Abstract This study compared aversive learning through solely social observational learning and derived avoidance learning using a recorded learning model video where they receiving a mild electric shock when a selected circle (CS+) is shown on- screen. The stimulus will predict the delivery of shock (CS+) whilst another contextually similar stimulus will present no negative consequences (CS-). Participants are instructed of an avoidance behaviour response (AV+).The inferred condition participants will be presented with RCP trials of non- arbitrary and arbitrary training and testing of Same and Opposite relations, as shown in Dymond et al., (2008) study, to test for transformation of functions and derived relational responding in later trials i.e. avoidance acquisition and extinction. The between- subject factor Group has two levels; observed and inferred. Two within-subject factors (1) Conditioned Stimulus, which has two levels: CS+ and CS-. (2) Learned Behaviour which has two levels: Avoidance (AV) and Non-Avoidance (NAV). Thus combination of the three factors created six experimental conditions. The DerivedCS+ will be 1
74
Embed
Examining the Effectiveness of Observed & Derived Pathways of Avoidance
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Abstract
This study compared aversive learning through solely social observational learning
and derived avoidance learning using a recorded learning model video where they receiving a
mild electric shock when a selected circle (CS+) is shown on-screen. The stimulus will
predict the delivery of shock (CS+) whilst another contextually similar stimulus will present
no negative consequences (CS-). Participants are instructed of an avoidance behaviour
response (AV+).The inferred condition participants will be presented with RCP trials of non-
arbitrary and arbitrary training and testing of Same and Opposite relations, as shown in
Dymond et al., (2008) study, to test for transformation of functions and derived relational
responding in later trials i.e. avoidance acquisition and extinction.
The between- subject factor Group has two levels; observed and inferred. Two within-
subject factors (1) Conditioned Stimulus, which has two levels: CS+ and CS-. (2) Learned
Behaviour which has two levels: Avoidance (AV) and Non-Avoidance (NAV). Thus
combination of the three factors created six experimental conditions. The DerivedCS+ will be
compared against the inferred response rates of CS+ and CS-. There were three dependent
variables: Avoidance behaviour responses of the shock in each phase, expectancy of shock
taken from Likert scales at the end of each phase, and AAQ-II results.
Comparing Observed EXT CS+ and CS- and Inferred EXT CS+ and CS-; no
significant differences were found between the learning groups and conditioned stimuli,
showing the two learning groups were just as effective as each other in producing a fear-
evoked avoidance response. In a 2*2*2 multi-way mixed ANOVA, results showed
significant main effects for conditioned stimuli, learned behaviour and learning group.
Comparing group against conditioned stimuli and learned behaviour (Figure 8 and 9) it is
clear that Observed rated higher in expectancy of shock to both, this could be attributed to the
1
observed group understanding the CS-US contingency and the value of CS- more than the
Inferred group.
In conclusion, the study found that observed group may have been taught through
direct means, by watching the learning model in the avoidance acquisition phase. Future
studies would amend this. The inferred condition was successful as derived relational
responding was produced.
2
A common debate in the topic of fear learning is how fear is firstly acquired, be it
through direct or indirect means. Fear acquisitions to environmental stimuli are fundamental
to the fight or flight mechanism, thus essential for survival of human and non-humans alike.
Understanding fear conditioning will develop and strengthen the understanding of phobias
and anxiety disorders to help build clinical models (Barot, Chung, Kim & Bernstein, 2009;
Field, 2006).
The first model of classical fear conditioning was coined Pavlovian conditioning and
suggested fear acquisition of an object can only surface through first-hand experience with an
Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. 2008; Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). Dymond et
al., (2008) study exposed participants to a relational completion procedure (RCP) of non-
arbitrary and arbitrary testing and training to establish Same and Opposite and derived
relations, which has been shown to be an effective procedure (Dymond & Whelan, 2010).
Participants were taught all possible Same and Opposite relations of A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-
7
C2 which was followed by an avoidance conditioning procedure where the participants learnt
to escape the discriminative stimulus (SD) of aversive images and sounds by pressing the
space bar and not omitting the same avoidance response to B2. They were also tested for
transformation of functions for C1 and C2 and found participants that learnt the
transformation of functions also displayed correct derived relational responding, this depicts
the ability of humans to complete this task.
