Discussion 3: Disorders & Cognitive Behavioral Therapists

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 1 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Chapter 5 Behavioral Models of Personality

PolkaDot/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe the importance of behaviorism in the development of scientific psychology. Discuss Edward Thorndike's impact on psychology, and explain his law of effect. Describe Ivan Pavlov's discovery of classical conditioning, and explain the learning model he discovered in his studies on dogs. Explain the impact that John B. Watson and his demonstrations with Little Albert had on our understanding of the acquisition of fears and other forms of learning. Describe B. F. Skinner's view that psychology should concern itself with what is observable and the effect this notion had on the study of consciousness and personality. Explain Skinner's learning model of operant conditioning and the importance of the schedule of reinforcement. Discuss how Dollard and Miller advanced behavioral theory by explaining how personality can be conceptualized using learning principles. Explain Wolpe's systematic desensitization and how it can be used for behavior change. Explain why some phobias/fears are more likely to be acquired and maintained. Explain Martin Seligman's concept of learned helplessness and how it might be used to explain depression. Use behavioral principles to describe how anxiety can affect personality adaptation.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 2 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Introduction In a disturbing but classic film, A Clockwork Orange (1971), director Stanley Kubrick depicts a gang of men who, in futuristic Britain, terrorize others, savagely beating men and raping women. The gang's leader, Alex, is apprehended, and he volunteers for an experimental, government-developed, aversion therapy. The approach was modeled after the behavioral principles that were quite popular in the 1970s, and the intent was to eradicate society's problem with crime by associating aversive responses (such as physical illness induced by drugs) with aggressive behavior.

Although this was a fictional account, it captured the belief and some of the fears associated with the assumption that controlling behavior using scientific methods would lead to the betterment of humankind. Of course, subsequent research indicated that such fears were not well-founded, as behavior is not quite as pliable as the filmmaker suggests. Nevertheless, many modern-day applications of behavioral principles are used to shape behavior. For example, Antabuse (also known as Disulfiram) is an FDA-approved drug used to create an aversive association (e.g., nausea, vomiting, headaches, syncope, vertigo, blurred vision) with the consumption of alcohol for those diagnosed with either alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse (see Kitson, 1977; Rosenthal, 1973). More recent research suggests that naltrexone and especially acamprosate may be especially effective at achieving abstinence, though these compounds function in different ways by altering brain neurochemistry associated with addiction (see Rosenthal, 2006). Buzzer pants are used to help children with enuresis (bed wetting), by associating the urge to urinate with waking up prior to wetting the bed. Even outside of the therapeutic context, behavioral principles are widely seen, sometimes with intentional pairings, and sometimes not. If you enjoy McDonald's, there's a good chance that you might salivate when you see the golden arches or hear the phrase, "I'm loving it" (assuming that advertisers have done their job well). A pizza box is also likely to elicit the same salivation response. If you have a dog, picking up the keys is a surefire way to get him or her to the door. In all likelihood, whatever tone or signal your smartphone has to indicate an incoming text or email results in what is now a well-trained behavioral response by you (checking the device). In fact, even if you hear that tone from another source, you might find yourself automatically checking your own phone for a text out of habit.

Such attempts to modify or control behavior raises many questions with regard to personality, of course. Are we really completely controlled by our environments? Do we have any autonomy at all in terms of how we think, what we value, who we are? Does the very concept of personality exist at all? In contrast to the psychoanalytic and humanist perspectives (see Chapters 2 and 9, respectively), behaviorism prompts us to look more closely at the world outside of ourselves to see what factors and conditions influence how we behave and who we are.

This chapter provides an overview of behavioral theory, some of its applications, and the assessment tools commonly employed, as well the research attempting to evaluate its accuracy.

Behavorial Model

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 3 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Ethical Considerations

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), 7–8% of research in psychology uses animals as its subjects, and the vast majority of these studies (90%) use rodents or birds. The APA has published a position paper on the use of animals in psychological research, and includes a discussion of such issues as how animal models have helped inform our understanding of human phenomena and the ethical issues and safeguards in place for animal research. Read it at http://www.apa.org/research/ responsible/research- animals.pdf (http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/research- animals.pdf)

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this early paper, John Watson, one of the founders of the behavioral movement in the United States, writes about how the process of learning in animals (and presumably some understanding of their mental life) can be helpful to our understanding of human behavior. Click here (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/{pdfs}ch_5_studying_the_mind_of_animals_watson.pdf)

to read it.

Reference: Watson, J. B. (1907). Studying the mind of animals. The World Today, 12, 421–426. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku. ca/Watson/Animals/index.htm (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/Animals/index.htm)

5.1 Major Approaches and Historical Figures in the Development of Behaviorism When it emerged as a movement in psychology, behaviorism (also referred to as learning theory) was not interested in the mind or personality. What it offered was a radically different approach to understanding behavior—an approach that was the polar opposite of the psychoanalytic model. Whereas the psychoanalytic model dealt with invisible, internal processes, behaviorism dealt with objective, observable events. Not only was the emphasis on behavior, but in its most radical formulations (see the work of B. F. Skinner), cognition and affect (thought and emotion) were essentially characterized as epiphenomena—in other words, they only exist secondarily, as effects of behaviors, rather than as the causes of behaviors.

In general, the behaviorists rejected any formalized theory of human behavior. There is inherent tension in personality science related to the fact that theorizing often seems to require that theorists engage in speculation—that they move beyond empirical and clinical data. However, not everyone would agree that this endeavor is worthwhile. Many believe that theorizing without empirical support is pseudoscience. In fact, when the field was dominated by psychodynamic theory, many proponents of behaviorism would not consider personality theory relevant and worthy of scientific investigation. As a result, none provide a cohesive explanation of personality.

Behaviorism has its roots in empiricism and animal behavior because animals can be experimented on and, therefore, yield more concrete data. It rapidly became popular with the promise that it would make a true science out of psychology (Hunt, 2007). As an objective science concerned with what could be observed and measured, behaviorism has largely rejected the overly theoretical, speculative thinking of other models of personality. Its emphasis on studying only what is observable has challenged psychology and personality researchers to meet higher empirical standards. This emphasis on science and on clear empirical standards is vitally important to the development of a science. In the absence of scientific evidence against which to check our beliefs, there is a high potential for error and bias (Lilienfeld & O'Donohue, 2007).

Behaviorism is based mainly on inductive reasoning: It starts with data, often related to simple relationships, and induces laws of human behavior from this data. A simple example can illustrate this form of reasoning. If you observe that every time you eat shellfish you swell up and find it hard to swallow (the data), you might conclude that you allergic to shellfish (the law). This perspective seeks the simplest explanation for behaviors, following the law of parsimony. Some of the laws it has generated have proven to fundamentally important for understanding behavior.

In fact, a great deal of behavioral research has been designed specifically to explore various component systems of personality, such as learning, anxiety, learned helplessness, and conditioning. Results of this research continue to influence our understanding of how personality is formed and how it can be modified by various external factors.

The behavioral perspective can be organized into two broad types of learning: (1) classical conditioning and (2) operant conditioning. Classical conditioning involves a simpler form of learning by temporal association, and it focuses only on reflexive actions. In contrast, operant conditioning involves nonreflexive action and learning as a result of consequences that are typically not occurring at the same point in time (i.e., temporal associations are no longer necessary). Both types of conditioning can be referred to as forms of associative learning—that is, a process by which an association is made between two stimuli or between a behavior and a stimulus. The next sections review methods for the acquisition and maintenance of behavior.

Pavlov's Classical Conditioning

During the course of his research with dogs, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov observed that dogs would begin to salivate not only when they were being fed, as would be expected, but even prior to feeding, at the mere sight of the assistant who fed them. In 1902, Pavlov began to study this occurrence, designing a demonstration of what may well be the best-known of all phenomena in psychology: classical conditioning. What he did was implant a tube in one of the dog's salivary glands, connecting it to a measuring device. The dog was then placed in a harness and given a small amount of food, often in the form of food powder that could be injected directly into the dog's mouth (see Figure 5.1). When the food was delivered, the dog would automatically begin to salivate. Pavlov termed this behavior an unconditioned reflex (or response) because it was a natural response wired into the animal's physiological system (Pavlov, 1927).

Figure 5.1: Pavlov's research documenting an unconditioned reflex A device similar to the one shown here was used to capture and quantify the saliva produced by a dog in response to stimuli such as food. The saliva is captured in the tube and a balancing mechanism is activated, which in turn records the amount on the revolving drum. The window was used to pair other visual stimuli with the food.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 4 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

In the next phase of the demonstration, Pavlov would present the dog with a neutral stimulus (one that would not create salivation in and of itself) such as a bell or buzzer. When presented alone, the neutral stimulus would produce only a raising of the dog's ears. When paired on several occasions with the delivery of food (e.g., food-bell, food-bell, food-bell), a conditioning (i.e., learning) process occurred. Following this, the sound (bell) alone would now produce salivation. At this point, the sound of the bell or buzzer has become a conditioned stimulus (meaning that it was learned), which now leads to the conditioned response (meaning a learned response, which Pavlov also called a conditioned reflex) of salivating to the sound of the bell. See Figure 5.2 for an illustration of this type of associative learning.

Figure 5.2: An illustration of Pavlov's classical conditioning The images in panel 1 illustrate that the dog naturally salivates (unconditioned response) to the food (unconditioned stimulus), but does not salivate to the handler (neutral stimulus). In panel 2, we see the repeated pairings of the food with the handler. In panel 3, the dog eventually learns to salivate (now a conditioned response) to the handler alone (now a conditioned stimulus). Pavlov noticed this association, and it was considered a serendipitous example of classical conditioning. He recorded the same responses when using bells and buzzers as the neutral (and eventually conditioned) stimuli.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 5 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Pavlov's Experiments on Children

Now that the bell is able to produce the salivation in the dog (this is what makes the bell a conditioned stimulus), it is possible to consider the consequence of repeatedly ringing the bell and not delivering any food. Eventually, the bell will stop producing the salivation response, and at that point in time, it can be said that the response has become extinct. Therefore, extinction in this context is defined as when the conditioned stimulus (the bell) is no longer able to produce the conditioned response (the dog salivating). Interestingly, it is possible for the conditioned response to reoccur, and this can happen even without having to again pair the food with the bell. Instead, sometimes the response will return even if the dog is simply given a break from the conditioning environment, and this is known as spontaneous recovery (i.e., the previously learned response, which had become extinct, returns without any additional pairing with the food).

So what other types of learning can occur from this basic paradigm of classical conditioning? One option is to pair the conditioned stimulus (in the current example, the bell) with another neutral stimulus (e.g., a light) until this neutral stimulus also produces the conditioned response (bell-light, bell-light, bell-light). Notice that the secondary stimulus is never paired with the unconditioned stimulus. This form of learning is termed higher order conditioning, or secondary conditioning. Here, a conditioned stimulus (the bell) is paired with a neutral stimulus (e.g., a light), until that neutral stimulus also becomes a conditioned stimulus by producing the conditioned response (salivating).

Consider what would happen if Pavlov used a stimulus that was similar to, but not exactly the same as, the original conditioned stimulus. For example, if Pavlov rang a bell that was pitched differently, would the dog salivate? Discrimination occurs when the conditioned response is only produced for a very specific

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 6 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Pavlov's Experiments on Children From Title:

Into the Mind: Mind Control

(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?

wID=100753&xtid=43512)

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. In what ways are the conditioning experiences of humans and animals the same and different?

2. Why do you think Pavlov's research on humans has received considerably less attention in the literature? Were the scientific gains enough to outweigh the ethical concerns?

conditioned stimulus. In an example of discrimination, the dog would only salivate in response to the exact bell that was used originally, and no other similar-sounding bells would produce a salivation response. Generalization is said to occur when the conditioned response is produced in response to a similar conditioned stimulus. In a situation of generalization, the dog would also salivate to similar-sounding bells. Generalization can be an adaptive function that allows an organism to rapidly respond to new stimuli that are related in some way to a previously learned stimulus. In this way, an individual doesn't have to experience learning with every single stimulus, and this means learning can be more efficient. However, generalization can also be maladaptive. For example, imagine a child who is viciously attacked by a neighbor's new pet Rottweiler. As a result of this attack, the child is now afraid of all dogs. On the surface, this might seem adaptive, as the dog that attacked him was clearly a threat. However, being afraid of familiar dogs, even docile dogs, and perhaps even other pets (e.g., cats) represents a form of generalization that is not adaptive. What would be more adaptive would be the child generalizing his learning to a smaller range of stimuli, such as a growling dog, or a dog that bares its teeth and moves forward aggressively. Unfortunately, we don't get to choose when we generalize and when we don't.

The above-mentioned example also helps illustrate another important concept in learning theory: one-time conditioning. This refers to learning that occurs after only one trial (as opposed to the numerous trials needed to make an association in the typical classical conditioning research). This is a very unique type of learning because it involves more rapid acquisition, and it tends to be much more resistant to extinction. Returning to the dog-attack example, the child did not require repeated instances in order to acquire the fear of dogs (note that this type of rapid learning can be adaptive, as repeated trials would be life threatening), but now it will take some time and effort to extinguish the fear response.

Classical conditioning can therefore be a very powerful model for explaining the development of many maladaptive behaviors and clinical disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, when fear is triggered in a truly threatening situation, the stress- response system may activate anxiety, which may later be triggered by previously neutral stimuli (such as smells, sights, or sounds) that were present at the time of the threat. The concept of generalization could also be used to explain PTSD, as the individual might learn to generalize a fear response to other similar stimuli, even if they were never directly associated with the initial learning experience.

Beyond the Text: Research Spotlight

How does the concept of generalization manifest in human learning with respect to post-traumatic stress disorder?

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric illness involving an acute and severe anxiety response to a stressor. The stressor could result from a number of experiences, including witnessing or experiencing some form of abuse, a physical assault, disaster, or war. PTSD can involve such symptoms as an exaggerated startle response, avoidance of situations that are similar to the original stressor/trauma, and the re-experiencing of the original stressor/trauma in the form of flashbacks or possibly nightmares; symptoms must last for at least one month and result in some form of dysfunction (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). PTSD can also be conceptualized as a form of generalization, as the individual experiences a generalized fear response to situations/stimuli that are similar to the original stressor/trauma.

In an interesting study, researchers examined whether heart rate (HR) responses to trauma-related pictures (i.e., a generalization response) can be used to differentiate between trauma survivors with and without acute PTSD (Ehlers et al., 2010). Participants were 162 individuals who had survived either a motor vehicle accident (n = 98) or a physical assault (n = 64) and were recruited from the emergency room of a major hospital between 2004 and 2006. Sixty-six individuals (approx. 41%) met PTSD criteria one month following the trauma (the acute PTSD group) using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), an instrument discussed in Chapter 1. Ninety-six individuals (approx. 59%) did not meet criteria for PTSD.

The PTSD group showed greater HR responses to trauma-related pictures than those without PTSD (less pronounced mean deceleration, greater peak response, and a greater proportion showing HR acceleration of more than one beat per minute). No group differences in HR (i.e., fear) response emerged for the generally threatening or neutral pictures (Ehlers et al., 2010). The current findings are consistent with research showing that HR acceleration to trauma-specific cues (reminders) predicts the duration of PTSD symptoms (e.g., Elsesser, Sartory, & Tackenberg, 2005).

This study illustrates both generalization and discrimination of a fear response. First, it appears that those with acute PTSD can be defined as showing generalization (as measured by heart rate) to threat-related stimuli relative to those who experienced trauma, but did not meet criteria for PTSD. However, both groups demonstrated discrimination in that they did not show the fear response to nonspecific stimuli or to neutral stimuli. The research also offers some insights into potential interventions. For example, could repeated exposure to the threat-specific (feared) pictures result in extinction of the fear response when the participant habituates to the image? Of course, because researchers did not measure HR response to the stimuli prior to the trauma and because group assignment was not randomized, the findings are necessarily limited.

Critical Thinking Questions:

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 7 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

PTSD emerges from trauma exposure, but this study and desensitization treatments treat the disorder with further exposure. In what important ways do the two forms of exposure differ that results in such different outcomes? What do you think are some of the personality traits or other factors that determine who is more predisposed to experiencing PTSD symptoms after trauma exposure?

Watson's Application of Classical Conditioning to Humans

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors. (Watson, 1930, p. 104)

The spread of behaviorism in the United States owes much of its acceptance and popularity to the efforts of John B. Watson, who applied Pavlov's work to humans. Watson believed that psychology should deal only with actual behavior and not with mental states, heralding a dramatic shift away from the use of introspection and the study of consciousness. As noted in the above quote, Watson believed that the environment was the critical factor in predicting behavior.

Watson and James R. Angell are both given credit for coining the term behaviorist. But Watson's use of the label in the title of an article he published in 1913 ("Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It") was in essence a declaration that behaviorism was independent of other schools of psychology that were interested in the mental processes of individuals (Hunt, 2007). The behaviorist manifesto, as it later came to be known, made three fundamentally important points: (1) that psychology should concern itself with behavior, not consciousness; (2) objective methods should be used rather than introspection; and (3) the primary focus should be the prediction and control of behavior, rather than trying to understand the meaning of mental events (Hunt, 2007).

Watson began studying conditioned reflexes in infants in 1916 while a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Working at the Harriet Lane Hospital in Baltimore, he observed over 200 babies, cataloguing their reflexes (for example, sneezing, sucking, grasping, and reaching) and studying their emotional responses (such as fear, rage, and love). Note that each of these reflexes and emotions has observable behavioral components—such as crying and cooing in the case of emotions.

