Discussion on Learning Experiment - Essay Example

DISCUSSION OF LEARNING EXPERIMENT In the experiment undertaken, various ideas were brought forth. These ideas were centered on the conditioning that occurs when an individual encounters various stimuli. In the experiment, these stimuli were in the form of cues and these were studied in relation to target cues. Moreover, the results of the experiment demonstrated that certain thoeries that predicted a difference between the last two phases were wrong. In the experiement, these were shown since the results showed that target cues E and G did not show an significant difference.

However, there were certain theories that did predict that no difference would occur in the aformentioned conditions or target cues. This discussion will outline these thoeries. It will likewise discuss why Cue A in the experiment caused impairments in causal judgement about Cue B relative to the other conditions. One of the thoerists that predicted a noticeable difference between target cues E and G was Kamin. His study proposed that in a blocking experiment, if the US is changed during Stage 2 (e.g., by making it significantly stronger or weaker), then significant new learning can occur about the added element (CS2) of the Compound CS, and strong conditioned responses to CS2 will be expressed in Stage 3.

The "surprising" change in the US supports formation of new associations during Stage 2, since CS2 is the "best predictor" of the surprising change in the US. However, Kamin also suggested that this will not be the case when for target cue E. He proposed a difference between the two situations which was not demonstrated in the experiment conducted. With regards to the rational behind the ability of cue A to impair causal judgement relative to target cue B, this can best be explained by refering to the associative learning theory promulgated by Rescorla and Wagner.

Basically, their study states that a reinforcer can sustain only a limited amount of associative strength; so, simultaneously presented cues must compete with one another as the best predictor-or cause-of the outcome. When applied to the experiment conducted, one can see that since cue A was not followed by further competing cues, its had a great amount of associative strength thereby having a great effect in imparing causal judgment with regards to target cue B. The experiment has shown here was no difference in the post-trial ratings for the target cues in the unblocking (E) and blocking of unblocking (G) conditions.

Associative learning thoeries have predicted these results by pointing out that the presence of additional stimuli will not change the response in both conditions especially since response to prior stimuli has already been demonstrated.