Revision Guide - Learning Theories
Summary of Topic 4 - Learning Theories
Definition and key Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning theory, reward, punishment,
terms reinforcement, modelling
Methodology Observations, content analysis, animal studies, Chi squared test
Content Explaining the acquisition and maintenance of phobias.
Treatments and solutions for phobias, (systematic desensitisation and flooding)
Pavlov, Bandura, Skinner
Two Key Studies in Watson & Rayner (1920), Capafons et al (1998)
detail
Key Question Should airline companies offer treatment programmes for fear of flying?
Practical Observing gender differences in behaviour
Learning is a process that leads to a behavioural change. When we learn we change the way we see our
environment, interpret information and how we interact. Pioneers in this approach (Watson, Bandura, Pavlov
etc.) dominated 20th century research and work on the assumption that the focus of psychology should be on
the behaviours observed rather than the subjective assumptions of what a person may think or feel. The emphasis
is ‘nurture’ and the importance of how the environment ‘shapes’ our behaviour.
Key assumptions
1) Our environment shapes our behaviour. Environmental factors act as stimuli and we respond to them. We are
born with a ‘blank slate’ upon which our lives are written based on our experiences of the world. Experiences
lead us to behave in particular ways, the role of genetics is seen as relatively unimportant and does not for
example restrict our ability to succeed, we all have equal potential to be anything we want to be.
2) Behaviour is measurable. We can set up a stimulus and observe and measure the response. Therefore learning
is observable and can be studied scientifically. This can lead to general laws about our behaviour such as the
Law of Effect by Thorndike.
There are 3 types of learning:
● Classical conditioning (learning through association),
● Operant conditioning (learning through consequences of reward and punishment)
● Social Learning (learning through observation).
1
, CLASSICAL CONDITIONING - PAVLOV (1927)
Only applies to reflexive natural responses. E.g. Pavlov’s dogs
The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) (e.g. food) produces an unconditioned response (UCR) (e.g. salivation). By
pairing a neutral stimulus (NS) (e.g. bell) with the UCS an association is established and after several trials the NS
becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS) and now produces the conditioned response (CR)
(salivation) in its own right. Once the CR-CS link has been established it will need
occasional links back to the UCS+NS to maintain the response, otherwise extinction can
occur.
UCS e.g. food --> UCR e.g. salivation
UCS e.g. food + CS e.g. sound of bell --> UCR e.g. salivation
CS e.g. sound of bell --> CR e.g. salivation
● Extinction occurs if UCS and CS are not paired for a while - dog stops salivating.
● Generalisation means associating a similar stimulus with the CR
● Discrimination means associating only one stimulus with the CR
● Spontaneous recovery is when a CR recurs in response to the CS after extinction
Delayed conditioning is where the NS is presented before the UCS but is still present as the UCS is presented and is
the most effective method in experiments. Trace conditioning is where the NS again is present before the UCS but
stops before the UCS is presented. The time gap here is critical – if it is very short it can be moderately effective,
the longer the time lapse the less effective. Simultaneous conditioning is where the NS & UCS are presented
simultaneously and is slightly effective. Backwards conditioning is where the NS comes after the UCS and is
considered not to work in non-human animals though it does in humans.
EVALUATION:
Strength: reliable laboratory experiments
Strength: has practical applications for treatment such as systematic desensitisation and aversion therapy,
Weakness: validity and generalizability of findings weak as much research only done on animals, does not
explain all behaviour.
Classical conditioning in humans: Specific phobias are seen as an example of classical conditioning in humans,
for example it was discovered that a child afraid of sand had a sand pit near a garden gate, a local dog when
passing the gate snarled and snapped at the child causing fear (UCS-UCR) because the child was in the sand
pit, sand was the NS and the phobia developed.
2
, Classic Key Study - WATSON & RAYNER (1920) - Little Albert
Aim: to explore how classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia in humans using CC principles.
