Behaviorism and Classical Conditioning

The following lecture - given at the Colombo Institute for Research and Psychology - covers an introduction to behaviorism, key thinkers, an introduction to classical conditioning, key mechanisms in classical conditioning and some applications including conditioned emotion and drug response.

1. Behaviorism Rusara Seneviratne mbp s s 1

2. Overview of Lecture This lecture will cover: A definition of behaviorism An overview of key points An introduction to key figures Basic assumptions of behaviorism An introduction to gamification 2

3. Defining Behaviorism The behaviorist approach emphasizes the role of environmental stimuli in determining the way we act . The behaviorist approach focuses on the relationship between observable behavior (responses) and environmental events (stimuli). It is focused on learning – changes in behavior which occur as a result of experience . (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p.110)

4. Introducing Behaviorism: Key Points I Behaviorist psychology should concern itself with the observable behavior of people and animals, not with unobservable events that take place in their minds. The idea that we develop responses to certain stimuli that are not naturally occurring is called ‘classical conditioning’. Operant conditioning refers to how an organism operates on the environment or how it responds to what is presented to it in the environment. Reinforcement means to strengthen, and it is used in psychology to refer to any stimulus that strengthens or increases the probability of a specific response.

5. Introducing Behaviorism: Key Points II There are four types of reinforcement: positive, negative, punishment, and extinction. Behaviorist researchers used experimental methods (puzzle box, operant conditioning or Skinner box, Little Albert experiment) to investigate learning processes. Today, behaviorism is still prominent in applications such as gamification.

6. Edward Lynn Thorndike (1874-1949)

7. Edward Lynn Thorndike (1874-1949) He is best known for his “law of effect”, which foreshadowed Skinner’s concept of reinforcement as a description of the role of consequences in learning. Education: He completed his bachelors at Wesleyan University. He went on to study psychology under William James at Harvard University but transferred to Columbia University due to financial difficulties. He studied under James McKeen Cattell – an influential American psychologist. He studied problem-solving in animals, using a series of puzzle-like tasks – his dissertation was titled “Animal Intelligence”. Career: He taught at the Teachers College at Columbia University, where he wrote on education and psychology.

8. John Broadus Watson (1878-1958)

9. John Broadus Watson (1878-1958) He is considered the founder of behaviorism and was one of the first psychologists to apply psychology to advertising and marketing. Education: He completed his PhD at the University of Chicago. He briefly explored the introspectionist approach . He studied under John Dewey and James Angell – who pioneered the functionalist approach . Career: He was a professor and chairman of the department at Johns Hopkins University. He began publishing in 1913 and made (notorious) claims that he could shape a child into anything he wanted. Due to prevailing moral views, he was dismissed after collaborating with his graduate student (and wife) Rosalie Rayner on the “Little Albert Experiment”. He went on to work at J. Walter Thompson (an advertising firm) and published work on consumer behavior

10. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936)

11. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936) He is a Russian psychologist who pioneered the study of classical conditioning Education: He initially began seminary studies, but moved to St Petersburg University where he graduated in natural science and received a doctorate from the Military Medical Academy. Career: He was a professor at the Military Medical Academy. He began his work on the physiology of digestion in 1879 which won him a Nobel Prize in 1904. While studying digestion in dogs, he noticed “psychic salivation” so he set out to determine what controlled this anticipatory response. He formed a genetics institute a few years before his death.

12. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904-90)

13. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904-90) He is the best-known American behaviorist and the founder of operant conditioning. Education: He was educated at Hamilton College and then Harvard (received his PhD in 1931). Career: He taught at the University of Minnesota and Indiana University. During World War II, he did military research including a program designed to teach pigeons to direct missiles to targets while flying in the nose-cone (which wasn’t implemented). He was a professor at Harvard University from 1948.

