Working Hypothesis:

1. Working Hypothesis: If created by conditioning, could be eliminated using principles of conditioning Behavior Therapy: treatment based on environmental determinants of behavior, not metal states. Counterconditioning: Elimination of a response by conditioning an incompatible CR. e.g., Cover-Jones, Peter’s fear of rabbits. Note: In section titled “systematic desensitization” But, technically, it is pure counterconditioning.

2. Appetitive Appetitive Aversive Aversive US US (e.g., food) (e.g., shock) CS+ CS+ Appetitive Aversive “Appetitive” Behaviors “Aversive” Behaviors

3. (after pairing with food) Appetitive Appetitive Aversive Aversive Rabbit (CS+) (from prior experience) Appetitive Aversive More effective than simply using extinction: Has both extinction trials and adds a counteracting influence. Fear Fear Approach Counterconditioning : Pair Rabbit with Food Fading : gradual introduction of the stimulus (e.g, rabbit)

4. Systematic Desensitization Steps: 1. Rank order fear 2. Relaxation Training 3. “counterconditioning” Imagine fear situation — relaxation (CS) (US) Relaxation (CR) is incompatible with Fear 4. Work up list to more fearful imaginings

5. (after pairing with illness) Appetitive Appetitive Aversive Aversive Aversion Therapy Essentially counterconditioning in other direction Smoke (CS+) Appetitive Aversive Fear Approach Approach

6. Thorndike Law of Effect If a behavior in the presence of a stimulus is followed by satisfaction, the association between the stimulus and the response is strengthened. S — R — S* R — S* Contingency S — R Association

7. Thorndike Negative Law of Effect If a behavior in the presence of a stimulus is followed by dissatisfaction, the association between the stimulus and the response is weakened. Law of Effect —> increased Response (Reinforcement) Negative Law of Effect—> decreased Response (Punishment)

8. Types of Response-Outcome Contingencies Give Take (negative) Punishment (Time out) Positive Reinforcement Good Reinforcement Punishment Negative Reinforcement (escape/avoidance) (positive) Punishment Bad Punishment Reinforcement Reinforcement: Incr. Target behavior Punishment: Decr. Target behavior Positive = Give Negative = Take

9. Time If Allowed As much As Wanted. Healthy Food Nintendo Junk Food TV Which Reinforcers Work Best? Premack Principle: More likely activity will reinforce a less likely activity.

10. Which Reinforcers Work Best? Response Deprivation Hypothesis: Activity will be reinforcing if the current level is below preferred level. IF: Deprive :Healthy food Time If Allowed As much As Wanted. Then: Healthy food can Rf. All others Healthy Food Nintendo Junk Food TV

11. Schedules of Reinforcement Fixed Variable Ratio FR VR FI VI Interval Ratio: # of Responses Interval: Time (since last Rf.) Still need to respond!

12. 120 30 60 90 time response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FR3 3, 6, 9 VR3 (4,3,2) 7, 4, 9 FI30 4, 7, 10 VI30 (15,30,45) 3, 7, -

13. Acquisition Cumulative Responses Time Rate (Responses Per minute) Trials (minutes) Data look different on a cumulative recorder Steeper slope = faster rate

14. Extinction Cumulative Responses Time

15. Patterns of Responding: “Steady State” responses (asymptotic performance, not acquisition) FR Cumulative Responses Pause and Run Time FI Cumulative Responses Scallop Time

16. VR Cumulative Responses VI Time If matched for rate of Rf., VR > VI Yoked Rf. Expt.: Group 1: VR Group 2: “Yoked” VI; when VR gets Rf., Rf. Is available

17. Drive Rate Hrs food deprived Influence on Learning: Rf. = Drive Reduction Influence on Performance: Train, then vary deprivation (drive)

18. Incentive lots Optimal Motivation little easy hard Task Difficulty Effect on Learning: Yerkes-Dodson Law: Inverse Relationship Between Task Difficulty and Optimal Motivation.

