PSYCH 381 - Midterm 2 (Ch. 1-8) UPDATED ACTUAL
Questions and CORRECT Answers
S-R learning A new stimulus-response connection between the CS and CR
S-S learning - CS activates a representation of the US
- In line with Pavlov's Stimulus Substitution
US Devaluation Procedure Predictions - S-R Both groups should respond at high levels to CS, as during Phase 1
US Devaluation Procedure Predictions - S-S Subjects in experimental group (where US was devalued), should respond at
lower level to CS, compared to control group
Holland & Rescorla (1975) J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. B. - Rats responded LESS (lower CR) to presentation of the CS, following the US
devaluation
- Supports the S-S model of learning
- Also empirical evidence that subjects learn direct S-R associations
Conditioned diminution of the UR Reduction in magnitude of response to an unconditioned stimulus caused by
presentation of a CS that had been conditioned with that
, Conditioned Drug Tolerance - Example of Conditioned diminution of the UR
- A disturbance in one way results in compensatory reaction in the other
direction
- CS = cues related to drug-taking (e.g., location, paraphernalia)
- US = pharmacological/chemical stimulation of the drug
- UR = physiological effects of drug (e.g., analgesia in morphine)
- CR = physiological effects (same or opposite of drug) following exposure to
strongly-associated CS
- Key prediction: In absence of CSs, drug tolerance will be reduced
- Only people with previous experience with cocaine show anticipatory CR
Blocking Effect - Interference of the conditioning of a novel stimulus (NS) because of the
presence of a previously conditioned stimulus (CS)
- Until blocking, temporal contiguity was considered to be sufficient for learning
associations
Blocking: Why does A block B - Proposed that US needs to be surprising to be effective in producing learning
- If US is signaled by previously conditioned stimulus (A), won't be surprising
- No learning about B
- Effectiveness of US + its surprisingness = basis of Rescorla-Wagner Model
Models of Associative Learning - Rescorla-Wagner model
- Attentional models
- Relative-waiting-time hypothesis
- Comparator hypothesis
Rescorla-Wagner Model ∆V = k (𝜆 - V)
- ∆ 𝑉 = trial-by-trial change in associative learning strength of US (i.e., learning)
- k = constant related to salience of US
- 𝜆 = Maximum possible associative strength of US (what occurs)
- 𝑉 = Current associative strength of US (what is expected)
R-W Model & Conditioned Inhibition - R-W allows stimuli to only have one value, + or - (excitatory or inhibitory), not
both
- Need to consider reinforced & unreinforced trials separately
Extinction of Conditioned Inhibition - R-W view on extinction is problematic
- CS- alone predicted to lead to loss of inhibition (the opposite is found
empirically)
- This model views extinction as reverse of acquisition
Attentional Models - R-W focuses on US; attentional models focus on CS attention-getting
- Attention to CS depends on surprisingness of US on previous trial
- *if US was surprising, it increases attention to CS on next trial
- *if CS was followed by expected US, don't pay attention to CS on next trial
- Assume surprisingness of US will alter attention paid to CSs on future trials
- This is in contrast to R-W, where surprisingness of US on a trial determines what
is learned in that same trial
Questions and CORRECT Answers
S-R learning A new stimulus-response connection between the CS and CR
S-S learning - CS activates a representation of the US
- In line with Pavlov's Stimulus Substitution
US Devaluation Procedure Predictions - S-R Both groups should respond at high levels to CS, as during Phase 1
US Devaluation Procedure Predictions - S-S Subjects in experimental group (where US was devalued), should respond at
lower level to CS, compared to control group
Holland & Rescorla (1975) J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. B. - Rats responded LESS (lower CR) to presentation of the CS, following the US
devaluation
- Supports the S-S model of learning
- Also empirical evidence that subjects learn direct S-R associations
Conditioned diminution of the UR Reduction in magnitude of response to an unconditioned stimulus caused by
presentation of a CS that had been conditioned with that
, Conditioned Drug Tolerance - Example of Conditioned diminution of the UR
- A disturbance in one way results in compensatory reaction in the other
direction
- CS = cues related to drug-taking (e.g., location, paraphernalia)
- US = pharmacological/chemical stimulation of the drug
- UR = physiological effects of drug (e.g., analgesia in morphine)
- CR = physiological effects (same or opposite of drug) following exposure to
strongly-associated CS
- Key prediction: In absence of CSs, drug tolerance will be reduced
- Only people with previous experience with cocaine show anticipatory CR
Blocking Effect - Interference of the conditioning of a novel stimulus (NS) because of the
presence of a previously conditioned stimulus (CS)
- Until blocking, temporal contiguity was considered to be sufficient for learning
associations
Blocking: Why does A block B - Proposed that US needs to be surprising to be effective in producing learning
- If US is signaled by previously conditioned stimulus (A), won't be surprising
- No learning about B
- Effectiveness of US + its surprisingness = basis of Rescorla-Wagner Model
Models of Associative Learning - Rescorla-Wagner model
- Attentional models
- Relative-waiting-time hypothesis
- Comparator hypothesis
Rescorla-Wagner Model ∆V = k (𝜆 - V)
- ∆ 𝑉 = trial-by-trial change in associative learning strength of US (i.e., learning)
- k = constant related to salience of US
- 𝜆 = Maximum possible associative strength of US (what occurs)
- 𝑉 = Current associative strength of US (what is expected)
R-W Model & Conditioned Inhibition - R-W allows stimuli to only have one value, + or - (excitatory or inhibitory), not
both
- Need to consider reinforced & unreinforced trials separately
Extinction of Conditioned Inhibition - R-W view on extinction is problematic
- CS- alone predicted to lead to loss of inhibition (the opposite is found
empirically)
- This model views extinction as reverse of acquisition
Attentional Models - R-W focuses on US; attentional models focus on CS attention-getting
- Attention to CS depends on surprisingness of US on previous trial
- *if US was surprising, it increases attention to CS on next trial
- *if CS was followed by expected US, don't pay attention to CS on next trial
- Assume surprisingness of US will alter attention paid to CSs on future trials
- This is in contrast to R-W, where surprisingness of US on a trial determines what
is learned in that same trial