14. Basic Assumptions of Behaviorism Occam’s Razor (parsimony) – in the philosophy of science, the principle that one should always seek the simplest possible explanation for any event . Physiological research was hampered by the limited technology available for studying the brain (for example, not even X-rays or EEGs existed) and introspectionism was proving limited due to problems of subjectivity in describing sensory experience . Functionalism (William James) – psychologists should focus on how behavior relates to its purpose . (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p.111)

15. Basic Assumptions of Behaviorism Behaviorists reacted against introspectionism in part because it seemed to invoke too many vague concepts , and thereby lacked parsimony . Behaviorism focused on the use of operational definitions ( defining concepts in terms of observable events ) – and this led naturally to the focus on ‘stimuli’ and ‘response’. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p.111)

16. Basic Assumptions of Behaviorism The second basic assumption relates to the basis of behavior change . Like functionalism, behaviorism tries to understand the conditions under which behavior occurs. When does a particular behavior occur? What conditions lead to it? What changes in the environment result from it? Associationism – the doctrine, supported by Aristotle, Hume and others, that mental processes, particularly learning, are based on forming connections between ideas and/or events . (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p.111)

17. A Modern Application of Behaviorism: Gamification Applying game incentives such as prompts, competition, badges, and rewards to ordinary activities This is a growing approach to behavior modification. Health care has also applied some early innovative uses of gamification – from a Sony PS3 Move motion controller used to help children diagnosed with cancer to the launch of Games for Health, the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the research and design of health games and behavioral health strategies.

18. Reflection Activity Take some time to think about the following scenarios. From a general perspective (any way you think of) to explain the scenario. From a purely behavioral perspective. A toddler hits another child in a school playground A driver ‘tailgates’ your vehicle while driving on a highway A classmate you encounter in the library offers to buy you a coffee. You can also think about which explanation better helps you understand the situation in a range of ways, e.g. as a parent, as a psychologist, etc.

19. Classical Conditioning Rusara Seneviratne mbpss 19

20. Overview of Lecture This lecture will cover: An introduction to Classical Conditioning The work of Ivan Pavlov and John Watson Key Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning Some Applications of Classical Conditioning 20

21. Introducing Classical Conditioning and Ivan Pavlov The study of learning which involves reflex responses, in which a neutral stimulus comes to elicit an existing reflex response. Key Thinker: Ivan Petrovich Pavolv (1849-1936) A Russian psychologist who pioneered the study of classical conditioning. His work on the physiology of digestion, begun in 1879, earned him a Nobel Prize in 1904. He first became aware of reflexes by reading Sechenov’s work while studying at the seminary, but his own research did not begin until 1902. He noticed ‘psychic salivation’ in dogs and decided to determine what controlled this anticipatory response.

22. Key Definitions in Classical Conditioning Unconditioned response – a reflexive response produced by a specific stimulus, such as pupil contraction to bright light. Unconditioned stimulus – a stimulus which elicits a reflexive (unconditioned) response. Neutral stimulus – a stimulus which initially produces no specific response other than provoking attention, as conditioning proceeds, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus. Conditioned stimulus – a stimulus which by repeated pairings with an unconditioned stimulus comes to elicit a conditioned response. Conditioned response – a response to a previously neutral stimulus by repeated pairing with an unconditioned stimulus.

23. Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning I

24. Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning II Since the response involved is essentially a pre-existing reflex, the learning which occurs does not involve a new response. Instead, it consists of forming a connection ( association ) between two stimuli (the CS and UCS). In order for optimal conditioning to occur, the conditioned stimulus (CS) must occur a second or so before the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). If the two occur simultaneously, conditioning may occur, but is typically weaker.

25. Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning III If the CS is presented after the UCS (sometimes called backward conditioning), then no learning occurs. Conditioning is closely linked to the ability of the CS to serve as a signal that the UCS is going to occur. This is further demonstrated by studies which show that conditioning is only likely when the CS reliably predicts the occurrence of the UCS (Rescorla 2000). It is a valuable process for the organism because it allows one to anticipate environmental events.

26. Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning IV This notion that classical conditioning helps in adapting to the environment is supported by research on a phenomenon called blocking. If a new stimulus is presented simultaneously with an existing CS, conditioning to the new stimulus does not occur, because the original CS is already an adequate signal.

