Preparedness theory holds that prevalent fears (e.g. snake phobia) reflect a biological predisposition to fear objects and situations that threatened the human species throughout its evolutionary history (Seligman, ). Ss reporting either high or low fear of snakes were exposed to a Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning procedure in which Cited by: 13 Essay Sample on the Pavlovian Model in Preparedness Theory. Samples Pavlovian conditioning is basic to learning and is obviously a critical factor in the acquisition of phobias. This model assumes that all members of a species share a common set of reflexes, hard-wired responses to certain stimuli. These unconditional reflexes are critical to survival 1. Behav Res Ther. ;24(1) Pavlovian conditioning and preparedness: effects of initial fear level. McNally RJ. PMID: [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Cited by: 13
Pavlovian conditioning and preparedness: effects of initial fear level
The preparedness theory of phobias holds that humans are biologically prepared to fear objects and situations that have threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history. Accordingly, threats of ancient origin should be more easily acquired than those of recent origin. This pre-disposition is thought to be responsible for the resistance to extinction characteristic of untreated phobias.
For example, a large difference in responding to a reinforced snake slide and a nonreinforced spider slide might be due to superior fear conditioning to the snake consistent with preparedness theorysuperior safety-signal conditioning to the spider inconsistent with preparedness theory preparedness in pavlovian conditioning, or both. Additionally, the effect of prior snake fear was another concern.
In the current study, Pavlovian Conditioning and Preparedness: Effects Of Initial Fear Level, McNally examined how prior snake fear could impact conditioning to fear-relevant and fear irrelevant stimuli. Thus effects attributed to biological preparedness may be due to high levels of snake fear.
This prior fear hypothesis is not the same as a prior learning hypothesis. A prior learning hypothesis is a much stronger explanatory statement as it holds that current fear levels are a result of specific learning experiences which have occurred during the lifetime of certain subjects. In contrast, the prior fear hypothesis merely states that, for whatever preparedness in pavlovian conditioning, some subjects may already be fearful and this level of fear may influence responding to fear-relevant stimuli.
Marginally significant evidence consistent with this prior fear hypothesis was obtained in a previous study using a Pavlovian safety-signal paradigm. It was shown that a pictorial snake was an ineffective safety-signal in high fear subjects but not in low fear preparedness in pavlovian conditioning. In other words, a stimulus prepared for fear conditioning was found to be contraprepared for safety-signal conditioning only when subjects reported prior preparedness in pavlovian conditioning to the stimulus.
To test this hypothesis in the preparedness in pavlovian conditioning experiment, the authors selected subjects who preparedness in pavlovian conditioning either high or low fear of snakes and then exposed them to the conditioning procedure. That is, once the US is no longer presented, SCRs to the snake stimulus should continue to exceed those to the triangle stimulus, whereas differential responding between the flower and triangle should diminish. Responding to the snake should also exceed responding to the flower even though both are reinforced and equal number of times.
Moreover, this fear relevance effect should be obtained in both the high and low fear subjects because conditioning experiences in the laboratory are assumed to activate a species wide predisposition to fear snakes. To conduct the study, each picture CS was shown for 8 seconds and was then followed by a. Skin resistance was then measured.
A habituation phase consisted of two non-reinforced presentations of each of the three stimuli. The order in which stimuli were presented varied across subjects. Subjects were told that one of the stimuli would not be followed by shock whereas the other two might be. During acquisition there were 8 reinforced trials of CS-S, eight reinforced trials of CS-F and 8 non-reinforced trials of CS-T, preparedness in pavlovian conditioning.
The extinction phase then involved 10 non-reinforced presentations of each stimulus. Data from the habituation, acquisition and extinction phases were each analyzed separately.
After the data was analyzed, no significant effect was found for habituation effects. Moreover, initial snake fear did not potentiate responding to the snake. Nonetheless, these findings are inconsistent with the preparedness theory as the snake failed to elicit larger responses than did the flower.
The prior fear hypothesis holds that fear relevant stimuli should elicit larger responses than fear-irrelevant stimuli, but only in high-fear subjects.
Moreover, this effect should be found in habituation, acquisition and extinction. The non-significant stimulus X fear level interactions constitute a lack of support for this hypothesis. It is possible that the snake picture was insufficiently fear inducing to elicit the physiology of fear. If this is the case, prior snake fear would not necessarily augment a nonfear-based response.
Finally, the extinction data provided, at best, equivocal support for the preparedness theory. Differential responding between the snake and the triangle persisted whereas differential responding between the flower and the triangle did not. In summary, self-reported snake fear does not seem to produce fear-relevance effects.
Additionally, no evidence for preparedness theory was found in the acquisition data. Finally, inconsistent support was obtained for the hypothesis that fear-relevant stimuli produce greater resistance to extinction than do fear-irrelevant stimuli, preparedness in pavlovian conditioning. Thus, additional research must be conducted to test the stimulus significance interpretation of preparedness phenomena.
Richard J. Pavlovian Conditioning and Preparedness: Effects Of Initial Fear Level. Behavior Research and Therapy You are commenting using your WordPress.
com account. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Skip to content The preparedness theory of phobias holds that humans are biologically prepared to fear objects and situations that have threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history. Share this: Twitter Facebook.
Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public.
Name required. By continuing to use this website, preparedness in pavlovian conditioning, you agree to their use, preparedness in pavlovian conditioning.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy.
Pavlov's Theory of Classical Conditioning Explained!
, time: 6:39Pavlovian Conditioning and Preparedness: Effects Of Initial Fear Level – psychologyhc
1. Behav Res Ther. ;24(1) Pavlovian conditioning and preparedness: effects of initial fear level. McNally RJ. PMID: [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Cited by: 13 Essay Sample on the Pavlovian Model in Preparedness Theory. Samples Pavlovian conditioning is basic to learning and is obviously a critical factor in the acquisition of phobias. This model assumes that all members of a species share a common set of reflexes, hard-wired responses to certain stimuli. These unconditional reflexes are critical to survival May 01, · Additionally, the effect of prior snake fear was another concern. In the current study, Pavlovian Conditioning and Preparedness: Effects Of Initial Fear Level, McNally examined how prior snake fear could impact conditioning to fear-relevant and fear irrelevant stimuli. Given the high prevalence of this fear in the general population, it is possible that snake-fearful individuals may have
No comments:
Post a Comment