Chapter 8. Learning

8. Learning

My Story of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

It is a continuous challenge living with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and I’ve suffered from it for

most of my life. I can look back now and gently laugh at all the people who thought I had the perfect life. I

was young, beautiful, and talented, but unbeknownst to them, I was terrorized by an undiagnosed debilitating

mental illness.

Having been properly diagnosed with PTSD at age 35, I know that there is not one aspect of my life that

has gone untouched by this mental illness. My PTSD was triggered by several traumas, most importantly a

sexual attack at knifepoint that left me thinking I would die. I would never be the same after that attack. For

me there was no safe place in the world, not even my home. I went to the police and filed a report. Rape

counselors came to see me while I was in the hospital, but I declined their help, convinced that I didn’t need

it. This would be the most damaging decision of my life.

For months after the attack, I couldn’t close my eyes without envisioning the face of my attacker. I suffered

horrific flashbacks and nightmares. For four years after the attack I was unable to sleep alone in my house. I

obsessively checked windows, doors, and locks. By age 17, I’d suffered my first panic attack. Soon I became

unable to leave my apartment for weeks at a time, ending my modeling career abruptly. This just became a

way of life. Years passed when I had few or no symptoms at all, and I led what I thought was a fairly normal

life, just thinking I had a “panic problem.”

Then another traumatic event retriggered the PTSD. It was as if the past had evaporated, and I was back in

the place of my attack, only now I had uncontrollable thoughts of someone entering my house and harming

my daughter. I saw violent images every time I closed my eyes. I lost all ability to concentrate or even

complete simple tasks. Normally social, I stopped trying to make friends or get involved in my community.

I often felt disoriented, forgetting where, or who, I was. I would panic on the freeway and became unable

to drive, again ending a career. I felt as if I had completely lost my mind. For a time, I managed to keep it

together on the outside, but then I became unable to leave my house again.

Around this time I was diagnosed with PTSD. I cannot express to you the enormous relief I felt when I

discovered my condition was real and treatable. I felt safe for the first time in 32 years. Taking medication

and undergoing behavioural therapy marked the turning point in my regaining control of my life. I’m

rebuilding a satisfying career as an artist, and I am enjoying my life. The world is new to me and not limited

by the restrictive vision of anxiety. It amazes me to think back to what my life was like only a year ago, and

just how far I’ve come.

For me there is no cure, no final healing. But there are things I can do to ensure that I never have to suffer as

I did before being diagnosed with PTSD. I’m no longer at the mercy of my disorder, and I would not be here

today had I not had the proper diagnosis and treatment. The most important thing to know is that it’s never

too late to seek help. (Philips, 2010)

301

The topic of this chapter is learning—the relatively permanent change in knowledge or behaviour that is the result

of experience. Although you might think of learning in terms of what you need to do before an upcoming exam,

the knowledge that you take away from your classes, or new skills that you acquire through practice, these changes

represent only one component of learning. In fact, learning is a broad topic that is used to explain not only how we

acquire new knowledge and behaviour but also how we acquire a wide variety of other psychological processes,

including the development of both appropriate and inappropriate social behaviours, and even how a person may

acquire a debilitating psychological disorder such as PTSD.

Figure 8.1 Skinner and Watson. B. F. Skinner (left) and John B. Watson (right) were champions

of the behaviourist school of learning.

Learning is perhaps the most important human capacity. Learning allows us to create effective lives by being able

to respond to changes. We learn to avoid touching hot stoves, to find our way home from school, and to remember

which people have helped us in the past and which people have been unkind. Without the ability to learn from our

experiences, our lives would be remarkably dangerous and inefficient. The principles of learning can also be used to

explain a wide variety of social interactions, including social dilemmas in which people make important, and often

selfish, decisions about how to behave by calculating the costs and benefits of different outcomes.

The study of learning is closely associated with the behaviourist school of psychology, in which it was seen as an

alternative scientific perspective to the failure of introspection. The behaviourists, including John B. Watson and

B. F. Skinner (Figure 8.1), focused their research entirely on behaviour, to the exclusion of any kinds of mental

processes. For behaviourists, the fundamental aspect of learning is the process of conditioning — the ability to

connect stimuli (the changes that occur in the environment) with responses (behaviours or other actions).

But conditioning is just one type of learning. We will also consider other types, including learning through insight,

as well as observational learning (also known as modelling). In each case we will see not only what psychologists

have learned about the topics but also the important influence that learning has on many aspects of our everyday

lives. And we will see that in some cases learning can be maladaptive — for instance, when a person like P. K.

Philips continually experiences disruptive memories and emotional responses to a negative event.

References

Philips, P. K. (2010). My story of survival: Battling PTSD. Anxiety Disorders Association of America. Retrieved

from http://www.adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/personal-stories/my-story-survival-battling-ptsd

8. LEARNING • 302

Image Attributions

Figure 8.1: “B.F. Skinner” (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B.F._Skinner_at_Harvard_circa_1950.jpg) is

licensed under the CC BY 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en). “John Broadus

Watson” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Broadus_Watson.JPG) is in the public domain.

303 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

8.1 Learning by Association: Classical Conditioning

Learning Objectives

1. Describe how Pavlov’s early work in classical conditioning influenced the understanding of

learning.

2. Review the concepts of classical conditioning, including unconditioned stimulus (US),

conditioned stimulus (CS), unconditioned response (UR), and conditioned response (CR).

3. Explain the roles that extinction, generalization, and discrimination play in conditioned

learning.

Pavlov Demonstrates Conditioning in Dogs

In the early part of the 20th century, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), shown in Figure 8.2, was

studying the digestive system of dogs when he noticed an interesting behavioural phenomenon: the dogs began

to salivate when the lab technicians who normally fed them entered the room, even though the dogs had not yet

received any food. Pavlov realized that the dogs were salivating because they knew that they were about to be fed;

the dogs had begun to associate the arrival of the technicians with the food that soon followed their appearance in

the room.

With his team of researchers, Pavlov began studying this process in more detail. He conducted a series of

experiments in which, over a number of trials, dogs were exposed to a sound immediately before receiving food. He

systematically controlled the onset of the sound and the timing of the delivery of the food, and recorded the amount

of the dogs’ salivation. Initially the dogs salivated only when they saw or smelled the food, but after several pairings

of the sound and the food, the dogs began to salivate as soon as they heard the sound. The animals had learned to

associate the sound with the food that followed.

Pavlov had identified a fundamental associative learning process called classical conditioning. Classical

conditioning refers to learning that occurs when a neutral stimulus (e.g., a tone) becomes associated with a

stimulus (e.g., food) that naturally produces a behaviour. After the association is learned, the previously neutral

stimulus is sufficient to produce the behaviour.

As you can see in Figure 8.3, “4-Panel Image of Whistle and Dog,” psychologists use specific terms to identify

the stimuli and the responses in classical conditioning. The unconditioned stimulus (US) is something (such as

food) that triggers a naturally occurring response, and the unconditioned response (UR) is the naturally occurring

response (such as salivation) that follows the unconditioned stimulus. The conditioned stimulus (CS) is a neutral

stimulus that, after being repeatedly presented prior to the unconditioned stimulus, evokes a similar response as the

unconditioned stimulus. In Pavlov’s experiment, the sound of the tone served as the conditioned stimulus that, after

learning, produced the conditioned response (CR), which is the acquired response to the formerly neutral stimulus.

304

Figure 8.2 Ivan Pavlov.

Note that the UR and the CR are the same behaviour—in this case salivation—but they are given different names

because they are produced by different stimuli (the US and the CS, respectively).

Figure 8.3 4-Panel Image of Whistle and Dog.

Conditioning is evolutionarily beneficial because it allows organisms to develop expectations that help them prepare

for both good and bad events. Imagine, for instance, that an animal first smells a new food, eats it, and then gets

sick. If the animal can learn to associate the smell (CS) with the food (US), it will quickly learn that the food creates

the negative outcome and will not eat it the next time.

