Highlight the main processes involved in learning by association and learning by trial and error.

Highlight the main processes involved in learning by association and learning by trial and error. Briefly discuss the implications on such learning processes of (a) research showing infants’ preference for specific stimuli, (b) research on cognitive map, and (c) Erikson’s view of personality development in the first two stages.

Learning is recognized as the higher-order cognitive processes of apprehending and acquiring knowledge about the world (Kvan E, 2001:29-30). Brain is the main organ to be used in processing the input-and-output data from which perception and memory are the important factors in the learning process (Kvan E, 2001:29-30). In the following context the main processes involved in learning by association and learning by trial and error will be highlighted. In the second part of the question, we will briefly discuss the implications on such learning processes of research showing infants’ preference for specific stimuli, research on cognitive map, and Erikson’s view of personality development in the first two stages.

Ivan Pavlov who developed classical conditioning, an influential work of learning, by adopting Aristotle’s basis idea of ‘association’, which refers to put the relative things together in people’s minds in order to make them in connection with each other. Furthermore, the application of the general scientific approach to conduct the experiments and studies by following the principle of the complex processes that are the combination of their constituent parts. Pavlov’s work can be divided into four parts (= four simple units of learning) that are ‘conditioning’, ‘higher order conditioning’, ‘extinction’ and ‘generalization and discrimination’ (Kvan E, 2001:41) and will be explored as follows:

Apparently ‘conditioning’ was built as the fundamental part to dictate the reflex to the other parts in Pavlov’s work, which regulated the procedure from Stage 1 to Stage 4 (Kvan E, 2001:41). Pavlov confined the environment as a control in the laboratory to run his study by using a dog to support and substantiate this part of his work (conditioning). Undoubtedly, the rules regulated in the laboratory were essential to comply with. The relationship between stimulus and response was recognized as the cause-and-effect in conditioning. The nervous system, which is divided by the central nervous system (= high nervous system) that commands the functions of the brain and spinal cord and by the peripheral nervous system (= low nervous system) that influences the activities of the sense organs, glands and muscle, is the important system to dictate the relationship of the stimulus and response. In Pavlov’s theory, stimulus refers to the external stimulation or irritation to the creatures and is divided by the UnConditional Stimulus (= UCS) and Conditional Stimulus (= CS) respectively. Moreover, response refers to the reflex stimulated or irritated by the external stimulus and is divided by the UnConditional Response (= UCR) and Conditional Response (= CR). Unconditional is described as the natural one which was found in the Stage 1 of Pavlov’s work to show that the dog salivated spontaneously to the food (Kvan E, 2001:32). Food such as meat acted as an UCS and the secretion of saliva acted as an UCR in response to the meat, which were said to be UCS produces UCR (Kvan E, 2001:32). Conditional is deemed as the artificial (= man-made or unnatural) one with intention included. In the subsequent presentation of the Stage 2 showed that there was no salivation response of the dog by using CS such as ringing the bell or flashing a light, which were said to be CS producing no salivation (Kvan E, 2001:32). Generally speaking, the outcome was found independently and differently in the respective Stage 1 and 2 by adopting various kinds of stimulus (UCS or CS). Afterwards, in Stage 3, CS (e.g. ringing the bell) was paired with UCS (e.g. giving the food) and presented several times in sequence, say ten trials, and UCR (e.g. salivation) was arisen as a result. Subsequently, the eleventh trial was added after the Stage 3 and regarded as Pavlov’s Stage 4. The ringing bell provided alone without the provision of food in the eleventh trial. The phenomenon appeared that salivation generated after CS. Therefore, the bell was described as stimulus to the response of salivation. CS produced CR in Stage 4 with the precondition of running Stage 3. Pavlov concluded that if Stage 3 repeated few more times, the response in Stage 4 would be stronger (the amount of saliva drops). The number of paired presentations of CS and UCS could always be interpreted as the independent variable and CR was described as the dependent variable which relied on the number of paired presentations played (Kvan E, 2001:33). The outcome of a number of drops of saliva (CR) was generated in association with the CS and UCS (Kvan E, 2001:33). Obviously, dog learned to associate with CS and UCS as it assumed and expected the food (UCS) would always come after the sound (CS) as in Stage 3 and Stage 4. Consequently, UCS acted as the reinforcer of the new association.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Higher order conditioning in Pavlov’s work demonstrated the usage of simple conditioning could lead to more complex behaviour (= behaviour of a higher order) (Kvan E, 2001:35). The subsequent steps of Stage 5 and 6 in Pavlov’s theory were effective to show the higher order conditioning. CS acted as the major element in the higher order conditioning instead of UCS. CS was divided into CS(1) and CS(2) respectively shown in the Stage 5. CS(1) referred to ring the bell which was the familiar element and had been appeared in Stage 2, 3 and 4 respectively. CS(2) referred to the flash of light which was the new injected element. In Stage 5, CS(2) was paired with CS(1) and repeated several times then CR (e.g. salivation) occurred as a result. Subsequently, Stage 6 was conducted by using CS(2) (e.g. light) alone without the support of CS(1) (e.g. bell) but CR was also found at the end. It reflected the dog learned to respond to the light alone. Apparently, CS(1) in Stage 5 and 6 served as the reinforcer instead of UCS but its function could not be lasted too long when reaching to certain high level (the peak). Afterwards, the extinction will be coming up as predicted.