The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of observed and derived
relational learning on pathways of avoidance by exposing each participant to a fear and
avoidance conditioning phase. The observed group will watch a video of a learning model
completing a Pavlovian conditioning and avoidance acquisition phase. The video depicts a
learning model receiving a mild electric shock when a selected circle (CS+) is shown on the
screen; where the learning models facial expressions and arm movements whilst receiving the
shock will serve as the US. The stimulus will predict the delivery of shock (CS+) whilst
another contextually similar stimulus will present no negative consequences (CS-).
Participants are instructed that they can avoid the CS+ if they choose the correct button
(AV+). The inferred condition participants will be presented with RCP trials of non-arbitrary
and arbitrary training and testing of Same and Opposite relations, as shown in Dymond et al.,
(2008) study, to test for transformation of functions and derived relational responding in later
trials i.e. avoidance acquisition and extinction. The participants will have the AV+ option to
avoid the upcoming CS+ shock.
The participant’s expectancy of the shock on stimuli will be recorded through Likert
Scales and its two factors of Avoidance and Non-Avoidance, at the end of certain phases (see
Method). Bass, van Ooijen, Goudriann & Kenemans (2008) showed that a failure to learn the
CS-US contingency would result in a higher contextual fear, and then participants would self-
report higher levels of anxiety, which was confirmed by skin conductance (SCR) measures,
8
any indiscrepancies will be followed up in the data. Behavioural avoidance will be recorded
through percentage scores for each participant from eliciting an avoidance response for CS+
and CS- for each appropriate phase. An Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II;
Bond et al., 2011) will be undertaken by each participants. AAQ-II is a reliable psychometric
7-item scale to measure participant’s willingness to experience unwanted private events in the
intention to reach individual goals and values i.e. ‘My painful memories prevent me from
having a fulfilling life’ which participants would rate from 1=never true to 7=always true.
López et al., (2010) found that people with high AAQ-II scores displayed a higher number of
thought intrusions and higher susceptibility to a lower concentration level to the task at hand;
this will be considered for any rogue data. The results of AAQ-II will be tested against
behavioural avoidance responses to test for any correlations.
An interaction between group (observed vs. inferred) and the three dependent
variables (DV) of avoidance behaviour responses of the shock, expectancy of shock and
AAQ-II will show any superior effectiveness of each group. The IV is conditioned stimuli
(CS+, CS-). This study based upon a two-way hypothesis as it is searching for the
effectiveness of each learning group.
9
Method
Participants
A total of sixty participants (21 males and 39 females), were randomly placed in
either the observed or inferred condition, with 30 in each condition. All recruited participants
had English as their first language and were aged between 19-40 years old (M= 21.9, SD =
3.91). They were recruited via opportunistic, personal contacts and Swansea University’s
Subject Pool. All participants were given an information sheet and a consent form (Appendix
1) before participating in the study, and they were given a debrief form at the end (Appendix
2). They participated in return for either course credit or £5.
Design
The between- subject factor is Group which has two levels: observed (30 participants)
and inferred (30 participants). There are two within-subject factors (1) Conditioned Stimulus
which has two levels: CS+ and CS-. (2) Learned Behaviour which has two levels: Avoidance
(AV) and Non-Avoidance (NAV). Thus combination of the three factors created six
experimental conditions. The DerivedCS+ will be compared against the inferred response
rates of CS+ and CS-. There are three dependent variables: Avoidance behaviour responses of
the shock in each phase, expectancy of shock (taken from Likert scales at the end of each
phase), and AAQ-II results. (Appendix 3).
Apparatus
The computer system was Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002 on a
17’’ LCD colour monitor, 1024 by 768 resolution. The computer program was written in
Visual Basic® 6.0 which controlled all stimulus presentations and recorded all responses for
both conditions. The electrode was 5cm in diameter, the program used for the production of
electric shocks was PowerLab 2/25 Chart 5 for Windows.
10
Stimuli
Observed Condition
A movie was produced for the observation stage of the experiment. The movie (3 min,
8s) depicted a male participant (the learning model) participating in a differential fear
conditioning experiment (Figure 1). Two coloured circles (red and blue) served as CS and
were presented in pseudo-random order for 3s on a computer screen in front of the learning
model. The appearance of the circles was incorporated with an inter-stimulus interval (ITI)
which varied between 4 and 7 s. Each coloured circle was presented six times through Phase
2 and 3. Six presentations of the colour circle serving as the CS+ were coupled with an
uncomfortable shock to the left wrist of the learning model, where the model then displayed
signs of distress i.e. tensing of the left arm, lowering of the eyebrows (US); whereas CS- was
never paired with a shock. The level of shock was selected by the learning model to be
uncomfortable but not painful prior to the recording of the video. In Phase 3, the participants
viewed the learning model being able to cancel the upcoming shocks by pressing the button
‘M’ on the keyboard.