305 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

The Persistence and Extinction of Conditioning

After he had demonstrated that learning could occur through association, Pavlov moved on to study the variables

that influenced the strength and the persistence of conditioning. In some studies, after the conditioning had taken

place, Pavlov presented the sound repeatedly but without presenting the food afterward. Figure 8.4, “Acquisition,

Extinction, and Spontaneous Recovery,” shows what happened. As you can see, after the initial acquisition

(learning) phase in which the conditioning occurred, when the CS was then presented alone, the behaviour rapidly

decreased — the dogs salivated less and less to the sound, and eventually the sound did not elicit salivation at all.

Extinction refers to the reduction in responding that occurs when the conditioned stimulus is presented repeatedly

without the unconditioned stimulus.

Figure 8.4 Acquisition, Extinction, and Spontaneous Recovery. Acquisition: The CS and the US

are repeatedly paired together and behaviour increases. Extinction: The CS is repeatedly presented

alone, and the behaviour slowly decreases. Spontaneous recovery: After a pause, when the CS is

again presented alone, the behaviour may again occur and then again show extinction.

Although at the end of the first extinction period the CS was no longer producing salivation, the effects of

conditioning had not entirely disappeared. Pavlov found that, after a pause, sounding the tone again elicited

salivation, although to a lesser extent than before extinction took place. The increase in responding to the CS

following a pause after extinction is known as spontaneous recovery. When Pavlov again presented the CS alone,

the behaviour again showed extinction until it disappeared again.

Although the behaviour has disappeared, extinction is never complete. If conditioning is again attempted, the animal

will learn the new associations much faster than it did the first time.

Pavlov also experimented with presenting new stimuli that were similar, but not identical, to the original conditioned

stimulus. For instance, if the dog had been conditioned to being scratched before the food arrived, the stimulus

would be changed to being rubbed rather than scratched. He found that the dogs also salivated upon experiencing

the similar stimulus, a process known as generalization. Generalization refers to the tendency to respond to stimuli

that resemble the original conditioned stimulus. The ability to generalize has important evolutionary significance.

If we eat some red berries and they make us sick, it would be a good idea to think twice before we eat some purple

berries. Although the berries are not exactly the same, they nevertheless are similar and may have the same negative

properties.

Lewicki (1985) conducted research that demonstrated the influence of stimulus generalization and how quickly and

easily it can happen. In his experiment, high school students first had a brief interaction with a female experimenter

who had short hair and glasses. The study was set up so that the students had to ask the experimenter a question,

and (according to random assignment) the experimenter responded either in a negative way or a neutral way toward

the students. Then the students were told to go into a second room in which two experimenters were present

and to approach either one of them. However, the researchers arranged it so that one of the two experimenters

8.1 LEARNING BY ASSOCIATION: CLASSICAL CONDITIONING • 306

looked a lot like the original experimenter, while the other one did not (she had longer hair and no glasses). The

students were significantly more likely to avoid the experimenter who looked like the earlier experimenter when that

experimenter had been negative to them than when she had treated them more neutrally. The participants showed

stimulus generalization such that the new, similar-looking experimenter created the same negative response in the

participants as had the experimenter in the prior session.

The flip side of generalization is discrimination — the tendency to respond differently to stimuli that are similar

but not identical. Pavlov’s dogs quickly learned, for example, to salivate when they heard the specific tone that had

preceded food, but not upon hearing similar tones that had never been associated with food. Discrimination is also

useful — if we do try the purple berries, and if they do not make us sick, we will be able to make the distinction in

the future. And we can learn that although two people in our class, Courtney and Sarah, may look a lot alike, they

are nevertheless different people with different personalities.

In some cases, an existing conditioned stimulus can serve as an unconditioned stimulus for a pairing with a new

conditioned stimulus—a process known as second-order conditioning. In one of Pavlov’s studies, for instance, he

first conditioned the dogs to salivate to a sound and then repeatedly paired a new CS, a black square, with the sound.

Eventually he found that the dogs would salivate at the sight of the black square alone, even though it had never

been directly associated with the food. Secondary conditioners in everyday life include our attractions to things that

stand for or remind us of something else, such as when we feel good on a Friday because it has become associated

with the paycheque that we receive on that day, which itself is a conditioned stimulus for the pleasures that the

paycheque buys us.

The Role of Nature in Classical Conditioning

As we have seen in Chapter 1, “Introducing Psychology,” scientists associated with the behaviourist school argued

that all learning is driven by experience, and that nature plays no role. Classical conditioning, which is based on

learning through experience, represents an example of the importance of the environment. But classical conditioning

cannot be understood entirely in terms of experience. Nature also plays a part, as our evolutionary history has made

us better able to learn some associations than others.

Clinical psychologists make use of classical conditioning to explain the learning of a phobia — a strong and

irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation. For example, driving a car is a neutral event that would not

normally elicit a fear response in most people. But if a person were to experience a panic attack in which he or she

suddenly experienced strong negative emotions while driving, that person may learn to associate driving with the

panic response. The driving has become the CS that now creates the fear response.

Psychologists have also discovered that people do not develop phobias to just anything. Although people may

in some cases develop a driving phobia, they are more likely to develop phobias toward objects (such as snakes

and spiders) or places (such as high locations and open spaces) that have been dangerous to people in the past. In

modern life, it is rare for humans to be bitten by spiders or snakes, to fall from trees or buildings, or to be attacked

by a predator in an open area. Being injured while riding in a car or being cut by a knife are much more likely. But

in our evolutionary past, the potential for being bitten by snakes or spiders, falling out of a tree, or being trapped in

an open space were important evolutionary concerns, and therefore humans are still evolutionarily prepared to learn

these associations over others (.hman & Mineka, 2001; LoBue & DeLoache, 2010).

Another evolutionarily important type of conditioning is conditioning related to food. In his important research on

food conditioning, John Garcia and his colleagues (Garcia, Kimeldorf, & Koelling, 1955; Garcia, Ervin, & Koelling,

1966) attempted to condition rats by presenting either a taste, a sight, or a sound as a neutral stimulus before the

rats were given drugs (the US) that made them nauseous. Garcia discovered that taste conditioning was extremely

307 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

powerful—the rat learned to avoid the taste associated with illness, even if the illness occurred several hours later.

But conditioning the behavioural response of nausea to a sight or a sound was much more difficult. These results

contradicted the idea that conditioning occurs entirely as a result of environmental events, such that it would occur

equally for any kind of unconditioned stimulus that followed any kind of conditioned stimulus. Rather, Garcia’s

research showed that genetics matters — organisms are evolutionarily prepared to learn some associations more

easily than others. You can see that the ability to associate smells with illness is an important survival mechanism,

allowing the organism to quickly learn to avoid foods that are poisonous.

Classical conditioning has also been used to help explain the experience of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),

as in the case of P. K. Philips described in the chapter opener. PTSD is a severe anxiety disorder that can develop

after exposure to a fearful event, such as the threat of death (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). PTSD occurs

when the individual develops a strong association between the situational factors that surrounded the traumatic event

(e.g., military uniforms or the sounds or smells of war) and the US (the fearful trauma itself). As a result of the

conditioning, being exposed to or even thinking about the situation in which the trauma occurred (the CS) becomes

sufficient to produce the CR of severe anxiety (Keane, Zimering, & Caddell, 1985).

PTSD develops because the emotions experienced during the event have produced neural activity in the amygdala

and created strong conditioned learning. In addition to the strong conditioning that people with PTSD experience,

they also show slower extinction in classical conditioning tasks (Milad et al., 2009). In short, people with PTSD

have developed very strong associations with the events surrounding the trauma and are also slow to show extinction

to the conditioned stimulus.

Key Takeaways

• In classical conditioning, a person or animal learns to associate a neutral stimulus (the conditioned

stimulus, or CS) with a stimulus (the unconditioned stimulus, or US) that naturally produces a

behaviour (the unconditioned response, or UR). As a result of this association, the previously

neutral stimulus comes to elicit the same response (the conditioned response, or CR).

• Extinction occurs when the CS is repeatedly presented without the US, and the CR eventually

disappears, although it may reappear later in a process known as spontaneous recovery.

