Issues of Pavlovian Conditioning - Literature review Example

Critical Review al Affiliation Rescorla (1988) carried out a systemic review of various research works to show that despite the dramatic expansion of Pavlovian conditioning, the changes have been poorly appreciated. The author wanted to show that Pavlovian conditioning is not an obsolete and intellectually stagnant technical field. This was done by reviewing some of the changes seen in the concept so that the topic could be given some contemporary form. The author stated that conditioning continues to play a key role in psychology and also touched on some of the key areas where it is being used. The review was focused on three major areas; the circumstances producing the conditioning, what is learnt and the influence it has on behavior. Each of these three areas of consideration relied on various research findings and studies that had been carried out. Majority of them were animal studies. A significant number of research works were considered in each of the subtopics being reviewed. The findings from the existing literature and data gave a very different picture from what has been the common perception on the topic of Pavlovian conditioning. Rescorla (1988) indicated that the common description that pairing and congruity of two events causes the conditioning to appear wrong based on the sampled studies. He notes that even though congruity remains a central concept in psychology, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce conditioning. The findings show that arranging two events or stimuli to be contiguous do not result in automatic association between them. Moreover, failing to ensure that the two events are not congruent does not preclude associative learning. As such, simple congruity does not capture the kind of relation that is needed to bring about associative learning. This was based on the early data available from several studies and on the basic results observed in different conditioning preparations. The second set of findings were those on the content of Pavlovian conditioning based on what is learnt. Unlike the earlier descriptions that conditioning involved learning about only about a single neutral stimuli, Rescorla (1988) argues that animals learn about many different stimuli. The studies considered revealed that associations are formed not just between the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli but also with a wide range of factors within a particular context. These associations that are developed play a modulatory role in the entire process. Rescorla (1988) suggests that the associations are formed among representation of several events which are themselves complex in relation to other associations. The third set of findings was those that describe the influence of conditioning on behavior. Unlike the earlier descriptions which had a restricted view on how the process affects behavior, the findings in Rescorla (1988) were delimited. Three major issues were noted to cause the restrictive perception of conditioning. First, the standard conditioning preparations which had been used before did not show how the conditioned stimulus was able to invoke response that had earlier been associated with unconditioned stimuli. Secondly, the available data shows that the preparations emphasized on repeated pairing of two stimuli yet pairing is not sufficient to result into learning. Finally, the associations influence behavior in several other ways apart from transferring response which was earlier caused by an unconditioned stimuli. Based on the data collected from a variety of sources, both old and modern, Rescorla (1988) was able to make three vital conclusions. First, the author stated that simple pairing is not sufficient to cause response from conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Earlier on, it had been believed that when the two kinds of stimuli are paired and congruent, the conditioned or neutral stimuli will be able to invoke the kind of response that had initially been only caused by the unconditioned stimuli. The second conclusion made was that in Pavlovian conditioning, the content leant is much more than the invoking of a response by the neutral stimuli since the organism forms a wide range of associations to a wide range of stimuli in different contexts. The final conclusion made was that conditioning impacts on the kind of associations and behaviors developed. The conclusions in the article can only be valid and agreeable if it can be proved that congruency and pairing are not central and sufficient to conditioning. Moreover, it is imperative to find out whether conditioning entails reacting to a variety of stimuli rather than just the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli. According to Mazur (2006), the contingency learning assumptions which early studies assumed have widely been disapproved on the basis of applicability. A study by Furedy (1990) to determine the relationship between congruency and responses gives a very good basis of looking at the entire issues. Furedy (1990) looked at how subjects respond to various chemical stimuli which was given in form of drugs. The findings indicated that there is a lot of inconstancy in congruency based prediction of response to a given set of stimuli. The researcher concluded that his findings showed non-significant correlation between response and the pairing of conditioned and unconditioned chemical stimuli. These findings agreed with the findings and conclusions made by Rescorla (1988). The argument by the author that congruency and pairing has minimal effect on conditioning is further supported by several modem experiments that have been done to study the blocking effect. The Kamin’s blocking effect demonstrates the phenomenon which takes place when three different kinds of stimuli are used to condition. In the experiment, the conditioning of association existing between a CS and UCS is impaired by introducing a second CS. In an experiment to study this concept, Lovibond & Shanks (2002) used a dog as the subject. The dog was exposed to light which was the first conditioned stimulus and food (unconditioned stimuli). After repeated pairing was done, it was found that the dog would salivate when the light was switched on. This was then followed by more trials whereby the animal was exposed to light, tone and food .When testing was done, the animal failed to salivate to the tone since an association had already been formed with the first conditioned stimuli. This blocking effect clearly demonstrates that pairing and congruency does not automatically lead to response. Rescorla (1988) makes the second conclusion that conditioning involves more activities than just responding to neutral and valuable events. This row was based on the circumstance that organisms respond to a variety of signals in different contexts at the same time. This idea is supported by Baum (2005), which