The rule of extinction can be found in Pavlov’s study when the repetitions of Stage 4 ran for several times. The secretion of saliva drops (CR) would reach to certain high level (the peak) and the number of saliva drops would be gradually plunged till there was no more saliva drops generated (Kvan E, 2001:32). However, the spontaneous recovery would be back after some time when the reinstatement or repetition of CS-UCS pairings and CR would be appeared again (Kvan E, 2001:36). Pavlov concluded that the higher order conditioning could be extinguished more easily than the first order conditional response (Kvan E, 2001:35).

Generalization was ruled by Pavlov that mentioned the ability of the dog to categorize the similar or dissimilar stimulus through learning. It also reflected that animal was responsive to a very wide range of stimuli (Kvan E, 2001:36). He emphasized that incentives or rewards such as food acted as the impetus or momentum which were effective to teach and train animal to discriminate between stimuli (CS and/or UCS) and respond to a very specific one (Kvan E, 2001:36). However, the artificial disturbance to the stimuli may probably make confusion to the animal and may cause the ‘nervous breakdown’ (Kvan E, 2001:36).

When applying Pavlovian theory to humans, the associative learning by conditional is important but the supplementary of language (the second signaling system) to enhance human’s ability is vital too (Kvan E, 2001:37). For example, it is recognized that the action of urination is a natural human behaviour, which represents the intimate relationship between UCS (e.g. the tension of the full bladder) and UCR (e.g. the passing of the urine) (Kvan E, 2001:37). When child gets used to learn urination in association with touching or seeing the potty, which reflects CS produces CR (Kvan E, 2001:37). When child is trained to urinate under the control of the word before placing on the potty, the higher order conditioning may occur because urination is recognized as the involuntary response. (Kvan E, 2001:37). Consequently, child learns the association between the control of word for urination and the potty, which was recognized by Pavlov as a difficult learning process that may involve the complex cognitive processes such as knowledge and understanding.

Edward Thorndike conducted experiments on the hungry cats to examine the learning process and the learning behaviour by the constrained of operant or instrumental conditioning (Kvan E, 2001:38-39). The emergence of the close relationship between situation, response and stimulus were noted. The experimental environment was in the laboratory. The equipment was a ‘puzzle box’ with a lever (= a movable bar) as the only way to escape and the provision of a plate of fish as a reward to be placed outside the box. The cat was put into the puzzle box for the first trial, it took a long time to escape from the lever and eat the fish. Subsequently, the cat was put back into the box for the second trial, it took a little shorter time to complete the mission. The repetitions of the trial were being operated for a few days. Finally, the cat took very little time to complete its mission. Apparently, the consumption of time to escape was gradually shortened. The result showed that the cat had made many mistakes and had taken many trials such as scratching, biting and striking the lever in order to find its way to escape and eat the fish. Thorndike called the learning process as the ‘trial and error’ learning (Kvan E, 2001:38). Thorndike also summed up his many experiments that the association between trial and error learning (= learning processes) and the law of effect (= learning behaviour) exists. ‘Law of effect’ means the preparation and intention to repeat some actions when the situation arises again because people have experienced the positive outcomes with satisfying results such as praised by others (Kvan E, 2001:38). Contrarily, creatures learn to repeat behaviours through punishment that suppresses or weakens behaviour (Kvan E, 2001:38).

B F Skinner followed Thorndike’s study and regarded giving rewards affect the learning behaviour of both animals and human beings especially in fulfilling the goals swiftly (Kvan E, 2001:39-40). Skinner divided his tasks into several stages and provided the rapid rewards in between the completion of each stage (Kvan E, 2001:40). For example, a special treatment provided to the autistic children with speech and communication problems by using the multi-component toys in a game such as jigsaw puzzle (Leung, 1994). Children learned to request the component of a toy from the people and a piece of component acted as a reward provided by the requested people when children completed the task every time during the training sessions (Leung, 1994). Noticeably, the skill of the spontaneous request was learned by the autistic children, and they remembered and experienced the positive and pleasant effect among the training sessions. They prepared to repeat and use the learned techniques and skills at any time if possible. The result demonstrated that rewards can influence behaviour positively which is compatible with the principle of the law of effect (Kvan E, 2001:40).

