Chapter+21+Respondent+Conditioning+ANSWERS

** Respondent Conditioning ** ** ANSWERS **
 * Chapter 21 **

1. Operant conditioning procedure versus respondent conditioning procedure

A. Compare and contrast

In contrast, respondent conditioning is a procedure in which stimuli by themselves can elicit a response regardless of any changes in the environment that the performance of that behavior may produce. Again, to make it simpler, **the future occurrence of behavior is dependent upon the presence of a stimulus** **before** **the behavior may occur and is NOT due to the consequences of that behavior.**
 * ANSWER:**
 * Similarities:** Both of these procedures can involve the same stimuli and response (e.g. sound of bell, food, and salivation)
 * Crucial Difference:** Operant conditioning is a procedure whereby changes in the environment caused by individual’s behavior affect the future frequency of those behaviors. **So in other words, the future occurrence of behavior is dependent (or contingent) upon the consequences of that behavior.**


 * Both operant and respondent conditioning may involve the same stimuli and response
 * In operant conditioning, the future occurrence of behavior is contingent on the consequences of that behavior
 * In respondent conditioning, the future occurrence of behavior is dependent on the presence of a stimulus before the behavior (not due to the consequences of that behavior).

B. Provide an example of respondent conditioning with food.


 * ANSWER:**



C. Often, when respondent conditioning has been said to have been demonstrated, there is a confounding with operant conditioning. Using the food example that you’ve given above, please provide an operant interpretation in terms of a discrimination training procedure using reinforcement.


 * ANSWER:**

D. Please explain the differences between the respondent and operant interpretations that you’ve just provided using the terminology that you’ve provided in 1a.


 * ANSWER:** These examples provide alternate explanations for the same behavioral phenomenon. In the respondent example the behavior of salivating is first **elicited** by the presence of the food, and then it comes to be **elicited** by the conditioned stimulus of the bell. This explanation of the behavior **does not** take into account the consequences of the behavior; it simply asserts that the behavior occurs due to the presence of the unconditioned or conditioned stimulus (regardless of the consequences of salivating). The operant interpretation asserts that it is **the taste of food in 0.5 seconds** that maintains the salivation. The bell simply acts as an S D in the presence of which salivation will be reinforced. (What is actually occurring (even though the “smell” of food is not in the diagram) is that the smell of the food is an S D for salivating, but since the sound of the bell occurs before the smell of the food reaches the dog’s nose, that dog’s salivating behavior is actually differentially reinforced at the tone of the bell because it will receive the taste of food sooner than if it waited until the smell of the food wafted over to its nose to salivate.)


 * In this example, both operant and respondent conditioning involve the salivation response, the sound of the bell, and food.
 * In operant conditioning, the salivation response is reinforced by the taste of food in 0.5 seconds in the presence of the bell, which makes the response more likely to occur in the future.
 * In respondent conditioning, the salivation response is first elicited by the presence of food and then comes to be elicited by the sound of the bell.
 * The salivation response will continue to be elicited by these stimuli regardless of the consequences.

2. Some may argue that there are //unconditioned reflexes//.

A. Please provide a respondent analysis of the pupillary contraction, traditionally viewed as an “unconditioned reflex”. Then provide the operant conditioning interpretation to explain the behavior.


 * ANSWER:** The pupil contracts when a bright light is shined into the eye. This response seems unconditioned in that it consistently occurs in the presence of a bright light, but the phenomenon could also be explained through operant conditioning by saying that the contraction of the pupil occurs because of the **consequence** of **less** aversive light reaching the retina.

 B. Please provide a respondent analysis of the salivation response, traditionally viewed as an "unconditioned reflex". Then provide the operant conditioning interpretation to explain the behavior.

**ANSWER:** The salivation response seems to be an unconditioned reflex in that it occurs consistently in the presence of food. The phenomenon could be explained using an operant interpretation because salivation may occur because of the **consequence** of the **taste of food and the breaking down of food.** 3. We’ve already noted that respondent conditioning can be confounded with operant conditioning…

A. If you were given a behavioral phenomenon and provided with a respondent explanation for it along with the confounded operant interpretation, what procedure would you use to determine which process was actually supporting the behavior? Explain why you would use your chosen procedure.


 * ANSWER:** You would use **operant extinction** because by doing so, you would eliminate any **consequences** that result from the occurrence of the behavior. And, if respondent conditioning were really an adequate explanation of the behavioral phenomenon, the behavior would still occur since **respondent conditioning asserts that the behavior will occur regardless of any change in stimulus conditions following the occurrence of the behavior**. However, if the behavior extinguishes, it would have been demonstrated that operant conditioning is a more adequate explanation of the behavioral phenomenon.