Beyond the Text: Research Spotlight

There is no record that Watson and Rayner made any effort to extinguish the experimentally produced fear they had created. By today's ethical standards for human experimentation, the type of experiment conducted on Little Albert would never be approved. Now all institutions that conduct human as well as animal research are required to follow strict ethical guidelines. All research proposals need to be approved by a committee of peers, ensuring that harmful treatment is avoided or at least minimized. Recently, a team led by Dr. Sharman Levinson identified Little Albert as Douglas Merritte, who died at age 6 of acquired hydrocephalus, a condition unrelated to the conditioning experiments. For more details, see "'Little Albert' Regains His Identity," published in the 2010 edition of the APA Monitor, available online at http://www.apa.org/monitor/ 2010/01/little-albert.aspx (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.aspx)

The experiment that brought Watson the greatest attention was one he conducted with his assistant, Rosalie Rayner. He and Rayner attempted to produce a conditioned fear response in a 9-month-old boy who became known as Little Albert (J. B. Watson & Rayner, 1920). First, they placed a white rat near 9-month-old Albert; he showed absolutely no fear of the animal. Then they hit a steel bar with a hammer right behind little Albert, and the sudden, very loud noise frightened him. They repeated this procedure a number of times on different occasions, always pairing the rat with the frightening noise. Within a very short period of time, Albert's behavior had changed drastically. Now, whenever he saw the white rat, he would begin to cry and attempt desperately to crawl away.

Thus, the conditioning of fear in Little Albert paralleled the conditioning of salivation in the dog by Pavlov. In this situation, the unconditioned stimulus (US) is the loud noise. is termed unconditioned because it reliably leads to a response (in this case, fear) in the absence of any prior learning. For the same reason, the fear reaction in response to the noise is an unconditioned response.

In this demonstration, the neutral stimulus (one that does not elicit the unconditioned response of fear) is the white rat. The neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) as a result of being paired with the US over a number of trials. It is now a conditioned stimulus because it reliably elicits the fear response after having been paired with the loud noise. Fear of the white rat is then defined as a conditioned response (a learned response), which can be elicited by the conditioned stimulus. Continued investigations showed that Albert had developed conditioned fear to a number of other furry white things, such as a rabbit and a seal coat, or Watson wearing a Santa Claus mask. Thus, they had demonstrated how generalization might be used to experimentally induce a form of "neurosis" or intense fear.

Watson (J. B. Watson, 1924, 1930) used the term "habit system" to refer to various categories or clusters of individual habits, which are the building blocks of personality. Because he believed that personality is largely learned (through conditioning), he also believed that it is malleable: No individual's personality remains consistent over time. Watson thought that concepts from normal or experimental psychology could be expanded to explain abnormal behavior (Rilling, 2000).

Modern psychology has retained some of Watson's fundamental assumptions. There has been a clear shift to experimental methods of research and a distinct move away from introspection (research is no longer published based on this method). Modern psychologists have multiple outcomes of interest, including behavior, cognition, and affect, and there is a strong interest in changing behavior. Perhaps one area where psychology has remained close to its pre-behavioral roots is the strong emphasis that is still placed on understanding psychological phenomena, as opposed to simply predicting behavior.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 8 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Operant Conditioning

As noted earlier, operant conditioning applies to nonreflexive actions, and it suggests that the incidence of a behavior is tied to its consequence(s). Importantly, the consequences don't have to be temporally associated; they can occur considerably later, provided the organism connects the consequence to the behavior. Terms such as reinforcer and punisher (i.e., categories of consequences) have became common concepts in psychology. By relying heavily on the elemental laws of learning, it has become possible to account for a much wider range of behaviors.

Thorndike'sThorndike's Elemental Elemental Laws Laws of of Learning Learning

One of the major influential figures in the development of behaviorism was Edward Lee Thorndike. In the basement of his home, Thorndike created mazes of stacked books and studied how chicks found their way to reinforcers such as food, water, and other chicks, typically improving their performance with repeated trials. He later did research at Columbia, building puzzle boxes from vegetable crates to study how cats, and sometimes dogs, figured out how to escape from their cages.

On the basis of these studies, Thorndike formulated two fundamental laws of learning. These laid the foundation for a model of psychology applicable to humans as well as animals, and they represented major advances in the scientific understanding of behavior: the law of effect and the law of exercise.

TheThe Law Law of of Effect Effect

In essence, the law states that every behavior has a consequence and the nature of that consequence determines if the behavior will reoccur. There are two possible consequences or effects of most behaviors, explained Thorndike: An effect (an outcome) can be "satisfying" or it can be "annoying." Simply stated, the law of effect says that behaviors that are followed by a satisfying state of affairs are more likely to be learned and repeated when the organism is again in the situation that first led to that outcome. In Thorndike's words, responses that have satisfying outcomes are more likely to be "stamped in." In contrast, responses that are followed by an annoying state of affairs are likely to be eliminated or weakened ("stamped out" in Thorndike's words). The fundamental contribution this law made to psychology's understanding of behavior is that it recognized the importance of the consequences of behavior. As a result, it paved the way for reinforcement theory, which was later elaborated by Skinner.

TheThe Law Law of of Exercise Exercise

Thorndike's research also led him to a second law of learning, the law of exercise, based on the observation that the more often a response has been connected with a stimulus, the more likely it is to be repeated. In other words, practice and repetition strengthen learning. The more a stimulus-response association is repeated, the stronger the connection between the two and the more persistent the response will be. For example, this seems to be the case for addictive behavior. The pleasant state ("satisfaction") brought about by stimulus such as a drug, a computer game, or pornography leads to the repetition of exposure—and the more frequent the exposure, the stronger the connection between it and the situation that triggers it. This might explain why some people stay up all night, glued to their smartphones, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts, with each sound signaling an incoming message serving as the ultimate reinforcer.

ReinforcersReinforcers and and Punishers Punishers

There are two classes of consequences: reinforcers and punishers. At the most fundamental level, reinforcement is anything that results in an increase in the behavior with which it is associated. Money (a universal reinforcer, as it can be used to obtain many other things), food, sex, and attention are common reinforcers for human behavior. Punishment has the opposite effect; it is designed to reduce the probability of a response occurring. Fines, restrictions, and the removal of any valued possessions or privileges are examples of some typical punishers.

Another important concept in understanding the consequences of reinforcement and punishment is whether the consequence involves adding (referred to as positive) or removing (referred to as negative) something from the environment. Thus, positive reinforcement involves adding something to the environment that results in an increase in the behavior (e.g., giving money, food, attention, etc.). Negative reinforcement is when an aversive stimulus is withdrawn in response to a behavior, with this too resulting in increase in the behavior. For example, if a rat has been receiving electric shocks (an aversive stimulus) and the current is turned off when it depresses the lever, turning the current off becomes the negative reinforcement for bar pressing. The important point is that both positive and negative reinforcement increase the probability of a behavior. Positive reinforcement increases the likelihood of the reinforced response as a result of something being added to the situation (e.g., getting $5 for cleaning your bedroom). Negative reinforcement is effective as a result of something being removed from a situation (e.g., removing the chore of washing the dishes if you clean your bedroom).

Positive punishment involves adding something to the environment that decreases the probability of the behavior occurring. For example, giving someone an electrical shock a child a slap on the hand could be examples of positive punishment. Negative punishment involves the removal of something desirable, and it, too, results in a decreased probability of the behavior occurring. Removing phone privileges would be an example of negative punishment. See Figure 5.3 for additional illustrations of these concepts.

Figure 5.3: Understanding reinforcement and punishment Punishment should always weaken the behavior, whereas reinforcement should always strengthen it. The terms positive and negative simply refer to whether something is being added or removed to the environment.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 9 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch0…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 10 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Mimi Forsyth/age fotostock/SuperStock

The Skinner box was the first version of modern reinforcement chambers such as this one, which allows scientists to study factors that influence the acquisition of behaviors.

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

Do you engage in superstitious behavior, such as not stepping on sidewalk cracks or rituals for good luck? In this brief 1948 paper, Skinner characterizes the acquisition of "superstitious" behavior in a pigeon. Click here (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/{pdfs}ch_5_superstition_in_the_pigeon_skinner.pdf)

to read it.

Reference: Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku. ca/Skinner/Pigeon/ (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/)

5.2 The Neobehaviorists More complex versions of behaviorism evolved from the 1920s to the 1960s and became popular in American psychology. Much of the research used animals as the subjects, but even when humans were used, the subject matter was focused on the prediction of behavior rather than arriving at any complex meaning behind the behavior.

Skinner's Radical Behaviorism

One of the most well-known and influential psychologists of the 20th century was B. F. Skinner. Consistent throughout his prolific career was his belief in radical behaviorism —radical meaning "root." Like Watson, Skinner spent his career advocating for an extreme behaviorist view. Skinner had no interest in the human psyche: He was concerned with the external, observable, and measurable causes of behavior. Nor did he have a theory of psychology or personality, a concept he considered illusory and a distraction to scientific study of behavior. In this respect, it might appear that Skinner's perspective would offer little to the study of personality. However, his firm belief in radical behaviorism had a profound impact on the field. It challenged personality theorists to be more scientific to avoid being dismissed as irrelevant to scientific psychology. He also forced theoreticians to form a stronger and, in some cases, a practical connection between any mental constructs, such as affect or cognition, and observable behavior.

Skinner was responsible for many discoveries and advances in our knowledge of learning. He had great mechanical aptitude and designed and constructed an experimental apparatus that much improved the ones designed by Thorndike—most notably the Skinner box, which became enormously popular in psychological laboratories throughout the world. The box is basically a cage equipped with a lever that controls the administration of food pellets or water. It is generally used with white rats or pigeons and provides an easy, highly controlled way of investigating learning. It is especially useful for studying the relationship between rate, kind, and amount of reinforcement and measures of learning, such as rate of acquisition, response rate, and rate of extinction. The Skinner box lent itself exceptionally well to creating a truly empirical science.

Skinner described two different kinds of behaviors, each of which can be explained with different models. On the one hand are respondents. Respondents are responses that occur as reactions to a specific stimulus. Ducking when someone throws a punch at your head is an example of a respondent. Respondents are usually explained by a model of classical conditioning. contrast, operants are responses that are simply emitted by the organism rather than elicited by specific stimuli. Whether an operant will occur again depends on its consequences. Hence a model of operant conditioning is used to explain operant learning. Thus, if a hungry rat presses a bar and receives a food pellet, the immediate consequences of the rat's bar pressing are instrumental in increasing the probability of the bar-pressing response when the rat is again placed in this situation.

Skinner pointed out that punishment is not especially effective as a shaper of behavior. With respect to his experiments on punishment, he writes, "The effect of punishment was a temporary suppression of the behavior, not a reduction in the total number of responses" (Skinner, 1953, p. 184). Skinner's conclusion is interesting when considered within context of childrearing, where punishments like timeouts are commonly employed. Of course, one important difference is that Skinner emphasized positive punishments, whereas a timeout would be an example of a negative punishment (i.e., the removal of any reinforcers).

When a response is not emitted for a long period of time, it may be forgotten. For example, if the rat that has learned to depress a lever for reinforcement is not placed in the Skinner box for a period of months or years, it might no longer run over and depress the lever when it finally enters the box again. Skinner distinguishes between forgetting—the loss of a response as a function of the passage of time—and a process we earlier defined as extinction. Extinction occurs when a response becomes progressively less likely and finally disappears as a result of not being reinforced. If, after learning bar-pressing behavior, the rat is allowed free access to the Skinner box but is never reinforced again, the bar-pressing response will weaken and eventually disappear.

SchedulesSchedules of of Reinforcement Reinforcement and and Punishment Punishment

As a result of his experiments, Skinner discovered that various schedules of reinforcement either increase the probability of a behavior occurring or reduce it. The schedules can either be focused on the passage of time between responses or the number of responses. Temporally based schedules are characterized by the term interval, meaning that reinforcement (or punishment) occurs after the first response is given following a period of time. In contrast, ratio schedules focus on the number of responses, irrespective of the time. Schedules can also be differentiated with respect to whether they are unchanging or changing. If

the schedule is stable, meaning it is not changing from trial to trial, then it is referred to as a fixed schedule. When the schedule is changing from trial to trial, then it is referred to as a variable schedule. By crossing these two descriptive features, four schedules can be identified (see Table 5.1), and each results in a different pattern of responding. If rat is given a pellet of food every fifth time it presses a bar, then this is a fixed ratio schedule. If the rat receives the food for the first bar press following a 2-minute interval, this is a fixed interval schedule. If the rat receives the food first after 3 bar presses, then 100, then 20, etc., this is referred to as a variable ratio scale. Finally, if the rat receives the food for the first bar press after 5 minutes, then the first bar press after 45 seconds, then 20 minutes, etc., then this is a variable interval schedule.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 11 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Skinner's Psychologically Controlled Society

Skinner's Psychologically Controlled Society From Title:

Into the Mind: Mind Control

(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?

wID=100753&xtid=43512)

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What are some examples of how Skinner's behavioral concepts can be applied to the betterment of human society today?

2. What are the pros and cons of broadly applying the behavioral techniques to societal functioning? Are there some areas of life where this type of learning may not work as well?

When learning something new, the best way to effect behavioral change is to reinforce (if trying to acquire a behavior) or punish (if trying to extinguish a behavior) every instance of that behavior. This is referred to as a continuous schedule (technically, this is also a fixed ratio schedule, with the ratio being one response). However, this is not necessarily the best way to maintain behavior, as constant reinforcement or punishment can result in satiation, a process by which the reinforcer or punisher loses its value. For example, imagine if students were given a piece of chocolate each time they asked a question in class. Within a short period of time, the frequency of questions would increase dramatically due to the presence of what would likely be defined as a continuous reinforcer (as most people love chocolate). Despite its success in initiating a behavior, the effectiveness of this schedule of reinforcement would eventually decrease because the students would eventually have enough chocolates or grow tired of chocolates, and as a result, the appeal of yet one more piece would diminish. Thus, following the acquisition of behavior, the best approach is to move to a variable schedule, as variable schedules are more resistant to extinction, they can be less costly and time consuming to maintain, and they are less likely to result in satiation.

Now let's consider some human examples. Many students are on their smartphones during class checking for texts or updates on social networking sites. This would represent the initial behavior. If the consequence is receiving a favorable text or message update (a reinforcer), then the use of the smartphone during class will increase. This is especially true given that the schedule of reinforcement is likely to be variable interval in nature, one that is highly resistant to change. The acquisition of a behavior in this context is clear because it's a simple behavior in an isolated setting, but it becomes more difficult when trying to account for complex behaviors. Similarly, learning theory works well to explain simple phobias that involve a single, specific feared stimulus, but they do not work well in predicting complex phobias (such as agoraphobia) or more complex psychological phenomena (such as personality disorders or even introversion).

Table 5.1: Types of schedules

Schedule Description Example Typical behavioral response

Fixed interval After a specific interval of time has passed, reinforcement is given following the first response.

Paychecks delivered every two weeks.

Lengthy breaks until the interval approaches, then bursts of activity.

Fixed ratio After a specific number of responses, reinforcement is given.

After every five completed assignments, the student receives five bonus points.

Substantial decrease in productivity following the reinforcer.

Variable interval After a variable period of time, reinforcement is given following the first response.

You are trying to get through on a busy phone signal and the call finally goes through.

Slow but steady rate. Generally harder to extinguish than the fixed schedules.

Variable ratio After a variable number of responses, reinforcement is given.

A slot machine could result in a jackpot after one pull or no wins after thousands of pulls.

Most productive schedule with minimal pausing. Also, this schedule is the hardest to extinguish.

One way to address the acquisition of more complex behavior is to consider the process of shaping. Shaping involves learning by breaking complex behaviors down into simpler behaviors (i.e., steps) and then reinforcing each successive step in the sequence. With each step, the behavior is closer to the desired outcome (this is sometimes referred to as shaping by successive approximations). Using operant shaping procedures, Skinner taught pigeons to play "ping pong" and a pig to put dirty clothes in a hamper. He also applied these techniques to education, developing "programmed instruction"—a teaching technique where learners are reinforced for correct responses to each of a sequence of related questions. The use of operant conditioning techniques soon spread to mental institutions, and in many of these established "token economies," patients could receive some token (for example, a poker chip) that could later be exchanged for a variety of reinforcers, such as food or books. In general, though the use of token economies has its critics (Corrigan 1995), the research literature suggests that they can be effective in improving patient behavior (e.g., Ghezzi, Wilson, Tarbox, & MacAleese, 2009), even in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (for a review see Dickerson, Tenhula, & Green-Paden, 2005).

Skinner's View on Personality

Although Skinner did not recognize the need to explain or even address personality, he proposed that it is possible to predict the occurrence of behaviors by analyzing observable

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 12 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

events, conditions, situations, and history. For example, Skinner (1953) described the traits of submissiveness and dominance, believing that when a bully attempts to dominate others, he or she is reinforced when others acquiesce and show deference to the bully. Likewise, submissiveness can be reinforced by the lack of conflict. As these practices become habitual, they present as personality traits.

Although Skinner could explain what would typically be called personality, it is important to reiterate that he would not consider this personality, but rather a behavioral phenomenon. Of course, current models of personality do tend to be more behaviorally focused as well. Therefore, much of Skinner's objection with the term personality has more to do with how the psychodynamic theorists used the term (i.e., emphasizing internal, unseen variables).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 13 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

5.3 Theoretical Models Applied to Personality Behavioral psychologists often express their deeply held belief that if behavior changes, "personality" is sure to follow. In other words, when individuals change their habits and behaviors, it is not important whether or not we believe some arbitrary construct such as personality changes. As we saw, the behavioral approach emphasizes the principles by which individuals learn and the ways in which behavior can be modified. In contrast, psychodynamic approaches emphasize far more mentalistic constructs. The dialectic process resulting from the clash between the overly elaborate theoretical system of psychoanalysis and the pragmatic science of behaviorism has done much to propel the entire field of psychology forward.

In this section, we will present some of the theoretical formulations of personality that emerged toward the latter part of the behavioral era, which includes some more elaborate attempts to explain complex behavior. We will also examine some of the more recent ways in which behavioral theory has been applied in practice (i.e., Applied Behavior Analysis).

