after seeing bees on a‬
‭hundred more occasions probably wouldn’t‬
‭make much difference.‬
‭-‬ ‭The first pairing of CS and US usually‬
‭produces more learning than the second‬
‭pairing, and the second produces more‬
‭learning than the third, and so on.‬
‭Formula:‬
I‭ f you want to predict the amount of learning on‬
‭a given trial, you subtract the amount of learning‬
‭that has occurred as of the previous trial from‬
‭the maximum amount of learning that can occur‬
‭and multiply that number by a constant‬
‭representing the conditionability of the stimuli‬
‭paired‬
I‭ f the appearance of a US is surprising,‬
‭we will pay attention to the events that‬
‭precede it.‬
‭-‬ ‭Thus, if a CS occurs alone on one trial,‬
‭and then the US follows it on the next,‬
‭this is a surprise and draws attention to‬
‭the CS‬
‭ euristic Effect -‬‭one of the important benefits‬
H
‭of a good theory.‬
‭-‬ ‭It raises questions that lead to more‬
‭facts, which in turn lead to new theories,‬
‭which lead to new facts.‬
‭Final Word:‬
‭As Pavlov suggested, a deer that reacts with fear‬
‭to the sight, sound, or odor of a tiger is more‬
‭likely to live long enough to pass on its genes‬
‭than one that responds only to the feel of the‬
‭tiger’s teeth in its neck.‬
‭ e acquire positive and negative feelings‬
W
‭toward all sorts of things in our environment:‬
‭We detest one kind of music and love another.‬

‭C‬

‭ ther CS Theories‬
O
‭Nicholas Mackintosh (1974)‬‭offers one, his‬
‭theory suggests that learning depends on which‬
‭events in the environment.‬
‭Note: If a tone is followed by a shock 90% of‬
‭the time, it is likely to be noticed and so will‬
‭become a CS; if it is followed by shock 10% of‬
‭the time, it is far less likely to attract attention‬
‭and therefore unlikely to become a CS.‬

‭ wo other Britishers, John Pearce and‬

T
‭Geoffrey Hall‬‭assume that attention to the CS is‬
‭of critical importance in conditioning‬
‭-‬ ‭Organisms pay attention to novel events,‬
‭not familiar ones.‬