1. Cognitive Control of Behavior – Part 2 Presented by: 5th Group Asih Rosnaningsih 1008066056 Haryati 1008066065 Nila Novari 1008066068
2. Operant Conditioning Behaviour – Reinforcer Beliefs Adams & Dickinson (1981) state that animals whose reinforcer was devalued by pairing it with illness responded much less during extinction than did animals whose reinforcer was not devalued. 1 2 Balleine & Dickinson (1991) explain that some illness-inducing treatments also produce somatic discomfort which immidiate compared to delayed gastrointestial distress 3 The result suggests that an animal avoidance of a flavor can be based either on its perceived unpalatability or on anticipated discomfort.
3. The Importance of Habits Adams (1982) Rat experiment: With more training S-R habits develop and behavior can be controlled by habits rather than expectancies. Colwill & Rescorla (1985): when the influence of expectancies is eliminated by reinforcer devaluation, responding continues to some degree because of the influence of S-R habits. Dickinson refers the control of responding by habits as behavioral autonomy.
4. A Cognitive View of Depression Depression develops when individuals assume that their failures are the result of uncontrollable events
5. Learned Helplessness Research Animal Research The dogs received the inescapable and escapable shocks Human Subjects The humans received the unpleasant noise
6. Characteristics of helplessness Motivational deficits The subjects were exposed to uncontrollable experiences in a cognitive task and instrumental task 1 2 Cognitive Deficits The subjects who experienced the inescapable noise treatment showed little expectancy change while the subject who experienced the escapable noise showed large expectancy 3 Emotional Disturbance The expectation that events are uncontrollable produces emotional disturbances.
7. Similarities between Helplessness and Depression Learned helplessness 1. Depressed people and the learned helplessness display the same characteristics that is they both have a generalized expectation of no control. 2. Depressed and helpless subjects, in Seligman’s view, assumed that any successful outcome during the skill task is due to chance, because they believed these also were uncontrollable.
8. Critism of Learned Helplessness approach Learned helplessness 1. It was too simplistic and did not precisely reflect the processes that produce depression. 2. The original helplessness model cannot explain why helpless subjects responded as if they had no control over events when they were aware that other people were able to control these same events. 3. The original helplessness model of Seligman is contrary with Roth & Kubal, 1975 and Tennen & Eller, 1977 who have demonstrated improved subject performance after exposure to insoluble problems. 4. Seligman theory could not explain Rizley’s (1978) observations.
9. A Seligman’s revised theory ’An Attributional Model’A personal attribution is the belief that internal charcteristics are responsible for the outcome of a situation
10. Conclusion During the experiment, helpless subjects behaved as if skill tasks were chance tasks; however, when questioned after experiment, these subject described the situation as a skill task. The original helpless model can not explain why helpless subject responded as if they had no control over events when they were aware that other people were able to control these same events.
