\documentclass[12pt,oneside,letter]{memoir}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\pagestyle{empty}
 
\begin{document}
 
\title{Psychology 100 Notes}
\author{Robert Guinn}
\date{2007-02-20}
\maketitle

\section*{Applications of Classical Conditioning}
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Attitudes (preferences: foods, people, etc.)
		\begin{itemize}
		\item hence, many personality traits
		\end{itemize}
	\item some fears
	\item Watson's ``Little Albert'' learned to fear white rats
	\end{itemize}

\section*{Operant Conditioning}
\emph{Operant Conditioning} - the consequences of behavior influence the behavior's occurring again
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Trial-and-error learning (a simple form)
	\end{itemize}

\emph{A}ntecedent events: preceding the behavior
\emph{B}ehavior itself
\emph{C}onsequences: following the behavior

B.F. Skinner believed that the most powerful influences on behavior are its consequences

\emph{Classical conditioning} - associating of two stimuli (UCS + CS) before the response or behavior
\emph{Operant conditioning} - reinforcing (reward) or punishing stimulus after a response or behavior
\emph{Reinforcement} - Increasing the frequency/probability of a behavior
\emph{Punishment} - Decreasing the frequency/probability of a behavior

Reinforcers \& punishers are defined by what they DO, not what they are

\section*{Reinforcer Stimuli}
\emph{Positive Reinforcer} -
	\begin{itemize}
	\item increases the probability of a response happening again
	\item by its presentation after the response
	\end{itemize}
\emph{Negative Reinforcer} - (usu. unpleasant)
	\begin{itemize}
	\item increases the probability of a response happening again
	\item by its removal, contingent upon the response
	\end{itemize}
\emph{Primary reinforcers} - 
	\begin{itemize}
	\item innate basis
	\item biological value to an organism
	\item (food, sex, etc.)
	\end{itemize}
\emph{Secondary reinforcers} -
	\begin{itemize}
	\item acquire their reinforcing power
	\item by association with primary reinforcers
	\item (money, etc.)
	\end{itemize}

\section*{Reinforcement Schedules}
\emph{Continuous reinforcement} - All correct responses are reinforced
\emph{Intermittent reinforcement} - Some, but not all, correct responses are reinforced

\section*{Contingencies of Reinforcement}
\emph{Extinction} - In operant conditioning, weakening a learned response by removing reinforcement
how does this differ from extinction in classical conditioning?

\section*{Shaping \& Self-Control}
\emph{Shaping} - teaching a new behavior by reinforcing responses that approximate it
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Successive approximations are reinforced
	\end{itemize}
\emph{Self-control processes (behavioral)}
	\begin{itemize}
	\item behavioral methods, NOT cognitive
	\end{itemize}

\section*{Punishment}
Decreasing the probability of a behavior
\emph{Punishment by Application (``positive'')} - Applying an aversive stimulus after a response
\emph{Punishment by Withdrawal (``negative'')} - Removing an attractive stimulus after a response
How does this differ from negative reinforcement?

\section*{The Use and Abuse of Punishment}
Punishment\dots
	\begin{itemize}
	\item temporary suppression
	\item resentment, aggression
	\item inhibit learning better responses
	\item applied unequally
	\item models aggression
	\end{itemize}
Whet does punishment work? (see Text)
Better Alternatives\dots
	\begin{itemize}
	\item Extinction
	\item Reinforcing preferred activities, shaping
	\end{itemize}










\end{document}