Salter's Conditioned Reflex Theory

A little-known figure in the field of behavioral personality is Andrew Salter. Although Salter's work is not ordinarily mentioned in personality texts, it represents an interesting theoretical attempt to explain personality from a behavioral viewpoint. Salter is perhaps best known for two publications: The Case Against Psycho-Analysis (1952) and Conditioned Reflex Therapy: The Direct Approach to the Reconstruction of Personality (1949). In the latter book, he established what has been credited as the first assertiveness training guide, and it was couched in the language of learning theory. Salter wrote about such topics as shyness, stuttering, addictions, anxiety, inhibition, masochism, and homosexuality. He believed that personality should be explained with as few concepts as possible and in the simplest way available; this premise remains consistent with the behavioral tradition.

Salter (1949) identified and used three prototypes (models) to characterize personality: what he terms excitatory personality, inhibitory personality, and psychopathic personality. For example, he used General Dwight Eisenhower as a prototype for the excitatory personality (similar to an assertive personality), characterizing this prototype as anxiety-free, happy, direct, energetic, responding outwardly to the environment, and focused on constructive and immediate action in response to problems. Salter also characterized this prototype as a quick decision maker, who gravitates to responsibilities, and who likes individuals, but doesn't care what they think.

Photri Images/SuperStock; Nomad/SuperStock

Though on very different sides of the political spectrum, these former presidents both appear to possess many of the traits associated with the excitatory personality.

Salter (1949) described the psychopathic personality as egocentric in perspective, callous and cold, insincere, unreliable, infantile, and hostile. Much like the current antisocial personality disorder, these individuals often take advantage of others and have problems with the law.

Salter (1949) believed most people have an inhibitory personality (also known as non-assertive, and which he describes as "living death"), essentially navigating life with extreme caution and trepidation with respect to emotional expression and actions. Salter associated this inhibitory personality with psychological and physical problems, working on the assumption that to withhold emotions and actions results in "toxicity." This was his rationale for engaging in what would now be characterized as assertiveness training to help people both identify and behaviorally express their experiences. His ideas served as the conceptual basis for Wolpe's systematic desensitization.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 14 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

What is interesting about Salter's use of conditioning to explain human personality is that he also acknowledges the importance of emotion and interpersonal relations for personality adjustment. Dollard and Miller (1950), too, recognized the importance of emotion.

Dollard and Miller's Learning Theory

One of the most systematic efforts to produce a comprehensive behavioral theory of personality was forwarded by John Dollard (an anthropologist) and Neil Miller (a psychologist). Dollard and Miller (1950) were not interested in traits or personality structure. Like other behaviorists, they were concerned with habits and how these are acquired. Behaviorists believe that we are born with reflexes that are shaped by the environment through the action of primary drives and the effects of reinforcement. Because of their role in reducing drives, various behaviors are strengthened or weakened. Dollard and Miller believed that certain early experiences, such as feeding, toilet training, learning about sex, and resolving conflict (i.e., the same activities that psychoanalytic theorists considered important), offer highly charged learning experiences in which behavior will be shaped and strengthened into individual habit patterns or personality traits.

Dollard and Miller's theory describes what they consider the four essential components of learning: drive, cue, response, and reinforcement. These components shape learning and, in so doing, shape our behavior and our personality.

Drives are "[s]trong stimuli which impel action" (Dollard & Miller, 1950, p. 30). Unlearned drives, such as hunger, thirst, sex, fatigue, and pain, are labeled primary drives. The strength of the primary drives is related to the degree of deprivation: The longer you have been without food or sex, the stronger your hunger or sex drive. Learned drives, such as those related to fear or the need for approval, are termed secondary drives. The notion of secondary drives provided far greater explanatory power than did the concept of primary drives alone, and this was especially important in the attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of human personality and the development of neurosis.

Cues are stimuli that direct attention to certain aspects of the environment. They determine what we will respond to and how. For example, internal hunger cues or the golden arches direct our attention toward food.

Response: Under certain drive conditions (for example, strong hunger) we respond to cues (we eat when we have the banana in front of us). Responses can be weak at first, explain Dollard and Miller, but reinforcement can strengthen them. In addition, a variety of different responses are possible in a given situation. In a sense, there are hierarchies of responses. Some are more likely (i.e., more "dominant") than others. Among the various ways in which habits are acquired, they suggest that trial and error the least efficient. Dollard and Miller also suggest that learning takes place through imitation, a notion that has become an important part of contemporary social learning theory (see Chapter 6 for a review of these concepts).

Reinforcement: Any stimulus (S) that increases the probability of a response (R) occurring is defined as a reinforcement. In Dollard and Miller's theory, any stimulus that reduces a drive will be reinforcing. For example, food is reinforcing precisely because it reduces the hunger drive. In fact, they claim that reinforcement is impossible without some level of drive, as there is nothing to reduce (if you are satiated, the offer of food will not be reinforcing). They also point out that after reinforcement, the level of drive will diminish and unless something occurs to increase drive, the same stimulus will no longer be reinforcing. Thus, after you have eaten your fill—that is, your hunger drive has been reduced to zero—eating is no longer reinforcing.

An important construct in Dollard and Miller's theory, used to explain complex behavior, is the notion of learned drives. Learned or secondary drives develop because of reinforcement that occurs in complex social systems. Thus, many have strong drives to achieve or to become famous. These are learned drives, unlike the primary drives of hunger, sex, thirst, and avoidance of pain. Dollard and Miller suggest that these secondary drives are so powerful because they are linked with the early satisfaction of primary drives. But unlike primary drives, when they are not reinforced, secondary drives will weaken.

Another important construct defined by Dollard and Miller is frustration, which they describe as a blocked attempt to reduce a drive (i.e., a blocked goal), such as a failed attempt to quit smoking or drinking. They also define frustration as the inability to pursue two goals at once. When the frustration is severe, Dollard and Miller call it conflict and we will here review three types of conflict:

Approach-approach conflict is the choice between two desirable outcomes (approach means moving toward an outcome). In this situation, you tend to choose whichever outcome is closer, as this emphasizes the immediacy of drive reduction. Thus, as you move closer to one goal, your drive for that goal increases.

Avoidance-avoidance conflict is the choice between two undesirable outcomes (avoidance means moving away from an outcome). As one moves closer to an undesirable outcome, it increases in its aversive quality.

Approach-avoidance conflict is when a single behavior results in both a desirable and an undesirable outcome. Importantly, as one moves closer to engaging in the behavior and experiencing the desirable and undesirable outcomes, the aversiveness for the undesirable outcome increases, as does the drive for the desirable outcome, but the aversiveness increases at a faster rate relative to the desire. It was Lewin (1935) who first postulated that from a distance, positive valence looms larger, whereas the closer one gets, the larger the negative valence. Imagine that you have not dated in quite some time and someone appealing is introduced to you. As you consider whether to call the person, there is likely to be an approach (getting to know them better)—avoidance (being rejected) conflict. As you move closer to contacting the individual, the fear rejection increases, as does the desire to get to know them better, but the fear usually wins out.

TranslatingTranslating Psychodynamic Psychodynamic Concepts Concepts in in Learning Learning Theory Theory

One of the most important contributions of Dollard and Miller's (1950) work was their translation of Freudian concepts, including the defense mechanisms, into behavioral terms, as this provided theoreticians and researchers a common framework for dialogue. This work also demonstrated that learning theory could be used to explain some

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 15 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

complex behaviors that underlie personality.

For example, Dollard and Miller suggest that unconscious behaviors are those where the individual is unaware of the cues triggering the drive. Unconscious functioning could also reflect being unaware of the drive itself. Thus, unconscious simply means unlabeled. Although Dollard and Miller conceptualize the defense mechanisms in behavioral terminology, it is important to note that the primary difference is that Freud would assign an underlying (unconscious) motivation to the defense mechanism (i.e., repression is intentional, but unconscious). In contrast, Dollard and Miller's account does not assume intentionality, but it can account for it being unconscious (i.e., an unlabeled drive). Table 5.2 provides a summary of the defense mechanisms in the language of learning theory.

Table 5.2: Freudian defenses explained using behavioral constructs

Freudian defense mechanism Behavioral explanation

Repression Unlabeled drives, cues, and responses are equivalent to the unconscious.

Suppression The changing of an anxiety-provoking topic by a group of people talking about something unpleasant reinforces its suppression by reducing anxiety.

Regression "When the dominant habit is blocked by conflict or extinguished through nonreward, the next strongest response will be expected to occur" (p. 171). This next strongest response is often reinforced, and this might be the response that was previously used with great frequency (e.g., a response that was used at some earlier developmental stage).

Displacement When a dominant response is blocked, the next strongest is likely to occur. The response will then generalize to another stimulus (i.e., stimulus generalization).

Rationalization When a true explanation of an event causes anxiety, the individual is motivated to construct an alternative explanation that will reduce anxiety.

Projection This defense depends on the principle of generalization: Each individual expects others to react in a certain manner. Although not a unitary phenomenon, various biologically based reactions that occur tend to reinforce this defense. Acting in a friendly manner is likely to elicit friendly behavior; conversely, a hostile manner elicits a hostile reaction.

Reaction Formation "A person who is motivated to do something he had learned to disapprove or fear may respond with thoughts, statements, or behavior of the opposite kind" (p. 184).

Adapted from: Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy: An analysis in terms of learning, thinking, and culture. New York: McGraw Hill.

Mowrer's Two-Factor Theory

Orval Hobart Mowrer modified the theory of classical conditioning, proposing a two-factor theory to explain avoidance learning. He believed that if an individual avoids a feared stimulus, extinction will not take place. In other words, if someone is traumatized and develops a phobia of rats, as in Little Albert's case, not exposing him to the rat in the future will not eliminate the phobic response. The two-factor theory of avoidance learning says, essentially, that the first factor involved in learning an avoidance response the organism's fear that has been conditioned to the fear-related event. The organism that runs from danger is not escaping from the source of danger, but rather from the cues— that is, the conditioned stimuli—associated with danger. For example, Mowrer would argue that running from someone who is coming at you in a threatening way with a knife responding to the cues, in this case a jagged implement, an angry face, and aggressive movements. The second factor in this theory holds that escaping from the fear-related stimulus or stimuli (e.g., the cues noted in the example) is reinforcing because it results in harm avoidance and fear reduction. In this way, avoidance behavior is reinforced and becomes learned.

Mowrer was interested in the study of conditioned anxiety and reinforcement. He believed that two principles of reinforcement were required: (1) Responses mediated by the central nervous system involving voluntary muscles become weaker when drive is reduced (e.g., you are more likely to stop searching through the refrigerator when not hungry); and (2) responses mediated by the autonomic nervous system or smooth muscles, such as limbic system arousal related to fear are learned by sheer temporal association (classical conditioning; e.g., whenever you see a white lab coat, your blood pressure rises; Hilgard & Bower, 1975). Mowrer's ideas were used more in the 1950s, but they were met with some criticism and revision as early as the 1960s (Feather, 1963), and as a result, few researchers cite Mowrer's work, aside from its historical significance (e.g., Levis, 1990).

Wolpe's Behavioral Applications

Joseph Wolpe was a psychiatrist whose view of behavior was similar to that of Watson, believing that behavior is elicited by the environment and not simply emitted and shaped by environmental consequences, as Skinner proposed. A very important concept in Wolpe's system is anxiety, which he does not distinguish from fear. He defines anxiety as the automatic response patterns that occur in reaction to unpleasant stimuli. In his experiments, Wolpe placed cats in a cage and shocked them after they were exposed to a "hooting sound" of two to three seconds, duration. As classical conditioning theory would predict, the cats soon responded to the hooting with signs of extreme anxiety, crouching, trembling, and breathing heavily. When they were prevented from escaping, they were terrified, often cowering, urinating, and defecating.

In the behavior of these cats, Wolpe detected what he called a "neurotic" pattern (defined as a set of behaviors reflecting intense anxiety). These "neurotic" cats began to respond

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 16 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

AntionioGuillem/iStock/Thinkstock

In flooding therapy, a patient is fully exposed to the most intense manifestation of his or her phobia. For example, a patient with a phobia of fish might be taken to an aquarium such as this.

with increasing anxiety to a variety of other noises. In behaviorist terminology, they had generalized their anxiety responses to other similar stimuli. Importantly, Wolpe also noted that when a response is prevented by a competing response, stimuli associated with the competing response can also inhibit the behavior. In other words, if you can find stimulus that will make the cat emit a response that prevents it from responding with anxiety, that stimulus (and others associated with it) might be used to prevent the anxiety response. This observation would be central to establishing the framework of a therapeutic intervention.

Wolpe developed the therapeutic technique known as systematic desensitization (also called graduated exposure therapy), which is frequently used today. It is a behavioral technique used primarily to treat phobias and other anxiety-based disorders (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder). There are three important steps in systematic desensitization:

1. The first step involves establishing a fear hierarchy for the conditioned stimulus. This means creating a specific list of feared stimuli and ranking them from least to most feared. For example, if dealing with a fear of spiders, the low end of the fear hierarchy might involve touching rubber spiders or pictures of spiders. Next might be contact with a dead spider. The highest end of the fear hierarchy might involve a live spider at a close distance or even touching a live spider.

2. During the second step of systemic desensitization, the participant engages in a progressive relaxation technique, such as deep, meditative breathing.

3. The final step involves exposing the patient to each level of the fear hierarchy, beginning with the lowest end of the fear hierarchy. The patient must return to the relaxed state prior to the removal of the stimulus.

Another therapeutic technique proposed by Wolpe (1958) is that of assertive responding. It involves training the patient to express both aggressive and affectionate feelings. The aggressiveness, or assertiveness, is incompatible with anxiety. As a result, the patient who has learned to respond assertively is less likely to be anxious. Another illustration, as applied to Salter's work, would be training someone to demonstrate excitatory behavior, which would be incompatible with inhibitory behavior. In effect, this is a form of reciprocal inhibition (or counterconditioning) in that assertive responding prevents free-floating anxiety.

Wolpe (1958) also used aversive techniques in therapy. Aversion therapy typically involves pairing a negative stimulus, such as an electric shock, with an undesirable response. The treatment of an alcoholic, for example, might include giving the client a nausea-producing drug followed by an alcoholic beverage (recall the example of the drug Antabuse used in the treatment of problematic drinking). Similarly, counterconditioning has been used with pedophiles where electric shock is paired with sexual stimuli. Ethical issues aside, these methods have had limited usefulness for this population.

Wolpe (1969) did not believe that his system treated only superficial manifestations of personality. He thought that behavior therapy changes personality, if what is meant by personality is the sum of an individual's habits. He also believed that the model of reciprocal inhibition could explain cures, even when the cure is brought about by drugs (Wolpe, 1960). Many behaviorists would agree with his claim that changing habits is the critical step in altering one's "personality."

Thomas Stampfl (1966), who speculated that neuroses were the result of learning to avoid anxiety, developed another interesting therapeutic technique that he termed flooding (also called implosive therapy). In implosive therapy, the patient is literally flooded with stimuli associated with anxiety. This is based on the expectation that the patient will eventually become fatigued and that the anxiety response will eventually cease—at which point a different response will have been counterconditioned to what were previously anxiety-provoking stimuli.

In a move that has taken full advantage of improving technology, more recent behavioral approaches to exposure therapy have adopted virtual reality as a means of exposing patients to feared stimuli without leaving the office. A recent empirical review of the literature suggests virtual reality exposure therapy is equally efficacious with respect to more traditional approaches and the benefits appear to generalize outside of therapy and have some durability (Opriş et al., 2012).

Applied Behavior Analysis

Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is a form of behavior modification that relies on the basic learning principles outlined in this chapter. Researchers and clinicians identify the behavior that is being targeted for change, as well as its antecedents (the behaviors and events that precede it) and its consequences. The idea is to not only study, but to change human behavior for the better in a wide range of contexts, including business, health and safety, athletics, and, perhaps most widely, in clinical settings to treat severe mental disorders.

One area that has seen the reasonably successful application of behavioral principles for over 40 years is in treating individuals with autism spectrum disorders (more broadly referred to as intellectual and behavioral disabilities). Those with autism spectrum disorders often have impaired cognitive functioning, but the hallmark feature is impairments in socialization and communication. Behavioral techniques have been employed to help children and adults with low cognitive functioning to develop communication skills and other adaptive behavior (for a review, see Neidert, Dozier, Iwata, & Hafen, 2010).

An early forerunner to modern-day applied behavior analysis was an approach developed by Ivar Lovaas, which involves an intensive (i.e., 30 or more hours per week) behavioral intervention to help young children who have been non-communicative to express themselves (e.g., Lovaas, 1987; Smith, Lovaas, & Lovaas, 2002). Although there have been some mixed findings regarding the efficacy of such early behavioral interventions (e.g., the approach appears less effective at addressing deficits such as problematic emotional responses; Beadle-Brown, Murphy, & Wing, 2006), they continue to represent one of the most widely used and efficacious forms of early intervention with autism spectrum disordered individuals (Soorya, Carpenter, & Romanczyk, 2011). Moreover, ABA has been shown to be effective at decreasing self-injurious behavior (e.g.,

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 17 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Chowdhury & Benson, 2011).

In addition to their difficulties communicating, these children with autism spectrum disorders have personalities that can be described as passive in social interaction, lacking in personal space, having unique perspectives on the world, failing to understand nuanced communication, and preference for isolation, to name a few. Some researchers believe that autism represents a unique personality structure in and of itself and are therefore less likely to use traditional personality concepts to characterize these individuals (Wakabayashi, Baron-Cohen, & Wheelwright, 2006). In contrast, other researchers adopt a more traditional perspective and use typical traits to characterize those with autism. For example, it appears that when compared to normally developing children, those with autism spectrum disorders score lower on traits such as extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to new experience (creativity; Fortenberry, Grist, & McCord, 2011).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 18 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Learned helplessness is the belief that there are no responses that can make a situation better. This belief can be learned through long-term exposure to difficult environments in which efforts do not translate into favorable change or escape from the setting.

