Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.632614
Title: Differences in context sensitivity for second-learned inhibitory and excitatory stimuli in AAB and ABC designs
Author: Elgueta, Tito
ISNI:       0000 0004 5362 2233
Awarding Body: University of Southampton
Current Institution: University of Southampton
Date of Award: 2014
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Bouton (1997) proposed a model to explain Pavlovian conditioning according to which the order of the associations (first-learned or second-learned), not the valence of the associations (inhibitory or excitatory), determines context sensitivity in AAB and ABC renewal designs. As a consequence, Bouton’s model does not predict important differences in context sensitivity between AAB and ABC designs. However, evidence suggests that there are indeed differences in context sensitivity between these two designs (e.g. Üngör & Lachnit, 2008). The aim of this thesis is to explore the role of context sensitivity of second-learned associations in AAB and ABC designs. Eight experiments are presented. Experiments 1 to 3 explored the context sensitivity of second-learned excitatory associations and second-learned inhibitory associations produced by extinction in AAB and ABC designs. The results of these experiments showed strong context sensitivity in ABC designs, both in excitatory and inhibitory second-learned associations. Yet, no context sensitivity was observed in AAB designs in any condition. Experiments 4 to 6 explored the context sensitivity of second learned inhibitory associations using a feature negative procedure to produce inhibition. No context sensitivity was found for second-learned inhibitory associations produced by this procedure. Possible reasons for this lack of effect are discussed. Experiments 7 and 8 aimed at providing an explanation for the results of Experiments 1 to 3 of this thesis. Two mechanisms to explain differences in context sensitivity between AAB and ABC designs were explored: the number and length of trials (Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000; Haselgrove & Pearce, 2003), and the comparator hypothesis (Miller & Matzel, 1988). The results of Experiments 7 and 8 were not able to explain differences in context sensitivity between AAB and ABC designs. Overall, the results of this thesis show context sensitivity in ABC designs but not in AAB designs. This thesis finishes by discussing how the difference in context sensitivity between ABC and AAB designs can be explained based on Üngör and Lachnit’s (2008) argument that context is codified during the first stage.
Supervisor: Glautier, Steven Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.632614  DOI: Not available
Keywords: BF Psychology
Share: