Behaviorist and Learning Aspects of Personality - Research Paper Example

?Assignment Fear, sometimes to the extent of phobia, can be the result ical conditioning. For example, if a loud noise (which naturally elicits a fear response) is consistently paired with a fear-neutral stimulus (like the sight of a triangle), then the neutral stimulus will come to elicit the fear response. Once the triangle or other previously neutral stimulus has gained the ability to cause fear to the subject, it can continue to strengthen itself without being paired with the unconditioned stimulus (a loud noise in this case) as fear is now a programmed response to subsequent exposures. Extinction is a characteristic of classical conditioning in which the association between the stimulus and learned response is weakened every time the stimulus (triangle) is presented without the associated unconditioned stimulus (loud noise). However, the persistence of learned fear makes it unlikely that it will dissipate over time due to the self-strengthening mechanism described above. To treat learned fear and phobias, extinction must usually be employed in a behavioral therapy paradigm. A process known as systematic desensitization is one of the most successful and commonly used procedures for treating phobias. These intense and irrational fears can take many forms (fear of dogs, snakes, open spaces, cheese) and are quite resistant to natural extinction effects. Along with the self-sustaining theory, phobias may retain their power because people tend to do everything they can to avoid the eliciting stimulus. Extinction cannot occur without exposure to the stimulus. Systematic desensitization addresses these issues directly. In order to allow extinction to occur, systematic desensitization ensures exposure to the unpaired conditioned stimulus, but does so in a gradual manner to minimize the fear response and eliminate self-sustainment of the phobia. The process is carried out in three parts (Foa, 2010). First, a fear hierarchy is constructed, listing situations related to the phobia in increasing intensity of discomfort. Next, the patient is trained in progressive relaxation (or deep muscle relaxation). This training will allow the patient to induce a state of calm through relaxation of specific muscle groups. Achieving the intended level of calm takes about twenty minutes, after which exposure to the fear-eliciting stimulus can begin. The typical fear hierarchy is made up of 10 to 15 steps, and begins with the least fear-evoking scenario that was established in the first step of systemic desensitization. The patient is instructed to imagine the scene, followed by a pause where the patient is told to use the relaxation technique that was learned in step two. This process is repeated until the patient reports no fear to the scenario. At this point, the next situation in the hierarchy is confronted. The process can continue, usually through multiple sessions, to gradually extinguish the fear in a step-by-step process (McNally, 2007). The approach can be augmented to use humor instead of relaxation in the second step, or by implementing virtual reality technology to assist with realism and precision. Modeling is an alternative approach to treating phobias or fears that are the result of conditioning. In this technique, patients watch a model (usually on video) that is shown interacting with the fear-causing stimulus. The intensity of the scene is increased as the patient observes. According to modeling theory, the likelihood of performing an act increases when a model is observed doing that act. Observing a model gradually influences the subject to partake in activities that involve their phobias, leading to the extinction of the fear. This approach has several advantages to systematic desensitization. The video aspect is more appropriate for young patients who may not be able to use their imagination properly and requires less instructor time. References Foa, E. B. (2010). Cognitive behavioral therapy of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Dialogues in Clinical Neurosciences, 12(2), 199-207. McNally, R. J., (2007). Mechanisms of exposure therapy: How neuroscience can improve psychological treatments for anxiety disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 750-759. Assignment 2 Classical conditioning is a process of learning where relationships between stimuli are strengthened and/or weekend by manipulating their associations. The most basic form of classical conditioning occurs when an unconditioned stimulus (US) is repeatedly paired with a conditioned stimulus (CS). As a result, the natural response to the US can become associated with the CS, so that subsequent exposure to the CS will evoke it. The response can be known as conditioned (CR) or unconditioned (UR) as they are similar in nature in most (but not all) cases of classical conditioning. Different types of classical conditioning can be performed by altering the time between the presentation of stimuli, as well as through other methods. Another process of learning is called operant conditioning. The implementation of an operant conditioning paradigm involves the modification of a behavior by exploiting the association of the behavior with a stimulus. There are four common forms of operant conditioning. Positive and negative reinforcement are paradigms that involve increasing the likelihood of a behavior by associating it with a rewarding stimulus, or by removing an unwanted stimulus, respectively. The weakening of a behavior is accomplished by associating it with the introduction of an unwanted stimulus (positive punishment) or by the removal of a wanted stimulus (negative punishment). The learning methods known as classical and operant conditioning are similar in several aspects, starting with the fact that they have both arisen from the field of behavioral psychology. Both theories are applied to either increase or decrease the likelihood of a behavior. The manipulation of stimuli is integral to both types of conditioning. Three main principles are shared between classical and operant conditioning, as acquisition, extinction, and spontaneous recovery have been observed