Fig. 1. A snapshot from the movie presented to participants during the Pavlovian avoidance stage, showing the model facing a computer screen that presented the CS+ and CS-.
Inferred Condition
For the RCP trials, two stimuli in ‘wingdings’ font were used as contextual cues for
Same (i.e.) and Opposite (i.e.). Six nonsense syllables were employed as sample and
comparisons during relational training and testing, i.e. ZID, PAF, JOM, BEH, DAX, QAF.
These are clarified using alphanumerics i.e. A1, B1, B2, C1, C2, N2. An N2 stimulus, if
11
selected, was never reinforced.
In Phases 4 – 7, B1, B2, C1 and C2 were used to test derived relations. Six
presentations of the nonsense word serving as the CS+ were coupled with an uncomfortable
shock to the non-dominant arm of the participant, which they set before the trials to be
uncomfortable but not painful, whereas CS- and DerivedCS+ was never paired with a shock.
Procedure
Observed Condition
General Procedure:
On arrival to the lab, participants were given an information sheet depicting what was
expected of them during the study and the use of shocks, any ailment issues which would
mean termination of their participation, and if they wanted to opt out at any time they could
do so with no penalties. If they agreed, then a consent form was signed, the AAQ-II
questionnaire (M=17.13, SD=8.5) was counterbalanced so was either presented at this point
or at the end of the experiment. Participants were then sat in front of a computer and an
electrode was attached to the non-dominant arm and held in place by an elasticized bandage.
Shock was set by the participants to a level that was uncomfortable but not painful (M= 0.51,
SD= 0.2) starting a 0.250mA and working up in increments of 0.5. The participants were
exposed to four conditions (1) Habituation (2) Pavlovian Avoidance (3) Avoidance
Acquisition; and (4) Extinction. Phases (2) and (3) were observed by the participant watching
the pre-recorded video of the learning model.
Phase 1: Habituation
Three presentations of CS+ and CS- were presented where the participant simply
watched the screen. See Appendix 4 for computer instructions throughout both observed and
C2-B2), and OPPOSITE/C2 (B1-B2-N2). The author would like to note that all possible
probe trials i.e. B-C and C-B were tested during the arbitrary relational testing as in Dymond
et al., (2008) paper. Testing was carried out for sixteen trials, with each task repeated twice
per block. It was compulsory that participants produced a minimum score of 14/16 (87.5%)
correct responses to pass. Failing to meet this measure they were immediately exposed to
Phase 1 again and set to go through each trial until meeting the goal.
16
Fig. 2. The predicted relational network of trained and tested stimuli. The alphanumerics represent the nonsense syllables used in the Phase 3 and the letters S and O indicate Same and Opposite. Solid lines signify trained relations whilst dashed lines signify derived relations.
General Procedure #2
After meeting the criterion for the RCP trials, the electrode was attached to the non-
dominant arm of the participant and held in place by an elasticized bandage. Shock was set
by the participants to a level that was uncomfortable but not painful (M= 0.51, SD= 0.19)
starting a 0.250mA and working up in increments of 0.05
Phase 5: Habituation
Three presentations of CS+ and CS- were presented on to the screen, exposing
participants to the stimuli.
Phase 6: PA
The participants sat comfortably whilst observing the screen, when the CS+ appeared
a mild shock, which level was selected by the participant before, was administered to their
arm through the electrode. They were exposed to each CS+ and CS- six times. In order to
counterbalance which word served as the CSD+ and CS-, the program was edited to have
either B1 or B2 as the CS+. After the phase was finished they were asked to complete a
17
Likert Scale, the questions were as follows; (1) To what extent do you expect a shock when
PAF is presented? (2) To what extent do you expect a shock when JOM is presented?
Phase 7: AA
The aim of this trial was to observe if participants would elicit a simple avoidance
response during the presence of CS+ and not CS-. Six trials of the CS+ and CS- (B1 and/or
B2) were presented to the participant with the option to avoid the shock by pressing the ‘M’
key on the keyboard. Participants had to cancel 5 consecutive shocks to pass onto the next
phase. If they met the criterion they were passed onto Likert Scale questions; (1) To what
extent do you expect a shock when PAF is presented and you do press a key? (2) To what
extent do you expect a shock when PAF is presented and you do NOT press a key? (3) To
what extent do you expect a shock when JOM is presented and you do press a key? (4) To
what extent do you expect a shock when JOM is presented and you do NOT press a key?