19. Easy Task Learning Motivation Hard Task Learning Motivation

20. II fast Speed slow Trials Group I 16 16 16 1 2 3 1 pellet 16 pellets 256 pellets Positive Behavioral Contrast Negative Behavioral Contrast Law of Effect Predicts: S—R—S*; Bigger S*, Stronger R Contrast: not predicted by Law of Effect: Same S*, but different Strength of R.

21. Punishment Cumulative Responses Time Slap paw Does it work? Eventually see same number of responses Extinction Skinner’s conclusion: Effects of punishment are only temporary

22. Cumulative Responses Punishment given Time Vary Intensity of Punishment Extinction 50 V 220 V Conclusion: Punishment works, but needs to be strong enough.

23. Cumulative Responses Switch Time VR & 50V VI Get VR (food) Predict 50 then 100V VR & 100 V VI

24. Interfering Response Hypothesis Delay Target R –R1–R2–R3–R4–R5–R6–R7–R8–R9– Outcome Hence, unclear (to subject) which response is being punished.

25. Comparison to Reinforcement Different than Rf. Contrast Effects Like Rf. (when establishing but not maintaining; stay tuned) Specific to Punishment Factors influencing the effectiveness of punishment: Intensity Strong Avoid Adaptation Problem Delay Best if Immediate Schedule Frequent, Consistent Stimulus Control Language Overcome Delay Justification Alternative behaviors to receive reinforcement

26. Side Effects S — R — Aversive S — R — Aversive Pain-elicited Aggression Modeling Aggression Conditioned Fear Generalization —> unintentional disruption of other behaviors Distraction —> less attention to task, thus less learning (Recall: Yerkes-Dodson) Escape Behaviors: Lies Difficulty: need to be firm, but also need to avoid side effects

27. Double-goal alley start Goal Goal What happens if omit food? Run Faster or Slower? Law of effect prediction: it is like an extinction trial, so should slow down Result: Run even faster than before; Frustration effect.

28. If same number of Rf., but different schedules: Group Training Extinction Partial Reinforcement (extinction) effect: The higher the % of nonreinforced responses during training, the more persistent responding during extinction. CRF Intermittent R,R,R… N,N,N,N,N... N,N,R,N,R,N,N,N,R… N,N,N,N,N… Behavior will continue longer during extinction

29. Group Training Extinction CRF Intermittent R,R,R… N,N,N,N,N…... N,N,R,N,R,N,N,N,R… N,N,N,N,N…... Somewhat similar to Why? Discrimination Hypothesis: Harder to discriminate “extinction” from “training”

30. Group Training Extinction Pecking R O Y G B * CRF Intermittent R,R,R… N,N,N,N,N…... N,N,R,N,R,N,N,N,R… N,N,N,N,N…... Same as other types of “stimulus control” The amount of responding is related to how similar the testing situation is to the training situation. Example: Yellow—peck—food Generalization: If “extinction” is similar to “training”, then will respond. Discrimination: If “extinction” is different than “training”, then no response.

31. Group Training Extinction CRF Intermittent R,R,R N,N,N…... N,N,R,N,R,N,N,N,R N,N,N…... Why? Discrimination Hypothesis: Harder to discriminate “extinction” from “training” What “stimulus conditions” are different between these groups? The memory of nonreinforcement (SN) is one of the stimuli controlling the behavior Recall: S—R—S* For intermittent group: SN—R—S* Consequently, during extinction, SN is present and should —> R

32. Sequential Model (Capaldi) Group Daily Session Extinction 1 2 NNR RNN N—R Transitions NNN NNN NNR RNN More persistent responding (slower extinction) SNPresent during Rf. Trial

33. Sequential Model (Capaldi) N—Length Group Daily Session Extinction 1 2 NNN NNN NNR NRN Both have 1 N—R transition More persistent responding (slower extinction)

34. Schedules and PRE: REM: VR Cum. Resp. VI Time Intermittent Schedules: FR VR FI VI Which would give more persistent responding during extinction? FR5 vs. VR5 ? VR Some longer N-lengths VR vs. VI (matched for number of Rf.) ( i.e., same number of N—R transitions) VR Some longer N-lengths