27. Mechanisms of Classical Conditioning V

28. Stimulus Generalization I The tendency to produce a CR to both the original CS and to stimuli which are similar to it in some way. In practical terms, stimulus generalization results in responding to a whole class of related stimuli, after initial learning with a single stimulus. In this sense, stimulus generalization can enable organisms to adapt better to their environment – though it may not always be adaptive.

29. Stimulus Generalization II For example, stimulus generalization had been noted in how people respond to brand names for products (Till and Priluck 2000) After using conditioning to establish favorable attitudes to imaginary brands, the researchers found that ratings carried over to products with the same brand in a different category. Hence, companies ‘build on the brand name’ to market new products.

30. Stimulus Generalization III

31. Stimulus Generalization IV

32. How, exactly, can we define or measure ‘similarity’? Ideally, we should have some general procedure, operationally defined, to measure similarity for any stimuli. Considerable attention has been given to this problem, but as yet there is no universal standard to determine similarity. Lacking a clear general definition, one must resort to defining similarity by observing the outcome of experimental tests. Thus, if two stimuli elicit essentially identical results, they are highly similar; if CS 1 produces a strong conditioned response, but CS 2 elicits only a weak response, then they are not very similar. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 120)

33. Stimulus Discrimination I Selective responding to the CS, but not to stimuli which are similar in some way as a result of training. *** This always requires training – in the absence of such training, organisms tend to generalize. *** WHAT we discriminate may depend on past experience. The CAPACITY to discriminate seems to be inborn (often crucial to adaptation). Thus, in some circumstances, lacking the capacity to discriminate could seriously reduce our capacity to adapt or even survive. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 120)

34. Stimulus Discrimination II

35. Extinction I The cessation of responding when the CS is presented repeatedly without being paired with the UCS. Thus, extinction seems to suggest that what can be learned can be unlearned, and that conditioned responses are not necessarily permanent. One should distinguish between active training in extinction, and the persistence of conditioned responses in the absence of such training. Potentially without active extinction, a conditioned response may simply remain dormant until the person encounters the CS again. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 120)

36. Extinction II For example, a fear response associated with the sound of a dentist’s drill may persist despite lengthy intervals between visits, because no extinction training occurs. The effectiveness of extinction also depends on the type of conditioned response. One might assume that the effects of extinction in ‘erasing’ the original conditioning would be as long-lasting as conditioning itself is in the absence of extinction. While the response was weaker than when originally learned, and could in turn be re-extinguished, the most striking point was that it reoccurred at all. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 120)

37. Extinction III

38. Spontaneous Recovery The reoccurrence of the CR when the CS is presented after some time has elapsed since extinction training. What is learnt is never really forgotten, it is simply overlaid with different experience. A good example of the enduring nature of conditioned behavior is the re-emergence of old fears long after they were ‘thought’ to have been conquered. The results of research on extinction and spontaneous recovery suggest that conditioning is a ‘one-way street’, whereby conditioned behavior can be modified, but no conditioning is ever simply erased. Instead, extinction, and even new learning, are overlaid on earlier learning. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

39. Higher Order Conditioning I A form of classical conditioning in which a previously established conditioned stimulus is used as if it were an unconditioned stimulus to create conditioning to a new stimulus. In Pavlov’s original experiment, he first trained a dog to salivate to the sound of a buzzer (CS 1 ), using food as a UCS. Once conditioning was established, he introduced a new stimulus, a black square, which was repeatedly paired with the sound of the buzzer (but not food). After several such pairings, presenting the black square alone tended to elicit salivation. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

40. Higher Order Conditioning II Not surprisingly, the effect was rather weak, since each trial also functioned as extinction training for the original buzzer-food association. Pavlov called such conditioning second order conditioning , and tried to extend the sequence by using the black square as if it were a UCS and attempting to link a new stimulus ( third order conditioning ). He found this was not possible when food was the UCS, however it worked with electric shock as the UCS, which may tell us more about the significance of aversive stimuli than it does about higher order conditioning as such.