• Stimulus generalization occurs when a stimulus that is similar to an already-conditioned stimulus

begins to produce the same response as the original stimulus does.

• Stimulus discrimination occurs when the organism learns to differentiate between the CS and

other similar stimuli.

• In second-order conditioning, a neutral stimulus becomes a CS after being paired with a

previously established CS.

• Some stimuli — response pairs, such as those between smell and food — are more easily

conditioned than others because they have been particularly important in our evolutionary past.

8.1 LEARNING BY ASSOCIATION: CLASSICAL CONDITIONING • 308

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. A teacher places gold stars on the chalkboard when the students are quiet and attentive.

Eventually, the students start becoming quiet and attentive whenever the teacher approaches the

chalkboard. Can you explain the students’ behaviour in terms of classical conditioning?

2. Recall a time in your life, perhaps when you were a child, when your behaviours were

influenced by classical conditioning. Describe in detail the nature of the unconditioned and

conditioned stimuli and the response, using the appropriate psychological terms.

3. If post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a type of classical conditioning, how might

psychologists use the principles of classical conditioning to treat the disorder?

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.).

Washington, DC: Author.

Garcia, J., Ervin, F. R., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement. Psychonomic

Science, 5(3), 121–122.

Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to

gamma radiation. Science, 122, 157–158.

Keane, T. M., Zimering, R. T., & Caddell, J. M. (1985). A behavioral formulation of posttraumatic stress disorder

in Vietnam veterans. The Behavior Therapist, 8(1), 9–12.

Lewicki, P. (1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgments. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563–574.

LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2010). Superior detection of threat-relevant stimuli in infancy. Developmental

Science, 13(1), 221–228.

Milad, M. R., Pitman, R. K., Ellis, C. B., Gold, A. L., Shin, L. M., Lasko, N. B.,…Rauch, S. L. (2009).

Neurobiological basis of failure to recall extinction memory in posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry,

66(12), 1075–82.

.hman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear

learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522.

Image Attributions

Figure 8.2: Ivan Pavlov (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Pavlov_LIFE.jpg) is in the public domain.

309 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

8.2 Changing Behaviour through Reinforcement and Punishment: Operant

Conditioning

Learning Objectives

1. Outline the principles of operant conditioning.

2. Explain how learning can be shaped through the use of reinforcement schedules and secondary

reinforcers.

In classical conditioning the organism learns to associate new stimuli with natural biological responses such as

salivation or fear. The organism does not learn something new but rather begins to perform an existing behaviour

in the presence of a new signal. Operant conditioning, on the other hand, is learning that occurs based on the

consequences of behaviour and can involve the learning of new actions. Operant conditioning occurs when a dog

rolls over on command because it has been praised for doing so in the past, when a schoolroom bully threatens

his classmates because doing so allows him to get his way, and when a child gets good grades because her parents

threaten to punish her if she doesn’t. In operant conditioning the organism learns from the consequences of its own

actions.

How Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behaviour: The Research of Thorndike and Skinner

Psychologist Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949) was the first scientist to systematically study operant conditioning.

In his research Thorndike (1898) observed cats who had been placed in a “puzzle box” from which they tried to

escape (“Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box”). At first the cats scratched, bit, and swatted haphazardly, without

any idea of how to get out. But eventually, and accidentally, they pressed the lever that opened the door and exited to

their prize, a scrap of fish. The next time the cat was constrained within the box, it attempted fewer of the ineffective

responses before carrying out the successful escape, and after several trials the cat learned to almost immediately

make the correct response.

Observing these changes in the cats’ behaviour led Thorndike to develop his law of effect, the principle that

responses that create a typically pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a

similar situation, whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again

in the situation (Thorndike, 1911). The essence of the law of effect is that successful responses, because they

are pleasurable, are “stamped in” by experience and thus occur more frequently. Unsuccessful responses, which

produce unpleasant experiences, are “stamped out” and subsequently occur less frequently.

When Thorndike placed his cats in a puzzle box, he found that they learned to engage in the important escape

behaviour faster after each trial. Thorndike described the learning that follows reinforcement in terms of the law of

effect.

310

Watch: “Thorndike’s Puzzle Box” [YouTube]: http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=BDujDOLre-8

The influential behavioural psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) expanded on

Thorndike’s ideas to develop a more complete set of principles to explain operant

conditioning. Skinner created specially designed environments known as operant

chambers (usually called Skinner boxes) to systematically study learning. A Skinner

box (operant chamber) is a structure that is big enough to fit a rodent or bird and that

contains a bar or key that the organism can press or peck to release food or water. It

also contains a device to record the animal’s responses (Figure 8.5).

The most basic of Skinner’s experiments was quite similar to Thorndike’s research with cats. A rat placed in the

chamber reacted as one might expect, scurrying about the box and sniffing and clawing at the floor and walls.

Eventually the rat chanced upon a lever, which it pressed to release pellets of food. The next time around, the rat

took a little less time to press the lever, and on successive trials, the time it took to press the lever became shorter

and shorter. Soon the rat was pressing the lever as fast as it could eat the food that appeared. As predicted by the

law of effect, the rat had learned to repeat the action that brought about the food and cease the actions that did not.

Skinner studied, in detail, how animals changed their behaviour through reinforcement and punishment, and

he developed terms that explained the processes of operant learning (Table 8.1, “How Positive and Negative

Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behaviour”). Skinner used the term reinforcer to refer to any event that

strengthens or increases the likelihood of a behaviour, and the term punisher to refer to any event that weakens

or decreases the likelihood of a behaviour. And he used the terms positive and negative to refer to whether a

reinforcement was presented or removed, respectively. Thus, positive reinforcement strengthens a response by

presenting something pleasant after the response, and negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing

or removing something unpleasant. For example, giving a child praise for completing his homework represents

positive reinforcement, whereas taking Aspirin to reduce the pain of a headache represents negative reinforcement.

In both cases, the reinforcement makes it more likely that behaviour will occur again in the future.

Figure 8.5 Skinner Box. B. F. Skinner used a Skinner box to study operant learning. The box

contains a bar or key that the organism can press to receive food and water, and a device that

records the organism’s responses.

311 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Table 8.1 How Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behaviour.

[Skip Table]

Operant

conditioning

term Description Outcome Example

Positive

reinforcement

Add or increase a

pleasant stimulus

Behaviour is

strengthened Giving a student a prize after he or she gets an A on a test

Negative

reinforcement

Reduce or remove an

unpleasant stimulus

Behaviour is

strengthened

Taking painkillers that eliminate pain increases the

likelihood that you will take painkillers again

Positive

punishment

Present or add an

unpleasant stimulus

Behaviour is

weakened

Giving a student extra homework after he or she

misbehaves in class

Negative

punishment

Reduce or remove a

pleasant stimulus

Behaviour is

weakened

Taking away a teen’s computer after he or she misses

curfew

Reinforcement, either positive or negative, works by increasing the likelihood of a behaviour. Punishment, on the

other hand, refers to any event that weakens or reduces the likelihood of a behaviour. Positive punishment weakens

a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response, whereas negative punishment weakens a

response by reducing or removing something pleasant. A child who is grounded after fighting with a sibling

(positive punishment) or who loses out on the opportunity to go to recess after getting a poor grade (negative

punishment) is less likely to repeat these behaviours.

Although the distinction between reinforcement (which increases behaviour) and punishment (which decreases it)

is usually clear, in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a reinforcer is positive or negative. On a hot day

a cool breeze could be seen as a positive reinforcer (because it brings in cool air) or a negative reinforcer (because

it removes hot air). In other cases, reinforcement can be both positive and negative. One may smoke a cigarette

both because it brings pleasure (positive reinforcement) and because it eliminates the craving for nicotine (negative

reinforcement).

