1. Chapter 3 - Principles & Applications
Lecture 4
Chapter 3 - Principles & Applications
Classical Conditioning
Strength of Conditioning

2. British Associationists
3 Laws of Association
1. Contiguity: which sequence works best?
2. Frequency: How long do we have to pair?
3. Intensity: stronger intensity?
CS/UCS
Method in which to CC

3. TIME UCS Trace CS Delay CS CS CS
1. Sequencing of CS/UCS – Types of Conditioning –Which works Best?
TIME
UCS
Trace CS
Delay CS CS
Simultaneous CS
Backward

4. Which Sequence works best?
TIME
UCS
TRACE* CS
.5 SEC
DELAY** CS
???? Got Contiguity CS
Simultaneous CS
Backward

5. Sensory Preconditioning:
Instances of Simultaneous Conditioning Working:
Sensory Preconditioning:
Learning results from a procedure where 2 NS are presented together then one is paired with a UCS

6. Sensory Preconditioning (DOGS – shock to paw):
Compound stimulus - simultaneously
Step #1
Step #2
Step #3
NS NS
Why does learning work here?

7. Simultaneous Conditioning: NS NS
Normal CS UCS paring… UCS is more powerful stimulus = attention diverted away from CS (distracted) during simultaneous
Overshadowing: differential conditioning
to one element of a compound stimulus
when stimuli are represented simultaneously (overshadowing of CS because of the UCS)
…adaptation…selective conditioning…

8. CS-UCS Interval Interstimulus Interval (ISI): interval
between the onset of CS & the onset of UCS
Trace Conditioning
About 500 msec
No conditioning at
2 seconds
On general the shorter the ISI the better the conditioning

9. 2. Frequency of Pairing
Conditioning is best: early trials (30) then asymptote

10. 3. Intensity: strength of association affected by vividness or intensity
of stimuli
Rats
No fear .50
Tone (CS) paired
with Shock (UCS)
Greater intensity (mA)
Tone elicited greater
suppression (of lever
press=freezing=fear)

11. The measurement of fear in rats… Are you afraid??? …feces …urine
Conditioned Emotional Response (Estes & Skinner, 1941)
CER: measure of fear – freeze –
Immobility = fear
(experimenter not present – objective measure)
Procedure:
condition rat to level press
FR1
Then FR20
Once rat continually pressed bar introduce “fear factor”
Responding on level press reduced  animal freezes

12. Strength of Association (get better CC)
Contiguity: pairing
of 2 events – trace
& delay
CS/UCS
Frequency
early trials
Intensity

13. Robert Rescorla
1940 —

14. Concept of Contingency
1966 – Robert Rescorla (age of 26!!!)
Concept of Contingency
It might not be as simple as the pairing of
A CS & UCS (contiguity) that leads to
conditioning (learning) BUT
a predictable, CONTINGENT, relationship
between the two stimuli
An “If” “then” relationship
If one event
a) occurs, another event
b) Will follow
If /then predictability - CS must be a good predictor
of the UCS

15. 1966 – Robert Rescorla Seminal Paper!!! Is it just associations?
Pairings of events???
E E2
Contiguity

16. Contingency: a statistic derived from 2 probabilities
phi coefficient (non parametric test)
The probability that the UCS will occur in the presence of CS
P (US CS)
The probability that the UCS will occur in the absence of CS
P (US no CS)
p (shock l tone) = 0.10
P(shock l no tone) = 0.10
No predictive
value = =0
p (shock l tone) = 1.00
P(shock l no tone) = 0
predictive
value =1.00

17. 1966 – Robert Rescorla Seminal Paper!!! Is it just associations….
Pairings of events???
E E2
Contingency
UCS occur when CS
UCS occurs w/o CS

18. Probability that US follows CS
Table 2.1
Outline of One of the Rescorla (1967) Conditioning Experiments.
Group
Probability that US follows CS
Probability that US
occurs by itself 1
.80 2
.40 3 4
.00
Results: Groups 2 and 4 show conditioning.
Groups 1 and 3 do not show conditioning.
Conclusion: The CS must predict something.

