DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relationship Between Similarity and Episodic Memory for Associations Gregory E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Relationship Between Similarity and Episodic Memory for Associations Gregory E What’s in an Association? The Relationship Between Similarity and Episodic Memory for Associations Gregory E. Cox ([email protected]) Amy H. Criss 430 Huntington Hall, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244 USA Abstract Table 1: Examples of study and test pairs used by Dosher (1984) and Dosher and Rosedale (1991). When two events occur closely in time, an “association” exists Partial study list Test pair between memories for those events. When a pair of associ- + + ated events is semantically similar, it is easier to recognize the PRESENT—GIFT PRESENT—GIFT (S E ) CENTER—SUM complete pair and easier to tell the complete pair apart from CENTER—SUM (S−E+) pairs of events that did not co-occur; there is also, however, a TOTAL—MIDDLE DINNER—VOW bias to report that similar events had co-occurred, even when DINNER—SUPPER (S+E−) they had not. A new experiment shows that these phenomena PROMISE—SUPPER occur whenever two events share features, whether those fea- SUMMIT—PERSON − − tures are perceptual or conceptual in nature and whether the CURTAIN—PATTERN SUMMIT—PATTERN (S Eu ) events themselves are verbal or non-verbal. We present a dy- MOVIE—FILM − − namic model for storage and recognition of associations that MOTIVE—REASON MOVIE—REASON (S Er ) shows how all these results can be explained by the princi- ple that shared features lead to correlated processing of similar events, which in turn increases capacity to process associative study and test phases of this task, it is possible to assess what information. kinds of item information lead to better associative memory Keywords: Memory; associative recognition; similarity. and, therefore, to learn about how the mnemonic content of individual events (items) is related to the content of associa- Introduction tions formed between them. When two events occur closely in time, it is often the case Using this task, Dosher (1984) and Dosher and Rosedale that an “association” is formed between the memories for (1991) investigated the relationship between semantic simi- those events. That is, not only is information about the events larity and episodic memory for associations by using different themselves stored in memory (often called “item” informa- kinds of study and test pairs (Table 1). S+E+ pairs are those tion), so is information about the fact that they co-occurred that are both semantically related (S+) and studied together (often called “associative” information). The ability to store (E+); S−E+ pairs are those that are semantically unrelated both kinds of information underlies numerous cognitive func- (S−) and studied together (E+); S+E− pairs were not stud- tions, such as the ability to associate a word with its referent, ied together (E−) but are semantically related (S+). There are to discover analogies between similar scenarios, and to learn two kinds of S−E− pairs, i.e., pairs that are neither semanti- − − causal relationships between events. However, it remains un- cally related nor had been studied together: S Eu pairs are clear what the relationship is between memory for individual formed by rearranging pairs of items that had originally been − − events (items) and for combinations of events (associations). studied with unrelated items; S Er pairs are formed by rear- In particular, it is not clear what the content of an associa- ranging pairs of items that had been studied with semantically tion is—does it depend on properties of the associated items related items. They found three critical results: or is it independent? Based on a set of results regarding the 1. Correct recognition of an episodic association is improved relationship between similarity and associative memory, we when pairs are semantically related (S+E+ > S−E+). present a model in which associative information is based 2. False recognition of a rearranged pair is reduced when its upon alignment of item representations. Results from a new members were originally studied as part of semantically- − − − − experiment lend support to this model. related pairs (S Er < S Eu ). Memory for associations can be studied using the associa- 3. Semantically related rearranged pairs (S+E−) tend to be tive recognition paradigm. In this task, participants study a falsely recognized as having been studied, but primarily set of pairs of items such as words or images. In a subsequent when responding is rapid (S+E− ≈ S+E+ early, S+E− ≈ − − test phase, participants are asked to distinguish between pairs S Eu late). of items that were studied together (“intact” pairs) from those It is difficult for any single account to explain all these re- that were studied separately (“rearranged” pairs). Because sults: The first two results indicate that the presence of a se- the items in each test pair were always studied, this task selec- mantic relationship between a pair of items leads to stronger tively measures memory for the associations formed between encoding of their episodic relationship, since it not only im- items that were studied at the same time. Good associative proves correct recognition, but aids correct rejection as well. memory is indicated by the ability to correctly recognize in- Results 1 and 3 might lead one to conclude that semantically tact pairs (high hit rate and/or fast correct recognition) and to related pairs are more familiar by virtue of co-occurring more reject rearranged pairs (low false alarm rate and/or fast correct often in general, but in fact such words do not tend to co-occur rejection). By manipulating the kinds of item pairs used in the (synonyms or antonyms are used in place of one another, not 250 next to one another), nor would this explain result 2. Result 2 4. If shared features are used to encode an item at study but might be attributed to an encoding-specificity effect (Tulving they are no longer available at test, the similarity between & Thompson, 1973), but this would not explain the other re- the test item and memory for the studied item is reduced. sults nor why the effect is larger for pairs that were originally It is apparent that many of these consequences map onto the studied with a related word. Result 3 could indicate that asso- partial explanations offered in the Introduction—the aim of ciative recognition depends initially on an overall assessment our model is to show how they all flow from the single notion of “relatedness”, and a second source of purely episodic infor- that shared features lead to correlated processing. mation “suppresses” this initial bias (e.g., a “recall-to-reject” Representation and storage The event of encountering a mechanism). However, the suppression account does not ex- pair of items at either study or test is represented in work- plain why S+E+ > S−E+ even for slower responses (if se- ing memory as a set of binary (0 or 1) features. There are mantic relatedness were suppressed, this should mitigate the three types of feature, as depicted in the top row of Figure 1: advantage for S+E+ pairs) nor why it is easier to reject S−E− r context features, which represent the time and location of the pairs than S−E− (unless studying a semantically related pair u study event; item-specific features, which represent the per- also made that pair easier to recall, which could allow S+E+ ceptual and conceptual aspects of each item; and associative pairs to retain their advantage even for slow responses). features which represent the co-occurrence of the two items. Recent work from our laboratory suggests these results There is a limited capacity to hold features in working mem- may be a function of interactions between item memory and ory. This capacity is determined by the number of unique memory for associations. Cox and Shiffrin (2017) proposed a features across the event, such that when items are similar dynamic model for item and associative recognition in which less capacity is needed to represent them and more capacity is associative recognition decisions were based on a set of fea- available to represent associative features. Each item feature tures that emerged from the interrelation and/or elaboration of has probability s of being shared between two semantically the features of the component items. Because associative fea- related words. The proportion of features devoted to encod- tures can only emerge after enough item features have been ing associative information is pA for unrelated items and is processed, this model implies a strong interaction between 1−(1− pA)(1− pAs) for related items (in other words, either item and associative retrieval. Clear evidence for such an in- an associative feature is encoded normally with probability teraction was found by Cox and Criss (2017), however they pA or there is a shared feature with probability s and that ca- also found that item and associative information were also pacity is used for an associative feature with probability pA). separable, in that some decisions could be made on the basis If the pair is presented for study, its working memory rep- of just one kind of information (cf. Buchler, Light, & Reder, resentation is stored as a trace in long-term memory1. Stor- 2008). This prior work focused on the mechanisms involved age tends to be incomplete and error-prone. Because con- at retrieval, rather than what happens during encoding, leav- text features are persistent in the environment, we assume that ing unspecified the precise nature of the interactions involved. all available context features are stored in the memory trace. However, due to limited time and attentional resources, not A Dynamic Model of Associative Encoding all item or associative features may be stored—we let u de- While it would be possible to explain the set of results just note the probability that a non-context feature gets stored in reviewed in terms of multiple processes, we present a model the trace.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VERBAL BEHAVIOR by B. F. Skinner William James Lectures Harvard
    VERBAL BEHAVIOR by B. F. Skinner William James Lectures Harvard University 1948 To be published by Harvard University Press. Reproduced by permission of B. F. Skinner† Preface In 1930, the Harvard departments of psychology and philosophy began sponsoring an endowed lecture series in honor of William James and continued to do so at irregular intervals for nearly 60 years. By the time Skinner was invited to give the lectures in 1947, the prestige of the engagement had been established by such illustrious speakers as John Dewey, Wolfgang Köhler, Edward Thorndike, and Bertrand Russell, and there can be no doubt that Skinner was aware that his reputation would rest upon his performance. His lectures were evidently effective, for he was soon invited to join the faculty at Harvard, where he was to remain for the rest of his career. The text of those lectures, possibly somewhat edited and modified by Skinner after their delivery, was preserved as an unpublished manuscript, dated 1948, and is reproduced here. Skinner worked on his analysis of verbal behavior for 23 years, from 1934, when Alfred North Whitehead announced his doubt that behaviorism could account for verbal behavior, to 1957, when the book Verbal Behavior was finally published, but there are two extant documents that reveal intermediate stages of his analysis. In the first decade of this period, Skinner taught several courses on language, literature, and behavior at Clark University, the University of Minnesota, and elsewhere. According to his autobiography, he used notes from these classes as the foundation for a class he taught on verbal behavior in the summer of 1947 at Columbia University.
    [Show full text]
  • Associative Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory
    Syracuse University SURFACE Psychology College of Arts and Sciences 2008 Associative Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory Michael J. Kahana University of Pennsylvania Marc W. Howard Syracuse University Sean M. Polyn University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/psy Part of the Cognition and Perception Commons Recommended Citation Kahana, Michael J.; Howard, Marc W.; and Polyn, Sean M., "Associative Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory" (2008). Psychology. 3. https://surface.syr.edu/psy/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts and Sciences at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Associative Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory Michael J. Kahana Department of Psychology University of Pennsylvania Marc W. Howard Department of Psychology Syracuse University Sean M. Polyn Department of Psychology University of Pennsylvania Draft: Do not quote Abstract Association and context constitute two of the central ideas in the history of episodic memory research. Following a brief discussion of the history of these ideas, we review data that demonstrate the complementary roles of temporal contiguity and semantic relatedness in determining the order in which subjects recall lists of items and the timing of their successive recalls. These analyses reveal that temporal contiguity effects persist over very long time scales, a result that challenges traditional psychological and neuroscientific models of association. The form of the temporal contiguity effect is conserved across all of the major recall tasks and even appears in item recognition when subjects respond with high confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavior Systems, Associationism, and Pavlovian Conditioning
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1 (4), 405-420 Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning WILLIAM TIMBERLAKE Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Associative and behavior systems accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have different emphases. The traditional associative account has focused on the role of the unconditional stimulus (US) in strengthening stimulus associations according to a set of general laws. The behavior systems account has focused on the relation of conditional responding to the preorganized perceptual, motor, and mo­ tivational organization engaged by the US. Knowledge of a behavior system enables successful pre­ diction of the form and ease of conditioning as a function of the type of conditional stimulus (CS), US, and the CS-US relation. At the same time, Pavlovian manipulations act as a window on how a behavior system works. Both associative and behavior systems accounts can be criticized as in­ complete and idiosyncratic. A comprehensive account of Pavlovian conditioning could profit from their integration. Laboratory-associationist and adaptive-evolutionary zation and motivational processes underlying behavior is accounts of Pavlovian conditioning differ markedly in a critical step in understanding conditioning. Presenta­ their focus. The former has emphasized the association tion of the US is viewed as engaging and constraining between the conditional stimulus (CS) and the uncondi­ preorganized mechanisms underlying behavior, rather tional stimulus (US), and the role of the US in strength­
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: CROSS-PAIR ASSOCIATIONS 1 Are Associations Formed Across Word Pairs? a Test of Learning by Temporal Contiguity In
    Running head: CROSS-PAIR ASSOCIATIONS 1 Are associations formed across word pairs? A test of learning by temporal contiguity in associative recognition Adam F. Osth Julian Fox The University of Melbourne Word count: 3,663 Address correspondence to: Adam Osth (E-mail: [email protected]) Author Note We are extremely grateful to Vencislav Popov for sharing his data upon request and all authors who have publicly shared their data that we re-analyze in this work. We would also like to thank Nicola Singleton for assistance with data collection for Experiment 1. This work was supported by ARC DE170100106 awarded to Adam Osth. Data from this article can be found on our OSF page (https://osf.io/64qyf/). CROSS-PAIR ASSOCIATIONS 2 Abstract In models such as the search of associative memory (SAM: Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984) model, associations in paired associate tasks are only formed between the pair of to-be-remembered items. The temporal context model (TCM: Howard & Kahana, 2002) deviates from SAM by positing that long range associations are formed between the current item and all previously presented items, even in paired associate tasks, where cross-pair associations are formed in addition to within-pair associations (Davis, Geller, Rizzuto, & Kahana, 2002). We tested this proposal in an associative recognition task by constructing rearranged pairs where the distance in within-list serial position between the two pair members was manipulated between one and five pairs. Models such as TCM predict that FAR should be highest for rearranged pairs that are constructed from pair members that were adjacent to each other on the study list, while models such as SAM predict that FAR should be equal for rearranged pairs regardless of whether they’re constructed from adjacent or remote pairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Approaches to the Distinction Between Cognition and 'Mere Association'
    International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2011, 24, 314-348. Copyright 2011 by the International Society for Comparative Psychology Two Approaches to the Distinction between Cognition and ‘Mere Association’ Cameron Buckner Indiana University, Bloomington, U.S.A. The standard methodology of comparative psychology has long relied upon a distinction between cognition and ‘mere association’; cognitive explanations of nonhuman animals behaviors are only regarded as legitimate if associative explanations for these behaviors have been painstakingly ruled out. Over the last ten years, however, a crisis has broken out over the distinction, with researchers increasingly unsure how to apply it in practice. In particular, a recent generation of psychological models appear to satisfy existing criteria for both cognition and association. Salvaging the standard methodology of comparative psychology will thus require significant conceptual redeployment. In this article, I trace the historical development of the distinction in comparative psychology, distinguishing two styles of approach. The first style tries to make out the distinction in terms of the properties of psychological models, for example by focusing on criteria like the presence of rules & propositions vs. links & nodes. The second style of approach attempts to operationalize the distinction by use of specific experimental tests for cognition performed on actual animals. I argue that neither style of criteria is self-sufficient, and both must cooperate in an iterative empirical investigation into the nature of animal minds if the distinction is to be reformed. It is now commonplace in comparative psychology to find nonhuman animal behaviors explained in terms of “cognitive” capacities such as episodic memories, concepts, transitive orderings, and cognitive maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Age Differences in Episodic Associative Learning
    Psychology and Aging © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 33, No. 1, 144–157 0882-7974/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000234 Age Differences in Episodic Associative Learning Rachel Clark and Eliot Hazeltine Michael Freedberg University of Iowa The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland Michelle W. Voss University of Iowa Compared with young adults, older adults demonstrate difficulty forming and retrieving episodic memories. One proposed mechanism is that older adults are impaired at binding information into nonoverlapping representations, which is a key function of the hippocampus. The current experiments evaluate age differences in acquiring new memories using a novel episodic associative learning (EAL) task designed to tap hippocampal-dependent binding. The task involved repeated exposure of stimuli pairs and required the formation of new representations of each stimulus pair, as each pair was mapped to a unique keypress response. Notably, individual stimuli appeared in multiple pairs, so pair retrieval was necessary for correct response production. Experiment 1 demonstrated that older adults learned more slowly, and less overall, than young adults on this task. We also found that older adults benefited less than young adults from correct responses and as the number of intervening pairs between repetitions of a pair increased, older adults showed larger decrements in accuracy than young adults. Experiment 2 replicated these findings while minimizing motor demands and providing more practice. We also measured processing speed and spatial reconstruction to determine the involvement of specific cognitive mecha- nisms in observed age effects. We found that young adults with better spatial reconstruction abilities performed better on the EAL task than young adults with lower abilities and older adults overall.
    [Show full text]
  • Operants Fourth Quarter
    ISSN 2476-0293 OperantsQUARTER IV, 2016 In the 1930’s, young B. F. Skinner built his first apparatus to study behavior using rats as subjects. Today, scientists are designing experiments where rats are making “selfies” and playing basketball, giraffes are sticking their blue tongues out, and primates are learning to cooperate –– all to advance the science of behavior that Skinner started. from the president eople sometimes ask “Why doesn’t everyone talk with newscasters’ grammar and pronunciation?” We certainly often hear their talk. The answer, not surprisingly, is given in B. F. Skinner’s 1957 Pbook Verbal Behavior. Skinner makes it clear that children do not learn to talk by listening. They must make sounds from which specific forms are selected. The selected forms also include grammatical structures. For many years, certain linguists insisted that grammatical rules were innate. They argued that these rules determine how we speak. But recent published studies by scholars of language have shown these theories wrong. Linguists now propose a “usage-based approach to language acquisition.” Like Skinner, they argue that talking comes first. Rules describe the structures talkers use. Children acquire grammatical forms through talking with others. Skinner would not, however, explain a child’s language development as due to inferred “learning mechanisms in a developing brain.” Rather Skinner would talk of caregivers shaping both pronunciation and grammar. The verbal community reinforces forms that may, or may not, sound the way newscasters talk. Julie S. Vargas, Ph.D. President, B. F. Skinner Foundation Chinese Simplified Translated by Coco Yang Liu 人们有时候会问：“为什么大家不按照新闻播音员的语法和发音那样讲话？”我们当然经常听到这样的言论，而毫不奇怪，我们能 在B.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Associative and Cognitive Explanations in Comparative Psychology Dr. Cameron Buckner the University of Houston
    Understanding Associative and Cognitive Explanations in Comparative Psychology Dr. Cameron Buckner The University of Houston [email protected] This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Animal Minds on July 7, 2017, available online: https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Philosophy-of-Animal-Minds-1st- Edition/Andrews-Beck/p/book/9781138822887 I. Introduction In the introduction to their influential anthology on comparative cognition research, Wasserman & Zentall (2006: 4-5) summarize what I have called that discipline’s “Standard Practice”: [Cognition is] an animal’s ability to remember the past, to choose in the present, and to plan for the future….Unequivocal distinctions between cognition and simpler Pavlovian and instrumental learning processes… are devilishly difficult to devise….[but] unless clear evidence is provided that a more complex process has been used, C. Lloyd Morgan’s famous canon of parsimony obliges us to assume that it has not; we must then conclude that a simpler learning process can account for the learning…. The challenge then is to identify flexible behavior that cannot be accounted for by simpler learning mechanisms. Thus, a cognitive process is one that does not merely result from the repetition of a behavior or from the repeated pairing of a stimulus with reinforcement. Several ideas can be unpacked from this short characterization of the field. First, there is a default concern for associative explanations of behavior; associative processes must be considered as a possible explanation for any experimental data. Second, there is a default preference for “simpler” associative explanations; producing a plausible associative account of some behavior is seen as a trump card which undermines a cognitive interpretation of the results.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior
    A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior by Noam Chomsky "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior" in Language, 35, No. 1 (1959), 26-58. Preface Preface to the 1967 reprint of "A Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior" Appeared in Readings in the Psychology of Language, ed. Leon A. Jakobovits and Murray S. Miron (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), pp.142-143 by Noam Chomsky Rereading this review after eight years, I find little of substance that I would change if I were to write it today. I am not aware of any theoretical or experimental work that challenges its conclusions; nor, so far as I know, has there been any attempt to meet the criticisms that are raised in the review or to show that they are erroneous or ill-founded. I had intended this review not specifically as a criticism of Skinner's speculations regarding language, but rather as a more general critique of behaviorist (I would now prefer to say "empiricist") speculation as to the nature of higher mental processes. My reason for discussing Skinner's book in such detail was that it was the most careful and thoroughgoing presentation of such speculations, an evaluation that I feel is still accurate. Therefore, if the conclusions I attempted to substantiate in the review are correct, as I believe they are, then Skinner's work can be regarded as, in effect, a reductio ad absurdum of behaviorist assumptions. My personal view is that it is a definite merit, not a defect, of Skinner's work that it can be used for this purpose, and it was for this reason that I tried to deal with it fairly exhaustively.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Conditioning of Model Systems: a Behavioral Review
    Psychobiology /989, Vol. 17 (2), /45-/55 Classical conditioning of model systems: A behavioral review BERNARD G. SCHREURS National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland The present review examines briefly the history and status of classical conditioning as a means of studying associative learning and assesses the ability of a cross section of model systems to demonstrate associative learning when classical conditioning procedures are employed. It is sug­ gested that model systems that show the emergence of a new (i.e. conditioned) response as a result of being subjected to classical conditioning procedures have unequivocally demonstrated associative learning. In contrast, the ability of model systems to demonstrate associative learning when clas­ sical conditioning procedures result in a pairing-specific change in an existing response depends on how associative learning is defined. The advantages of a traditional definition of associative learning for uncovering the neural substrates of learning are discussed. To study the neural substrates of learning, neuroscien­ demonstrate associative learning when subjected to clas­ tists have sought to adopt model systems, preparations that sical conditioning procedures; (3) to examine whether a have unequivocally demonstrated learning and are trac­ pairing-specific change in an existing response is suffi­ table to neural analysis. Traditionally, invertebrate prepa­ cient evidence for associative learning when classical con­ rations have been utilized to study the neural basis of ditioning procedures are employed; and (4) to explore the single-stimulus learning (e.g., habituation: Pinsker, Kup­ relative merits of "modem" versus "traditional" defi­ fermann, Castellucci, & Kandel, 1970; Wine, Krasne, & nitions of associative learning procedures for uncovering Chen, 1975; Zucker, 1972; and sensitization: Bullock, the neural substrates of associative learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Verbal Paired Associates and the Hippocampus: the Role of Scenes
    Verbal Paired Associates and the Hippocampus: The Role of Scenes Ian A. Clark, Misun Kim, and Eleanor A. Maguire Abstract ■ It is widely agreed that patients with bilateral hippocampal that the anterior hippocampus was engaged during process- damage are impaired at binding pairs of words together. Conse- ing of both scene and object word pairs in comparison to ab- quently, the verbal paired associates (VPA) task has become stract word pairs, despite binding occurring in all conditions. emblematic of hippocampal function. This VPA deficit is not well This was also the case when just subsequently remembered understood and is particularly difficult for hippocampal theories stimuli were considered. Moreover, for object word pairs, with a visuospatial bias to explain (e.g., cognitive map and scene fMRI activity patterns in anterior hippocampus were more construction theories). Resolving the tension among hippo- similar to those for scene imagery than object imagery. This campal theories concerning the VPA could be important for was especially evident in participants who were high imagery leveraging a fuller understanding of hippocampal function. users and not in mid and low imagery users. Overall, our results Notably, VPA tasks typically use high imagery concrete words show that hippocampal engagement during VPA, even when and so conflate imagery and binding. To determine why VPA object word pairs are involved, seems to be evoked by scene engages the hippocampus, we devised an fMRI encoding task imagery rather than binding. This may help to resolve the issue involving closely matched pairs of scene words, pairs of object that visuospatial hippocampal theories have in accounting for words, and pairs of very low imagery abstract words.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 1 Classical Conditioning by Pavlov
    Classical Conditioning UNIT 1 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING BY By Pavlov PAVLOV Structure 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Concept of Classical Conditioning 1.3 Pavlov’s Experiment on Classical Conditioning 1.3.1 The Experiment 1.3.2 Interpretation of the Results of the Experiment 1.3.3 Principles of Classical Conditioning 1.4 Implications of Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning in Understanding Personality 1.4.1 Conditioned Emotional Responses – the Case of Little Albert 1.4.2 Classical Conditioning of Social Attitudes 1.4.3 Psychopathological Conditions Explained by Classical Conditioning 1.5 Applications of Classical Conditioning in Psychotherapy 1.6 Critical Evaluation of Classical Conditioning 1.7 Let Us Sum Up 1.8 Glossary 1.9 Unit End Questions 1.10 Suggested Readings 1.11 Answers to Self Assessment Questions 1.0 INTRODUCTION Does your baby daughter start crying whenever she sees a man with big moustache? Does your brother fall helplessly in love with every lady who uses a particular perfume? The fear of your child, the blind attraction of your brother, may have at their bases, the principles of classical conditioning. Both of them may have been behaving precisely like ‘Pavlov’s dog’. How did your daughter develop the fear? You may recall the incident when your uncle with a pair of long moustache visited your house. Holding your daughter in his big burly arms, he had bellowed ‘Hey there - my sweetie’. Even you jumped up at the sudden sound. Your little girl was terrified and cried out in fear. Your uncle was a bit embarrassed and tried to soothe the baby.
    [Show full text]