It is also important to note that reinforcement and punishment are not simply opposites. The use of positive

reinforcement in changing behaviour is almost always more effective than using punishment. This is because

positive reinforcement makes the person or animal feel better, helping create a positive relationship with the person

providing the reinforcement. Types of positive reinforcement that are effective in everyday life include verbal praise

or approval, the awarding of status or prestige, and direct financial payment. Punishment, on the other hand, is

more likely to create only temporary changes in behaviour because it is based on coercion and typically creates a

negative and adversarial relationship with the person providing the reinforcement. When the person who provides

the punishment leaves the situation, the unwanted behaviour is likely to return.

Creating Complex Behaviours through Operant Conditioning

Perhaps you remember watching a movie or being at a show in which an animal — maybe a dog, a horse, or a

dolphin—did some pretty amazing things. The trainer gave a command and the dolphin swam to the bottom of the

pool, picked up a ring on its nose, jumped out of the water through a hoop in the air, dived again to the bottom of

the pool, picked up another ring, and then took both of the rings to the trainer at the edge of the pool. The animal

was trained to do the trick, and the principles of operant conditioning were used to train it. But these complex

behaviours are a far cry from the simple stimulus-response relationships that we have considered thus far. How can

reinforcement be used to create complex behaviours such as these?

8.2 CHANGING BEHAVIOUR THROUGH REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT: OPERANT CONDITIONING • 312

One way to expand the use of operant learning is to modify the schedule on which the reinforcement is applied.

To this point we have only discussed a continuous reinforcement schedule, in which the desired response is

reinforced every time it occurs; whenever the dog rolls over, for instance, it gets a biscuit. Continuous reinforcement

results in relatively fast learning but also rapid extinction of the desired behaviour once the reinforcer disappears.

The problem is that because the organism is used to receiving the reinforcement after every behaviour, the responder

may give up quickly when it doesn’t appear.

Most real-world reinforcers are not continuous; they occur on a partial (or intermittent) reinforcement schedule

— a schedule in which the responses are sometimes reinforced and sometimes not. In comparison to continuous

reinforcement, partial reinforcement schedules lead to slower initial learning, but they also lead to greater resistance

to extinction. Because the reinforcement does not appear after every behaviour, it takes longer for the learner to

determine that the reward is no longer coming, and thus extinction is slower. The four types of partial reinforcement

schedules are summarized in Table 8.2, “Reinforcement Schedules.”

Table 8.2 Reinforcement Schedules.

[Skip Table]

Reinforcement

schedule Explanation Real-world example

Fixed-ratio Behaviour is reinforced after a specific number of

responses.

Factory workers who are paid according to

the number of products they produce

Variable-ratio Behaviour is reinforced after an average, but unpredictable,

number of responses.

Payoffs from slot machines and other games

of chance

Fixed-interval Behaviour is reinforced for the first response after a specific

amount of time has passed. People who earn a monthly salary

Variableinterval

Behaviour is reinforced for the first response after an

average, but unpredictable, amount of time has passed. Person who checks email for messages

Partial reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time

that elapses between reinforcement (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism engages

in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) schedule. In

a fixed-interval schedule, reinforcement occurs for the first response made after a specific amount of time has

passed. For instance, on a one-minute fixed-interval schedule the animal receives a reinforcement every minute,

assuming it engages in the behaviour at least once during the minute. As you can see in Figure 8.6, “Examples

of Response Patterns by Animals Trained under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules,” animals under fixedinterval

schedules tend to slow down their responding immediately after the reinforcement but then increase the

behaviour again as the time of the next reinforcement gets closer. (Most students study for exams the same way.)

In a variable-interval schedule, the reinforcers appear on an interval schedule, but the timing is varied around

the average interval, making the actual appearance of the reinforcer unpredictable. An example might be checking

your email: you are reinforced by receiving messages that come, on average, say, every 30 minutes, but the

reinforcement occurs only at random times. Interval reinforcement schedules tend to produce slow and steady rates

of responding.

In a fixed-ratio schedule, a behaviour is reinforced after a specific number of responses. For instance, a rat’s

behaviour may be reinforced after it has pressed a key 20 times, or a salesperson may receive a bonus after he or

she has sold 10 products. As you can see in Figure 8.6, “Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained under

Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules,” once the organism has learned to act in accordance with the fixed-ratio

schedule, it will pause only briefly when reinforcement occurs before returning to a high level of responsiveness.

313 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 8.6 Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained under Different Partial

Reinforcement Schedules. Schedules based on the number of responses (ratio types) induce

greater response rate than do schedules based on elapsed time (interval types). Also, unpredictable

schedules (variable types) produce stronger responses than do predictable schedules (fixed types).

A variable-ratio schedule provides reinforcers after a specific but average number of responses. Winning money

from slot machines or on a lottery ticket is an example of reinforcement that occurs on a variable-ratio schedule. For

instance, a slot machine (see Figure 8.7, “Slot Machine”) may be programmed to provide a win every 20 times the

user pulls the handle, on average. Ratio schedules tend to produce high rates of responding because reinforcement

increases as the number of responses increases.

Figure 8.7 Slot Machine. Slot machines are examples of a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule.

Complex behaviours are also created through shaping, the process of guiding an organism’s behaviour to the

desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired behaviour. Skinner made extensive

use of this procedure in his boxes. For instance, he could train a rat to press a bar two times to receive food, by first

providing food when the animal moved near the bar. When that behaviour had been learned, Skinner would begin

to provide food only when the rat touched the bar. Further shaping limited the reinforcement to only when the rat

pressed the bar, to when it pressed the bar and touched it a second time, and finally to only when it pressed the bar

twice. Although it can take a long time, in this way operant conditioning can create chains of behaviours that are

reinforced only when they are completed.

Reinforcing animals if they correctly discriminate between similar stimuli allows scientists to test the animals’

8.2 CHANGING BEHAVIOUR THROUGH REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT: OPERANT CONDITIONING • 314

ability to learn, and the discriminations that they can make are sometimes remarkable. Pigeons have been trained

to distinguish between images of Charlie Brown and the other Peanuts characters (Cerella, 1980), and between

different styles of music and art (Porter & Neuringer, 1984; Watanabe, Sakamoto & Wakita, 1995).

Behaviours can also be trained through the use of secondary reinforcers. Whereas a primary reinforcer includes

stimuli that are naturally preferred or enjoyed by the organism, such as food, water, and relief from pain, a

secondary reinforcer (sometimes called conditioned reinforcer) is a neutral event that has become associated with

a primary reinforcer through classical conditioning. An example of a secondary reinforcer would be the whistle

given by an animal trainer, which has been associated over time with the primary reinforcer, food. An example of

an everyday secondary reinforcer is money. We enjoy having money, not so much for the stimulus itself, but rather

for the primary reinforcers (the things that money can buy) with which it is associated.

Key Takeaways

• Edward Thorndike developed the law of effect: the principle that responses that create a typically

pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a similar situation,

whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again in

the situation.

• B. F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a set of principles to explain operant

conditioning.

• Positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something that is typically pleasant

after the response, whereas negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or

removing something that is typically unpleasant.

• Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something typically unpleasant after the

response, whereas negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something

that is typically pleasant.

• Reinforcement may be either partial or continuous. Partial reinforcement schedules are

determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time that elapses

between reinforcements (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism

engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable

(variable) schedule.

• Complex behaviours may be created through shaping, the process of guiding an organism’s

behaviour to the desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired

behaviour.

315 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Give an example from daily life of each of the following: positive reinforcement, negative

reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment.

2. Consider the reinforcement techniques that you might use to train a dog to catch and retrieve a

Frisbee that you throw to it.

3. Watch the following two videos from current television shows. Can you determine which

learning procedures are being demonstrated?

a. The Office: http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/11/the-office-altoidexperiment-

1499823

b. The Big Bang Theory [YouTube]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA96Fba-WHk

References

Cerella, J. (1980). The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recognition, 12, 1–6.

Kassin, S. (2003). Essentials of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Essentials

of Psychology Prentice Hall Companion Website: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_kassin_essentials_1/15/3933/

1006917.cw/index.html

Porter, D., & Neuringer, A. (1984). Music discriminations by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal

Behavior Processes, 10(2), 138–148.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in

animals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved

from http://www.archive.org/details/animalintelligen00thor

Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ discrimination of painting by Monet and

Picasso. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 63(2), 165–174.

