PSYC 3073-Learning and Cognitive Psychology Stimulus-Response Theory ABSTRACT Stimulus-Response Theory is a concept in psychology in general and a theory

in learning and cognition in particular, that refers to the belief that behavior manifests as a result of the interplay between stimulus and response. In a strict sense, the belief is that a subject is presented with a stimulus, and then responds to that stimulus, producing behavior (i.e., object of psychologys study as a field), or acquiring learning (i.e., object of conditioning or object of association response as, as a subject matter). Conditioning is a basic kind of learning whereby a response becomes more frequent or more predictable in a given environment as a result of reinforcement, with reinforcement typically being a stimulus or reward for a desired response. The Stimulus-Response Theories are: Ivan Petrovich Pavlovs Classical Conditioning; John Broadus Watsons Behaviorism; Edward Lee Thorndikes Connectionism; Edwin Ray Guthries Contiguity Theory; Burrhus Frederick Skinners Operant Conditioning; William Kaye Estes Stimulus Sampling Theory; Edward Chace Tolmans Sign Theory and Latent Learning; Clark Leonard Hulls Drive Reduction Theory; and Kenneth W. Spences Discrimination Learning. Ivan Pavlov Pavlovs Classical Conditioning is a reflexive or automatic type of learning in which a stimulus acquires the capacity to evoke a response that was originally evoked by another stimulus.While studying the role of saliva in dogs digestive processes, Pavlov stumbled upon a phenomenon he labeled psychic reflexes. While an accidental discovery, he had the foresight to see the importance of it. Pavlovs dogs, restrained in an experimental chamber, were presented with meat powder and they had their saliva collected via a surgically implanted tube in their saliva glands. Over time, he noticed that his dogs who begin salivation before the meat powder was even presented, whether it was by the presence of the handler or merely by a clicking noise produced by the device that distributed the meat powder. Fascinated by this finding, Pavlov paired the meat powder with various stimuli such as the ringing of a bell. After the meat powder and bell (auditory stimulus) were presented together several times, the bell was used alone. Pavlovs dogs, as predicted, responded by salivating to the sound of the bell (without the food). The bell began as a neutral stimulus (i.e. the bell itself did not produce the dogs salivation). However, by pairing the bell with the stimulus that did produce the salivation response, the bell was able to acquire the ability to trigger the salivation response. Pavlov therefore demonstrated how stimulus-response bonds (which some consider as the basic building blocks of learning) are formed. He dedicated much of the rest of his career further exploring this finding. In technical terms, the meat powder is considered an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and the dogs salivation is the unconditioned response (UCR). The bell is a neutral stimulus until the dog learns to associate the bell with food. Then the bell becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) which produces the conditioned response (CR) of salivation after repeated pairings between the bell and food. Several types of learning exist. The most basic form is associative learning, i.e., making a new association between events in the environment. There are two forms of associative learning: classical conditioning (made famous by Ivan Pavlovs experiments with dogs) and operant conditioning. John B. Watson further extended Pavlovs work and applied it to human beings. He called this theory Behaviorism In 1921, Watson studied Albert, an 11 month old infant child. The goal of the study was to condition Albert to become afraid of a white rat by pairing the white rat with a very loud, jarring noise (UCS). At first, Albert showed no sign of fear when he was presented with rats, but once the rat was repeatedly paired with the loud noise (UCS), Albert developed a fear of rats. It could be said that the loud noise (UCS) induced fear (UCR). The implications of Watsons experiment suggested that classical conditioning could cause some phobias in humans. Meanwhile, Edward Lee Thorndikes Connectionism Theory states that learning is the outcome of the relationships between stimuli and responses. These relationships become habits and may be strengthened or weakened depending on the nature and the frequency of stimuli and responses themselves. Connectionism was based on principles of associationism mostly claiming that elements or ideas become associated with one another through experience and that complex ideas can be explained through a set of simple rules. The three principles/laws are: (1) Law of Effect wherein connections are strengthened if the consequence or the effect is positive. In short, behavior or learning will take place or be repeated if the result of such action is pleasant. (2) Law of Exercise which means that the more you do or practice a certain behavior, then it will be strengthened. Connection becomes strong. However, practice or exercise doesn't strengthened a behavior or performance without feedback. Feedback is necessary especially if we aim for an improved performance or behavior. So, practice with feedback makes perfect. (3) Law of Readiness where proper mind set is the key word in this law. This law states that the more "ready" an individual to respond to a stimulus, the stronger will be the