in both processes. Functionally, both approaches can be used to treat phobias and other behavior-related conditions. There are fundamental differences between classical and operant conditioning. In classical conditioning, an already established S-R association is exploited to assign a response to a specific stimulus, while operant conditioning uses stimuli to alter the likelihood of existing behaviors. In operant conditioning, a voluntary response is necessary in order for the behavior to be rewarded or punished. Contrastingly, classical conditioning the response is induced (first by the US, then by the CS). Aversive counterconditioning is a classical conditioning approach that can be used to battle alcoholism and other unwanted behaviors. The aim of this treatment is to use a previously existing aversive association (US-UR) to replace a previous positive association with the unwanted behavior. A specific example of aversive counterconditioning is the use of certain pharmaceuticals to cause extreme sickness in response to alcohol. The intensity of the conditioned response increases the efficiency of this treatment approach. If an unwanted behavior is being reinforced by some rewarding stimulus, the principles of operant conditioning dictate that removing this stimulus will extinguish the association and lessen the likelihood of the response. This is a simple form of extinction that can be useful in many situations. For example, many of us have experienced being forbidden to be in the company of someone due to the risk of their being a “bad influence”. The rationale behind this action is that some people are easily influenced by the approval of another, and sometimes this approval requires the completion of deviant activities. In this case, removing the person who is the approving influence from the person’s presence will remove the reinforcer and decrease the likelihood of the unwanted behavior. References Mazur, J. E. (2005). Learning and behavior (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Neuringer, A. (2009). Operant variability and the power of reinforcement. Behavior Analyst Today, 10(2), 319-343. Assignment 3 Out of work baseball player Milton Bradley has a history of violent outbursts. He has been seen breaking bats over his leg, has been known to start a yelling match in the dugout, and is generally known to be a “ticking time bomb” by sports fans (and likely by the players themselves). Bradley has recently been arrested for allegedly swinging a baseball bat at his wife, and this has not been the first such occurrence, though he was not charged in the first incident. It seems obvious that this man requires a good deal of psychological assistance regarding his anger issues. We will focus on the theory of operant conditioning and the procedure of negative punishment as a possible co-treatment for Bradley. While more information would certainly be required in order to uncover the underlying issues that fuel Milton Bradley’s anger, we can infer from his behavior (as is the behaviorist approach) that he is severely deficient in anger management skills. Initially, my instinct was to recommend behavioral therapy in the form of contingency management. This process often involves a token economy or some other type of reward system, though it is possible for contingency management to be based on punishment (Kassinove, 2007). Being a professional baseball player, it is not a stretch to imagine that Bradley has no shortage of money or possessions, limiting the ability to manipulate his behavior with rewards. Under most contingencies, the implementation of punishment (especially positive punishment) would likely lead to more anger and further outbursts. However, there may be a way to make this existing anger response work for Bradley’s situation. Before the treatment could begin, we would need to identify something that is of high value to Bradley (Malott, 2004). Two variables that are poor choices for manipulations are money and attention due to the abundance of both that Bradley has at his dispense. The only way that money would be appropriate would be if a legal sanction were put in place that barred Bradley from accessing any of his holdings until his anger responses were extinguished. Similarly, he would have to be held in confinement to reach the level of isolation necessary for Bradley to feel deprived of attention. Of course, these situations are highly unlikely unless Hollywood is involved, so we will instead assume that the temporary withholding of materials or attention would not be efficient for anger management purposes. Once an appropriate reinforcer is selected, it may now be taken away whenever the undesired behavior occurs. For example, Bradley may be very close with a pet dog. At-home treatment could be implemented where time with his dog is restricted in the case of an angry outburst. In this situation, the goal is not necessarily to stop the anger from occurring (it will take other types of therapy to uncover the root cause), but instead to foster a greater sense of anger control. Not only is negative punishment (omission) put into use by restricting pet time, but also the desired activity of anger control can be immediately rewarded by reinstitution of the omitted stimulus. Milton Bradley has publically displayed his anger issues on multiple occasions. I believe that a treatment based on omission would be beneficial to Bradley, along with more direct psychological therapy. Negative punishment would allow us insight into the man on one very important level. The selection of an effective reinforcing stimulus (to be withheld upon performance of the undesired behavior) will require the revelation of what really matters to Milton Bradley. This type of knowledge is a large contribution to forming a complete understanding of anyone. References Kassinove, H. (2007). Finding a useful model for the treatment of anger and aggression. In T.A. Cavell & Kt. Malcolm (Eds.), Anger, aggression, & interventions for interpersonal violence (pp. 77-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malott, R. W., & Suarez, E. A. T. (2004). Principles of behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More