Weebly



Ian Brett and Charlotte FD Learning LabMar. 12, 2018Question: Can a five-year-old dog be trained to react with disgust or dislike at the mention of a certain word (“Trump”: referred to henceforth as KW - keyword)?Background Information: In our learning lab, we used classical conditioning, and our experiment was quite similar to Pavlov’s experiment. Ivan Pavlov was one of the first people to discover and experiment with classical conditioning (Kasschau, 2008). Around the end of the 19th century, he began working with dogs to discover why he found them to be salivating at only the sight or smell of food (Kasschau, 2008). Eventually, after running many experiments, he found that after classically conditioning the dog - similar to our lab outlined below - the dog would salivate at the sound of a bell (Kasschau, 2008). Classical Conditioning is the association of a certain response with an unrelated stimulus (Kasschau, 2008). It has a couple steps, and involves a few different elements; the Unconditioned Stimulus (US) - which in our case was the whoopee cushion being shown and then blown, the Unconditioned Response (UR) - which was for Miranda (our subject dog) to move away to her bed, the Neutral Stimulus (NS) - elicits no reaction at the start of the process: in our case it was saying the word ‘Trump’ - the Conditioned Stimulus (CS) - same stimulus as the NS but at the end of the process elicits a reaction - and the Conditioned Response (CR) - same response as the UR but this time she reacted to the word being said (Kasschau, 2008). Kasschau, R.A., (2008). Understanding Psychology. New York, NY: Glencoe. Hypothesis: At the end of a week or two of training, Miranda will react with disgust or dislike when a certain word is mentioned. Materials: whoopee cushion, dog (Miranda). Method: Steps: Miranda, the subject - a five-year-old dog - has reacted in the past with dislike or disgust to a whoopee cushion being blown. Ask parents whether it’s ok to run the experiment involving Miranda. Make sure Miranda is free to walk away at any moment. Comfort Miranda if she seems uncomfortable for longer than a minute. Miranda will be treated with love and care, like always, and we will stop the experiment if she reacts very strongly at any point. Be around or summon subject. Say KW before showing subject whoopee cushion. Show subject whoopee cushion. Say KW before blowing whoopee cushion. Stop at whatever step the subject reacts. Record results. If Miranda seems to have long lasting negative psychological effects after the experiment is over, un-train her by saying the KW many times without showing or blowing the whoopee cushion - this process is called extinction (Kasschau, 2008). Data:Miranda, our subject, looking quite content: Time/date of training: Results: Tuesday Mar. 20, 2018. 7:00pmNo reaction to KW, no reaction to whoopee cushion being shown, went away when whoopee cushion blownWednesday Mar. 21, 2018. 7:30amNo reaction to KW, slight reaction to whoopee cushion being shown, went away when whoopee cushion blownWednesday Mar. 21, 2018. 5:00pmLooked up when KW was said before showing whoopee cushion, started to back away when KW was said 2nd time, before whoopee was blownThursday Mar. 22, 2018. 7:00amJumped off couch when KW said before showing whoopee cushion, went straight upstairs when shown whoopee cushionFriday Mar. 23, 2018. 7:00amLooked up when KW was said 1st time, before whoopee cushion was shown, went upstairs at KW being said 2nd time after showing whoopee cushionFriday Mar. 23, 2018. 7:30pmWent upstairs at 1st KW before having seen whoopee cushionSaturday Mar. 24, 2018. 6:00pmSlight reaction to 1st KW (perhaps slight extinction exhibited), went upstairs when whoopee cushion was shown Sunday Mar. 25, 2018. 8:00amStarted to move away when 1st KW was said, went straight upstairs when KW was said a 2nd time and whoopee cushion was shownSunday Mar. 25, 2018. 6:00pmWent straight upstairs at 1st KW without having seen whoopee cushionResults: In less than a week, our subject, Miranda a five-year-old dog, was able to be classically conditioned to walk or run away when the word “Trump” was said. At the start of the experiment, she would only react when the whoopee cushion was actually blown. About midway through, she would exhibit a slight reaction when she saw the whoopee cushion, and by the end, she didn’t even need to see the whoopee cushion, only hear the KW, to react. Analysis: Our hypothesis proved to be correct. Although we needed an extra step to transfer the NS to the CS - saying the KW and then only showing the whoopee cushion - our experiment was successful. However, near the end of the experiment, after the CR was developed, the subject, in less than 24 hours, did not fully react to the KW. This seems to be because of a slight extinction, but the subject quickly became conditioned again. These results suggest that after a relatively short amount of time - a week, perhaps - the behaviour might be fully extinct. Conclusion: By the end of our experiment, we could easily see that our hypothesis - at the end of a week or two of training, the dog will react with disgust or dislike when a certain word is mentioned - was correct. There were a few training sessions, at the end of the process, in which the subject reacted as soon as the KW was said, that is, without seeing or hearing the whoopee cushion, which is what we were aiming for. There were different levels of reaction, but overall, our hypothesis was correct, and we were able to condition the subject in less than the amount of time we thought it would take, which was two weeks. Sources of Error: One possible source of error is that the training sessions took part in different spots; sometimes our subject was already in her bed, which was the spot she would go to when the whoopee cushion was blown. However, if she was already there, perhaps she didn’t exhibit a full reaction when she normally would have. Another possible source of error that might have made the experiment go faster was the middle step - only showing the whoopee cushion. Perhaps if we hadn’t done the middle step, the experiment would have gone faster. On the other hand, the middle step might have helped Miranda associate the sound of the whoopee cushion blowing with the KW, which perhaps made the experiment go faster. A final possible source of error is that rather than reacting only to the KW being said, our subject reacted to the trainer’s hand being behind her back, hiding the whoopee cushion, which could be the NS and CS. To test this theory would be simple; say the KW to the subject with both hands visible to her. Questions for further investigation: Would it be harder to train Miranda if the keyword was harder to distinguish? The word ‘Trump’ is quite unique. What if the word was ‘banana’ or something more normal like that?Do the schedules of learning matter? If we had training sessions consistently twice or three times a day, would it take less time for Miranda to become conditioned? If we held training sessions three times or more per day, would it be easier for the behaviour to become extinct once we stopped training her? If this was the case, it would be because without constant repetition of the training, she might forget that the NS meant a whoopee cushion was about to be blown. However, this could go the other was as well: if she was trained more often, it might take longer for the behaviour to become extinct. Does it matter where the training sessions take place? Like we previously discussed, our theory is that it does matter whether she is in or near her bed as to how much she reacts. Would it work better if there was some kind of reward when she went to her bed? Would that make her react quicker and more consistently strongly than using her natural response to a whoopee cushion? As previously discussed, would she still react to only the keyword when she could see that there was nothing behind the trainer’s back? (In all training sessions the trainer had the whoopee cushion behind their back, which was perhaps what the dog partially reacted to). Sources: Kasschau, R.A., (2008). Understanding Psychology. New York, NY: Glencoe. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download