Then participants are finally exposed to the final phase.
Phase 8: EXT
This was the testing phase; 6 presentations of CS+ and CS- were presented alongside
introducing the DerivedCS+ i.e. if CS+ was B1, using the predicted relational network the
DerivedCS+ would be C1, same scenario if CS+ was B2 so the DerivedCS+ would be C2., so
the aim of this phase is to test if participants have learnt the derived relations to elicit an
avoidance response. Essentially, no shocks were administered to the participants during this
phase to ensure learning was acquired through learned responses beforehand and also testing
for derived relations. After this phase, they were presented with the last Likert Scale, which is
similar to Phase 7 Likert Scale but with an important last two questions about the
DerivedCS+; (1) To what extent do you expect a shock when PAF is presented and you do
press a key? (2) To what extent do you expect a shock when PAF is presented and you do
18
NOT press a key? (3) To what extent do you expect a shock when JOM is presented and you
do press a key? (4) To what extent do you expect a shock when JOM is presented and you do
NOT press a key? (5) To what extent do you expect a shock when BEH is presented and you
do press a key? (6) To what extent do you expect a shock when BEH is presented and you do
NOT press a key? At the end of the experiment, subjects were given a debrief form.
19
Results
Table 2 demonstrates the performance of participants throughout Inferred Phases 1 –
4 (RCP). 13/30 participants passed both non-arbitrary and arbitrary relational testing on their
first exposure. P13 passed non-arbitrary testing after two exposures and passed arbitrary
testing on their first exposure. 8/30 participants passed both non-arbitrary and arbitrary
relational testing on their second exposure. 5/30 participants passed both non-arbitrary and
arbitrary relational testing on their third exposure. The final 8/30 participants passed both
non-arbitrary and arbitrary relational testing on their maximum fourth exposure. Therefore,
all 30 participants were eligible to progress on the avoidance-conditioning phase.
Table 2Trials to Criterion and Percentage of Correct Responses in Phase 1 – 4
Participant Phase 1: Non-arbitrary Relational Training (trials to criterion)
Phase 2: Non-arbitrary Relational Testing (%)
Phase 3: Arbitrary Relational Training (trials to criterion)
cognitive diffusion. This is a where patients illiterate negative self-statements for a few
minutes i.e. ‘I have no friends’ until generalized of the extinction is met, i.e. vocally created
stimuli in relational to real-life environmental events, not within the therapy setting.
The observed condition would have to be retested against the inferred condition to test
for any real significant difference, as the limitations of this study hinders the potential
findings reflected in all past literature. The emergence of transformation of functions and
derived relational responding shows the effectiveness of Same and Opposite relational frames
in a RCP, and illustrates a starting point for more procedures to aid in indirect anxiety and
phobias to be built. To improve the effect of indirect learning over direct, a further study
would be to test the observed group and inferred group against an instructed (Pavlovian fear
condition) group. This will affirm the effectiveness of indirect learning of fearful stimuli.
An issue of external validity must also be raised, as it does not necessarily stand that
as participants showed promise in avoidance functions across stimuli in a lab setting with
novel stimuli, that in a real life setting the results would be the same. To conclude, the results
demonstrated participants transferred a fear response to a novel stimuli through observation
36
and that derived relational training can effectively train participants to transfer learned fear
avoidance response across novel stimuli in a lab environment.
37
References
Augustson, E. M., & Dougmer, M. J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 181-91.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Smeets, P. M., Cullinan, V., & Leader, G. (2004). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivilance: Conceptual and procedural issues. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 181-214.
Barot, S. K., Chung, A., Kim, J. J., & Bernstein, I. L. (2009). Functional Imaging of Stimulus Convergence in Amygdalar Neurons during Pavlovian Fear Conditioning. PLoS ONE, 4(7):e6156.
Barot, S. K., Kyono, Y., Clark, E. W., & Bernstein, I. L. (2008). Visualizing Stimulus Convergence in Amygdala Neurons during Associative Learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(52), 20959-63.
Bass, J. M., van Ooijen, L., Goudriaan, A., & Kenemans, J. L. (2008). Failure to condition to a cue is associated with sustained contextual fear. Acta Psychologica, 127(3), 581-92.
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: A| revised measure of psychological flexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676-88.
Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 16, 372-89.
Davies, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001). The Amygdala: Vigilance and Emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13-34.
