Samenvatting
Summary Learning theories notes
- Vak
- Instelling
Learning theories notes with rough 8 marker plans
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 16 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 16 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
tnusrat511
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Classical conditioning (Pavlov) INTRODUCTION:Classical condition is learning by association STRENGTH WEAKNESS Classical condition is learning by association
The process of classical condition PARAGRAPH 1: STRENGTH
Supporting evidence Competing argument
Before conditioning: UCS (unconditional stimulus) Pavlov- salivation response in Pavlov said that the link between AO1: The process of conditioning is a UCS being paired to NS
produces USR (unconditional response) and NS his studies of dogs NS and UCS is contiguity (close so that the NS will be associated with USR. This will cause the
(neutral stimulus) produces no response Watson and Rayner- fear together in time) However,Rescora NS to become a CS
During conditioning: USR and NS are experienced response conditioned in a found evidence that it’s AO3: Demonstrated in Watson and Rayner study
together (this is called pairing) human baby contingency ( how often the NS is
After conditioning: The NS is now the CS supports the existence of paired with UCS) that links them PARAGRAPH 2: STRENGTH
classical conditioning in human
(conditional stimulus) and produces the same
and animal is learning An incomplete explanation of AO1: Extinction the weakening of a conditioned response that
UCR as the UCS, this UCR is known as the CR learning results in the behavior disappearing.
(conditional response) Application Only explains how a limited range AO3: Understanding classical conditioning has practical
Classical conditioning has of behaviour is acquired (simple application in reducing phobia. This could be through
Extinction therapeutic application in reflex responses fear) can’t explain Systematic desensitisation works by associating a troubling CR
It is when the conditioned stimulus no longer reducing phobia anxiety. complex learned behaviour like (like a phobia) with the CS (like a spider) in a relaxing, safe
causes the conditioned response Theories like aversion therapy how we maintain behaviour. environment. Gradually, the patient stops associating fear with
and systematic desensitization. the spider. The spider goes back to being a NS, producing no
Also can help treat people by Assumes you have to have direct reaction. This is extinction.
Spontaneous recovery
removing unwanted behaviour experience to learn, but you can
An extinct response activates again, even without learn through other people PARAGRAPH 3: WEAKNESS
new pairings, so that the CS elicits the CR.
Other theories could be better AO1: Doesn’t explain why spontaneous recovery which is…
Stimulus Generalisation explanation and stimulus generalization which is…
When an individual who has acquired a social learning theory - is indicates AO3: In complete explanation for learning- only explains how
conditioned response to one stimulus begins to how behaviour is learnt and we acquire behaviour
respond to similar stimuli in the same way maintained
PARAGRAPH 4: WEAKNESS
Evidence supporting CC has AO1:
UCS: A stimulus that produces a response without largely taken place on animal AO3: Social learning theory is a better explanation because it
learning studies which is not representative explain why some people may decided to or not to repeat a
UCR: An unlearned response to UCS of human learning behavior. As it depends on their motivation.
NS: A stimulus that does not produce a target
response
CS: A stimulus that produces a response after
being paired with a UCS
CR: The response elicited by CS
,Pavlov (1927) - Experiment with salivation in dogs INTRODUCTION:
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
Aim: PARAGRAPH 1 : STRENGTH
- explain the role of conditioned reflexes in the eating behaviour of dogs
- exploring how salivating becomes associated with a new stimuli Reliability Generalisability AO1: procedure
unrelated to food and the properties of this association It has standardised Can’t be generalised to AO3: internal validity
procedures and was humans as humans have
Procedure: carefully documented. structurally different brains PARAGRAPH 2 : WEAKNESS
- Collecting saliva from the salivary glands of an immobilised dog Pavlov repeated the study from other species, and may AO1: Procedure
- Lab experiment so the production of saliva could be easily observed many times over 25 years therefore respond AO3: Ecological validity
and measured by the number of drops in a cannula with different dogs and differently.In particular
- DV: salivation different neutral stimuli. humans have a larger PARAGRAPH 3: STRENGTH
- Took place in a soundproof room to minimise extraneous variables He even got different cerebral cortex than other
- Pavlov measured a baseline by measuring salivation in response to NS researchers to measure the species and this permits AO1: The study demonstrates conditional
(bell) saliva, which gives greater complex cognitive response and that a NS can become a CS
- Then he paired the NS with an UCS (food) , 20 times inter-rater reliability. processing,including AO3: Knowing this we can apply this to real life
- The NS was presented either before (forward condition) or after conscious choice. and removing unwanted behaviour.This can be
(backward condition) UCS Validity done through aversion therapy works by
- Also investigated extinction and spontaneous recovery - the NS, now soundproof to minimize Low ecological validity associating a dysfunctional behaviour (like
the CS was presented several time without the UCS which lead to extraneous variables Pavlov was aware of it, the drinking) with a UCR (like vomiting) to produce
extinction Collected saliva in cannula dogs were kept in unusual a new CS. If successful, the CS will produce a
to prevent any loss of conditions and presented with nauseous CR whenever drink is present.