Method: Experiment
Procedure: 11-month baby Albert, placid and emotionally stable. Banged metal bar to startle Albert and then
linked noise to Albert playing with a pet rat. The NS in Watson and Rayner’s experiment was a white rat. Trials
before the experiment had shown that Albert did not mind the rat and certainly did not object to it. The UCS in
the experiment was the noise made by hitting an iron bar with a hammer just behind Albert. This produced a loud
noise that Albert found very upsetting. On a series of occasions, Watson and Rayner presented Albert with the rat
and, when he noticed it, struck the metal bar behind his head. Predictably, this caused Albert to become quite
upset. After a few trials, they presented the rat on its own. Even without the noise, Albert started crying. He had
learned to associate the rat with the noise, and this had produced a conditioned reflex:
Noise (UCS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Noise (UCS) + Rat (NS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Rat (CS) = Anxiety (CR)
Results: After a few trials Albert was agitated on seeing the rat. it became clear that it wasn’t just rats that made
Albert upset. His anxiety response had generalised to some other objects – white furry ones – that were similar to
the white rat.
Conclusion: Watson & Rayner concluded that they had succeeded in conditioning an infant fear of an animal
the child would not ordinarily be frightened of. Stimulus generalisation also was claimed in that Albert transferred
the fear to other similar stimuli. From the fact that the conditioned response was still present after 31 days, Watson
& Rayner concluded it might last a lifetime. Ivan Pavlov had shown that Classical Conditioning occurs in dogs but
Watson & Rayner were the first to demonstrate it occurred in humans too.
Evaluation: ☺ Supported Pavlov’s findings, good controls, The study was carefully documented; witnesses helped
to record the data and there were strict controls. Only one variable was changed at a time. The extensive
documentation meant the study could have been replicated and, therefore, tested for reliability but low
ecological validity because it was carried out in a lab.
☹ Ethical issues – Albert frightened. Albert’s mother appears not to have given fully-informed consent - though
there clearly was some degree of consent and an understanding of when he would be taken back by his mother
The researchers deliberately exposed Albert to psychological harm - causing him distress. They allowed him to
rest in between exposures to frightening stimuli but continued even when it was clear he was distressed. Hard to
generalise to others.
3
Summary of Topic 4 - Learning Theories
Definition and key Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning theory, reward, punishment,
terms reinforcement, modelling
Methodology Observations, content analysis, animal studies, Chi squared test
Content Explaining the acquisition and maintenance of phobias.
Treatments and solutions for phobias, (systematic desensitisation and flooding)
Pavlov, Bandura, Skinner
Two Key Studies in Watson & Rayner (1920), Capafons et al (1998)
detail
Key Question Should airline companies offer treatment programmes for fear of flying?
Practical Observing gender differences in behaviour
Learning is a process that leads to a behavioural change. When we learn we change the way we see our
environment, interpret information and how we interact. Pioneers in this approach (Watson, Bandura, Pavlov
etc.) dominated 20th century research and work on the assumption that the focus of psychology should be on
the behaviours observed rather than the subjective assumptions of what a person may think or feel. The emphasis
is ‘nurture’ and the importance of how the environment ‘shapes’ our behaviour.
Key assumptions
1) Our environment shapes our behaviour. Environmental factors act as stimuli and we respond to them. We are
born with a ‘blank slate’ upon which our lives are written based on our experiences of the world. Experiences
lead us to behave in particular ways, the role of genetics is seen as relatively unimportant and does not for
example restrict our ability to succeed, we all have equal potential to be anything we want to be.
2) Behaviour is measurable. We can set up a stimulus and observe and measure the response. Therefore learning
is observable and can be studied scientifically. This can lead to general laws about our behaviour such as the
Law of Effect by Thorndike.
There are 3 types of learning:
● Classical conditioning (learning through association),
● Operant conditioning (learning through consequences of reward and punishment)
● Social Learning (learning through observation).
1
, CLASSICAL CONDITIONING - PAVLOV (1927)
Only applies to reflexive natural responses. E.g. Pavlov’s dogs
The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) (e.g. food) produces an unconditioned response (UCR) (e.g. salivation). By
pairing a neutral stimulus (NS) (e.g. bell) with the UCS an association is established and after several trials the NS
becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS) and now produces the conditioned response (CR)
(salivation) in its own right. Once the CR-CS link has been established it will need
occasional links back to the UCS+NS to maintain the response, otherwise extinction can
occur.
