PSYF 212 Principles of Learning PDF (2024-2025)

11/24/24 PSYF 212 Principles of Learning Mehmet Akif GÜZEL, PhD, Assoc Prof, Cognitive Psy, Dep of Psychology, Factory Building, FOA11 2024-2025 Fall Term Mon, 2 hrs (13.00-14.45) Thurs, 3 hrs (...

11/24/24 PSYF 212 Principles of Learning Mehmet Akif GÜZEL, PhD, Assoc Prof, Cognitive Psy, Dep of Psychology, Factory Building, FOA11 2024-2025 Fall Term Mon, 2 hrs (13.00-14.45) Thurs, 3 hrs (13.00-15.45) Chapter 7 Instrumental Conditioning: Motivational Mechanisms Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 1 Instrumental Behavior from Two Radically Different Perspectives Associative Structure Response-Allocation Thorndike Skinner Relies heavily on associations; Relies on broader context of compatible with Pavlovian numerous activities organisms are conditioning constantly doing Relevant research stimulated by Concerned with how instrumental efforts to identify role of Pavlovian conditioning procedure limits free mechanisms in instrumental learning flow of activities/consequences of Molecular perspective; focuses on limitation individual responses and specific Molar perspective; considers long- stimulus antecedents/response term goals and how to achieve goals outcomes in context of behavioral options 2 1  11/24/24 Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Involves more than just response and reinforcer Instrumental response occurs in the context of specific environmental stimuli 3 S-R Association and the Law of Effect S–R Association–key to instrumental learning and central to law of effect Law of Effect–involves establishment of S-R association between instrumental response (R) and contextual stimuli (S) present when response reinforced Law of effect does not involve learning about reinforcer or response outcome (O) or relation between response and reinforcing outcome (the R-O association) Role of the reinforcer = “stamp in” or strengthen S-R association Thorndike thought once established, S-R association solely responsible for instrumental behaviour Fell into disfavour during cognitive revolution Resurgence of interest in S-R mechanisms in recent efforts to characterize habitual behaviour in people (example = drug addiction) Habits are 45% of human behaviour!!! 4 2  11/24/24 Expectancy of Reward and the S-O Association Specification of instrumental response ensures that participant will always experience certain distinctive stimuli (S) in connection with making response Stimuli may involve distinctive place, texture, smell, sight cues …SSSRSSS.. Reinforcement of instrumental response results in pairing stimuli (S) with reinforcer or response outcome (O) Pairings provide potential for classical conditioning and establishment of association between S and O 5 Two-Process Theory Pavlovian and Instrumental Conditioning are related During course of instrumental conditioning, stimuli (S) reinforced become associated with response outcome (O) through Pavlovian conditioning Results in S-O association Pavlovian Instrumental Transfer Experiment–basic experimental design for evaluating Two-Process Theory 6 3  11/24/24 Conditioned Emotional States or Reward-Specific Expectancies Two-Process Theory–assumes classical conditioning mediates instrumental behavior through conditioning of positive or negative emotions depending on emotional valence of reinforcer Organisms also acquire specific reward expectancies instead of just categorical positive or negative emotions during instrumental and classical conditioning Expectancies for specific rewards rather than general positive emotional states determine the results in transfer test 7 R-O and S(R-O) Relations in Instrumental Conditioning Neither S-R nor S-O association involves direct link between response (R) and reinforcer or outcome (O) This is counterintuitive! Example = if you asked your roommate why she was combing her hair, she would reply that she expected that combing her hair (R) would improve her appearance (O) Although our informal explanations of instrumental behavior emphasize R- O associations, such associations do not exist in two-process models 8 4  11/24/24 Evidence of R-O Associations and Hierarchical S-O Relationships Evidence devaluing reinforcer after conditioning Hierarchical S-O Relationships Reinforcer devaluation makes reinforcer less attractive Organisms associate instrumental response with outcome R-O associations produce instrumental behavior alone Instrumental response activates expectancy of reinforcer, but not sufficient to identify response cause; additional factor required to activate R-O association R-O association activated by stimuli (S) present when response reinforced; in addition to activating R directly, S also activates R-O association R-O associations are involved in instrumental drug- seeking behavior S, R, and O in instrumental conditioning are connected through conditional