 * Use operant extinction
 * If the operant extinction procedure results in a decreased frequency of the response, you can reason that the response is operant
 * This is because, according to a respondent analysis, the response will continue in the presence of the eliciting stimulus regardless of its consequences.

B. Using the procedure that you’ve explained in **3A**, please show how you could theoretically use operant conditioning to assess whether the pupillary contraction occurred due to operant conditioning or respondent conditioning.

If the response frequency decreases, then it has been established that the pupil contraction is due to an operant process. If, however, the contraction of the pupil occurs **even when the intensity of the bright light does not decrease**, then it has been established that the contraction of the pupil occurs due to a respondent process.
 * ANSWER:** Let’s shine a light into a person’s eye, and (somehow, I don’t know the technical details about how this could be done, but let’s assume that it is possible) as the person’s eye begins to contract, let’s make that light shine more intensely – so that the amount of bright light that is actually reaching that person’s retina never decreases in response to the contraction of the pupil – **thus the consequences of the pupil contraction are eliminated.**


 * To determine if the pupil contraction is respondent or operant, shine a light into a person's eye, and as the pupil contracts, increase the intensity of the light so that the intensity of the light reaching the retina never decreases contingent on the pupillary contraction.
 * This would eliminate the consequences of the pupil contraction, so if the frequency of the response decreases, you can reason that the pupillary contraction is an operant response controlled by its consequences.

C. Using the procedure that you've explained in **3A**, please show how you could theoretically use operant conditioning to assess whether the salivation response occurs due to operant conditioning or respondent conditioning.

ANSWER: Normally, the salivation response is reinforced by the taste of food and the breaking down of food (saliva enhances the flavor of food and breaks down food). To demonstrate whether the salivation response is operant or respondent using an extinction procedure, you could pull the salivary ducts outside of the dog’s mouth and present the dog with food. Now the dog’s salivation response will not be reinforced by the immediate taste and breaking down of food because the saliva would run outside of the dog's mouth. If, in this condition, the dog stops salivating (the salivation response extinguishes), you can conclude that salivation is an operant response.


 * To determine if the salivation response is respondent or operant, pull the salivary ducts outside of the dog's mouth and present the dog with food.
 * In this case, salivation will not be reinforced by the flavor and breaking down of food.
 * So, if the response decreases under these conditions, you can reason that salivation is an operant response controlled by its consequences.

4. Operant extinction versus respondent extinction

A. Compare and contrast


 * ANSWER:**
 * **Similarities:** For both of these procedures, t**he response frequency decreases**, however…
 * **Crucial differences:** For operant extinction, the response **must** **occur** for extinction to occur, and the consequence is **no longer delivered** after the response. In contrast, for respondent extinction, the US is no longer paired with the CS, and the occurrence of the response is irrelevant as to whether or not the response extinguishes.

B. Please provide a Skinner box example of operant extinction and another example of respondent extinction that illustrates these differences.


 * ANSWER:**

**Operant Extinction**

**Respondent Extinction**

C. Using the examples that you have provided, please explain the differences between the two concepts using the terminology that you had provided in 45a.


 * ANSWER:** While both of these procedures would lead to a reduction in salivation, in the example given for **operant extinction**, the salivation had to occur for extinction to occur, and the food was no longer delivered **after** the salivation response, even when the salivation was preceded by a bell. In the example given for **respondent extinction**, the food was no longer presented in a pairing with the bell. The salivation response **did not** need to occur for extinction to occur.

5. The operant pairing procedure with the value-altering principle versus respondent conditioning

A. Compare and contrast B. Please provide an example of both a pairing procedure and an example of respondent conditioning.
 * ANSWER:**
 * **Similarities:** Both of these procedures involve pairing stimuli. They also result in one stimulus acquiring relatively the same **function** of the other stimulus.
 * **Crucial Difference:** However, the operant pairing procedure **changes** a **neutral stimulus** into a **learned reinforcer or learned aversive condition**, which then can be used either to reinforce or punish behavior. Alternately, the pairing that occurs in respondent conditioning changes a **neutral stimulus** into a **conditioned eliciting stimulus, or CS.**


 * ANSWER:**



C. Using the examples that you have provided, please explain the differences between the two concepts using the terminology that you have provided in 5A.


 * ANSWER:** While both of these examples involve the pairing of two stimuli, the operant pairing procedure created a learned reinforcer, the dipper click, which could then be used to increase behavior. And the respondent pairing procedure created a conditioned eliciting stimulus.