In the following paragraphs, the implications on such learning processes of research showing infant’s preference for specific stimuli, research on cognitive map, and Erikson’s view of personality development in the first two stages will be briefly discussed :

William James conducted the research showing infants’ preference for specific stimuli (Kvan E, 2001:60). In the experiments, a different kind of nipple from the one baby used to was given but no milk to be provided in the experimental environment (Kvan E, 2001:60). Two pictures, a normal human face and a distorted human face, were acted as stimuli and to be showed in front of the baby’s sight separately. Firstly, showing a normal human face to the sucking baby. He stopped sucking immediately and paid attention to see the normal human face. Afterwards, the picture was gradually gone out of his focus. He started sucking again to recall the picture because he responded to the normal human face and expected to see it again but the distorted human face appeared in his sight instead of the normal human face. He stopped sucking as a refusal. Consequently, the normal human face could be described as the reinforcer to stimulate baby’s behaviour such as sucking. The behaviour of sucking was a reaction to express baby’s favour of the normal human face. Baby also learned the association between sucking and the normal human face. The experiment showed that infants’ preference for the normal human face instead of the distorted human face that reflected baby’s innate predisposition and he was available to interact with others such as requesting for seeing the normal human face in front of his sight. The implications of the trial and error learning for showing baby’s preference for specific stimulus were deducted.

In E C Tolman’s research on cognitive maps, the rats were divided into two groups, the control group and the experimented group, and to be placed in the maze respectively (Kvan E, 2001:40-41). Food acted as an incentive and to be available at the end of the maze in the control group only, therefore, the reactions of the rats were compatible with Thorndike and Skinner’s results as above-mentioned that the learning process of the rats belonged to the type of trial and error learning [i.e. gradually learned by errors to shorten the escaped time then enjoying the trophy (e.g. the food) as soon as they can]. The law of effect brought out the pleasant effect to the rats (e.g. food as an incentive) that will tend to repeat the behaviour again. Contrarily, food would not be provided in the experimented group. The rats seemed to have no experience to learn the way to escape from the maze. However, an interesting phenomenon was noted as soon as food was introduced as a reward, the sudden drop in the number of errors were made by the experimented group of rats and the type of trial and error learning was noted (Kvan E, 2001:40). It was as if the rats had acquired a mental image and developed a map of the maze (i.e. the cognitive map in mind), but their performance did not show it at first till the introduction of food as an incentive to reinforce and encourage the rats to perform well in the experiment (Kvan E, 2001:40). The pleasant effect was learned by the rats that would repeat the same behaviour again. The experiments showed that learning is not the same thing as performance (Kvan E, 2001:40). It is concluded that making errors are inevitably occurred among the learning process, rewards play an important role to encourage the better performance in learning, and the law of effect is always in connection with the trial and error learning.

Erik Homburg Erikson formulated his theory of personality development (= life span) in eight stages (infancy, early childhood, play age, school age, adolescence, early adulthood, adulthood and old age) (Kvan E, 2001:76-78). He emphasized in his theory that there is an intimate relationship between the individual person and their environments. Person experiences a number of conflicts (i.e. internal psychological factors and external social factors) and crises (i.e. various environments) in different stages. Each stage of life is associated with a particular crisis and a particular outcome that every person is regulated to face with and to learn the techniques or skills when reaching to certain stage. The promotion from one stage to another stage is doomed that individual person should pass through until s/he dies. Therefore, individual experiences of life are accumulating in nature and individual abilities and confidence are enhanced, which are of help to enhance and consolidate individual’s sense of inner unity (i.e. personality) (Kvan E, 2001:76). For example, in the stage of infancy, infant starts interacting with people such as mother, caretaker and others. Although infant cannot speak, crying is a kind of instruments to express and request their hopes or desires such as loving care and attention. Baby may decide to trust people whom can cater his/her needs, if not, the reverse will be found. Therefore, infant learns the conflicts between trust and mistrust in this stage (Kvan E, 2001:76). When infant grows up and reach to the stage of early childhood (i.e. toddlers), s/he is recognized as smarter than the previous stage because s/he can gain control over his/her body independently in this stage. Undoubtedly, the regulations of acceptable behaviour are essential and appropriate to guide children to comply with. Support is indeed significant to the child to develop self-confidence in their behaviour, if not, the response of shame will be found. Therefore, child in the early childhood learns the conflicts between autonomy and shame or doubt (Kvan E, 2001:76). Erikson’s view of personality development is specific with the association of particular crisis and particular outcome of crisis happened differently in each stage of life (Kvan E, 2001:76). A number of inner and outer conflicts are doomed to be met throughout the life span (Kvan E, 2001:76).

Obviously, the simplest form of learning such as learning by association and learning by trial and error was thought to be associative learning by the psychologists (Kvan E, 2001:41). The experiments by Pavlov, Thorndike and Skinner have shown that animals and human beings can learn to react to new things through associates with older reactions (Kvan E, 2001:41). Therefore, the interaction between stimulus (i.e. rewards) and response is indispensable. It is suggested that such learning processes are only acted as a yardstick or milestone to be adopted in the aspects of other research studies such as the infant’s preference, cognitive map and personality development in each stage. Owing to many different kinds of variations are available, the laboratory experiments can only teach us what the subjects can do but not to reflect they are normally do (Kvan E, 2001:41) and the limitations can be found.

References

Kvan, E. (2001), Psychology, Units 15 and 16, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Leung, J P (1994) ‘Teaching spontaneous requests to children with autism using a time delay procedure with multi-component toys’, Journal of Behavioral Education, 4(1), 21-31.