5.4 Component Subsystems of Behavioral Theory Many of the developments in the evolution of the behavioral model are based on research that looks at how various processes influence the development of personality. Although a few behavioral researchers tried to develop a comprehensive model of personality, most did not. Still, their research has resulted in the discovery of many processes that might be considered components of personality. Understanding these processes can be very useful for understanding how learning occurs and how it contributes to the development of personality (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Subcomponent systems and their clinical phenomena and personality

Construct Clinical application Application to personality

Learned helplessness Depression Depressive personality development

Self-control Impulse disorders Antisocial personality development

Anxiety Agoraphobia Avoidant personality development

Seligman's Concept of Learned Helplessness

Martin Seligman (1975) developed the concept of learned helplessness, which is when an individual (or animal) learns that they are unable to control, change, or escape from their environment. In a series of fascinating experiments, Seligman studied the reactions of dogs that were given an electric shock and then allowed to jump over a barrier to escape—which all dogs learned to do very quickly. When he changed the experimental conditions and shocked the dogs without giving them an escape route, they seemed to become helpless; instead of trying various maneuvers to escape, the dogs stood or crouched and trembled, seemingly overwhelmed and frozen with anxiety. Even more important for Seligman was the fact that when the barrier was subsequently removed so that the dogs could escape, they did not. This was a perplexing observation. Seligman labeled this state learned helplessness, suggesting that this animal model could be applied to humans to explain how individuals with depression seem to view the world in negative terms and essentially give up.

Many people come to believe that there are no responses they can make that will make matters better. Seligman explains that people characterized by learned helplessness seem to have been conditioned in much the same way as the dogs in his study; they no longer believe there is a possibility of escape. He suggests that learned helplessness might be learned in severely dysfunctional families where chaos rules and expectancies of having any impact are kept to a minimum. The significance of Seligman's early work is that it provides a learning model that explains how certain experiences can lead to profound changes in personality, such as we see in those who suffer from trauma and depression. Interestingly, the bulk of the current research published on learned helplessness focuses on the neurobiological mechanisms of this type of maladaptive learning in animals and its implications for depression (e.g., Li et al., 2011); a detailed discussion of neurobiological mechanisms can be found in Chapter 4.

Goldfried and Merbaum: Changing Behavior Through Self-Control

Self-control is an important feature of personality functioning. In many individuals with disordered or dysfunctional personalities, self-control often is impaired (e.g., problems with impulse control are one of four criteria used in defining personality disorders; this is also true for the DSM-5). Goldfried and Merbaum (1973) describe self-control as "a process through which an individual becomes the principal agent in guiding, directing, and regulating those features of his own behavior that might eventually lead to desired positive consequences" (p. 11).

They suggest that it is important to be aware of the fact that environmental influences also play a central role in developing behaviors that represent self-control. Self-control influences many areas of personality functioning, including adjustment to the community, family, and work. Indeed, when self-control is more broadly termed as self-regulation, it can be shown to play a central role in a number of problematic behaviors, such as inattention and procrastination. For example, in a lab-based study, researchers found that chronic procrastinators delayed preparing (practicing) for a task only when it was defined as a cognitive task, and not when it was labeled a fun activity (Ferrari & Tice, 2000). This research paradigm, which considers procrastination as a form of poor self-regulation, uses behavioral concepts such as task avoidance to define procrastination.

Barlow: The Nature of Anxiety

One of the most prolific contemporary workers in psychology is David H. Barlow (2002), whose models of treatment are based directly on the behavioral model. However, his description of anxiety and its various subdivisions, such as panic and phobias, is more inclusive than that of the behaviorists. Not only does it include much of what is current neuroscience, but it also ascribes an important role to emotions, a topic that behavioral psychologists have largely ignored.

Anxiety is perhaps the most common clinical symptom in a wide range of personality disorders, hence its central role in any comprehensive personality theory. Barlow (2002) has done much to broaden our understanding of this central issue. Using learning theory, he presents evidence that there is a relationship between the development of agoraphobia (fear of venturing into a strange place or into crowded areas) and the development of what is termed an avoidant personality style. For example, an individual might

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 19 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

be afraid of going into a grocery store because a panic attack occurred on the last visit to the store. That person might then begin to develop more generalized anxiety related being out of their zone of comfort at home. The panic can then generalize and become agoraphobia, which Barlow describes as "basically a complication of anxiety about a fear of panic" (2002, p. 357). Barlow's work explains how reinforcement patterns can be critical in creating states of anxiety and in fostering the development of certain personality types and disorders. For example, a highly anxious individual, whose avoidance of new situations is reinforced by a lessening of anxiety, may develop a strongly entrenched avoidant personality style. Accordingly, most of the therapeutic approaches Barlow developed are behavioral methods.

After establishing the theoretical groundwork (e.g., Gray, 1985), recent research has provided insights into the neurobiology of the basic learning mechanisms (e.g., activation and inhibition systems) that underlie anxiety and other disorders (e.g., Buss et al., 2003; Putman, Hermans, & van Honk, 2004; Sutton & Davidson, 1997). For example, consistent with Barlow's hypothesis, recent research in a large study of college undergraduates has shown a strong connection between behavioral inhibition, experiential avoidance, and anxiety sensitivity (Pickett, Lodis, Parkhill, & Orcutt, 2012). Importantly for personality, there appear to be measurable individual differences in the acquisition/inhibition systems that can be traced to neurobiological factors (e.g., Zinbarg & Mohlman, 1998). (Chapter 4 provides a more comprehensive coverage of neurobiological mechanisms.)

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 20 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

5.5 Assessment Strategies and Behavioral Tools As indicated by the theories reviewed in this chapter, the primary focus of any assessment will be on behavior and factors in the environment that might influence that behavior. One commonality in many of the behavioral assessment strategies is the populations to which they are applied, which tend to reflect lower cognitive abilities. For example, infants and children are often the target of behavioral assessments, in large part because behaviors are more likely to reflect the primary presenting problem, and also because access to other constructs (e.g., affective and cognitive experiences) is limited by their level of functioning. Similarly, individuals having experienced brain injuries or pervasive developmental disorders are also assessed largely with behavioral measures.

One relevant concept to all forms of behavior assessment is behavioral reactivity, which means that behaviors can sometimes change (at least for a short period of time) as a function of being observed. Within the context of research, this could mean that the participant alters his or her behavior to conform to the expectations of the researcher, known as demand effects. This can also occur in clinical contexts.

Assessing With Applied Behavior Analysis

Much like psychoanalysis, applied behavior analysis is both a technique for therapeutic change and a method of assessment in which behavioral sequences are analyzed. This procedure analyzes and assesses important variables such as operants, reinforcers, punishment, extinction, and schedules of reinforcement. Using these tools, researchers are able to analyze and understand how certain behavioral patterns are shaped, reinforced, and maintained, as well as how they can be extinguished when change is desired.

Behavior analysis is a proven and powerful technology that has many uses. A common first step in therapy is to observe sequences of behavior and to analyze associated reinforcement and punishment. For example, if a child has a temper tantrum when asked to logoff the computer, the tantrum might last longer if the parent continues to pay attention to the child, even if the attention is negative. The attention might actually be reinforcing the temper tantrum. Knowing that this is the case is an important tool in behavioral therapy.

Behavioral Assessments of Children and Adolescents

Diagnosticians have long relied on behavioral assessments in a variety of clinical contexts to facilitate case conceptualization and treatment of children and adolescents (e.g., for a recent review, see Hersen, 2006; McLeod, Jensen-Doss, & Ollendick, 2013). For example, scales such as the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale and the Assessment of the Preterm Infant's Behavior are commonly used to assess for any unusual behavioral or developmental manifestations (Lester & Tronick, 2001).

Clinicians use these assessments in applied settings, but it is also the case that any advances in our understanding of children's temperaments (personalities) is driven by the effectiveness of the tools available to assess temperament. Researchers have argued and demonstrated that behavioral assessments should stand at the forefront of any such assessments (Goldsmith & Gagne, 2012). There are a number of reasons for this argument, most notably, when dealing with children it is much more difficult to access cognitive and behavioral information, and behaviors are more easily objectified and can be directly observed.

Behavioral Assessments of Adults

The last 20 years have seen the implementation of many behavioral assessment approaches in adults (e.g., Kenny, Alvarez, Donahue, & Winick, 2008), though with the bulk of these assessment procedures being applied to individuals with some compromise in functioning, such as those with adult autism-spectrum disorders (e.g., Parsons, Reid, Bentley, Inman, & Lattimore, 2012). Although less common, behavioral assessments in normally functioning adults are also employed, and recent research has attempted to integrate these methods in the personality literature (e.g. Kelly & Agnew, 2012). Researchers have also attempted to use behavioral assessment strategies to assess personality disorders, both to facilitate case conceptualization and treatment (i.e., behavior change; Nelson-Gray et al., 2009). Interestingly, even informal and relatively brief behavioral assessments of normally functioning adults can lead to some consensus with respect to predicting the traits of extraversion and conscientiousness (Vartanian et al., 2012), thereby suggesting that at least some traits are universally recognized and defined.

Behavioral assessment and therapy can and has been applied in many settings. It can be used in naturalistic settings, such as in childcare facilities or in the classroom, as well in clinical, forensic, industrial/organizational settings (e.g., performance evaluations), and healthcare settings. In addition, health psychologists have adopted these techniques to help address problems of obesity, smoking, heart disease, and other negative health behaviors that plague Western society.

Although other forms of assessment are typically cautious in their use of tests in other cultures, behavioral approaches simply interpret any cultural differences as reflecting different learning environments. Different cultures expose their members to different social and environmental influences, which will then have powerful effects in shaping behavior. Cultures reinforce certain behaviors and values, and they punish others. The behavioristic model analyzes differences among cultures in the same way as differences between the behaviors of two individuals might be analyzed—that is, in terms of the nature of the reinforcement and punishment that follows the behaviors. For example, as noted at the beginning of Chapter 3, grandiosity, attention seeking, and other characteristics of narcissism are prevalent in American culture today. A behavioral analysis would identify the elements of our culture that reinforce these behaviors that may not be present in other cultures today or in American culture of the past. However, learning theory does not concern itself with cultural variations and issues to the same extent that some of the other approaches presented in this text do. Instead, behaviorists have sought to identify the universality of human responses, rather than emphasizing cultural differences.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 21 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Behavioral Model: Quiz

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 22 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Chapter Summary The development of behaviorism heralded a major departure from the psychodynamic models of personality. By rejecting most of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis, such as the unconscious, ego, and id, behaviorists attempted to develop an empirical foundation for the study of behavior. Unlike other models presented in this text, behaviorism espouses no grand theories and focuses instead on mere behavior.

One of the pioneering figures in behaviorism was Thorndike, who formulated the law of effect and the law of exercise. The field was also strongly influenced by Pavlov's discovery of the conditioned reflex. Watson popularized behaviorism, most notably by demonstrating with Little Albert the explanatory power of conditioning. He also brought behavioral principles to the public by applying them to child psychology and parenting. Watson emphasized the prediction and control of behavior, and this dramatically altered psychology's theoretical landscape. Radical behaviorism, introduced by Skinner, held firmly to the notion that psychology should not concern itself with mentalistic constructs because they are too subjective. Skinner described how schedules of reinforcement can be used to shape complex behavior using the principles of operant conditioning. Dollard and Miller translated aspects of psychodynamic theory into learning theory in their analysis of the role of drives, cues, responses, and reinforcement. Wolpe studied conditioning in animals but then applied his findings to humans to understand how anxiety is caused and how it can be extinguished, using systematic desensitization to treat disorders such phobias. Research also suggests that we may be more likely to acquire and maintain some phobias (e.g., spiders and snakes) relative to others. Seligman investigated learned helplessness with animals and then applied the model to explain depression in humans.

Principles of learning that are the foundation of the behavioral model can be used to understand how personality is shaped and formed by examining behavioral sequences and reinforcement patterns. These tools of behavioral analysis have found widespread use in a variety of disciplines and settings, including clinical psychology, education, and business.

As noted in this chapter, numerous theoreticians have attempted to extend basic learning principles to an understanding of personality with varied success. Although the behavioral perspective offers some very important insights to understanding personality, and perhaps even more to the methods of studying any psychological phenomena, one longstanding and cogent criticism is whether learning theory can be broadly applied to the complexities of human functioning. Because much of the work is based on animal models, and is generally less able to account for a multitude of competing drives and motivations, not all of which are known to the individual (or at least not to the same degree), one natural criticism is that the complexities of human functioning are overly simplified by the learning perspective. Indeed, some of the most successful behavioral applications are for relatively less complex phenomena. As was noted in this chapter, when applying behavioral principles to behavior change, the best fit appears to be with disorders that are largely behaviorally defined (e.g., simple phobias, where the primary symptom is avoidance behavior); where a single, definable stimulus (environmental cue) can be identified as the trigger of the problematic behavior (e.g., a spider for someone with arachnophobia); and when the population being targeted for treatment and behavior change exhibits lower cognitive functioning (e.g., as with the application of behavioral principles to those with cognitive disabilities). Of course, the trade-off for the simplified approach is that there is likely to be greater experimental control, and this can be very useful to advancing our scientific understanding of any phenomenon, including personality.

Key Terms

Click on each key term to see the definition.

anxiety (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Automatic response patterns that occur in reaction to unpleasant stimuli.

applied behavioral analysis (ABA) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A form of behavior modification that identifies the behavior that is being targeted for change, as well as its antecedents and its consequences.

assertive responding (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A behavioral technique that trains the patient to employ direct behaviors to express internal experiences.

aversion therapy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A behavioral technique that pairs a negative stimulus with an undesirable response.

behavioral reactivity (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A change in behavior as a function of being observed.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 23 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

classical conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learning by temporal association, focusing on reflexive actions.

conditioned response (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A learned response to a stimulus.

conditioned stimulus (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A previously neutral stimulus that elicits the response to an unconditioned stimulus through repeated association.

continuous schedule (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When every instance of a behavior is reinforced or punished.

cue (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A stimulus that directs attention to certain aspects of the environment.

discrimination (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When the conditioned response is only produced for a very specific conditioned stimulus.

drive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A strong stimulus that motivates action.

extinction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When the conditioned stimulus no longer elicits the conditioned response.

fear hierarchy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A ranked list of feared stimuli.

fixed schedule (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A schedule that is stable and does not change from trial to trial.

flooding (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A behavioral technique where the patient is exposed to stimuli associated with intense fear or anxiety (also called implosive therapy).

generalization (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When the conditioned response is elicited by a similar conditioned stimulus.

higher order conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When a conditioned stimulus is paired with a neutral stimulus until the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus by producing the conditioned response; also known as secondary conditioning.

inductive reasoning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 24 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Reasoning that begins with data and then induces laws from the data.

interval (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The period of time between responses (or, in a related sense, it can be used as an adjective to describe the type of schedule that is determined by the time between schedules).

law of effect (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Behaviors are controlled by their consequences, such that behaviors that are reinforced are likely to reoccur, whereas those that are punished are less likely to reoccur.

law of exercise (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The more often a response has been connected with a stimulus, the more likely it is to be repeated (repetition strengthen learning).

learned drive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

See secondary drive.

learned helplessness (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When an individual or animal learns that they are unable to control, change, or escape from their environment.

negative punishment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Withdrawing something from the environment that decreases the probability of a behavior occurring.

negative reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Withdrawing something from the environment that results in an increase in a behavior.

neutral stimulus (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A stimulus that does not produce a specific response.

non-assertive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

An inhibitory personality that navigates life with extreme caution with respect to emotional expression and actions.

one-time conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learning that occurs after only one trial of conditioning.

operant conditioning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learning as a result of consequences that are typically not occurring at the same point in time as the behavior and involving nonreflexive actions.

operants (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Behavioral responses that are emitted by an organism rather than elicited by specific stimuli.

phobia (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

An intense fear that results in a degree of dysfunction.

positive punishment

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 25 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Adding something to the environment that decreases the probability of a behavior occurring.

positive reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Adding something to the environment that results in an increase in a behavior.

preparedness (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The suggestion that all species are genetically prepared to make certain associations, especially those that have maximized survival.

primary drive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Unlearned drives, such as hunger, thirst, sex, fatigue, and pain.

punishment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Anything that reduces the probability of a certain response occurring.

ratio schedule (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Determined by the number of responses.

reinforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Anything that increases the behavior with which it is associated.

respondents (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Behavioral responses that occur as reactions to a specific stimulus.

response (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

See unconditioned reflex.

secondary drive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learned drive that develops by way of reinforcement in complex social systems.

shaping (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A form of conditioning that breaks complex behaviors into simpler behaviors and reinforces each successive, sequential step.

Skinner box (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

An experimental apparatus used for investigating learning in animals.

spontaneous recovery (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When an extinct conditioned response returns without any further conditioning.

systematic desensitization (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A behavioral technique used to treat phobias and anxiety-based disorders.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 26 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

unconditioned reflex (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A natural response to a stimulus.

variable schedule (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A schedule that changes from trial to trial.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 27 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Chapter 6 Cognitive and Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Personality

Mario Tama/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain the concept of metacognition and describe its effect on personality and functioning. Explain how Tolman's concept of latent learning sparked a need for theoretical accounts that went beyond basic classical and operant conditioning models. Describe the beginning of the cognitive revolution and the importance of George Miller's memory studies. Explain how the computer has been used as a metaphor for the way the mind processes information. Describe how the cognitive counterrevolution was different from the behavioral revolution before it. List and define some of the foundational concepts of cognitive approaches. Characterize George Kelly's personal construct theory and his view of humans as scientists. Describe the contributions of the social learning theorists Julian Rotter, Albert Bandura, and Walter Mischel and their contributions to such concepts as reward value, behavioral expectancies, self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-verification , and motivated reasoning. Describe the process of modeling in both human and animal models. Compare and contrast the cognitive theories of Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and Marsha Linehan. Name and briefly describe some of the more commonly employed assessment tools used in the cognitive perspective.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 28 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Figure 6.1: Figure-ground perception Do you perceive faces or a vase? What you perceive in this image is influenced by previous experience, beliefs, biases, and both conscious and nonconscious goals.

Source: Science Source/Photo Researchers

Introduction "There are no facts, only interpretations." F. Nietzche

It's December 14, 2012, at approximately 9:30 a.m. It's an otherwise normal day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut. Then, 20-year-old Adam Lanza arrives on the scene carrying an arsenal of high-capacity weapons, and he proceeds to gun down 20 helpless children and 6 adults and terrorize many more. Authorities would later discover that Lanza had also shot and killed his mother prior to coming to the school. Unfortunately, the massacre was not an isolated incident in American history, but it was the second deadliest school shooting in American history. Some claim that this incident points to the disturbed nature of some individuals. Others point to the need for stricter gun control to limit access to high-capacity weapons. Still others suggest that violence in the media or video games was to blame. What was your take on these events?

If the goal were to predict your behavioral response to this event, could we do so simply by understanding the environment in which you were brought up in and currently live, or would we also need to understand how you cognitively processed the event? Is it even possible to study and comprehend all of the factors that influence your interpretation and response? Given the considerable interpretive variability of the above example, let us consider something far less complex: a physical stimulus.

The simple, visual example shown in Figure 6.1 illustrates variability in how people interpret the world. Perceptually, you might detect a chalice, where the white image is the figure and the dark portions are the (back)ground. However, you might instead detect two faces looking at each other, where the dark image is now the figure and white is the (back)ground. Research indicates that your previous experiences and how you formed conceptual categories can influence what you see by, for example, priming you for certain perceptual categories (e.g., Ashby & Maddox, 2005). More importantly, perceptions are also influenced by your beliefs, biases, and both conscious and nonconscious goals (e.g., Tamir, Ford, & Ryan, 2013). Even very simple behaviors like pointing and grasping at objects, which require us to "code" information in our environments, can be influenced by our intentions (i.e., our planned actions; e.g., Wykowska, Schubo, & Hommel, 2009), suggesting that even basic and seemingly automated behaviors are not passive. This suggests that decidedly internal events are important to understanding how we interact with our environments, which brings us to a crucial question: To what extent does your ability to think and experience emotions define your character?

The cognitive movement emerged following the heyday of the behavioral movement. Like the behavioral perspective, the cognitive perspective also emphasized scientific rigor and tight experimental methodologies. However, the constructs of interest were now internal processes, with the primary impetus for this perspective being the constructs that had been overlooked by behaviorists (i.e., working

on the assumption that there is more to human personality and functioning than mere behavior). Thus, the unique and subjective perspective of the individual is here emphasized, and it is acknowledged that there may be an infinite number of possible perspectives on any one event.

In this chapter we will discuss the nature of cognition and its influence on personality. We will see how a cognitive revolution in psychology created a new framework for looking at human behavior and personality. The cognitive perspective has proven very useful for theorists, researchers, and clinicians and has led to different models that have been applied to personality theory and clinical treatment.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 29 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Cognitive-Behaviorial Model

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 30 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

6.1 Metacognition: Thinking About Your Thinking Cognitive theories focus on how our thought processes impact our personalities. There is an important concept related to this called metacognition. This term literally means thinking about our thinking, and while the term is not used widely by the primary theorists in this model, thinking about our thinking is exactly what they are asking us to do. Unless we can take a step back and analyze our thinking processes from almost a third person perspective, we cannot change faulty cognition. As you will read in the following pages, analyzing and challenging our faulty thinking systems is at the heart of cognitive theories.

We all view the world through the filter of our personal and cultural experiences. This is human nature. What speaks to us as true is often determined by our cultural experience or our personal frame of reference. People who practice metacognition constantly assess how their experiences and perspectives are affecting how they process information. Metacognition means that they understand themselves and know the dynamics at play within their own psyche. Most people simply assume that if they think that something is right (or wrong), it is just that.

Akin to the idea of metacognition, is the concept of critical thinking. You have probably heard the term before, but definitions vary. Stephen Brookfield’s (1987) approach aligns with the underlying concepts of cognitive psychology and metacognition. He contends that critical thinking is a process. Although his definition includes emotional as well as rational components, and clearly acknowledges the importance of culture and context, it contains the following common characteristics:

1. Identifying and challenging assumptions.

2. Challenging the importance of context.

3. Trying to imagine and explore alternatives.

4. Reflective Skepticism. (p. 7–9)

Brookfield (1987) defines reflective skepticism as the act of constantly questioning the status quo. Just because something has been believed for years does not necessarily mean that it is true. Just because someone of perceived importance (like professors, for example) says something is right, that does not prove that it is right. As was discussed in the introduction, reality is subjective, and what we “think” we know is not always objectively accurate.

Can you see the parallels with the cognitive model? We should make it a habit to challenge assumptions (including our own) and to understand the cultural implications that underlie our interactions with others. For example, Ellis says that while it would be nice to be loved by all around us, it is not a catastrophe if we are not. We create the catastrophe by failing to question our assumptions; in this case, the assumption that we should be loved by everyone. Understanding the cultural contexts helps us to also recognize that often, someone not liking us is not even about us—it is about them.

It is helpful to examine thinking through the construct of cognitive development theory, because thinking about our thinking requires higher level thinking skills and logic. Many cognitive theorists believe that concrete logic is not possible until at least age six or seven and that only in the highest levels of cognitive development can critical thinking take place. Jean Piaget, a noted psychologist and developmental theorist, postulates the following stages of development:

1. Sensorimotor Stage: Birth to age 2 (approximately). Children begin with no thinking structures (called schema) and develop them through exploration of their senses and experimentation on the environment. Significant cognitive development occurs, but children in the sensorimotor stage are incapable of logical thought.

2. Pre-operational Stage: Ages 2 to 7 (approximately). Children rapidly develop language skills and more sophisticated cognitive structures but are still pre-logical. They are not capable of conservation (the ability to understand that substance does not change although it changes shape or form). They are also incapable of de-centering (the ability to see things from another's perspective). Conservation and de-centering are prerequisite to logical thinking.

3. Concrete Operational Stage: Ages 7 to adolescence. Children begin to grasp conservation and de-centering. They begin to question: How does Santa really get to all those houses in one night? They can now reason logically but only on a concrete level, not hypothetically or abstractly. They solve problems logically but haphazardly.

4. Formal Operations Stage: Adolescence and above. The person is now capable of sophisticated logical thought. He or she can think in the abstract, can think hypothetically and can solve problems using the logic of combinations (Dworetzky & Davis, 1989).

Piaget's stages ended with Formal Operations, but Riegel (1973) has postulated a fifth stage called Dialectical Reasoning. This is a stage beyond logic where metacognition and critical thinking can take place. It is the ability to perceive the frequent paradoxes in life (to see the dialectic) and to question and analyze the assumptions that underlie the logic. Dialectical thinkers “readily recognize, accept, and even enjoy conflict and contradictions in values and possible courses of action because sorting out these conflicts forces them to grow intellectually” (Dworetzky & Davis, 1989, p. 360).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 31 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this breakthrough paper, Tolman introduces the idea of cognitive maps in animal and human models. Click here (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/{pdfs}ch_6_cognitive_maps_in_rats_and_men_tolman.pdf)

to read it.

Reference: Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. The Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku. ca/Tolman/Maps/maps.htm (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Tolman/Maps/maps.htm)

6.2 Major Historical Figures and Theories Cognitive science, which emerged in the 1950s, was a revolutionary development in the field of psychology. In 1977, Mahoney used the term cognitive revolution in describing this shift in the field of psychology—a shift that was partly driven by dramatic advances in computer science. The cognitive revolution reflected the notion that consciousness the ultimate product of evolution. Consciousness is what allows us to reflect upon ourselves and to wonder about the nature, the origin, and the purpose of our existence. This capacity for reflective thinking is considered the "essence of the self" (Corr, 2006, p. 563)—small wonder that Descartes should have accepted as proof of his existence the fact that he could think, summarized in his immortal phrase, "I think, therefore I am."

The goal of cognitive approaches to psychology is to understand how we think—that is, the goal is to explain topics such as how we process information, how we remember, how we perceive, how we solve problems, and how we process language. This was a radical departure from behaviorism, which emphasized empiricism and insisted that psychology should concern itself with the observable, objective aspects of human behavior. Recall that it was behaviorism's avoidance of speculation about the mind and mental processes that had fueled its break from what was then mainstream psychology. Now a new cognitive science was again suggesting that psychology should be concerned with some of the old challenges of psychology that behaviorism had set aside. The cognitive sciences were concerned with what occurs in the mind. And this presented a strong challenge to the supremacy of behaviorism.

Edward Tolman and Latent Learning

Ironically, the roots of the cognitive perspective can be traced to learning theory, where a number of findings began to emerge from behavioral research that undermined some the dominant beliefs within that tradition. One of the first was Edward Tolman's (1949, 1955) work that introduced the concept of latent learning. Latent learning is a special form of learning that is not immediately evident or behaviorally observable. Moreover, latent learning occurs in the absence of any reinforcement of either the behavior or any associative learning (which means any learning process in which a new response becomes associated with a particular stimulus due to their occurring at the same time).

In a classic demonstration of latent learning in animals, Tolman (Tolman & Honzick, 1930) assigned hungry rats to one of three experimental conditions that varied with respect to the delivery of food (a reinforcer). In one condition, the rats were given food only when they reached the end of a maze, and this resulted in improved maze running with each attempt. In the second condition, the rats were not reinforced with food after running the maze, and consistent with traditional learning principles, they failed to demonstrate learning of the maze. A third condition also initially received no food for maze running, and predictably they too failed to learn the maze—at least as indicated by their behavior. However, after a series of unreinforced trials, the rats were then reinforced for their maze running. This resulted in a dramatic improvement (learning), and the rate of learning indicated that they were in fact learning the maze in the earlier trials, despite the lack of reinforcement. The acquisition of maze running was so proficient that they even outperformed the rats in the first condition who had been reinforced throughout the task. Tolman concluded that rats in all three conditions were learning the maze and were forming internal cognitive maps (i.e., mental representations) of the maze. However, they simply failed to demonstrate the behavior until such a time as they were reinforced, which is why those in the third condition could do as well and even outperform the rats in the first. In this respect, Tolman reasoned that the rats' behavior did not reflect their internal mental processes, they did not demonstrate learning until a later time, and they appeared to learn even in the absence of a reinforcer (reflecting the features of latent learning). Tolman's findings were soon replicated both in animals (e.g., Karn & Porter, 1946) and in humans (e.g., Postman & Tuma, 1954; Stevenson, 1954).

Tolman's work sparked an interest in understanding the role of human thought in the process of learning, but his was not the only research to challenge one of the most basic assumptions of learning theory, and cognitive psychologists now looked at topics like perception, attention, thinking, memory, and language (Neisser, 1967).

Chomsky and the Role of Language in Cognition

A second, and somewhat independent, line of research that further sparked the cognitive movement was that of linguist Noam Chomsky (1972, 2000) who noted that humans appear to have a preparedness (a readiness) to learn and develop speech. Thus, much in the way that fish have a preparedness for swimming, monkeys for climbing, and birds for flying, humans have a readiness to acquire and use language. Chomsky believed that language and mental processes develop hand-in-hand, and that language can be used access mental constructs. Chomsky firmly believed that the prevailing behavioral model, with its exclusive use of learning theory, was unable to explain the complexities of language. Instead, he believed that understanding thought processes, which occur between the stimulus and the response, is necessary if one is to understand language—a point with which Skinner strongly disagreed (Skinner, 1957; Chomsky, 1959).

Philosopher and cognitive psychologist Jerry Fodor expanded these ideas by suggesting that beliefs and desires, which are decidedly mental events, are explained through what he called the language of thought. Fodor suggests that mental representations are more than mere explanatory tools; rather, they reflect what has been codified in the brain (e.g., Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988). In Fodor's model, conceptual thinking is essentially an internally represented language, but it is not equivalent to language. Rather, it exists in a format that reflects how the mind represents concepts using symbols, which are organized as mental sentences that follow the grammatical principles of language. Much of Fodor's theory was based on the idea of computer intelligence, in which symbols are manipulated by a computer following basic algorithms to reflect psychological processes (e.g., Newell & Simon, 1976).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 32 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

Can cognition be shown to exist separate from behavior?

In a thought experiment (known as the Knowledge Argument) originally proposed by Frank Jackson (1982; see also Jackson, 1986), the premise is that Mary is a brilliant neuro-physiologist who studies vision, but must investigate the world from a black and white room, with her only access to the outside world being a black and white TV. She learns everything there is to know about color, but she never experiences color directly. The question posed is whether she will learn anything once released from the room. Essentially, Jackson uses this to illustrate that physicalism, which is the thesis that everything is physical, and that everything is necessitated by the physical, is false. For a summary of the philosophical argument and counterviews, see http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/qualia-knowledge/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/)

Reference: Nida-Rümelin, M. (2010). Qualia: The knowledge argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. N. Zalta (Ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/sum2010/entries/ qualia-knowledge/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/qualia-knowledge/)

George Miller: The Cognitive Revolution

Miller's work focused largely on human memory. In a thought-provoking and widely cited article, Miller (1956) suggested that immediate memory is limited to seven items, plus or minus two items. That is, most people are able to keep in mind (be immediately conscious of or think about) approximately seven distinct items. However, he soon discovered that these seven items did not have to be single units such as seven letters, but could be groupings of letters or other items, which he labeled chunks. Because information could be grouped in different ways by different individuals, and because this chunking predicted how people perceived the physical world, it began to establish the supremacy of thought over the outside world (and observable behavior).

iStockphoto/Thinkstock; Hemera/Thinkstock

Since the 1950s, theoreticians and researchers have considered the computer as a metaphor for the inner working of the mind. Thus, computer chips would be akin to neurons in both their complexity as individual units and their interconnectedness.

In Miller's work, there is an emerging cognitive perspective that concerns itself with how mental processes may be structured and information processed. What occurs in the human mind no longer needed to be studied using highly subjective speculation, but could now be brought into the realm of the scientific method.

Miller had a significant impact on the field when he looked to computer programs as a form of simulated thought processes. He believed that the computer made an excellent metaphor for how the brain processes information. He thought that the computer could provide cognitive psychology with an enormously powerful tool for simulating mental processes. After all, the computer suggests an easy analogy for human cognitive processes. In this analogy, the computer's hardware is equivalent to the brain, and its software the mind and its mental processes. Carrying the analogy further, input corresponds to stimuli, and output to responses.

Von Neumann and McCulloch: A Conceptual Leap From Computers to the Mind

The development of computer science was crucial in the cognitive revolution. Mathematicians such as John von Neumann and Claude Shannon reasoned that symbols such as

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 33 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

numbers could be substituted for letters and that mathematical computations could be used to express relationships among these symbols. This notion was developed into programs in which information is represented by a 0 or a 1 (binary representation) and where that information can be manipulated and analyzed using rules of logic and algebraic equations (Corr, 2006; Newell & Simon, 1972). Simon and a young graduate student, Allen Newell, took up the challenge of developing a computer that could reason.

As researchers began to model the association between computers and thought, the term and subdiscipline of artificial intelligence (AI) emerged, which further positioned cognitive psychology as the natural successor to behaviorism (e.g., Casti, 1987; Sharples, Hogg, Hutchinson, Torrance, & Young, 1989). This line of investigation has examined some of the more rudimentary cognitive processes, such as basic perception (or "bottom-up" processing; e.g., Achler, 2012), as well as meta-analytic ("top-down") views of intelligence (e.g., Hutter, 2012). Researchers have also attempted to replicate with computers such human experiences as emotions and social skills, which involve the challenge of predicting and reacting to the emotions and motivations of others (e.g., Minsky, 2006). Currently, the Human Brain Project (Chapter 4) hopes to provide solutions to the many mysteries of consciousness and brain disorders.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 34 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

iStock/Thinkstock

If a house is filled with pictures in which everyone in the family looks happy, can that lead to a more positive recollection and outlook on your family life? In this respect, mental representations can overshadow reality.

6.3 Areas of Specialization in Cognitive Psychology and Their Relation to Personality

Cognitive psychologists believe that not all inferences or hypotheses need be based only on direct observation. The scientific method, they insist, can make inferences about unseen events and states, and this parallels practices in other disciplines of science. For example, when physicists speculate about particles like quarks and neutrinos, or when evolutionary theorists describe long-extinct life forms on the basis of fossil records, they are discussing concepts to which there is no direct access. For their part, cognitive psychologists make inferences about the inner workings of the mind (Hunt, 2007).

Within cognitive psychology, several areas of focused research have developed over the years, such as information processing, pattern recognition, and schema. Each of these areas will be explored here.

Information Processing

Emerging from the use of the computer as a potential model for how the mind works was an ever-expanding field termed information processing. In everyday usage, the term information may be thought of as an ordered sequence of symbols that has a meaning that can be transmitted and understood. Data, on the other hand, consist of unorganized symbols that are without meaning in their current form. Think of the difference between a random list of names and phone numbers (raw data) and these names ordered alphabetically (information). Information processing is what happens when data are manipulated and transformed into information. Information has a relational connection that distinguishes it from raw data and makes it useful (Ackoff, 1989).

Computers and the brain share some complex information-processing operations. In computing science, these are mathematical operations often in the form of algorithms. In humans, our information-processing processes are often not as certain as are algorithms. Instead, they tend to be more "rule of thumb" and are referred to as heuristics. These include processes for which we have a high degree of awareness, as well as those for which we have limited awareness. As an illustration, consider the availability heuristic, which is the tendency to assume that some events occur with greater frequency than they do in reality because those events are readily available to us. For example, because every airline crash receives so much media attention, it fosters the idea (and perhaps subsequently the fear) for some that air travel is unsafe, though it is statistically far safer than traveling by car.

Researchers have established that although there are some common heuristics and biases that are expressed by everyone (e.g., the availability heuristic, the representative heuristic, etc.; see Kahneman & Tversky, 1973; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; for a more recent review, see Kahneman & Tversky, 2000), individual differences can also dictate preference for some heuristics and biases. For example, mood states appear to influence heuristics, such that positive mood states increase reliance on heuristics, resulting in an increased tendency to make false racial identifications of members of stereotyped groups (Park & Banaji, 2000). Moreover, researchers have shown that personality differences, such as sociability, can influence heuristics (such as the representativeness heuristic), but only under specific conditions, such as when sociability is relevant (e.g., judgment problems dealing with rejection and abandonment; Moore, Smith, & Gonzales, 1997). These and other findings suggest that there is a complex interaction between the use of heuristics, the situational context, and longstanding personality differences; with each of these factors contributing to the prediction of outcomes (e.g., Marszał-Wiśniewska & Zajusz, 2010).