S(R-O) relation; three- R-O mechanisms predominate in free operant situations, whereas S-R mechanisms activated when term contingency drug taking is a response to drug-related cues S(R-O) associations are learned during course of instrumental conditioning 9 The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 10 5  11/24/24 Antecedents of the Response Allocation Approach Response Allocation–molar approach focusing on how instrumental conditioning procedures put limitations on activities, cause redistributions of behavior among available response options Consummatory-Response–species-typical consummatory responses (example = eating, drinking) are critical feature of reinforcers Premack / Differential Probability Principle–difference in likelihood of instrumental and reinforcer responses – Encourages thinking about reinforcers as responses rather than as stimuli – Greatly expands range of activities investigators use as reinforcers; any behavior can serve as reinforcer provided that it is more likely than the instrumental response Response-Deprivation Hypothesis–restriction of reinforcer activity critical factor for instrumental reinforcement (not the differential probability) 11 The Response Allocation Approach Considers broad range of activities always available to individual Examines how response distribution altered when instrumental conditioning procedure is introduced; what factors determine the nature of the response reallocation Behavioral Bliss Point–unrestricted baseline; preferred response allocation in absence of restrictions Minimum-Deviation Model–individuals generally defend their response allocations against challenges to bliss point. Introduction of response- reinforcer contingency causes organisms to redistribute behavior between instrumental and contingent responses to minimize total deviation of two responses from bliss point Accurate prediction of instrumental conditioning procedure effects considers broader context of the organism’s response options 12 6  11/24/24 FIGURE 7.7 Allocation of behavior between spending time on Facebook and studying. The open circle shows the optimal allocation, or behavioral bliss point, obtained when there are no constraints on either activity. The schedule line represents a schedule of reinforcement in which the student is required to study for the same amount of time that he or she spends on Facebook. Notice that once this schedule of reinforcement is imposed, it is no longer possible for the student to achieve the behavioral bliss point. The schedule deprives the student of time on Facebook and forces or motivates an increase in studying. The Principles of Learning and Behavior, 7e by Michael Domjan Copyright © 2015 Wadsworth Publishing, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 13 Behavioral Economics Similarities between economic restrictions in marketplace and schedule constraints in instrumental conditioning Demand Curve – relation between price of commodity and purchased amount Elasticity of Demand– degree to which price influences demand Determinants of the Elasticity of Demand: Availability of Substitutes Price Range Income Level Link to Complementary Commodity 14 7  11/24/24 Contributions of Response Allocation Approach and Behavioral Economics Response allocation approach moves us away from thinking about reinforcers as special kinds of stimuli/ responses Instead, look for causes of reinforcement in how instrumental contingencies constrain free flow of behavior Reinforcement effects regarded as consequence of schedule constraints on organism’s ongoing activities Instrumental conditioning procedures do not “stamp in” to strengthen instrumental behavior Instead, instrumental conditioning creates new distribution/allocation of responses Resulting reallocation depends on tradeoffs between various options usefully characterized by behavioral economics Response Allocation Approach and Behavioral Economics provide new and precise ways of describing constraints that various instrumental conditioning procedures impose on organism’s behavior Behavioral Economics emphasize that instrumental behavior cannot be studied in a vacuum Instead, all response options must be considered as a system; changes in one part of system determine how other parts of the system can be altered Constraints imposed by instrumental procedures are more or less effective depending on availability of substitutes, level of income, linkages to complementary commodities 15 Conclusion The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning The S-R Association and the Law of Effect Expectancy of Reward and the S-O Association R-O and S(R-O) Relations in Instrumental Conditioning Response Allocation and Behavioral Economics Antecedents of the Response Allocation Approach The Response Allocation Approach Behavioral Economics Contributions of the Response Allocation Approach and Behavioral Economics 16 8