Image Attributions

Figure 8.5: “Skinner box” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skinner_box_photo_02.jpg) is licensed under the CC

BY SA 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en). “Skinner box scheme” by Andreas1

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skinner_box_scheme_01.png) is licensed under the CC BY SA 3.0 license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en)

Figure 8.6: Adapted from Kassin (2003).

Figure 8.7: “Slot Machines in the Hard Rock Casino” by Ted Murpy (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:HardRockCasinoSlotMachines.jpg) is licensed under CC BY 2.0. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

deed.en).

8.2 CHANGING BEHAVIOUR THROUGH REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT: OPERANT CONDITIONING • 316

8.3 Learning by Insight and Observation

Learning Objective

1. Understand the principles of learning by insight and observation.

John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner were behaviourists who believed that all learning could be explained by the

processes of conditioning — that is, that associations, and associations alone, influence learning. But some kinds

of learning are very difficult to explain using only conditioning. Thus, although classical and operant conditioning

play a key role in learning, they constitute only a part of the total picture.

One type of learning that is not determined only by conditioning occurs when we suddenly find the solution

to a problem, as if the idea just popped into our head. This type of learning is known as insight, the sudden

understanding of a solution to a problem. The German psychologist Wolfgang K.hler (1925) carefully observed

what happened when he presented chimpanzees with a problem that was not easy for them to solve, such as placing

food in an area that was too high in the cage to be reached. He found that the chimps first engaged in trial-and-error

attempts at solving the problem, but when these failed they seemed to stop and contemplate for a while. Then, after

this period of contemplation, they would suddenly seem to know how to solve the problem: for instance, by using a

stick to knock the food down or by standing on a chair to reach it. K.hler argued that it was this flash of insight, not

the prior trial-and-error approaches, which were so important for conditioning theories, that allowed the animals to

solve the problem.

Edward Tolman studied the behaviour of three groups of rats that were learning to navigate through mazes (Tolman

& Honzik, 1930). The first group always received a reward of food at the end of the maze. The second group never

received any reward, and the third group received a reward, but only beginning on the 11th day of the experimental

period. As you might expect when considering the principles of conditioning, the rats in the first group quickly

learned to negotiate the maze, while the rats of the second group seemed to wander aimlessly through it. The rats in

the third group, however, although they wandered aimlessly for the first 10 days, quickly learned to navigate to the

end of the maze as soon as they received food on day 11. By the next day, the rats in the third group had caught up

in their learning to the rats that had been rewarded from the beginning.

It was clear to Tolman that the rats that had been allowed to experience the maze, even without any reinforcement,

had nevertheless learned something, and Tolman called this latent learning. Latent learning refers to learning that

is not reinforced and not demonstrated until there is motivation to do so. Tolman argued that the rats had formed a

“cognitive map” of the maze but did not demonstrate this knowledge until they received reinforcement.

Observational Learning: Learning by Watching

The idea of latent learning suggests that animals, and people, may learn simply by experiencing or watching.

Observational learning (modelling) is learning by observing the behaviour of others. To demonstrate the

importance of observational learning in children, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) showed children a live image of

317

either a man or a woman interacting with a Bobo doll, a filmed version of the same events, or a cartoon version of

the events. As you can see in “Video Clip: Bandura Discussing Clips From His Modelling Studies,” the Bobo doll

is an inflatable balloon with a weight in the bottom that makes it bob back up when you knock it down. In all three

conditions, the model violently punched the clown, kicked the doll, sat on it, and hit it with a hammer.

Take a moment to see how Albert Bandura explains his research into the modelling of

aggression in children.

Watch: “Bandura Discussing Clips from His Modelling Studies” [YouTube]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWsxfoJEwQQ&feature=youtu.be

The researchers first let the children view one of the three types of modelling, and then

let them play in a room in which there were some really fun toys. To create some

frustration in the children, Bandura let the children play with the fun toys for only a

couple of minutes before taking them away. Then Bandura gave the children a chance

to play with the Bobo doll.

If you guessed that most of the children imitated the model, you would be correct. Regardless of which type of

modelling the children had seen, and regardless of the sex of the model or the child, the children who had seen

the model behaved aggressively — just as the model had done. They also punched, kicked, sat on the doll, and hit

it with the hammer. Bandura and his colleagues had demonstrated that these children had learned new behaviours

simply by observing and imitating others.

Observational learning is useful for animals and for people because it allows us to learn without having to actually

engage in what might be a risky behaviour. Monkeys that see other monkeys respond with fear to the sight of a

snake learn to fear the snake themselves, even if they have been raised in a laboratory and have never actually seen

a snake (Cook & Mineka, 1990). As Bandura put it,

the prospects for [human] survival would be slim indeed if one could learn only by suffering the consequences

of trial and error. For this reason, one does not teach children to swim, adolescents to drive automobiles, and

novice medical students to perform surgery by having them discover the appropriate behaviour through the

consequences of their successes and failures. The more costly and hazardous the possible mistakes, the heavier

is the reliance on observational learning from competent learners. (Bandura, 1977, p. 212)

Although modelling is normally adaptive, it can be problematic for children who grow up in violent families. These

children are not only the victims of aggression, but they also see it happening to their parents and siblings. Because

children learn how to be parents in large part by modelling the actions of their own parents, it is no surprise that there

is a strong correlation between family violence in childhood and violence as an adult. Children who witness their

parents being violent or who are themselves abused are more likely as adults to inflict abuse on intimate partners or

their children, and to be victims of intimate violence (Heyman & Slep, 2002). In turn, their children are more likely

to interact violently with each other and to aggress against their parents (Patterson, Dishion, & Bank, 1984).

Research Focus: The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression

The average North American child watches more than four hours of television every day, and two out of

three of the programs they watch contain aggression. It has been estimated that by the age of 12, the average

North American child has seen more than 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence. At the same time,

children are also exposed to violence in movies, video games, and virtual reality games, as well as in music

8.3 LEARNING BY INSIGHT AND OBSERVATION • 318

videos that include violent lyrics and imagery (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003; Schulenburg,

2007; Coyne & Archer, 2005).

It might not surprise you to hear that these exposures to violence have an effect on aggressive behaviour. The

evidence is impressive and clear: the more media violence that people, including children, view, the more

aggressive they are likely to be (Anderson et al., 2003; Cantor et al., 2001). The relationship between viewing

television violence and aggressive behaviour is about as strong as the relationship between smoking and

cancer or between studying and academic grades. People who watch more violence become more aggressive

than those who watch less violence.

It is clear that watching television violence can increase aggression, but what about violent video games?

These games are more popular than ever, and also more graphically violent. Youths spend countless hours

playing these games, many of which involve engaging in extremely violent behaviours. The games often

require the player to take the role of a violent person, to identify with the character, to select victims, and of

course to kill the victims. These behaviours are reinforced by winning points and moving on to higher levels,

and are repeated over and over.

Again, the answer is clear — playing violent video games leads to aggression. A recent meta-analysis by

Anderson and Bushman (2001) reviewed 35 research studies that had tested the effects of playing violent

video games on aggression. The studies included both experimental and correlational studies, with both

male and female participants in both laboratory and field settings. They found that exposure to violent video

games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings, psychological arousal

(including blood pressure and heart rate), as well as aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, playing more video

games was found to relate to less altruistic behaviour.

In one experiment, Bushman and Anderson (2002) assessed the effects of viewing violent video games

on aggressive thoughts and behaviour. Participants were randomly assigned to play either a violent or

a nonviolent video game for 20 minutes. Each participant played one of four violent video games

(Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat, or Future Cop) or one of four nonviolent video games (Glider

Pro, 3D Pinball, Austin Powers, or Tetra Madness).