Information processing is cognitive psychology's attempt to describe what actually occurs in the mind. When researchers and theorists investigate human information processing, they are exploring the internal workings of the mind. But since we cannot observe information processing directly, the models cognitive psychology presents are derived by inference. For example, when you see a threatening dog, neural receptors in your eyes immediately send information to the part of your brain responsible for pattern recognition. And when a scary dog template is found in your limbic system, there is an immediate fight-flight (and recall from Chapter 4 that freeze has also been added to this automatic response) decision implicit in the signals that are sent to your muscles. In this information-processing model, information signifies various serially ordered mental representations that result in some mental or physical change or action (J. R. Anderson, 1990).

Of course, the above-noted example is a more universal response, as most individuals would respond in the same way to a threatening dog; the influence of personality is illustrated when more idiosyncratic responses emerge. For example, your response to a particular type of human face that you find attractive, but that is not considered classically "handsome" or "beautiful," reflects your particular taste.

Pattern Recognition

One cognitive model suggests that information processing involves recognizing patterns. This model maintains that we identify stimuli by matching them to a model, pattern, or prototype that corresponds to the stimuli. For example, Anderson (1990) hypothesizes that the brain stores patterns, called templates, and that the perceptual system compares these stored templates with incoming information to find a correspondence. Recall Ekman's research on emotions, where he found that certain facial expressions seem to reflect feelings that are universally recognized. Anderson's template hypothesis explains this by suggesting that our neural networks store various patterns of facial configurations, each of which has a specific emotion attached to it. An angry face will match our stored representations of other angry faces. And other representations will tell us whether to smile, run for our lives, stay and fight, or ignore.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 35 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

TED Talks: Rory Sutherland–Perspective is Everything

TEDTalks: Rory Sutherland—Perspective Is Everything

© Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 18:24

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. How can we achieve a greater sense of perceived control in our lives?

2. Give some examples of the power of labels in reframing.

In the cognitive perspective, representation involves the use of symbols to depict or signify objects, events, or occurrences. Cognitive psychologists describe how external events are encoded (transformed) and represented in the mind; they investigate how these are recorded in our neural networks so that they can be recalled as language, visual images, feelings, symbols, and thoughts (Hunt, 2007).

Research suggests that personality patterns can likewise influence this specific cognitive process. For example, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by profound difficulties with emotion regulation, the consequence of which is affective instability. Because such difficulties are most pronounced in social contexts, it has been hypothesized and supported in the literature that individuals with BPD have impaired facial emotion recognition (typically with a negativity or anger bias), which then undermines the interpersonal interaction (Domes, Schulze, & Herpertz, 2009).

Despite establishing the problems that individuals with BPD have with facial emotion recognition, what is unclear is whether these deficits affect all basic emotions, are valence- specific, or if individual emotions are implicated. Using a sample of 33 inpatients with BPD and 32 matched healthy controls, patients with BPD were less accurate than control participants in emotion recognition, and this was especially true for negative emotions (there was little to no impairment with favorable faces; Unoka, Fogd, Füzy, & Csukly, 2011). Individuals with BPD also had difficulties with basic attributions, such that they over-attributed disgust/surprise to facial expressions, but under-attributed fear to the facial expressions relative to controls.

Schema

Memory is in large part about the self. That is, much of our memory is autobiographical; it consists of our constantly evolving narrative about ourselves (Singer, 1995). In one study, Bartlett told non-Western folktales to Westerners and found that the subjects inadvertently filled in the blanks according to their cultural expectations, omitting details that did not make sense to the Western mind. Bartlett termed this organized mass of experience-based memory schemata or schema.

Schema have since become fundamental to cognitive psychology. The term is used extensively in Jean Piaget's (1926) developmental theory. Schema refer to mental structures that are organized patterns of thought (see also earlier discussion of templates). In terms of personality theory, we can have self-schema (concept we have about ourselves; discussed in Chapter 9) and person-schema (notions we have about other people). Notions of self- and person-schema were later adopted by cognitive personality theorists who used them to explain and treat depression and personality disorders. Schema became the cornerstone of cognitive models designed to explain how thoughts and beliefs (schemata) influence personality and are involved in the development of mental disorders such as depression.

Research indicates that personality impacts person-schemas (e.g., Srivastava, 2010; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010), and this not only influences how we cognitively perceive ourselves, but also how we perceive others (Kammrath, 2011). For example, individuals high in trait narcissism (which is, in fact, an indicator of low self-esteem) are more likely to perceive others as uninteresting (Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2004). Individuals characterized as highly agreeable are likely to perceive others as more agreeable, while those scoring low on agreeableness are more likely to see others as hostile (Dodge & Crick, 1990; Graziano, Bruce, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007). The assumption is that the schemas that are easily accessible because they are applied to one's own behavior are the same schemas that are readily available to characterize the behavior of others (Higgins, 1996). Moreover, with these schemas being activated, it primes individuals to be attentive to situational/environmental cues that are relevant to the activated schemas (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 2008). As an example, if an individual manifests the trait of dominance, they are likely to notice when others are making a grab for power in an interpersonal interaction, or when power is given up.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 36 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

6.4 Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Approaches to Personality As we noted earlier, the development of systems of psychotherapy, psychopathology, and personality theory often occurred simultaneously. These theories emerged from two principal sources. Some theories grew out of clinical practice; most of these are based on new treatment models that led to advances in personality theory. A second source of personality theories is more academic: It consists of theories that grew out of research, rather than clinical practice. Theories from both of these sources, academic research and clinical science, often show a great deal of cross-fertilization—that is, they build on each other's ideas.

In the next section we review the founding theorists in the cognitive perspective, including the work of George Kelly, Julian Rotter, Albert Bandura, and Walter Mischel. We will also present the work of Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck, who in a parallel fashion founded cognitive therapy. Each presents a somewhat different perspective on how cognition organizes the way we think, act, and feel.

George Kelly and Personal Construct Theory

Perhaps as a function of his upbringing on a farm in Kansas, George Kelly adopted the perspective that everyone, even those with less formal education, acts as scientists do. Specifically, they try to explain the present and predict the future, and like scientists, Kelly (1955) argued that everyone develops and modifies theories to accomplish the goals of explanation and prediction. Kelly referred to these theories as personal constructs. Kelly believed that people's lives represented their "experiments," and the utility of their personal constructs (theories) was determined by how well they accomplished the goals of explaining the present and predicting the future. As a simple illustration, if your life experiences (experiments) have resulted in the belief that people will take advantage of you if you give them the opportunity, this represents a personal construct. This might also lead to other constructs such as don't trust anyone, or don't let anyone get too close to hurt you. Presumably, these personal constructs have been used to explain what has happened to you, they provide a framework for interpreting the world around you, and they allow you to anticipate what might happen next (predict the future). New information, by way of new experiences, may strengthen these constructs or it may weaken them (as might be the case if you happen upon some relationships that are especially warm and supportive).

In his landmark book, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Kelly (1955) put forth a fundamental principle and 11 corollaries. The fundamental principle essentially states that how a person perceives the world is affected by how he or she expects (anticipates) things will occur. In other words, our expectations are the basis for our psychological reality; it's not just what's out there in the world, but rather what we think is out there and what we expect to be out there. The 11 corollaries that can be derived from the fundamental postulate are identified and briefly described in Table 6.1 (see Kelly, 1955).

Table 6.1: Kelly's personal construct corollaries

Construction corollary People anticipate events by construing similarities to past events. That is, we expect things to happen as they did before (based on past experience).

Experience corollary Personal construct systems will vary as a function of construing new events. This means that as we experience the world, how we perceive that world necessarily changes and adapts to maximize predictability.

Dichotomy corollary Construct systems are composed of dichotomous constructs, and there are a finite number of said constructs. Constructs have two poles that define each other (e.g., nice-mean, threatening-safe, outgoing-inwardly focused, etc.) and there is a limited number of ways we can interpret the world (i.e., constructs are not infinite in their number).

Organization corollary A construct system orders its specific constructs in a hierarchy. More simply stated, some constructs are more important and central than others.

Range corollary Any construct has a limited range of events to which it can be applied. As an illustration, a construct such as "good-bad" would likely have a very wide range of use.

Modulation corollary Variability in the construct system is a direct function of the permeability (changeability) of the constructs, and some constructs are more changeable than others. Kelly was specifically referring to changes in the construct's range of use, rather than the actual content of the construct.

Choice corollary Individuals are free to choose any constructs for their construct system, but once chosen, those constructs limit how the individual perceives and interprets the world.

Individuality corollary Because we all differ in our experiences, our constructs and construct systems will necessarily be unique to us.

Commonality corollary Whenever two people interpret experiences in the same way, their construct systems should be similar.

Fragmentation corollary Due to the considerable variability within each person's construct system, it is possible and, in fact, quite likely that different constructs within one system are incompatible with each other.

Sociality corollary A person can better get along with someone else by adopting that person's construct system, even if the constructs are quite different.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 37 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In an award-winning 1990 address, Rotter reviews the history of the concept of locus of control.

Reference: J.B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489-493.

Based on Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Kelly hypothesized that individuals will experience anxiety when their construct system fails to explain or predict events. He argues that the natural response for the individual to modify their construct system until events can be explained, and at that point, anxiety should be reduced. Kelly also defined a number of other emotional responses in terms personal constructs. For example, Kelly suggested that guilt is experienced when one is engaging in behavior or experiencing thoughts that are incongruent with one's superordinate (core or central) constructs.

Perhaps one of the more interesting concepts introduced by Kelly was that of cognitive complexity. Kelly argued that individuals are healthiest when they have numerous superordinate constructs that can be used to interpret the world around them. In contrast, he considered those with very few superordinate constructs as highly vulnerable; the rationale being that if events ever undermined those few (or one) superordinate constructs, the individual would have no other theories to adopt, and this would significantly undermine personality functioning. In fact, Kelly characterized psychological disorders as any time an individual uses a personal construct that has been repeatedly invalidated by life's experiments. Presumably this would be more likely to occur for those having fewer superordinate constructs to turn to, even in the face of a failure to predict and explain. In a study examining cognitive complexity and traits, researchers demonstrated that cognitive complexity (flexibility) is, predictably, most related to the trait of openness to new experience (Tetlock, Peterson, & Berry, 1993).

Julian Rotter's Model of Behavioral Expectancy and Reward Value

Julian Rotter was one of the earlier contributors to the cognitive movement as he elaborated on the basic behavioral paradigm, and he was among the first to introduce social learning theory. Like behaviorists, Rotter still focused on predicting behavioral outcomes. However, his theory emphasized two decidedly cognitive events as the most important predictors of behavior. In the book Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954), Rotter suggests that behavior could be predicted by knowing behavioral expectancy and reward value.

He defined behavioral expectancy as the individual's expectation that the contingencies—the outcomes—for behavior are in place. That is, rather than focusing on whether or not one is reinforced or punished for a behavior, Rotter shifted the focus to whether the individual expects to be reinforced or punished (i.e., the subjective assessment). The second factor, reward (or reinforcement) value, emphasizes the fact that we all subjectively value rewards in different ways, and this variability is critical to predicting behavior. Thus, if you highly value earning an "A" in personality psychology and expect to receive the "A" if you study, then Rotter's theory predicts that you will study. However, if you either don't value a high grade or don't believe that your efforts will be rewarded, then the theory predicts that you will be less likely to study.

It is also important to note that Rotter didn't actually use the term behavior, but instead emphasized behavior potential. Behavior potential was defined as the probability of engaging in a specific behavior in a given situation. Obviously, in a given situation, there are many behaviors that one can engage in, and for each of these, there is a behavior potential. Rotter hypothesized that people will manifest the behavior with the highest potential. Based on these concepts, Rotter developed a simple formula to predict behavior. Specifically, he stated that Behavior Potential (BP) is a function of both Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement Value (RV).

BP = f(E & RV)

Of course, because the factors of expectancy and reinforcement value are derived in part from the situation, in addition to the individual's subjective appraisal of each factor, social learning theory is thus an interaction model, considering both the individual and the situation. Several researchers would expand on this model, but this was an important first step.

One additional significant contribution from Rotter was his differentiation of internal versus external locus of control. Rotter (1966) stated that those with an internal locus of control believe that they have control over most aspects of their life (e.g., ability and effort), whereas those with an external locus of control are influenced by factors outside one's personal control (e.g., chance/luck, task difficulty). The internal-external locus of control distinction will be discussed extensively in Chapter 8.

Bandura's Social Learning Theory

One of the more influential theorists who integrated theoretical contributions from the cognitive perspective to the field of personality is Albert Bandura. Bandura (1986; see also Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) developed a hybrid social-cognitive theory that combines aspects of the behavioral and cognitive approaches. The cognitive influence is seen in Bandura's emphasis on emotions in determining behavior, as well as in the importance he places on our ability to symbolize and anticipate the consequences of our actions; both of these represent decidedly cognitive events. The behaviorist influence is also apparent in his discussion of the consequences of our actions.

ModelingModeling

Drawing on the work of Miller and Dollard (1941), Bandura hypothesized that individuals learn in a variety of ways, and of those, modeling is fundamentally important. Modeling is learning that occurs as a function of observing behaviors performed by others. Through imitation, we learn all sorts of important behaviors. For example, Bandura explains that we learn new behaviors when we see them performed by someone else; we learn to inhibit deviant behaviors when we see others punished for similar behaviors perhaps we learn to engage in deviant behaviors when we see others rewarded for them). We also learn what classes of behaviors and beliefs are likely to be rewarded in our culture.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 38 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Monkey Business Images/Thinkstock

How much do we learn from watching others get in trouble (or be rewarded)?

Note how Bandura's explanations for the effects of imitation are drawn from behaviorist notions of reinforcement. It is the consequences—and more importantly, the anticipated consequences—of a model's behavior that determines whether or not the model will be copied. But note, too, that concepts such as anticipation describe a fundamentally cognitive activity: To anticipate is to symbolize and to think. And symbols are a central aspect of Bandura's theory. In fact, Bandura's theory also asserts that a model need not be a real-life person performing some act, but is perhaps even more likely to be symbolic in our advanced technological societies. Symbolic models include written or verbal instructions, abstract graphical representations, film and book characters, and any other set of stimuli that can be represented and emulated (note the overlap here with our earlier discussion of representations).

Bandura proposed that the modeling process involves several steps. The first two steps implicate memory functioning, whereas the latter two steps involve planned behaviors.

Attention: In order for learning to occur, the individual or animal must first notice and attend to the defining features of the behavior that is to be modeled.

Retention: In order for the behavior to be reproduced, the defining features of modeled behavior have to be encoded, retained, and recalled.

Reproduction: To reproduce a behavior, responses must be organized to match the model. The process of organizing typically improves with practice and can move from intentional act, to one requiring minimal attention (i.e., a more automated behavioral sequence).

Motivation: Incentive(s) or motive(s) are typically needed to reproduce the behavior.

Some of the strongest experimental data on the effects of modeling that is more readily applicable to our daily life can be seen in the literature examining the impact of exposure to violent media (primarily television) images (for a review, see Friedrich-Cofer & Huston, 1986). Most noteworthy, a study by Huesmann and colleagues (1984) found that earlier viewing of aggression on television predicted later aggression, even after initial levels of aggression and age were statistically controlled. Moreover, the effects were strongest when the participants (boys) reported that they could identify with the violent television characters (note the consistency with the earlier research, cited in this chapter, regarding self-schemas). In addition, research has shown that the effect of violent media images affects both immediate and long-term aggressive behavior (Bushman & Huesmann, 2006). As a result, even the most recent reviews of the literature have concluded that television violence does result in increased aggressive behavior, and the magnitude of this effect appears to have increased since 1975 (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Of course, as technology has changed, so too have the media channels through which we can be exposed to violent images, and researchers have shifted their focus to such areas as violent video games (van Schie & Wiegman, 1997).

Importantly, not all of the published studies have concluded that violent video game exposure necessarily results in more aggression or violent outcomes (e.g., Williams & Skoric, 2005); in fact, there is considerable division in the empirical literature on what we really know about this phenomenon (Kutner & Olson, 2008). As noted in the opening of the chapter, considerable debate erupted over the causal antecedents of the Newtown shooting, with the violence portrayed in the media being one of the alleged contributing factors. The uncertainty over the role of media violence was perhaps highlighted most clearly when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that video games have First Amendment protection and that minors' use of violent video games could not be regulated by the government (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 2011). The Supreme Court's decision was based at least in part on the high court's conclusion that the scientific evidence was "unpersuasive," as it was lacking in scientific scrutiny, and this paralleled recent similar conclusions by government reviews in both Australia and Sweden (Swedish Media Council, 2011). However, a recent publication does provide an effective summary on the points of agreement in the empirical literature, and they are: (1) Video game violence is an important area for ongoing research; (2) violence is determined by multiple factors, (3) results tend to be stronger when the outcome measures are aggression and measured in the lab, and minimal when the outcome behavior is violence and measured outside the lab; and (4) in order to fully understand whether, and to what extent, media violence impacts aggressive behavior, there is a need to consider evidence from multiple sources, including survey research, experimental studies, and longitudinal/prospective research (Ferguson, 2013).

Self-EfficacySelf-Efficacy

Another important construct developed by Bandura (1997) is the construct of self-efficacy (or mastery/competency), defined simply as the belief that you have the ability to succeed—or, more literally, the opinion you have of your personal effectiveness in a given situation. For example, those with high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to stop smoking because they believe that they can. In a sense, self-efficacy is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: People with high self-efficacy expect to be successful, they tend engage in activities where they are successful, and, as a result, their activities bolster their notions of self-efficacy. High self-efficacy provides a sharp contrast to the concept of learned helplessness (as discussed in Chapter 5). Individuals characterized by learned helplessness believe that they have no control over outcomes; hence, they have very low notions of self-efficacy. It should also be noted that self-efficacy beliefs can be domain specific. That is, one might have highly elevated self-efficacy beliefs with respect to their work, but very low self-efficacy beliefs with respect to relationships. Not surprisingly, some research suggests that domain-specific, self-efficacy beliefs, such as those in the social domain, are related to specific personality traits, such as agreeableness (Caprara, Alessandri, & Eisenberg, 2012).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 39 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

The Social–Cognitive Perspective

XiXinXing/Thinkstock; Eyecandy Images/Thinkstock

How do our beliefs about domain-specific self-efficacy affect our success in certain domains?