41. Higher Order Conditioning III

42. Little Albert Experiment: Case Study This experiment was conducted by John B. Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner at Johns Hopkins University. It provides empirical evidence of classical conditioning and example of stimulus generalization. The aim was to condition a phobia in an emotionally stable child. A 9-month old infant was chosen and named ”Albert”. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

43. Conditioned Emotional Responses John B. Watson saw in Pavlov’s paradigm a model for the behaviorist methodology he was trying to foster. Contrary to introspectionists – who previously studied emotions as aspects of experience trying to described the mental states involved – Watson believed that emotions represented observable responses and proceeded to study the issue by attempting to create emotional responses experimentally. While he used a number of subjects, including his own children, the best-known case was a study done on a toddler identified as Albert. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 125)

44. Little Albert Experiment: Case Study Baseline emotional tests: Infant was exposed – briefly and for the first time – to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks (with and without hair), cotton, wool, burning newspaper. No fear was shown at this time. The conditioning: loud noise Every time Albert touched the object/animal, a loud distressing noise was made with a hammer, which made the baby cry and show fear. This was repeated and then Albert was presented with just the animal and responded with fear and distress. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

45. Little Albert Experiment: Case Study The rat – originally a neutral stimulus - had become a conditioned stimulus , and it was eliciting an emotional response ( conditioned response ) similar to the distress ( unconditioned response ) originally given to the noise ( unconditioned stimuluse ). Watson called this fear a conditioned emotional response . They sought to eliminate the fear response – using Pavlov’s extinction procedure – by presenting the rate without the noise. However, the fear did not extinguish. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

46. Failure of Extinction There are two factors that contributed to the failure of extinction. One is the fact that fear responses, like various other responses of the autonomic nervous system, are hard to extinguish. ( Similar to Pavlov’s findings with higher order conditioning working for the shock but not the food ). The occurrence of stimulus generalization, which is common for fear responses, tends to make extinction difficult, since a whole range of stimuli must be extinguished. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

47. Conditioned Drug Responses I Interestingly, work suggests that with some drugs the conditioned response is the opposite to the primary effect of the drug itself. For example, rats were conditioned by giving injections of morphine in a specific environment. While morphine normally reduces sensitivity to painful stimuli, the rats after conditioning showed increased sensitivity to pain when placed in the conditioning context (Siegel 1976) This phenomenon of conditioning associated with drug use has been proposed as the basis of tolerance effects for addictive drugs, whereby repeated usage leads to lowered response to the drug. (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 128)

48. Conditioned Drug Responses II Sometimes the cues involved are based on location: for example, being in a pub can trigger both cigarette cravings and cardiac changes in smokers ( Lazev et al. 1999). Internal bodily cures may also serve as conditioned stimuli. Thus, the physiological state or even the emotional state (such as anxiety) of the individual prior to using may trigger the desire for an addictive drug (Siegel 2005). Why would conditioning mimic the effects of some drugs, and counteract others? (Glassman & Hadad , 2009, p. 124)

49. Objectives of this Lecture The basic assumptions of behaviorism The nature of stimuli and responses The principles of classical conditioning, including: Unconditioned stimulus and response Conditioned stimulus and response The phenomena of classical conditioning, including: Stimulus generalization and discrimination Extinction and spontaneous recovery Higher order conditioning The applications of classical conditioning, including: Conditioned emotional responses Conditioned drug responses

50. References and Further Reading Glassman, W.E., Hadad , M. (2013)  Approaches to psychology . London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Beck, H.P., Levinson, S., Irons, G. (2009) Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory.  American Psychologist .  64 (7), 605–614.  LINK: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hall_Beck/publication/26890384_Finding_Little_Albert_A_Journey_to_John_B_Watson%27s_Infant_Laboratory/links/57b0894e08ae15c76cba2713/Finding-Little-Albert-A-Journey-to-John-B-Watsons-Infant-Laboratory.pdf Harris, B. (2002) Whatever happened to little Albert?  Evolving perspectives on the history of psychology. , 237–254. LINK: http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~grahamh/RM1web/Classic%20papers/Harris1979.pdf Kim, J.J., Jung, M.W. (2006) Neural circuits and mechanisms involved in Pavlovian fear conditioning: A critical review.  Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews .  30 (2), 188–202. LINK: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342048/