Participants then read a story — for instance, this one about Todd — and were asked to list 20 thoughts,

feelings, and actions they would have if they were Todd:

Todd was on his way home from work one evening when he had to brake quickly for a yellow light. The

person in the car behind him must have thought Todd was going to run the light because he crashed into the

back of Todd’s car, causing a lot of damage to both vehicles. Fortunately, there were no injuries. Todd got

out of his car and surveyed the damage. He then walked over to the other car.

As you can see in Figure 8.8, “Results From Bushman and Anderson, 2002,” the students who had played

one of the violent video games responded much more aggressively to the story than did those who played

the nonviolent games. In fact, their responses were often extremely aggressive. They said things like “Call

the guy an idiot,” “Kick the other driver’s car,” “This guy’s dead meat!” and “What a dumbass!”

However, although modelling can increase violence, it can also have positive effects. Research has found

that, just as children learn to be aggressive through observational learning, they can also learn to be altruistic

in the same way (Seymour, Yoshida, & Dolan, 2009).

319 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 8.8 Researchers found that undergraduate students who had just played a violent video

game expressed significantly more violent responses to a story than did those who had just played

a nonviolent video game. [Long Description] Adapted from Bushman & Anderson (2002).

Key Takeaways

• Not all learning can be explained through the principles of classical and operant conditioning.

• Insight is the sudden understanding of the components of a problem that makes the solution

apparent.

• Latent learning refers to learning that is not reinforced and not demonstrated until there is

motivation to do so.

• Observational learning occurs by viewing the behaviours of others.

• Both aggression and altruism can be learned through observation.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Describe a time when you learned something by insight. What do you think led to your

learning?

2. Imagine that you had a 12-year-old brother who spent many hours a day playing violent video

games. Basing your answer on the material covered in this chapter, do you think that your parents

should limit his exposure to the games? Why or why not?

3. How might we incorporate principles of observational learning to encourage acts of kindness

and selflessness in our society?

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive

8.3 LEARNING BY INSIGHT AND OBSERVATION • 320

cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific

literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D.,…Wartella, E. (2003).

The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81–110.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84,

191–215.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3–11.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general

aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1679–1686.

Cantor, J., Bushman, B. J., Huesmann, L. R., Groebel, J., Malamuth, N. M., Impett, E. A.,…Singer, J. L. (Eds.).

(2001). Some hazards of television viewing: Fears, aggression, and sexual attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus

monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16(4), 372–389.

Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2005). The relationship between indirect and physical aggression on television and in

real life. Social Development, 14(2), 324–337.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003, Spring). Key facts: TV Violence [PDF]. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Retrieved from https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/key-facts-tv-violence.pdf

Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family

violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 864–870.

K.hler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes (E. Winter, Trans.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model of deviancy

training. Aggressive Behavior, 10(3), 253–267.

Schulenburg, C. (2007, January). Dying to entertain: Violence on prime time broadcast television, 1998 to 2006

[PDF]. Los Angeles, CA: Parents Television Council. Retrieved from http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/

reports/violencestudy/DyingtoEntertain.pdf

Seymour, B., Yoshida, W., & Dolan, R. (2009) Altruistic learning. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 23.

Tolman, E. C., & Honzik, C. H. (1930). Introduction and removal of reward, and maze performance in

rats. University of California Publications in Psychology, 4, 257–275.

321 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Long Descriptions

Figure 8.8 long description: Effect of Violent and Nonviolent

Video Games

Non-violent video game Violent video game

Do/say 3.0 4.8

Think 1.8 2.5

Feel 5.5 7.0

[Return to Figure 8.8]

8.3 LEARNING BY INSIGHT AND OBSERVATION • 322

8.4 Using the Principles of Learning to Understand Everyday Behaviour

Learning Objectives

1. Review the ways that learning theories can be applied to understanding and modifying

everyday behaviour.

2. Describe the situations under which reinforcement may make people less likely to enjoy

engaging in a behaviour.

3. Explain how principles of reinforcement are used to understand social dilemmas, such as the

prisoner’s dilemma, and why people are likely to make competitive choices in them.

The principles of learning are some of the most general and most powerful in all of psychology. It would be fair

to say that these principles account for more behaviour using fewer principles than any other set of psychological

theories. The principles of learning are applied in numerous ways in everyday settings. For example, operant

conditioning has been used to motivate employees, to improve athletic performance, to increase the functioning of

those suffering from developmental disabilities, and to help parents successfully toilet train their children (Azrin &

Foxx, 1974; McGlynn, 1990; Pedalino & Gamboa, 1974; Simek & O’Brien, 1981). In this section we will consider

how learning theories are used in advertising, in education, and in understanding competitive relationships between

individuals and groups.

Using Classical Conditioning in Advertising

Classical conditioning has long been, and continues to be, an effective tool in marketing and advertising (Hawkins,

Best, & Coney, 1998). The general idea is to create an advertisement that has positive features such that the ad

creates enjoyment in the person exposed to it. The enjoyable ad serves as the unconditioned stimulus (US), and

the enjoyment is the unconditioned response (UR). Because the product being advertised is mentioned in the ad,

it becomes associated with the US, and then becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS). In the end, if everything has

gone well, seeing the product online or in the store will then create a positive response in the buyer, leading him or

her to be more likely to purchase the product.

Can you determine how classical conditioning is being used in these commercials?

Watch: “Television Ads” [YouTube]: http://www.youtube.com/v/dsESVrArhbk

A similar strategy is used by corporations that sponsor teams or events. For instance, if people enjoy watching a

university basketball team playing basketball, and if that team is sponsored by a product, such as Pepsi, then people

may end up experiencing positive feelings when they view a can of Pepsi. Of course, the sponsor wants to sponsor

only good teams and good athletes because these create more pleasurable responses.

Advertisers use a variety of techniques to create positive advertisements, including enjoyable music, cute babies,

323

attractive models, and funny spokespeople. In one study, Gorn (1982) showed research participants pictures of

different writing pens of different colours, but paired one of the pens with pleasant music and the other with

unpleasant music. When given a choice as a free gift, more people chose the pen colour associated with the pleasant

music. And Schemer, Matthes, Wirth, and Textor (2008) found that people were more interested in products that

had been embedded in music videos of artists that they liked and less likely to be interested when the products were

in videos featuring artists that they did not like.

Another type of ad that is based on principles of classical conditioning is one that associates fear with the use of a

product or behaviour, such as those that show pictures of deadly automobile accidents to encourage seatbelt use or

images of lung cancer surgery to discourage smoking. These ads have also been found to be effective (Das, de Wit,

& Stroebe, 2003; Perloff, 2003; Witte & Allen, 2000), due in large part to conditioning. When we see a cigarette

and the fear of dying has been associated with it, we are hopefully less likely to light up.

Taken together then, there is ample evidence of the utility of classical conditioning, using both positive as well

as negative stimuli, in advertising. This does not, however, mean that we are always influenced by these ads.

The likelihood of conditioning being successful is greater for products that we do not know much about, where

the differences between products are relatively minor, and when we do not think too carefully about the choices

(Schemer et al., 2008).

Psychology in Everyday Life: Operant Conditioning in the Classroom

John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner believed that all learning was the result of reinforcement, and thus that

reinforcement could be used to educate children. For instance, Watson wrote in his book on behaviourism,

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and

I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select

— doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents,

penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I

admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of

years (Watson, 1930, p. 82).

Skinner promoted the use of programmed instruction, an educational tool that consists of self-teaching

with the aid of a specialized textbook or teaching machine that presents material in a logical sequence

(Skinner, 1965). Programmed instruction allows students to progress through a unit of study at their own

rate, checking their own answers and advancing only after answering correctly. Programmed instruction is

used today in many classes — for instance, to teach computer programming (Emurian, 2009).

Although reinforcement can be effective in education, and teachers make use of it by awarding gold stars,

good grades, and praise, there are also substantial limitations to using reward to improve learning. To be

most effective, rewards must be contingent on appropriate behaviour. In some cases teachers may distribute

rewards indiscriminately — for instance, by giving praise or good grades to children whose work does not

warrant it — in the hope that students will “feel good about themselves” and that this self-esteem will lead

to better performance. Studies indicate, however, that high self-esteem alone does not improve academic

performance (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). When rewards are not earned, they become

meaningless and no longer provide motivation for improvement.