The context specificity of self-efficacy beliefs is not only important to predicting behavioral outcomes in different contexts, but it also highlights the fact that we can cognitively create and differentiate contexts simply by how we perceive them. Social cognitive theory is focused on our expectations about the future, and Bandura believed that our self- efficacy perceptions are central to our expectations. Although there are many ways in which self-efficacy beliefs can influence our behavior, one of the most profound is in its relation to effort and persistence, which in turn also influences performance (e.g., Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). That is, if we believe we are competent enough to succeed, this predicts sustained effortful behavior, whereas if we doubt our abilities, then we are less likely to try (e.g., Bandura, 1997).

ReciprocalReciprocal Determinism Determinism

Bandura's (1986) theory suggests that in order to predict behavior it is important to understand the person (i.e., their internal cognitive processes), his or her behavior, and the environmental context or setting in which the behavior occurs. Bandura also suggested that each of these three factors is both caused by and causes the others—hence, the concept of reciprocal determinism (or reciprocal causality). In this respect, by accounting for both internal processes of the individual and environmental context, social cognitive theory demonstrated a considerable advance over the psychodynamic and behavioral perspectives that predated the cognitive movement.

Walter Mischel's Self-Regulatory Theory

Walter Mischel's training within a cognitive framework was established early on, as he studied under both George Kelly and Julian Rotter. Mischel made a number of important contributions to the field of personality psychology, and among them were his ideas on self-regulation. Self-regulation is the process of identifying a goal or set of goals and, pursuing these goals, using both internal (e.g., thoughts and affect) and external (e.g., responses of anything or anyone in the environment) feedback to maximize goal attainment. In an early classic experiment with implications for self-regulation, Mischel tested school children in the late 1960s who were asked to regulate their impulses for immediate desired reward (e.g., a single marshmallow) in order to gain a greater reward (e.g., two marshmallows) at a later point in time. Although this research can be considered within the framework of delayed gratification or even the trait of impulsiveness, it can likewise be conceived of as an early experiment in the ability to self-regulate to a specific goal. In this current example, the goal might be to maximize the number of marshmallows they could eat (although for some children, the goal may have been to minimize the time they would have to wait for the marshmallows!). The children who were most effective at self-regulation (also referred to as self-control) were also found to be more successful later in life, resulting in higher scores on standardized tests, higher educational attainment, lower incidence of drug use, and more stable marriages (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989).

Mischel and colleagues also demonstrated that some intervention strategies (e.g., blocking the desired stimulus from sight or imagining the reward to be something less desirable) could be used to help the children self-regulate more effectively, thereby indicating that these were: (1) mutable processes and (2) a direct function of the individual and the situation. That is, some individuals could regulate their behavior more easily than others, and some could modify their behavior more easily than others. More recently, Mischel and colleagues demonstrated that individuals who can more effectively self-regulate may be better at taking a broader ("big picture") perspective on matters and finding meaning in their experiences (Kross, Ayduk, & Mischel, 2005). Thus, Mischel saw humans as actively involved in the construction of their own psychological world, rather than being passive and instinct-driven in responding to their

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 40 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. "Human agency" is a term used to describe your will. What are some of the events/circumstances that can undermine willful behavior?

2. How are initiation and control different?

Figure 6.2: The ambiguous "B–13" figure Research suggests that whether you see a "B" or a "13" depends on if a desirable outcome is associated with seeing one of the two figures.

Source: From Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 612–625. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612.

environments (Mischel, 1976).

Like Bandura and other social learning theorists, Mischel emphasized goal setting, and self-regulation to one's goals, as central to predicting human behavior. Within the context of goal setting, a number of factors are implicated, including perceived competencies (as per Bandura), subjective appraisals of reward value and expected reinforcement (as per Rotter), and even basic cognitive abilities, such as encoding strategies. The goal-driven behavior is likewise affected by feedback or corrective information. For example, if a student is not progressing to a desired or expected level toward a goal, such as doing better in a history class, the student's behavior can be adjusted. This can be done in one of two ways. The student could increase effort or efficiency by studying more, going to speak with the professor regularly, or taking more notes in class. Adjustments can also be made via the student's goals. For example, the student can maintain the same effort and efficiency but lower expectations for the outcome (i.e., accept a lesser grade as a measure of success).

Building on the self-regulatory framework here described, researchers have studied how a desire for a particular outcome can impact the cognitive processes and goal pursuit. For example, Kunda (1990) suggests that when we make inferences and reason regarding our environment, this does not occur in a vacuum. Instead, we reason within the context of specific desired outcomes (such as getting a higher grade), and as a result we may be motivated to perceive events in specific ways, referred to as motivated reasoning.

In a comprehensive review of the literature, Kunda (1990) highlighted the concept of motivated reasoning as showing that (e.g., Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Kunda, 1987; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987; Sorrentino & Higgins, 1986) people utilize cognitive processes and mental representations to reach desired conclusions and that their motivation plays a critical role in determining the specific cognitive processes they employ (Kunda, 1990). Thus, in essence, we are biased in how we utilize cognitive processes when navigating toward desired outcomes (Kunda, 1990). As an

illustration, consider how you might evaluate an interaction with an acquaintance whom you want to date. As you use cognitive processes to evaluate your social interactions with this person, you are motivated to notice and favorably interpret some cues (e.g., smiles, eye contact, responding to your text), as well as being motivated to possibly ignore or minimize other cues (e.g., lack of eye contact with you or failure to return your text).

At an even more basic level, recent research has shown that our internal motivations can impact our visual perception—that is, our motivations can affect what we see and how we see it. Consider the research by Balcetis and Dunning (2006) in which they examined visual perception and how it is influenced by motivated states. The researchers informed participants that they would be assigned to one of two experimental conditions based on randomly generated information on a computer. For example, in study 1, participants were engaged in what was ostensibly a taste-testing task, and they would either have to consume and evaluate a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice (desirable) a chunky, gelatinous substance referred to as an "organic veggie smoothie" (undesirable); both beverages were placed in front of participants and they were encouraged to smell them. They were then instructed to look at the computer screen and told that they would see either a "13," which was assigned to the OJ, or the letter "B," which was assigned the veggie smoothie, and that whatever symbol they saw would determine the beverage they would drink.

An ambiguous figure (see Figure 6.2) was then presented for 400 ms and then the computer "crashed." Participants were then asked by the experimenter if they happened to notice anything on the screen prior to the "crash." Participants overwhelmingly (i.e., 82%) reported seeing the symbol that was randomly assigned to the desirable outcome (i.e., 13, rather than B). Similar findings were reported in four additional experiments, leading the researchers to conclude that motivation clearly affects visual information processing.

Researchers have also linked personality to other aspects of reasoning. For example, trait extraversion is associated with the increased incidence of reasoning errors on valid syllogisms, despite expressing greater confidence in their erroneous decisions (Papageorgiou et al., 2012). However, other research suggests that this same trait can result in more effective reasoning, provided the reasoning task is related to the trait of extraversion (Fumero, Santamaría, & Johnson-Laird, 2011). Finally, research has also been able to link several personality traits, such as extraversion and neuroticism, to moral reasoning (Athota, O'Connor, & Jackson, 2010).

Person-by-SituationPerson-by-Situation Debate Debate

Although this will be elaborated in greater detail in Chapter 8, which focuses on personality traits, it is here noted that Mischel was squarely at the center of one of the biggest controversies in psychology. Researchers such as Mischel critiqued personality researchers (specifically those studying traits) for over-emphasizing the person when trying to predict behavior. Mischel believed situational factors to be at least as important in determining behavior as trait factors.

To support his point, Mischel had collected considerable data on the behavior of

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 41 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Copyright © 2006 by the American Psychological Association.schoolchildren in different situations and concluded that there was minimal cross-situational consistency, thereby speaking to the explanatory power of situations rather than traits. In 1968, Mischel published his classic book Personality and Assessment, which critiqued traits on two major grounds. First, Mischel argued that traits only accounted for approximately 9% of human behavior (i.e., average correlations of approximately .30), with these figures being derived in part on his studies of schoolchildren in different contexts. His second critique suggested that traits were mere labels, and therefore limited in their utility. Although the field of personality did respond to these challenges, Mischel was instrumental moving the field to a more interaction-based approach to understanding and predicting behavior.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 42 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

6.5 Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Personality There is considerable overlap in current cognitive and cognitive-behavioral models of personality (see Figure 6.3). Still, one way to differentiate between the two approaches is to look at the way they were influenced by various other disciplines. Whereas cognitive theory was highly influenced by computer models, as well as by linguistics and anthropology, cognitive-behavioral models emerged out of the behavioral tradition. As a result, cognitive-behavioral theorists have a somewhat different orientation, which is evident in their use of behavioral concepts and therapies. It is interesting to note that there are elements of a cognitive approach in the much earlier work of some psychoanalytic theorists, such as Karen Horney, Otto Rank, and Alfred Adler, all of whom influenced Aaron Beck, whose work is discussed in this section (Sperry, 1999). Some of the theoretical work that underlies personality theory, which emerged from the cognitive-behavioral tradition within clinical psychology, is here reviewed.

Figure 6.3: The influence of different disciplines on the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral models This figure illustrates the somewhat distinct fields influencing the emergence of the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral models.

Ellis's Rational-Emotive Therapy

Albert Ellis is generally recognized as having launched the cognitive revolution in psychotherapy. His Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET) [later changed to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)] was one of the earliest applications of the cognitive model to psychotherapy. It emerged in the mid-1950s (Ellis & Harper, 1961) and was at the forefront of the cognitive revolution. Ellis claims that REBT "had an implicit theory of personality" (Ellis, 1974, p. 309). A later text, published shortly after his death in 2007, age 90, presented a more formal theory of personality (Ellis, Abrams, & Abrams, 2009).

Ellis's basic tenet is that irrational thinking (a decidedly cognitive event) is the central cause of human suffering. His theory is partly derived from the work of Alfred Adler (1923), who believed that humans constantly evaluate and give meaning to events in their lives. Ellis acknowledges the influence of Karen Horney (1950), who talked about the "tyranny of shoulds" (as in "I should have done that," "I should act like this," etc.). He also was influenced by the work of Julian Rotter (1954), who emphasized the cognitive aspects of learning and personality theory (Arnkoff & Glass, 1992). More specifically, Ellis believed that it is not the actions of others, the defeats we experience, the problems of the external world, or other events that cause suffering, but the way we think about or interpret these events.

The fundamental component of personality disorders, explained Ellis, is "irrationality." Irrational beliefs are what lead to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral disturbances (Ellis et al., 2009). Ellis (1974) developed the ABC theory to explain how beliefs (either rational or irrational) lead to emotional and behavioral outcomes. In this theory, A = Activating Experience; B = Belief System; and C=Consequence (i.e., emotional consequence). Whereas many people might directly attribute an event or experience to a particular outcome or consequence—that is, A → C—according to Ellis's ABC theory, point B, our belief system, determines our emotional outcome (C) to our experiences (A) —that is, A → B → C. How we think about an experience determines our emotional reaction to it. For example, if your car is stolen in a big city you've never been to before (A), then the way you think about it (B) will determine your emotional state (C). You can, for example, believe that cities are dangerous places and that perhaps there are criminals who have targeted you for a crime. This would obviously lead to a more anxious and paranoid emotional state. You can believe that car theft happens everywhere, in towns big and small, and that you simply were unlucky in this instance. Such thinking about the event will likely lead to far less anxiety, and perhaps none at all.

If we apply the ABCs of REBT to personality development, we can arrive at a basic understanding of how personality patterns develop. Based on variations in biologically

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 43 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

based emotional response tendencies, individuals are going to be shaped by the conditioning patterns present in their social-cultural environment. Those who are sensitive to rejection might begin to interpret minor rejections as too awful to bear and develop a conditioned response pattern of avoiding situations in which they might be rejected. This behavior pattern will continue to be shaped by the individual's beliefs and may become firmly entrenched. As a result, the individual might later be described as having a shy, withdrawn, avoidant personality.

Beck's Cognitive Theory and Therapy

Aaron Beck, though psychoanalytically trained, was interested in developing a treatment approach that would be brief, in contrast with the traditional psychoanalytic approaches that were sometimes astonishingly lengthy, often lasting many years (Beck, 1967). Like Ellis, Beck became disenchanted with the analytic model and began to use aspects of cognitive science's information-processing model. One construct that proved especially useful in the development of his theory was that of the schema—the individual's internal representations (private thoughts, beliefs, and emotions).

Beck was intrigued by evidence suggesting that depressed patients' views of the world are distorted by negative thinking and misattributions about themselves and the world. Accordingly, Beck began to use the rules of evidence and logical argument to change the depressed patient's cognitive distortions (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). He too believed that the way we perceive and how we interpret situations shape our emotions and behaviors. If the therapist can change these perceptions and make the patient think more rationally, personality disorders might well be resolved. The therapeutic approach Beck developed describes specific cognitive distortions that characterize various neurotic conditions, and it outlines how the general principles of cognitive therapy can be used to treat these conditions, as well as to treat depression (Beck et al., 1979). Importantly, as the social learning theorists tried to explain and predict the behavior of most individuals, practitioners like Ellis and Beck were using similar cognitive frameworks to effect changes in those with problematic thinking.

AA Cognitive Cognitive Model Model of of Depression Depression

Beck's interest in the clinical phenomenon of depression culminated in the publication of the book Cognitive Therapy of Depression (Beck et al., 1979), which many consider major development in the treatment of depression, and he later addressed personality disorders, developing his cognitive theory of personality (Beck & Freeman, 1990; Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2004).

There is evidence that personality factors play a role in the development of depression (Klein, Kupfer, & Shea, 1993). The cognitive model of depression suggests that there may be important links among overlapping cognitive schema (thoughts and beliefs), and as maladaptive thoughts become well rehearsed and automated, the problems are more likely to manifest in the form of personality. Moreover, the relationship between personality and depression may be reciprocal. Thus, just as irrational beliefs (schema) are at the root of personality disorders, so too can certain personality features, such as high emotionality (neuroticism), make one more vulnerable to the effects of loss or personal failure, either of which can precipitate depression (see Figure 6.4). Similarly, a highly confrontational and demanding individual may have trouble maintaining attachments and may have to deal with the emotional consequences of poor relationships.

Figure 6.4: The highly interdependent nature of mood and personality Neuroticism can result in one overreacting to aversive outcomes, which can lead to a negative mood state. If this occurs with sufficient frequency, then more durable aversive mood states (e.g., depression) may occur.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 44 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Beck et al. (1979) present a compelling information-processing model that identifies predisposing factors for depression. The theory proposes that negative concepts about the self, the external world, and the future result from our early experiences. These negative concepts are encoded in schema that we may be unaware of but can be activated by situations similar to the experiences that first led to the negative schema. For example, if you had a parent who left the home while you were young, you might be more likely detect abandonment cues, such as someone showing decreased interest, and this leads you to interpret even benign information consistent with a schema based on abandonment. Thus, the theory describes cognitive distortions associated with depression as primitive rather than mature ways of thinking (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Application of the information-processing model to the thinking of the depressed individual

Arbitrary inference (a response set) the process of drawing a specific conclusion in the absence of evidence to support that conclusion, or when the evidence is contrary to the conclusion.

Selective abstraction (a stimulus set) focusing on a detail (fragment) taken out of context, ignoring other, more salient, features of the situation, and conceptualizing the whole experience on the basis of the fragment.

Overgeneralization (a response set) the pattern of drawing a general rule or conclusion on the basis of one or more isolated incidents and applying the concept across the board to related and unrelated situations.

Magnification and minimization (a response set) errors made in evaluating the significance or magnitude of an event. These errors are seen as being so gross as to constitute a distortion.

Personalization (a response set) the tendency to relate external events to oneself when there is no basis for drawing such a conclusion.

Absolutistic, dichotomous thinking (a response set) the tendency to place all experiences in one or two opposite categories; for example, flawless or defective, immaculate or filthy, saint or sinner. In describing himself, the patient selects the extreme negative categorization.

Source: From Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press, p. 14. Reprinted by permission of Guilford Publications.

Beck's success in therapy, even relative to pharmacologic interventions (e.g., Hollon et al., 2005), and the popularity of his approach led to the expansion of descriptions of clinical syndromes and a widening of the populations to whom it could be applied—among others, individuals suffering from anxiety, pain, substance abuse, and eventually even those with personality disorders. The latter is an especially compelling area because of the prevalence of personality disorders and the difficulty of effectively treating them. Cognitive therapy not only suggests how disorders might be treated, but also emphasizes the importance of empirical support for the approach.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 45 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

ApplyingApplying Cognitive-Behavior Cognitive-Behavior Therapy Therapy (CBT) (CBT) to to Personality Personality Theory Theory

Beck described how an information-processing model can use personality schema to characterize how those with different personalities organize their belief systems (Beck & Freeman, 1990; Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2004). Personality schemas are anchored in the individual's behaviors, thoughts, and affect. As with the previously mentioned social learning model, Beck believed that education, training, modeling, reinforcement contingencies, and cultural influences also influence personality development. Beck's theory also takes into consideration how evolutionary history has influenced how we think, perceive the world, and behave (Beck & Freeman, 1990). Beck assumes that both animal and human behaviors are programmed in the sense that they are based on an interaction of genetically determined structures and experiences. Thus, individuals may have various personality types that are genetically determined: Some people are predisposed to attack when threatened, others might freeze, and yet others go out of their way to avoid danger. Each of these patterns may have a certain adaptive survival value (Beck & Emery, 1985).