UCS e.g. food --> UCR e.g. salivation
UCS e.g. food + CS e.g. sound of bell --> UCR e.g. salivation
CS e.g. sound of bell --> CR e.g. salivation
● Extinction occurs if UCS and CS are not paired for a while - dog stops salivating.
● Generalisation means associating a similar stimulus with the CR
● Discrimination means associating only one stimulus with the CR
● Spontaneous recovery is when a CR recurs in response to the CS after extinction
Delayed conditioning is where the NS is presented before the UCS but is still present as the UCS is presented and is
the most effective method in experiments. Trace conditioning is where the NS again is present before the UCS but
stops before the UCS is presented. The time gap here is critical – if it is very short it can be moderately effective,
the longer the time lapse the less effective. Simultaneous conditioning is where the NS & UCS are presented
simultaneously and is slightly effective. Backwards conditioning is where the NS comes after the UCS and is
considered not to work in non-human animals though it does in humans.
EVALUATION:
Strength: reliable laboratory experiments
Strength: has practical applications for treatment such as systematic desensitisation and aversion therapy,
Weakness: validity and generalizability of findings weak as much research only done on animals, does not
explain all behaviour.
Classical conditioning in humans: Specific phobias are seen as an example of classical conditioning in humans,
for example it was discovered that a child afraid of sand had a sand pit near a garden gate, a local dog when
passing the gate snarled and snapped at the child causing fear (UCS-UCR) because the child was in the sand
pit, sand was the NS and the phobia developed.
2
, Classic Key Study - WATSON & RAYNER (1920) - Little Albert
Aim: to explore how classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia in humans using CC principles.
Method: Experiment
Procedure: 11-month baby Albert, placid and emotionally stable. Banged metal bar to startle Albert and then
linked noise to Albert playing with a pet rat. The NS in Watson and Rayner’s experiment was a white rat. Trials
before the experiment had shown that Albert did not mind the rat and certainly did not object to it. The UCS in
the experiment was the noise made by hitting an iron bar with a hammer just behind Albert. This produced a loud
noise that Albert found very upsetting. On a series of occasions, Watson and Rayner presented Albert with the rat
and, when he noticed it, struck the metal bar behind his head. Predictably, this caused Albert to become quite
upset. After a few trials, they presented the rat on its own. Even without the noise, Albert started crying. He had
learned to associate the rat with the noise, and this had produced a conditioned reflex:
Noise (UCS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Noise (UCS) + Rat (NS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Rat (CS) = Anxiety (CR)
Results: After a few trials Albert was agitated on seeing the rat. it became clear that it wasn’t just rats that made
Albert upset. His anxiety response had generalised to some other objects – white furry ones – that were similar to
the white rat.
Conclusion: Watson & Rayner concluded that they had succeeded in conditioning an infant fear of an animal
the child would not ordinarily be frightened of. Stimulus generalisation also was claimed in that Albert transferred
the fear to other similar stimuli. From the fact that the conditioned response was still present after 31 days, Watson
& Rayner concluded it might last a lifetime. Ivan Pavlov had shown that Classical Conditioning occurs in dogs but
Watson & Rayner were the first to demonstrate it occurred in humans too.
Evaluation: ☺ Supported Pavlov’s findings, good controls, The study was carefully documented; witnesses helped
to record the data and there were strict controls. Only one variable was changed at a time. The extensive
documentation meant the study could have been replicated and, therefore, tested for reliability but low
ecological validity because it was carried out in a lab.
☹ Ethical issues – Albert frightened. Albert’s mother appears not to have given fully-informed consent - though
there clearly was some degree of consent and an understanding of when he would be taken back by his mother
The researchers deliberately exposed Albert to psychological harm - causing him distress. They allowed him to
rest in between exposures to frightening stimuli but continued even when it was clear he was distressed. Hard to
generalise to others.
3