Delgado, M. R., Jou, R. L., Ledoux, J. E., & Phelps, E. A. (2009). Avoiding negative outcomes: Tracking the mechanisms of avoidance learning in humans during fear conditioning. Frontiers in Behavioural Neuroscience, 3(33).
Delgado, M. R., Li, J., Schiller, D., & Phelps, E. A. (2008). The role of the striatum in aversive learning and aversive prediction errors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Studies, 363(1511), 3787-800.
Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. (2000). Understanding complex behaviour: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behaviour Analyst, 23, 239-54.
Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2009). A contemporary behaviour analysis of anxiety and avoidance. The Behaviour Analyst, 32, 7-27.
38
Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response function in accordance with Same and Opposite relational frames. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 88(2), 249-62.
Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2008). Derived avoidance learning: Transformation of avoidance responses function in accordance with Same and Opposite relational frames. The Psychological Record, 58, 269-86.
Dymond, S., & Whelan, R. (2010). Derived relational responding: A comparison of Match-to-Sample and the Relational Completion Procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 94(1), 37-55.
Egliston, K. A., & Rapee, R. M. (2007). Inhibition of fear acquisition in toddlers following positive modelling by their mothers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(8), 1871-82.
Forsyth, J. P., Eifert, G. H., & Barrios, V. (2006). Fear conditioning research as a clinical analog: What makes fear learning disorderd? In M. G. Craske, D. Hermans & D. Vansteenwegen. (Eds.). Fear and learning: Basic science to clinical application (pp. 133-53). Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Field, A. P. (2006). Is conditioning a useful framework for understanding the development and treatment of phobias? Clinical Psychology Review, 26(7), 857-75.
Gerull, F. C., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). Mother knows best: Effects of maternal modelling on the acquisition of fear and avoidance in children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 279-87.
Guzmán, Y. F., Tronson, N. C., Guedea, A., Huh, K. H., Gao, C., & Radulovic, J. (2009). Social modelling of conditioned fear in mice by non-fearful conspecifics. Behavioural Brain Research, 201(1), 173-78.
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The Evolution of Communication. Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., & Linehan, M. M. (2004). Mindfulness and Acceptance: Expanding the Cognitive-Behavioural Tradition. New York, USA: The Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy (22), 1-25.
Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behaviour. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 74, 207-227.
39
Helsen, K., Goubert, L., Peters, M. L., & Vlaeven, J. W. (2011). Observational learning and pain related fear: An experimental study with coloured cold pressor tasks. The Journal of Pain, 12(12), 1230-39.
Kavaliers, M., Choleris, E., Colwell, D. D. (2001). Learning from others to cope with biting flies: social learning of fear-induced conditioned analgesia and active avoidance. Behavioural Neuroscience, 115, 661-74.
Kim, J. J., & Jung, M. W. (2006). Neural circuits and mechanisms involved in Pavlovian fear conditioning: A critical review. Neuroscience and Bio-behavioural Reviews, 30(2), 188-202.
Knapska, E., Mikosz, M., Werka, T., & Maren, S. (2009). Social modulation of learning in rats. Learning and Memory, 17(1), 35-42.
LaBar, K. S., LeDoux, J. E., Spencer, D. D., & Phelps, E. A. (1995). Impaired fear conditioning following unilateral temporal lobectomy in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 6846-55.
LeDoux, J. E., & Gorman, J. M. (2001). A call to action: Overcoming anxiety through active coping. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1953-55.
López, J. C., Ruiz, F. J., Feder, J., Rubio, A. B., Suárez-Aguirre, J. J., Rodríguez, J. A., & Luciano, C. (2010). The role of experiential avoidance in the performance on a high
cognitive demand task. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10(3), 475-488.
Lovibond, P. F., Chen, S. X., Mitchell, C. J., Weidemann, G. (2011). Competition between an avoidance response and a safety signal: Evidence for a single learning system. Biological Psychology, In press.
Mineka, S., & Cook, M. (1993). Mechanisms involved in the observational conditioning of fear. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 122, 23-38.
Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders: It’s not what you thought it was. American Psychologist, 61, 10-26.
Olsson, A., Nearing, K. I., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Learning fears by observing others: the neural systems of social fear transmission. SCAN, 2, 3-11.
Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Social learning of fear. Nature Neuroscience, 10(9), 1095-102.
Phillips, R. G., & LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Differential contribution of amygdala and hippocampus to cued and contextual fear conditioning. Behavioural Neuroscience, 106(2), 274-85.
40
Schultz, W. (2006). Behavioural theories and the neurophysiology of reward. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 87-115.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1968). Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electric shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66(2), 402-11.