19. Strength of Conditioning
CS/UCS
Contiguity
Frequency
Intensity
Contingency: CS must be
a reliable predictor

20. Can anything be turned into a CS?
“Any natural phenomenon chosen
at will may be converted into a
conditioned stimulus…any visual
stimulus, any desired sound, any
odor, and stimulation of any
part of the skin” (Pavlov, 1928)
“Equipotentiality Hypothesis”

21. Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning
Garcia & Koellings (1966)
2nd Seminal Paper
Preparedness: The tendency to associate
some CS-UCS combinations more readily
then others (selective association)
Garcia & Koellings (1966)
Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning
Development of a severe negative reaction
to a food item due to pairing the food
with illness or other aversive stimulation

22. Rats have “Bait Shyness”: one trial learning…
Garcia & Koellings (1966)
Rats have “Bait Shyness”: one trial learning…
One taste of poison & will not eat again
However will go back to the place where
the poison was encountered
Did the rat learn only taste-aversion?
Selectively learn?…where’s contiguity?
Only associated taste & odor not visual cues?

23. Water with Light & Noise
UCS CS
Irradiation/Xray
Water with Light & Noise
(bright, noisy water)
Electric shock
Irradiation/Xray
Sweetened Water
Electric shock
Garcia & Koellings (1966)

24. Garcia & Koellings (1966) CS
only
X-ray-ill CS
only
Shock

25. Findings by Garcia & Koelling Extremely important!
Demonstrated for the first time that certain
CS-US combos (taste-aversion) could not be
conditioned
Preparedness!
Animals are preprogrammed or
predisposed to learn certain connections

26. Argued that those connection that
Garcia & Koellings (1966)
Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning
Argued that those connection that
make sense in an organism’s natural habitat
would under go conditioning more readily
animals learned taste aversion
bright lights & tones not usually
associated with illness from ingesting
Something..but TASTE IS!
When X ray paired
with sweet water

27. Argued that those connections that
Garcia & Koellings (1966)
Conditioned Taste-Aversion Learning
Argued that those connections that
make sense in an organism’s natural habitat
would under go conditioning more readily
animals learned taste aversion
sweetened water (taste) is usually
not associated with noise & painful
stimulation...but shock IS!
When light & tone
paired with shock
..loud noises could potentially signal
Dangerous situations like lightning,
Tree crashing down…predator…

30. Paper first published in
Shift in Paradigm
Paper first published in
Psychonomics Science?
Rejected!!!!
DID NOT FOLLOW
Laws of Association
Disbelief in results
Contiguity

31. Strength of Conditioning
UCS/CS
Contiguity
Frequency
Intensity
contingency
preparedness

32. another finding against contiguity- Blocking
Occurs when initial conditioning to a CS1
impairs later conditioning to a another CS2
Kamin (1969)
Used noise & light
paired with shock
CR= fear
Rats (CER)
Pretraining Conditioning
Blocking N shock NLshock
Control NLshock
Control grp:noise alone & light caused fear
Blocking grp: only noise caused fear…conditioning with noise blocked light from being associated

33. “mother of Behavioral Therapy” Johnston, PA
Mary Cover Jones
“mother of Behavioral Therapy”
Johnston, PA
Vassar College
“took every class in Psych”
Graduated in 1919
Attended weekend lecture…
J.B. Watson
Little Peter – fear of rabbits

34. 1st application of Using Counter Conditioning

38. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy
mind
environment
behavior
psychotherapy

39. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy
mind
environment
behavior
Change environment

40. Behavioral Therapy vs Psychotherapy
mind
environment
behavior
Psychotherapist

41. What works best? Ex: Enuresis Psychotherapy:
Underlying Psychological issue why
child wets the bed
long term therapy
 $$$$$$$$
Behavioral Therapy:
Train child to associate bladder function
with awakening…
Minimal cost for pad
Few trials