Findings: saliva and therefore any odd stimuli.
- When the NS was presented before the UCS, it cause salivation - invalid measurements There was nothing normal PARAGRAPH 4: WEAKNESS
started 9 seconds after the bell with 45 drops being collected about their reactions because
- But no saliation when NS is presented after the UCS Application everything else was AO1: Aim ( reflexes in dogs) and Participant is a
- The Pairing only worked when the dog was not distracted and alert abnormal. dog, Finding ( a link made in the brain between
- Extinction can be seen by the declining value of saliva It has lead to treatments of USC and NS)
phobias through systematic Ethics AO3: not generalisable to humans
desensitisation by pairing a The dogs were treated badly,
Conclusion: phobia with something being tied up in small rooms CONCLUSION:
- Pavlov had discovered Classical Conditioning. The Neutral Stimulus, good. all alone.
after being repeatedly paired with an Unconditioned Stimulus (the It demonstrates that the However, there weren't any The study overall, is a good demonstration of
meat), turned into a Conditioned Stimulus, producing the Conditioned principles of classical ethical guidelines for classical conditioning and does support Pavlov
Response (salivation) all by itself. conditioning can be used to psychologists in the early theory. However, the study is not generalizable
help people with phobias. 20th century. to humans and is also inhumane as the dog
- A link is made in the brain between the UCS and NS. He calls this was treated badly as it was tied up and locked
Signalisation which has survival value in preparing an organism's for in cage.
events
, Classic study: Watson and Rayner STRENGTH WEAKNESS
Aim:To demonstrate that simple emotional responses such as fear INTRODUCTION:
can be acquired through classical conditioning Reliability Generalisability
it has standardised Only one participant, not
procedures and it was representative. Infant not as PARAGRAPH 1: STRENGTH
Procedure: carefully documented (right developed it may not be easier
- At 9 months, Albert was tested with a white rat, a rabbit, down to the numbers of days to condition fear in an adult AO1: Baseline test
cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear and the time of day) and it was AO3: validity and reliability
reaction. He didn’t; this shows these were Neutral Stimuli filmed. The surviving film of Validity
(NS). the procedures means we can Some aspects of the experiment PARAGRAPH 2: WEAKNESS
- The researchers also checked his fear response by all view Albert’s responses were not controlled.Eg. the
and see his fear for ourselves. rabbit was suddenly placed in AO1: not controlled
banging an iron bar. Albert cried at the loud noise; this
This is inter-rater reliability. front of Albert and a reluctant AO3: lacks validity
shows the noise was an Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS)
dog was pushed towards
and the crying was an Unconditioned Response (UCR). Validity (internal) him.These actions might trigger PARAGRAPH 3: STRENGTH
- At 11 months, Albert was conditioned. He was shown the Good controls to reduce a fear response rather than the
white rat three times. Each time the rat was paired with impact of extraneous animal themselves AO1: The study demonstrates conditional
striking the iron bar. Albert started to whimper. A week variables. Well- controlled response and that a NS can become a CS
later, Albert was conditioned again. The rat was room to prevent the influence Ethics AO3: Understanding classical conditioning has
presented 3 times, paired with the noise. of other stimuli. The The study is clearly unethical. practical application in reducing unwanted
experimental design makes it Watson & Rayner deliberately behaviour, which can be used to benefit society,
more likely that changes in caused distress to an infant and for example the use of distressing images such
Findings: as cancerous lungs on cigarette packaging
Albert’s behaviour were due to continued even though he was
At the baseline testing Albert displayed no fear of any objects but conditioning than extraneous upset. They didn’t extinguish his
he did respond to the loud noise (he was startled and his lips variable fear reaction, possibly leaving PARAGRAPH 4: WEAKNESS
trembled). A white rat was paired with the noise and when the rat Albert with long term phobias. AO1: The study required to give albert a phobia
was presented alone another time, Albert cried. This suggests that Application This is ignoring the principle of AO3: Ethics
the NS is now a Conditioned Stimulus (CS) and Albert’s crying is Clinical application - helps reducing harm.
a Conditioned Response (CR). Classical conditioning could be understand how we can CONCLUSION:
used to create a phobia acquire phobias and related
symptoms (anxiety,arousal). This is no good study as it lacks generalisability as
there was one participant. It is also complete
This has led to the
Conclusion: development of effective
unethically, however it does provide practical
It is easy to condition an emotional response to a neutral application.
therapies.
stimulus. The pairing of the loud noise and the rat was enough to
make Albert fear the rat and similar objects
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper tnusrat511. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €9,26. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 77633 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen