The Effects of Differing Response-Force Requirement in Signaled Shock Avoidance

In each study the participant was give the role of ‘teacher’ and placed in a room with a ‘scientist’. The teacher was instructed to ask the learner (who was sitting in an adjacent room, and who along with the scientist where confederates in the experiment) a series of word associations, the teacher had to read the first word and the learner had to answer a matching word form a choice of four given by the teacher. They answered by pressing a corresponding switch on a unit in the room. The teacher was sat in front of a ‘shock generator’ a device which had 30 switches along the front which went up in 15 volt increments from 15volts to 450 volts. The labels above the switches described the shocks as ranging from ‘slight shock’ to ‘danger severe shock’ above 375 volts and the post powerful shock had XXX above it. In Milgram’s study the teacher was given a 45 volt shock to experience the sensation of being shocked and to show how the leaner would receive the shocks. In Burgers replication the teacher only received a 15 volt shock. In both cases the learner made the teacher and the experimenter aware that he had a minor heart

Reinforcement is the main contributing factor in operant conditioning. There is more than one way to go about establishing reinforcement, if a delay occurs between the response and the reinforcement the response may not become strengthened. It is likely that if the reinforcement occurs immediately after the response that there will be a definite strengthening of the response. Continuous reinforcement is when reinforcement occurs at every instance of the desired response. Intermittent reinforcement occurs when a response is reinforced some of the time. The different schedules of reinforcement influence patterns of response. Intermittent schedules offer greater resistance to extinction than continuous schedules.

According to the textbook, respondent behaviors are behaviors elicited by prior stimuli and are not affected by their consequences. In other words, respondent behaviors are one’s innate responses to certain situations that they do not have to be taught. These behaviors are not a result of consequences, but are more enacted based on one’s natural reflexes. Tears forming in an individual’s eyes when something sad or tragic occurs is an example of a respondent behavior. Laughing while being tickled is also an example of a respondent behavior.

Van der Kolk (1987) notes that human responses to trauma are relatively constant across various types of traumatic stimuli, where individuals have poor tolerance to arousal stimuli and may experience social and emotional withdrawal. These changes in the body’s arousal and perception prevent the continuance of “normal” life, and require help.

The individual reacted with a fight or flight reaction and over estimated the danger they were in (2008).

Shock – The initial reaction can sometimes be shock, this will automatically reduce the individuals performance as they will fear the unknown.

Classical and operant conditioning are two important concepts central to behavioral psychology. While both result in learning, the processes are quite different. In order to understand how each of these behavior modification techniques can be used, it is also essential to understand how classical conditioning and operant conditioning differ from one another. Both classical and operant learning are psychological processes that lead to learning. Here learning refers to the process by which changes in behavior, including actions, emotions, thoughts, and the responses of muscles and glands,

After a behavior, an aversive stimulus may be removed entirely, reduced in intensity or its onset delayed. This is either intentional or unintentional reinforcement provided by another. Can be viewed as escape or avoidance.

Results of the study are looked at by the number of participants and students when they stopped or continued to the end of the experiment. Participants in the study gauged on how far they would go in delivering shock the students. The question posed to a group of student from Yale where the study was conducted and participated in the experiment. The result was 3 out of 100 provided answers to giving the maximum voltage allowed by the administrator. 65% of the participants in the study which is shocking to the question proposed before the experiment proceeded with pressing the lever for maximum voltage (Cherry, 2008). The subjects in the study became highly agitated, angry, distraught, and extremely upset with the examiners (teachers); the participant students continued all the way until the end of the study. Unexpectedly the findings produce quite a shock itself because of the high level of participants who would follow orders by continuing the shock someone as they know and understand that the severity of voltage would go from 30 volts and in 15-volt increments, and it continues all the way to 450 volts. The levels were labeled, slight, moderate, and danger “severe shock.” Moreover, the last two labels were simply documented as XXX.

Avoidance and numbing represent a flight response to stimuli associated with the traumatic event(s). In fact, avoiding people,

Avoidance symptoms are the avoidant actions an individual takes to counter the intrusion symptoms. Since these intrusion symptoms are of a distressful nature, an individual might consistently and determinately attempt to avoid all things (memories, dreams, flashbacks, environmental reminders) related to the traumatic event (Friedman, 2013).

Prolonged exposure (PE) is a specific exposure therapy program that derives from Emotional Processing Theory (EPT). The idea of emotional processing is to interpret realistic information and accommodate that information into a fear structure which in turn diminishes the fear (Foa, 2011). Foa (2011) acknowledges that the idea of failing to process trauma is

They depict an experiment where a woman leaves the room and goes into an area where she can not be seen, but she can be heard. She then feigns an injury to provoke a response. [The experiments results were twenty-six individuals waited alone reacted to an accident seventy percent of the time.] Then they reenacted the same accident with individuals in a group, and only twenty-percent offered the person in distress their assistance (Darley and Latane 770). After the experiment, the individuals that did not respond said that they did not want to embarrass her because they thought that it was just a minor injury.

Two-process theory and on one process theory are two theories that describe avoidance. The two-process theory incorporates the use of operant conditioning and Pavlovian classical conditioning, which differs in one-process theory because that theory only involves operant conditioning. The two-process theory suggests that escaping is the way to learning, which is may confuse people because it is classified as a theory of avoidance. The term “escape” is used to better describe the theory because the animals will experience an US and then will learn a CS from this experience. The subject will then figure out a method to escape that stimulus in the future, and will no longer will be affected by the CS. When the subject is trying to “escape”

Some clinicians have reported that patients undergoing aversive treatment utilizing electric shocks have experienced increased anxiety and anxiety-related symptoms that may interfere with the conditioning process as well as lead to decreased acceptance of the treatment. Few clinicians have reported a worrisome increase in hostility among patients receiving aversion therapy, especially those undergoing treatment using chemical aversants. Although aversion therapy has some