ConfirmationConfirmation Bias Bias

Early experiences, especially those of a traumatic nature, also have an important influence on the development of our schema. Later, these schemata may be reinforced by confirmatory bias, meaning that information that matches the schema strengthens it and that which fails to match it is ignored or rejected. For example, those whose cognitive schema is "I am bad" may well view anger directed at them as confirmation of their badness. But someone whose schema is "I am good" may view other people's anger as evidence of that person's irrationality.

In an interesting series of studies that demonstrate this confirmation bias in people's self-schemas, Swann and colleagues demonstrated that depressed individuals seek out feedback that confirms their unfavorable self-assessments (see Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007). In addition, the depressed participants also were the least likely to seek out favorable feedback. These findings are in keeping with a wide range of studies showing that those with positive self-schemas choose partners who appraised them favorably and validate their self-views, whereas those with negative self-views tend to choose partner interactions that conform to self-verification (i.e., those who view them unfavorably) rather than self-enhancement (see Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). In fact, with respect to relationships, individuals with negative self-schemas tend to feel more committed to those who likewise thought negatively of them (De La Ronde & Swann, 1998; for a review, see Swann et al., 2007).

StrategiesStrategies

Strategies may be likened to personality traits or patterns of behavior, in that they "may be regarded as forms of programmed behavior that are designed to serve biological goals" (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 25). Strategies are not necessarily conscious, nor are all of them adaptive. In fact, some can be highly maladaptive, depending on the circumstances in which they are expressed. For example, Beck notes that strategies such as competitiveness and avoidance of unpleasant outcomes are often adaptive. However, if you always avoid minor unpleasantness, such as might be associated with a visit to your doctor or dentist, your strategy may, in the end, be fatally maladaptive.

Various personality disorders are associated with primitive strategies that characterize how individuals adapt. For example, those with antisocial personality disorder use a predatory strategy; those with a dependent personality adopt a help-eliciting strategy; and those with a compulsive personality use a ritualistic (i.e., relying on behavioral habits to reduce anxiety) style (Pretzer & Beck, 1996). As we shall see in Chapter 10, the disorders of personality explicitly involve perceptions and interpretations of the self and others as relevant to all diagnostic criteria for personality disorders.

Beck'sBeck's Use Use of of Schema Schema

Beck's theory of personality is based on an information-processing model (Pretzer & Beck, 1996). Individuals process data about themselves based on their beliefs and other elements of their cognitive organization (memory, perception, and the like). The manner in which information is interpreted shapes an individual's response pattern. Therefore, cognitive structures determine how information affects behavior.

One of the most important elements of Beck's theoretical model is his emphasis on schema (internal representations in the form of thoughts, feelings, and beliefs). Schema may include information about relationships, such as attitudes toward self and others, as well as more objective concrete or abstract categories. They can be narrow or wide in scope, flexible or rigid, overtly emotionally charged, or less obvious in their emotional content.

Research suggests that self-related schemas are automated (as was the case for the above-noted self-verification strivings) and often implicit, rather than explicit (see Greenwald et al., 2002). For example, it appears that cognitive representations of your self-concept can be associated with factors central to defining your personality, such as traits and self- esteem, and the speed with which you make those associations can indicate how central they are to your self-concept. Indeed, one of the more recent directions in the psychological literature is to consider implicit self-esteem (which is based on automatic, self-evaluative processes) to be as, if not more, important than explicit self-esteem (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001); tests like the Implicit Association Test (IAT) are one of the preferred approaches for assessing such implicit schemas (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; also see the discussion on the IAT in the assessment section of this chapter).

An essential aspect of this theoretical model concerns how impulses are controlled or inhibited. Impulses may be thought of as "wants" that might be encouraged or inhibited beliefs. Beliefs are the "should" and "should nots" that color our schema. At times, they may exert a counterforce on our impulses and wishes (I wish to punch someone who hurts me, but I do not do so because of my belief that it is wrong to act in violence). At other times, they may encourage our impulses (I feel like having an ice cream cone, will have one because I believe I deserve one after all these hours of hard studying).

In a sense, the internal control system represents how individuals communicate with themselves. Our personality functioning is guided by our schema and by how our internal communication system operates to evaluate, assimilate, and encode information. When we function well, we can modify schema to respond flexibly to the demands of our environment, but in cases of personality dysfunction, maladaptive schemata tend to be inflexible and self-perpetuating. Schemata are sometimes maintained through a variety of

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 46 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

faulty information-processing mechanisms. Cognitive distortions such as dichotomous thinking (using either-or categories such as "I am good or bad"), selective abstraction (focusing only on one stimulus and ignoring other contradictory information), and catastrophic thinking (expecting, for example, a future event to be unbearable) are but a few of these (Pretzer, 2004).

An important aspect of Beck's work has been his efforts to provide an evidence base for cognitive psychotherapy. Other researchers, like Marsha Linehan, also extended Beck's work.

Linehan's Cognitive-Behavioral Model

Many theoretical developments that have contributed to the development of personality theory have resulted from the need for new therapeutic approaches for severe personality disorders. This was the case with Marsha Linehan, who developed a cognitive-behavioral model of personality, referred to as Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), based on her work with individuals suffering from severe personality disorders. Linehan's (1993) model of personality is biosocial: It maintains that both genetic predispositions for emotional problems (biology) and the social environment are responsible for the creation of personality disorder. Thus, for Linehan, personality exists in a relational context and is fluid, changing largely as a function of our perspective.

Linehan's model is primarily a treatment model; unlike Freud's model, it is not intended as a grand theory of personality. However, by developing a treatment model that has shown robust empirical support, she has demonstrated that DBT methods are also effective as an explanatory framework for personality (i.e., they can help explain why a patient is having problems, as well as providing a direct method to change those problems).

One important distinction between DBT and Beck's CBT is that Linehan emphasizes mindfulness in order to become aware of automatic thoughts so as to then allow such thoughts to pass. In contrast, Beck makes patients aware of automatic thoughts, but the goal of CBT is to actively interrupt those thoughts and replace them with more adaptive thoughts. Another important contribution of this model is that it blends theoretical elements that include biological, relational, cognitive, behavioral, and systemic components. Linehan (1993) believes that attempting to categorize behavior into the various modes traditionally used by cognitive-behaviorists—motoric, cognitive-verbal, and physiological —is artificial, such that when both covert and overt behaviors are considered, all of the categories are implicated. For example, she describes how motor behavior, expressed by actions of our skeletal muscular system, can be overt and covert. She also explains how activities such as problem solving, thinking, perceiving, speaking, reading, and writing are cognitive-verbal behaviors that have parallel motoric and physiological events. At a physiological level, there are the many activities related to functioning of the nervous system and of glands and smooth muscles. The results of most of these physiological activities are usually covert (e.g., heartbeat) but can also be overt (e.g., blushing and crying). Thus, Linehan sees each of the traditional behavioral categories as one piece of a larger, unified set of experiences.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 47 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Aman Khan/iStockphoto/Thinkstock

This person appears depressed behaviorally. The challenge is capturing that affective state in an objective manner and quantifying it.

6.6 Assessment Strategies and Tools From the Cognitive Perspective Cognitive theorists have a strong foundation in empiricism and therefore value objective assessment instruments. Assessment of personality based on a cognitive model relies the assumption that various personality configurations share identifiable types of schemata (Beck & Freeman, 1990; Young, 1994). Most assessment tools are self-administered scales that are then scored by a clinician. A sampling of the instruments commonly employed will be here reviewed.

Kelly's Repertory Grid

Kelly's (1955) theoretical work resulted in the development of the Repertory Grid, a method for accessing the personal constructs of individuals. Kelly adopted a very straightforward method for assessing constructs by focusing on how we perceive the important people in our lives. After generating a list of important individuals (e.g., mother and father figures, siblings, current and ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, employer—15 in all), the respondent is asked to compare three individuals at a time and note how two of the three are similar on a construct yet different from the third individual on that same construct. For example, when comparing your father, ex-boyfriend/ girlfriend, and employer, one might conclude that your father and ex-boyfriend both have a good sense of humor, while your employer does not (e.g.. "funny – not funny"). The respondent would then continue to make all possible three-person comparisons, generating new constructs for each. The resulting list of constructs could then be analyzed (Kelly did so mathematically) to identify common/recurrent themes, with those representing core or superordinate constructs.

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

Beck (Beck et al., 1979) developed one of the most widely used instruments to assess depression: the Beck Depression Inventory, which was revised most recently in 1996 (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). This 21-item inventory was developed to identify the cognitive features of depression, emphasizing such concepts as self-reported withdrawal, sense of failure, sadness, guilt, self-dislike, indecisiveness, and the like. The items include four-response choices ordered in terms of severity, and respondents focus on the most recent two weeks of time in order to match the DSM-IV criteria for major depression. The total scale score results in labels of minimal depression to severe depression, with norms collected on 500 outpatients and a college student sample. The BDI-II has strong psychometric properties, thereby making it a popular inventory.

Other Depression Inventories

Although the BDI is one of the most commonly used measures, a number of other self-report depression inventories are used widely in research and clinical practice to assess the cognitive manifestations of depression.

TheThe Center Center for for Epidemiological Epidemiological Studies Studies in in Depression Depression

When assessing the construct of depression in the general population, the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) is one of the better normed and more effective self-report measures when assessing less severe forms of depression. The CES-D is a 20-item inventory with Likert ratings on how frequently a particular experience has occurred within the past week. Although it is primarily intended for use in the general population, there are geriatric norms, and it adopts a clinical cutoff score of 16.

TheThe Hamilton Hamilton Rating Rating Scale Scale for for Depression Depression

The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is like the BDI in that it is used to capture depression scores that fall more within the clinical range. Item endorsements denote symptom severity, with scores of 20 and higher denoting moderate, severe, or very severe depression (Hedlung & Vieweg, 1979). Other versions of the scale have also been developed.

Anxiety Inventories

The construct of anxiety is also commonly assessed and is a central component of clinical and personality research. Two of the more commonly used scales are here reviewed.

TheThe Beck Beck Anxiety Anxiety Inventory Inventory

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1990) is a 21-item symptom listing that requires respondents to endorse the extent to which they experience each symptom, ranging from "not at all" to "severely," and it is intended for those aged 17–80 years of age. Items reflect two general factors, one measuring somatic symptoms (e.g., sweating, numbness, tingling, etc.) and one measuring cognitive features of anxiety. Scores range from 0 to 63, though scores above 23 typically denote severe anxiety.

TheThe State-Trait State-Trait Anxiety Anxiety Inventory Inventory

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) was first published in 1970 but was then revised in 1983 (Spielberger, Gorssuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983). The inventory assesses state anxiety as well as trait anxiety in adults. Responses are based on a 4-point Likert scale, and scores range from 20 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. The psychometric properties of the STAI have been shown to be adequate (Rule & Traver, 1983).

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 48 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Implicit Association Test

The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is computer-based task that asks respondents to categorize concepts with a particular attribute. For example, one might be asked to categorize the concepts of "white" and "black" with favorable (e.g., "sunshine," "happy," etc.) and unfavorable (e.g., "war," "vomit," etc.) attributes. The typical design requires respondents to match both concepts to both sets of attributes and records reaction times to assess the extent to which some associations more natural (i.e., more easily made and therefore more readily associated from a cognitive standpoint) relative to others. Because this assessment is thought to access more automatic associations, it is considered better than self-report measures that can be more affected by demand characteristics (see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005). Of course, debate continues on the constructs assessed with the IAT, with some research suggesting that it assesses knowledge of associations, rather than whether one actually has a particular association.

You can take the Implicit Association Test at the link below to find out more about any implicit biases you might have: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) .

Possible Selves and Self-Schemas

The assessment of possible selves is to assess a number of possible (hypothetical) selves that an individual might have at any time in his or her life. These can include multiple manifestations of an "ideal self," future possible selves (which includes the ideal self), as well as current and past possible selves. Possible selves can also be assessed for their valence (positive or negative).

Two distinct approaches for measuring possible selves have been forwarded in the empirical literature. An open-ended version is primarily intended for use with child and adolescent samples, whereas with adult samples, a closed-ended approach is preferred. In the latter, the focus often involves identifying the number of positive and negative possible selves as well as the affective ratings associated with these possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

A second instrument, the Brief Core Schema Scales (BCSS), provides a self-reported assessment of schemata concerning self and others but specifically targets those experiencing psychosis. The BCSS assesses four dimensions of self and other evaluation: negative-self, positive-self, negative-other, positive-other. In the initial validation of the instrument, individuals experiencing psychosis and in cognitive therapy were compared to students. The BCSS appears to have reasonably good psychometric properties (Fowler et al., 2006).

Cultural Influences and Differences

There is little research at this time that looks at the applicability of the cognitive model to other cultures. Even though the cognitive model does not pay much attention to cultural differences, the basic theory takes into consideration environmental factors that influence and shape schema. For example, that some cultures (including our own) encourage extraverted behavior is seen as a reflection of cultural demands encoded into its members' schemas through information-processing activities.

Since the various cognitive models are based on an information-processing model, most are highly flexible, and the assumption is that they probably have good generalizability to other cultures. An interesting question is whether those raised in other cultures learn to process information differently and how this might affect personality development and expression.

Within the last two decades, researchers have begun to address this question by exploring cultural differences with respect to certain cognitive mechanisms. For example, it appears that East Asians (relative to those in western Europe and America) consider dispositions to be more malleable and more strongly influenced by the situation (Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999), and they also perceive environmental events as more holistic (interdependent; Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000). For a recent discussion on cultural differences in perception, see the following cover story on The Culture-Cognition Connection found in the American Psychological Association's publication, the Monitor (from February 2006; see link: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx (http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx) ).

In Chapter 9, we will discuss some additional ways in which the self-concept may vary by culture, emphasizing how the self in individualistic cultures is distinct from the self collectivistic cultures.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 49 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Cognitive-Behavioral Model: Quiz

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 50 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

Chapter Summary Cognitive science represents a revolutionary advance in the field of personality psychology. It emerged from behaviorism, after Tolman introduced the concept of latent learning. However, the cognitive approach went considerably farther, recognizing that it could make inferences about the mind and not just about things that are observable. George Miller, who believed the behavioral model lacked sufficient complexity, engendered this cognitive revolution. Miller was interested in memory, a highly relevant topic for psychology and personality, as it undergirds many basic cognitive processes. Another conceptual leap occurred when the computer was used as a metaphor for developing a model of how the mind works, which is an area of great interest to neuroscientists. The computer offered an analogue to how the mind might process information and form connections.

Information-processing models led to the development of valuable constructs, such as schema, which are the cognitive templates we use to process information. Various blends of cognitive models have been developed with slightly different emphases reflected in cognitive, social-cognitive, and cognitive-behavioral approaches. George Kelly was one the earliest theorists who considered individuals as scientists and their theories as personal constructs, which are used to explain the present and predict the future. Researchers such as Julian Rotter, Albert Bandura, and Walter Mischel introduced ideas relating to learning and the self-concept. Rotter emphasized the influence of reward value and expected contingencies, rather than assuming universally defined rewards value and contingencies. Bandura developed a social cognitive theory emphasizing the role of modeling, the importance of the ability to symbolize and to anticipate, and the centrality of notions of self-efficacy. Constructs such as self-efficacy are useful in understanding how our perceptions and self-beliefs affect our behavior. Mischel emphasized the role of self-schema, how such schema are biased for self-verification, and how personal goals play a role in the self-regulation process.

Each of these theorists has contributed to our understanding of personality. Personality is not just a reaction to external events and conditioning: It is strongly affected by our cognitive processing of our world and our relationships, as well as by the inner representations (schema) that result. The cognitive perspective also resulted in the development of a large number of self-report inventories used to assess personality, with an emphasis on internal mental representations. These represent some of the most widely used inventories in the field.

Key Terms

Click on each key term to see the definition.

behavioral expectancy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The individual's expectation of reinforcement or punishment.

behavior potential (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The probability of engaging in a specific behavior in a given situation.

biosocial (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The interplay of genetic predispositions and the social environment.

cognitive map (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A mental representation of a spatial environment.

cognitive revolution (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The shift in the field of psychology toward cognitive science.

confirmatory bias (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The tendency to favor information that matches and strengthens a schema and to ignore or reject information that contradicts a schema.

heuristic (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A type of information-processing technique that can be common or differentiated among humans.

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 51 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

information processing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

When data are manipulated and transformed into information.

latent learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learning that is not immediately evident or behaviorally observable, and that occurs absent of reinforcement of the behavior or any associative learning.

metacognition (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The act of thinking about one's thinking. An awareness of one's own thinking processes.

mirror neuron (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A brain cell that fires when an animal perceives others performing an action and facilitates unconscious, automatic mimicry.

modeling (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Learning that occurs as a function of observing behaviors performed by others.

motivated reasoning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Motivation to perceive events in specific ways by reasoning within the context of desired outcomes.

personal construct (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A theory developed and modified by an individual used to explain and predict phenomena.

preparedness (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Readiness to learn and develop a particular behavior.

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

A type of psychotherapy that focuses on identifying and changing irrational beliefs to resolve emotional and behavioral disturbances.

reciprocal determinism (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The belief that a person's cognitive processes, behavior, and environmental context influence each other; also called reciprocal causality.

representation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The use of symbols to depict or signify objects, events, or occurrences.

reward (or reinforcement) value (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The idea that we each subjectively value rewards in different ways, and this variability is critical to predicting behavior.

schema (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

An organized pattern of thought.

self-efficacy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

9/8/20, 4)49 PMPrint

Page 52 of 52https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch05,ch…ntent&clientToken=718d3731-1022-379c-d0bd-015a6a944515&np=sec1.1

A person's belief that they have the ability to succeed.

self-regulation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The process of identifying a goal and using both internal and external feedback to maximize goal attainment.

self-verification (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

The tendency to seek feedback that maintains or confirms your self-concept.

social-cognitive theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover/books/AUPSY330.12.2/sections/cover#)

Theory that combines aspects of behavioral and cognitive approaches to explain personality.