states that there are several studies which have been done and they show that there seem to be some kind of hierarchal relationship between stimuli. Such findings are significant to the Pavlovian conditioning as they give an explanation and an idea of the various associations developed during conditioning (Balsam & Tomie, 1985). Earlier on, it had been held and believed that the associations play an ellicitive role. However, more recent findings appear to be pointing that they may have modulatory roles. Since the associations formed are caused by multiple events and stimuli, they cannot be merely taken as basic occurrences. The process entails learning about different associations that aid a rich and proper representation of the world and a given situation by the organism being considered. Thus, the learning process takes place with all the associations being taken into account. The issue of the Pavlovian learning content which is raised in the article by Rescorla (1988) has also been addressed by Pearce & Hall (1980). Four main ideas are raised. First, it was argued that there is a certain level of maximum associative strength which can been associated with conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Different UC stimuli will support different maximum levels of conditioning depending on the hierarchy of events in question. This implies that they will have varying asymptotic values. Secondly, while it may appear that the associative strength increase with each trail, it is a proven fact that it will depend on prior training. The event on which the organism has prior training on will have a superior place in the hierarchy of stimuli and thus it will have a higher level of associative strength. Moreover, the level of conditioning will depend not only on the amount of prior conditioning to a given stimulus but also the conditionings that were paired with the UCS used. Thirdly, the rate of conditioning has been found to vary depending on the type of CS and UCS used. Some stimuli acquire the associative strength quickly while others do not. According to Raio, Carmel, Carrasco & Phelps (2012), the varying strengths are a pointer that the various events do not have same order in the hierarchy. They cause diverse associations and the one which is superior will result in a given observable response. Several modern studies which have been done on the response associated with conditioning supports the third conclusion made in the article. These studies indicate that a single kind of stimuli can elicit varying reactions and responses from an organism. In the study by Pinel & Treit (1979), it was found that the kind of response noted depended not only on the kind of UCS but also on the properties of the stimuli. In this particular instance, two different signals coming from the same UCS were used. Pinel & Treit (1979) found that when the rats were subjected to diffuse tone, immobility was observed indicating that they were shocked. On the other hand, localized signaling resulted in an attempt by the organisms to hide by seeking cover from the available materials. This same argument that the same kind of stimuli carries a variety of responses is also seen in (Kruse, Overmier, Konz & Rokke, 1983). In this second instance, pigeons were used as the subjects. Different controlled stimuli that signaled food to the birds were employed. The results were amazing as different responses were noted. When a localized visual signal of food was used, directed pecking by the birds was observed. This was quite different from their reaction to diffuse auditory signals. The latter did not evoke any kind of pecking but rather enhanced their general activity. In both trials, the same unconditioned stimulus was used with variation being on the properties of the CS. From the available literature and previous studies, it is quite evident that the subject of Pavlovian conditioning continues to be widely researched. These studies provide backing to the claims made by Rescorla (1988) that the subject is not obsolete and have experienced a lot of changes. The conditioning process is clearly more than a reaction or response to two particular stimuli which have been repeatedly paired. The findings show that congruency and pairing are not key conditions sufficient enough to elicit a given kind of response. On the contrary, the organism in question develops the response to these stimuli on the basis of associative learning process. In any kind of scenario the subject may be exposed to a wide range of stimuli resulting in the development of different associations. It is such associations which determine the response which will be shown. The strength of the associative learning depend on the hierarchy level of that particular stimuli. On this basis, it can be concluded that Rescorla’s results and conclusions are valid and agreeable. The ideas and issues raised in the article can be applied in three major areas. First, they can be used as a sample learning process to allow for detailed analysis of various aspects of psychology. It can be used to study the nature of learning process and help in new developing techniques. The second area of application is in developing adjacent areas of scientific inquiry. The article gives information about the areas that can be pursued for a better understanding of psychological processes. This can be in cogitative and neuroscience. The final area of use is in the generation of practical solutions. An example can be in the development of some aspects of human behavior therapies. The new issues which have been raised will be handy in understanding the human behavior and with this understanding; the right interventions can be developed. References Balsam, P. & Tomie, A. (1985). Context and Learning. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Baum, W. (2005). Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution.New Jersey: Wiley. Furedy, J. (1990). Flights of teleological fancy about classical conditioning do not produce valid science or useful technology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12: 142-143. Kruse, J., Overmier, J., Konz, W., & Rokke, E. (1983). Pavlovian conditioned stimulus effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific. Learning and Motivation, 14, 165-181. Lovibond, P. & Shanks, D. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Proc, 28, 3–26. Malden: Blackwell Pub. Mazur, J. E. (2006). Learning and Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552. Pinel, J. P. J., & Treit, D. (1979). Conditioned defensive burying in rats: Availability of burying materials. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 392-396. Raio, C., Carmel, D., Carrasco, M., & Phelps, E. (2012). Nonconscious fear is quickly acquired but swiftly forgotten. Curr.Biol. 22, 477–479. Rescorla, R. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: Its not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151-160 Read More