Another potential limitation of rewards is that they may teach children that the activity should be performed

for the reward, rather than for one’s own interest in the task. If rewards are offered too often, the task itself

8.4 USING THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR • 324

becomes less appealing. Mark Lepper and his colleagues (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973) studied this

possibility by leading some children to think that they engaged in an activity for a reward, rather than because

they simply enjoyed it. First, they placed some fun felt-tipped markers in the classroom of the children they

were studying. The children loved the markers and played with them right away. Then the markers were

taken out of the classroom, and the children were given a chance to play with the markers individually at

an experimental session with the researcher. At the research session, the children were randomly assigned

to one of three experimental groups. One group of children (the expected reward condition) was told that

if they played with the markers they would receive a good drawing award. A second group (the unexpected

reward condition) also played with the markers, and also got the award — but they were not told ahead of

time that they would be receiving the award; it came as a surprise after the session. The third group (the no

reward group) played with the markers too, but got no award.

Then the researchers placed the markers back in the classroom and observed how much the children in each

of the three groups played with them. As you can see in Figure 8.9, “Undermining Intrinsic Interest,” the

children who had been led to expect a reward for playing with the markers during the experimental session

played with the markers less at the second session than they had at the first session. The idea is that, when

the children had to choose whether or not to play with the markers when the markers reappeared in the

classroom, they based their decision on their own prior behaviour. The children in the no reward group and

the children in the unexpected reward group realized that they played with the markers because they liked

them. Children in the expected award condition, however, remembered that they were promised a reward

for the activity the last time they played with the markers. These children, then, were more likely to draw

the inference that they play with the markers only for the external reward, and because they did not expect

to get an award for playing with the markers in the classroom, they determined that they didn’t like them.

Expecting to receive the award at the session had undermined their initial interest in the markers.

Figure 8.9 Undermining Intrinsic Interest. Mark Lepper and his colleagues (1973) found that

giving rewards for playing with markers, which the children naturally enjoyed, could reduce their

interest in the activity. [Long Description]

This research suggests that, although receiving a reward may in many cases lead us to perform an activity

more frequently or with more effort, a reward may not always increase our liking for the activity. In some

cases a reward may actually make us like an activity less than we did before we were rewarded for it. This

outcome is particularly likely when the reward is perceived as an obvious attempt on the part of others

to get us to do something. When children are given money by their parents to get good grades in school,

they may improve their school performance to gain the reward. But at the same time their liking for school

may decrease. On the other hand, rewards that are seen as more internal to the activity, such as rewards

that praise us, remind us of our achievements in the domain, and make us feel good about ourselves as a

325 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

result of our accomplishments, are more likely to be effective in increasing not only the performance of,

but also the liking of, the activity (Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008; Ryan & Deci,

2002).Other research findings also support the general principle that punishment is generally less effective

than reinforcement in changing behaviour. In a recent meta-analysis, Gershoff (2002) found that although

children who were spanked by their parents were more likely to immediately comply with the parents’

demands, they were also more aggressive, showed less ability to control aggression, and had poorer mental

health in the long term than children who were not spanked. The problem seems to be that children who are

punished for bad behaviour are likely to change their behaviour only to avoid the punishment, rather than by

internalizing the norms of being good for its own sake. Punishment also tends to generate anger, defiance,

and a desire for revenge. Moreover, punishment models the use of aggression and ruptures the important

relationship between the teacher and the learner (Kohn, 1993).

Reinforcement in Social Dilemmas

The basic principles of reinforcement, reward, and punishment have been used to help understand a variety of

human behaviours (Bandura, 1977; Miller & Dollard, 1941; Rotter, 1945). The general idea is that, as predicted

by principles of operant learning and the law of effect, people act in ways that maximize their outcomes, where

outcomes are defined as the presence of reinforcers and the absence of punishers.

Consider, for example, a situation known as the commons dilemma, as proposed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin

(1968). Hardin noted that in many European towns there was at one time a centrally located pasture, known as

the commons, which was shared by the inhabitants of the village to graze their livestock. But the commons was

not always used wisely. The problem was that each individual who owned livestock wanted to be able to use the

commons to graze his or her own animals. However, when each group member took advantage of the commons by

grazing many animals, the commons became overgrazed, the pasture died, and the commons was destroyed.

Although Hardin focused on the particular example of the commons, the basic dilemma of individual desires versus

the benefit of the group as a whole can also be found in many contemporary public goods issues, including the use

of limited natural resources, air pollution, and public land. In large cities, most people may prefer the convenience

of driving their own car to work each day rather than taking public transportation. Yet this behaviour uses up public

goods (the space on limited roadways, crude oil reserves, and clean air). People are lured into the dilemma by shortterm

rewards, seemingly without considering the potential long-term costs of the behaviour, such as air pollution

and the necessity of building even more highways.

A social dilemma such as the commons dilemma is a situation in which the behaviour that creates the most positive

outcomes for the individual may in the long term lead to negative consequences for the group as a whole. The

dilemmas are arranged in such a way that it is easy to be selfish, because the personally beneficial choice (such

as using water during a water shortage or driving to work alone in one’s own car) produces reinforcements for the

individual. Furthermore, social dilemmas tend to work on a type of time delay. The problem is that, because the

long-term negative outcome (the extinction of fish species or dramatic changes in the earth’s climate) is far away

in the future and the individual benefits are occurring right now, it is difficult for an individual to see how many

costs there really are. The paradox, of course, is that if everyone takes the personally selfish choice in an attempt to

maximize his or her own outcomes, the long-term result is poorer outcomes for every individual in the group. Each

individual prefers to make use of the public goods for himself or herself, whereas the best outcome for the group as

a whole is to use the resources more slowly and wisely.

8.4 USING THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR • 326

One method of understanding how individuals and groups behave in social dilemmas is to create such situations in

the laboratory and observe how people react to them. The best known of these laboratory simulations is called the

prisoner’s dilemma game (Poundstone, 1992). This game represents a social dilemma in which the goals of the

individual compete with the goals of another individual (or sometimes with a group of other individuals). Like all

social dilemmas, the prisoner’s dilemma assumes that individuals will generally try to maximize their own outcomes

in their interactions with others.

In the prisoner’s dilemma game, the participants are shown a payoff matrix in which numbers are used to express

the potential outcomes for each of the players in the game, given the decisions each player makes. The payoffs are

chosen beforehand by the experimenter to create a situation that models some real-world outcome. Furthermore, in

the prisoner’s dilemma game, the payoffs are normally arranged as they would be in a typical social dilemma, such

that each individual is better off acting in his or her immediate self-interest, and yet if all individuals act according

to their self-interests, then everyone will be worse off.

In its original form, the prisoner’s dilemma game involves a situation in which two prisoners (we’ll call them Frank

and Malik) have been accused of committing a crime. The police believe that the two worked together on the crime,

but they have only been able to gather enough evidence to convict each of them of a more minor offence. In an

attempt to gain more evidence, and thus be able to convict the prisoners of the larger crime, each of the prisoners

is interrogated individually, with the hope that he will confess to having been involved in the more major crime

in return for a promise of a reduced sentence if he confesses first. Each prisoner can make either the cooperative

choice (which is to not confess) or the competitive choice (which is to confess).

The incentives for either confessing or not confessing are expressed in a payoff matrix such as the one shown in

Figure 8.10, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.” The top of the matrix represents the two choices that Malik might make

(to either confess that he did the crime or not confess), and the side of the matrix represents the two choices that

Frank might make (also to either confess or not confess). The payoffs that each prisoner receives, given the choices

of each of the two prisoners, are shown in each of the four squares.

If both prisoners take the cooperative choice by not confessing (the situation represented in the upper left square

of the matrix), there will be a trial, the limited available information will be used to convict each prisoner, and

they each will be sentenced to a relatively short prison term of three years. However, if either of the prisoners

confesses, turning “state’s evidence” against the other prisoner, then there will be enough information to convict the

other prisoner of the larger crime, and that prisoner will receive a sentence of 30 years, whereas the prisoner who

confesses will get off free. These outcomes are represented in the lower left and upper right squares of the matrix.

Finally, it is possible that both players confess at the same time. In this case there is no need for a trial, and in return

the prosecutors offer a somewhat reduced sentence (of 10 years) to each of the prisoners.

The prisoner’s dilemma has two interesting characteristics that make it a useful model of a social dilemma. For

one, the prisoner’s dilemma is arranged in such a way that a positive outcome for one player does not necessarily

mean a negative outcome for the other player. If you consider again the matrix in Figure 8.10, “The Prisoner’s

Dilemma,” you can see that if one player takes the cooperative choice (to not confess) and the other takes the

competitive choice (to confess), then the prisoner who cooperates loses, whereas the other prisoner wins. However,

if both prisoners make the cooperative choice, each remaining quiet, then neither gains more than the other, and

both prisoners receive a relatively light sentence. In this sense, both players can win at the same time.

Second, the prisoner’s dilemma matrix is arranged so that each individual player is motivated to take the competitive

choice because this choice leads to a higher payoff regardless of what the other player does. Imagine for a moment

that you are Malik, and you are trying to decide whether to cooperate (don’t confess) or to compete (confess). And

imagine that you are not really sure what Frank is going to do. Remember the goal of the individual is to maximize

outcomes. The values in the matrix make it clear that if you think that Frank is going to confess, you should confess

327 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 8.10 The Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the prisoner’s dilemma game, two suspected criminals

are interrogated separately. The matrix indicates the outcomes for each prisoner, measured as the

number of years each is sentenced to prison, as a result of each combination of cooperative (don’t

confess) and competitive (confess) decisions. Outcomes for Malik are in black and outcomes for

Frank are in grey. [Long Description]

yourself (to get 10 rather than 30 years in prison). And it is also clear that if you think Frank is not going to confess,

you should still confess (to get no time in prison rather than three years). So the matrix is arranged so that the “best”

alternative for each player, at least in the sense of pure reward and self-interest, is to make the competitive choice,

even though in the end both players would prefer the combination in which both players cooperate to the one in

which they both compete.

Although initially specified in terms of the two prisoners, similar payoff matrices can be used to predict behaviour

in many different types of dilemmas involving two or more parties and including choices of helping and not helping,

working and loafing, and paying and not paying debts. For instance, we can use the prisoner’s dilemma to help us

understand roommates living together in a house who might not want to contribute to the housework. Each of them

would be better off if they relied on the other to clean the house. Yet if neither of them makes an effort to clean the

house (the cooperative choice), the house becomes a mess and they will both be worse off.

Key Takeaways

• Learning theories have been used to change behaviours in many areas of everyday life.

8.4 USING THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR • 328

• Some advertising uses classical conditioning to associate a pleasant response with a product.

• Rewards are frequently and effectively used in education but must be carefully designed to be

contingent on performance and to avoid undermining interest in the activity.

• Social dilemmas, such as the prisoner’s dilemma, can be understood in terms of a desire to

maximize one’s outcomes in a competitive relationship.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Find and share with your class some examples of advertisements that make use of classical

conditioning to create positive attitudes toward products.

2. Should parents use both punishment as well as reinforcement to discipline their children? On

what principles of learning do you base your opinion?

3. Think of a social dilemma other than one that has been discussed in this chapter, and explain

people’s behaviour in it in terms of principles of learning.

References

Azrin, N., & Foxx, R. M. (1974). Toilet training in less than a day. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better

performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest,

4, 1–44.

Das, E. H. H. J., de Wit, J. B. F., & Stroebe, W. (2003). Fear appeals motivate acceptance of action

recommendations: Evidence for a positive bias in the processing of persuasive messages. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 650–664.

Emurian, H. H. (2009). Teaching Java: Managing instructional tactics to optimize student learning. International

Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education, 3(4), 34–49.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A metaanalytic

and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539–579.

Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior: A classical conditioning

approach. Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 94–101.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

329 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Hawkins, D., Best, R., & Coney, K. (1998). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (7th ed.). Boston,

MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals,

and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398–416.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward:

A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137.

McGlynn, S. M. (1990). Behavioral approaches to neuropsychological rehabilitation. Psychological Bulletin, 108,

420–441.

Miller, N., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pedalino, E., & Gamboa, V. U. (1974). Behavior modification and absenteeism: Intervention in one industrial

setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 694–697.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Poundstone, W. (1992). The prisoner’s dilemma. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Rotter, J. B. (1945). Social learning and clinical psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective.

In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University

of Rochester Press.

Schemer, C., Matthes, J. R., Wirth, W., & Textor, S. (2008). Does “Passing the Courvoisier” always pay off?

Positive and negative evaluative conditioning effects of brand placements in music videos. Psychology &

Marketing, 25(10), 923–943.

Simek, T. C., & O’Brien, R. M. (1981). Total golf: A behavioral approach to lowering your score and getting more

out of your game. New York, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Skinner, B. F. (1965). The technology of teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences,

162(989): 427–43.

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health

campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615.

Image Attributions

Figure 8.9: Adapted from Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1973).

8.4 USING THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR • 330

Long Descriptions

Figure 8.9 long description: Undermining intrinsic

interest.

First Session Second Session

Expected award 17 8

No award 15 16

Unexpected award 17 17

[Return to Figure 8.9]

Figure 8.10 long description: The prisoner’s Dilemma. If both Malik and Frank don’t confess, they each get three

years in prison. If only one of them confesses, the confessor gets no years in prison while the person who did not

confess gets 30 years in prison. If they both confess, they each get 10 years in prison. [Return to Figure 8.10]

331 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

8.5 Chapter Summary

Classical conditioning was first studied by physiologist Ivan Pavlov. In classical conditioning, a person or animal

learns to associate a neutral stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, or CS) with a stimulus (the unconditioned stimulus,

or US) that naturally produces a behaviour (the unconditioned response, or UR). As a result of this association, the

previously neutral stimulus comes to elicit the same or similar response (the conditioned response, or CR).

Classically conditioned responses show extinction if the CS is repeatedly presented without the US. The CR may

reappear later in a process known as spontaneous recovery.

Organisms may show stimulus generalization, in which stimuli similar to the CS may produce similar behaviours,

or stimulus discrimination, in which the organism learns to differentiate between the CS and other similar stimuli.

Second-order conditioning occurs when a second CS is conditioned to a previously established CS.

Psychologist Edward Thorndike developed the law of effect: the idea that responses that are reinforced are “stamped

in” by experience and thus occur more frequently, whereas responses that are punished are “stamped out” and

subsequently occur less frequently.

B. F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a set of principles to explain operant conditioning.

Positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something pleasant after the response, and negative

reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something unpleasant. Positive punishment weakens

a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response, whereas negative punishment weakens a response

by reducing or removing something pleasant.

Shaping is the process of guiding an organism’s behaviour to the desired outcome through the use of reinforcers.

Reinforcement may be either partial or continuous. Partial-reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the

reward is presented on the basis of the time that elapses between rewards (interval) or on the basis of the number

of responses that the organism engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or

unpredictable (variable) schedule.

Not all learning can be explained through the principles of classical and operant conditioning. Insight is the sudden

understanding of the components of a problem that makes the solution apparent, and latent learning refers to

learning that is not reinforced and not demonstrated until there is motivation to do so.

Learning by observing the behaviour of others and the consequences of those behaviours is known as observational

learning. Aggression, altruism, and many other behaviours are learned through observation.

Learning theories can be and have been applied to change behaviours in many areas of everyday life. Some

advertising uses classical conditioning to associate a pleasant response with a product.

Rewards are frequently and effectively used in education but must be carefully designed to be contingent on

performance and to avoid undermining interest in the activity.

332

Social dilemmas, such as the prisoner’s dilemma, can be understood in terms of a desire to maximize one’s

outcomes in a competitive relationship.

333 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION


最后修改: 2022年05月26日 星期四 09:46