bond between them. And, if an individual is ready to respond but is not made to respond, it becomes frustrating and annoying to that person. Edwin Ray Guthries Contiguity Theory is a stimulus or combination of stimuli that is followed by a particular response will, upon its reoccurrence tend to be followed by the same response again. Thus, S-R connections gain its full strength on one-trail or on the first pairing of the S-R connection (contiguity, not frequency). According to Guthrie repetitions neither strengthen nor weaken the connection already made. Guthrie's contiguity theory specifies that "a combination of stimuli which has accompanied a movement will on its recurrence tend to be followed by that movement". According to Guthrie, all learning was a consequence of association between a particular st imulus and response. Futhermore, Guthrie argued that stimuli and responses affect specific sensory-motor patterns; what is learned are movements, not behaviors. In contiguity theory, rewards or punishment play no significant role in learning since they occur after the association between stimulus and response has been made. Learning takes place in a single trial (all or none). However, since each stimulus pattern is slightly different, many trials may be necessary to produce a general response. One interesting principle that arises from this position is called "postremity" which specifies that we always learn the last thing we do in response to a specific stimulus situation. Contiguity theory suggests that forgetting is due to interference rather than the passage of time; stimuli become associated with new responses. Previous conditioning can also be changed by being associated with inhibiting responses such as fear or fatigu e. The role of motivation is to create a state of arousal and activity which produces reponses that can be conditioned. Contiguity theory is intended to be a general theory of learning, although most of the research supporting the theory was done with animals. Guthrie did apply his framework to personality disorders. The classic experimental paradigm for Contiguity theory is cats learning to escape from a puzzle box . Guthrie used a glass paneled box which allowed him to photograph the exact movements of cats. These photographs showed that cats learned to repeat the same sequence of movements associated with the preceding escape from the box. Improvement comes about because irrelevant movements are unlearned or not included in successive associations. Its principles are: (1) In order for conditioning to occur, the organism must actively respond (i.e., do things); (2) Since learning involves the conditioning of specific movements, instruction must present very specific tasks. (3) Exposure to many variations in stimulus patterns is desirable in order to produce a generalized response. (4) The last response in a learning situation should be correct since it is the one that will be associated. Guthries call was answered by William K. Estes. His Stimulus Sampling Theory, which started as a form of stimulus-response associationism, attempted to formalize many of the ideas of Guthrie. Estes believed that the interplay between theory and experiment was hindered by the fact that none of the many current theories of learning commands general agreement among researchers, that progress toward a common frame of reference would be slow so long as most theories are built around verbally defined hypothetical constructs which are not susceptible to unequivocal verification, and that while awaiting resolution of the disparities among competing theories it would be advantageous to systematize well established empirical relationships at a peripheral, statistical level of analysis. He felt that the possibility of agreement on a theoretical framework would be maximized by defining concepts in terms of variables that could be experimentally manipulated and by developing consequences of assumptions through strict mathematical reasoning. Estes, like Hull, developed a mathematical model of learning. His model treated learning and performance as a stochastic[1] problem, and aimed to quantify the likelihood of a correct responsefor example, the chance of a rat turning left in a T-maze. Initially, the probability of the rat turning to the left is assumed to be .5. However, unlike a coin toss, in which each toss has a 50/50 chance of resulting in heads or tails, as a result of the learning process, the rat becomes progressively more biased to turning left. This learning, he assumed, takes place over the course of successive trials. An important assumption in the model is that the learning situation is made up of a large, but finite, number of stimulus elements. These elements include all things that the experimental subject experiences at the onset of a learning trial, including, the experimenter, the room temperature, extraneous noises inside and outside the room, and conditions within the experimental subject, such as fatigue, or headache. Estes model began with the basic premise of experimental behaviorism, namely, that a response, R, is a function of a stimulus, S: R = f(S) He then applied to this equation a mathematical expression of probability and restated this relationship to say that the probability of the occurrence of a response class, Rk, is a function of the ratio of x to S, where S represents the total number of stimulus elements effective in the stimulus situation, and x represents the number of those elements that are conditioned to the response class, Rk: Probability of Rk = x/S In other words, the probability of any response is assumed to be equal to the proportion of sampled elements on that trial that are connected to that response. It is important to understand how Estes concept of R and S were a departure from traditional definitions, and that his function was probabilistic rather than deterministic. Instead of considering R to represent a single response, he broke the concept of response into two parts: the R-class, and the R-occurrence. Each R-occurrence is a member of some R-class, and manifests the necessary characteristics required to satisfy some experimental definition of a correct response. For example, in a bar-pressing experiment, the R-class might

be defined to include any act that depresses the bar. Any movement of the organism which results in sufficient depression of the bar to actuate the recording mechanism is counted as an instance of the class. Estes also noted that the response class might be further broken down into finer subclasses, e.g., one that includes bar presses made with the right forepaw, and one that includes bar presses made with the left forepaw. Reinforcement of right-paw bar pressing will increase the probability that instances of that subclass will occur, and will also increase the probability that responses of the more general class, bar-pressing, will occur. John B. Watson had left academic psychology and other behaviorists were becoming influential, proposing new forms of learning other than classical conditioning. Perhaps the most important of these was Burrhus Frederick Skinner. He proposed Operant Conditioning. Although, for obvious reasons he is more commonly known as B.F. Skinner. Skinner's views were slightly less extreme than those of Watson. Skinner believed that we do have such a thing as a mind, but that it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events. Skinner believed that the best way to understand behavior is to look at the causes of an action and its consequences. He called this approach operant conditioning. Burrhus Frederick Skinners Operant conditioning focuses on using either reinforcement or punishment to increase or decrease a behavior. Through this process, an association is formed between the behavior and the consequences for that behavior. Classical conditioning involves making an association between an involuntary response and a stimulus, while operant conditioning is about making an association between a voluntary behavior and a consequence. In operant conditioning, the learner is also rewarded with incentives, while classical conditioning involves no such enticements. Also remember that classical conditioning is passive on the part of the learner, while operant conditioning requires the learner to actively participate and perform some type of action in order to be rewarded or punished. In Edward Chace Tolmans Sign Theory Latent Learning, he put forth the notion that there are three parts to learning which work together as a gestalt. These are the "significant" or goal of behavior, the "sign" or signal for action, and "means-end relations" which were internal processes and relationships. He believed learning is an accumulation of these sign gestalts, and that they are then configured into cognitive maps. Input about the environment, which is ongoing, also influences behavior in that it causes certain gestalts to be selected or not, in relation to the individuals purpose or goals, and other factors. In this sense, learning is unique to each individual. (see later discussions of schemas and constructivism). Tolman coined the term "cognitive map", which was an internal perceptual representation of external environmental features and landmarks. He thought that individuals acquire large numbers of cues from the environment and build up expectancies about their permanence or changeable characteristics. By using this internal representation of a physical space they could get to the goal by knowing where it is in a complex of environmental features. Short cuts and variable routes are possible with this model. Whereas behaviorists viewed training as a way to build up a certain set of sequenced responses, Tolman thought that training would lead to a tendency to go to a certain place. The subjects would learn where to go, not just how to go. Tolman also worked on "Latent Learning", defined as learning which is not apparent in the learner's behavior at the time of learning, but which manifests later when a suitable motivation and circumstances appear. The idea of latent learning was not original to Tolman, but he developed it further. Tolman also introduced intervening variables into the nomenclature of learning psychology. (This was very influential to Hull, who adopted the concept and terminology). In Tolman's system there were three classes of variables: (1) Dependent (behaviors or responses being observed and measured); (2) Independent (2 types were Environmental and Individual variation) (3) Intervening these are hypothetical constructs rather than physical parameters. They are definable and measurable but not observable. They have functional relationships with both independent and dependent variables. They are internal cognitive processes. Intervening variables was very influential to Hull, who adopted the concept and terminology. Behaviorist Clark Hull created the Drive Reduction Theory and further developed by his collaborator Kenneth Spence. According to the theory, the reduction of drives is the primary force behind motivation. Clark Hull started developing his theory shortly after he began working at Yale University. He drew on ideas from a number of other thinkers including Charles Darwin, Ivan Pavlov, John. B. Watson andEdward L. Thorndike. He based his theory around the concept of homeostasis, the idea that the body actively works to maintain a certain state of balance or equilibrium. For example, your body regulates its temperature in order to ensure that you do not become too hot or too cold. Hull believed that behavior was one of the ways that an organism maintains this balance. Based on this idea, Hull suggested that all motivation arises as a result of these biological needs. In his theory, Hull used the term drive to refer to the state of tension or arousal caused by biological or physiological needs. Thirst, hunger and the need for warmth are all examples of drives. A drive creates an unpleasant state; a tension that needs to be reduced. In order to reduce this state of tension, humans and animals seek out

ways to fulfill these biological needs. We get a drink when we are thirsty. We eat when we are hungry. We turn up the thermostat when we are cold. He suggested that humans and animals will then repeat any behavior that reduces these drives. Hull is considered a neo-behaviorist thinker, but like the other major behaviorists he believed that human behavior could be explained by conditioning and reinforcement. The reduction of the drive acts as a reinforcement for that behavior. This reinforcement increases the likelihood that the same behavior will occur again in the future when then same need arises. In order to survive in its environment, an organism must behave in ways that meet these survival needs. "When survival is in jeopardy, the organism is in a state of need (when the biological requirements for survival are not being met) so the organism behaves in a fashion to reduce that need," Hull explained. In a stimulus-response (S-R) relationship, when the stimulus and response are followed by a reduction in the need, it increases the likelihood that the same stimulus will elicit the same response again in the future. Kenneth Wartenbe Spence was a prominent American psychologist whose theoretical work on learning and motivation complemented the efforts by Clark Hull to develop quantitative theories of behavior and came to be known as neo-behaviorism. He called his theory Discrimination Learning. Spence's analysis of discrimination learning (1936, 1937) in terms of gradients of excitation and inhibition provided was one of the first to show that mathematical deductions from a quantitative theory could generate interesting and empirically testable predictions. A number of contributions to the psychological literature are attributed to Spence: (1) Incentive motivation and its mathematical formulation- Hull's theory was a habit theory of behavior. Spence departed from Hull because he attributed improvement in performance to motivational factors rather than habit factors; (2) Logic and scientific methodology in psychology - Spence identified four different kinds of theories in psychology. These were "animalistic conceptions", the belief that soul, libido, vital energy, or other vague "forces" within the organism guided behavior; "neurophysiological theories" such as Pavlov and Kohler; "Response-inferred theoretical constructs" such as put forth by Gestaltists such as Kurt Lewin; and "intervening variable" theories of Hull and Tolman; (3) Distinctions between SS (Sign-significate) and SR (Stimulus Response) learning- SS is more gestalt, emphasizing the perceptual nature of learning, while SR postulates associative connections between stimuli and responses and is thus more along the lines of behaviorist theories; (4) Experimentation in discrimination learning- Spence observed that reinforcement combined with frustration or inhibitors facilitated finding a correct stimulus among a cluster which included incorrect ones. This was a "carrot and stick" model; (5) Absolute stimulus theory and transposition Transpositional phenomena referred to the tendency of an organism to select between two NEW stimuli based on learning from a previous relationship of stimulus and response; (6) Importance of secondary reinforcement- a neutral stimulus that becomes coupled with a primary stimulus takes on reinforcing capacity itself; (7) Extinction of behavior in classical learning.