Siddle, D. A., & Bond, N. W. (1988). Avoidance learning, Pavlovian conditioning, and the development of phobias. Biological Psychology, 27(2), 167-83.
Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14.
Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 86, 317-35.
41
Appendix 1 – Information Sheet (Observed)
Information Sheet
In this study, you will be attached to a bar electrode which will deliver electric shocks to your forearm, you will set the intensity of the shocks at the beginning of the experiment to be ‘uncomfortable but not painful’.
A set of instructions will appear on the screen before each phase begins and time will be allowed for any questions to be asked to the researcher. There are 4 phases in total one of which requires you to watch a video. At the end of the study you will be given a debrief form explaining the nature of the study and the opportunity to find out more about this research and to ask any unanswered questions you may have.
This study is conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society and Departmental ethic guidelines, your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any point, without penalty. You can also choose to have any data that you provided in this study to be disregarded at any time, during or after the study. Otherwise, your results will be kept anonymous and confidential to only the researchers or supervisors working on this study. All data will be password protected and not accessed for any other reasons than this study. You must not participate in this study if you have a pacemaker fitted; suffer with heart palpitations or currently talking psychotropic medication.
If you agree to take part in this study we would appreciate it if you agree to not discuss your participation or any details of this study with others.
Please now complete the consent forms and return them to the researcher.
42
Appendix 1 – Information Sheet (Inferred)
Information Sheet
In this study, you will be attached to a bar electrode which will deliver electric shocks to your forearm, you will set the intensity of the shocks at the beginning of the experiment to be ‘uncomfortable but not painful’.
A set of instructions will be presented on the screen before each phase begins and time will be allowed for any questions to be asked to the researcher. There are 8 phases in total, phase 6 onwards may entail up to 12 electric shocks. At the end of the study you will be given a debrief form explaining the nature of the study and the opportunity to find out more about this research and to ask any unanswered questions you may have.
This study is conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society and Departmental ethic guidelines, your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any point, without penalty. You can also choose to have any data that you provided in this study to be disregarded at any time, during or after the study. Otherwise, your results will be kept anonymous and confidential to only the researchers or supervisors working on this study. All data will be password protected and not accessed for any other reasons than this study. You must not participate in this study if you have a pacemaker fitted; suffer with heart palpitations or currently talking psychotropic medication.
If you agree to take part in this study, we would appreciate it if you agree to not discuss your participation or any details of this study with any others.
Please now complete the consent forms and return them to the researcher.
43
Appendix 1 – Consent Form (Observed & Inferred)
Project title: The effectiveness of observed and inferred pathways of avoidance on learning.
I consent to take part in this study and am satisfied with the instructions I have been given so far. I have also been reassured that any further information I request regarding this study will be supplied to me at the end of this experiment.
I have been informed that the data I provide will remain confidential and be password protected. I am free to ask any questions at any time before, during and after the study and have been provided with a copy of this form and a participant information sheet. I also understand I will be provided with a debrief form at the end of the study.
I understand that during this study I will be required to place a bar electrode on my forearm which will be held in place by a small bandage. I will then be subject to a series of electric shocks, of which I am able to set the intensity at the beginning of the experiment. I understand the shock level will be “uncomfortable but not painful” and am free to stop the study at any time.
I am at least 18 years of age and have not been coerced in any way to participate in this study and can withdraw from the study at any point.
I understand I cannot participate in this study if I have any medical history of cardiac problems, or have been fitted with a pacemaker.
Data protection: I agree to the university processing personal data that I have supplied. I agree to the processing of such data for any purposes connected with the research project as outlined to me.
Thank you for taking part in this study. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of observed learning and derived learning pathways of avoidance.
Throughout this study we were testing whether you had learnt to avoid the correct stimulu just from observing someone completing a similar task, so at no point during the experiment, other than the calibration of the shock strength, were you in danger of receiving an electric shock based on the procedures of Olsson et al (2007).
We would like to remind participants that if you feel uncomfortable with this study, then you are free to withdraw your data from this study at any time, although we would also like to remind you that all results are confidential and at no time will any data be identifiable to you or your name.
If this study has resulted in any discomfort to yourself, we would like to inform you of the Student Counselling Service provided on campus at Horton House or alternatively, you can contact them on +44 (0) 1792 295592 or email [email protected]
We would like if you would refrain from talking about this experiment to others whilst it is still running as any details you reveal could affect future results.
If you would like to be informed of the results of this study once it is completed, feel free to contact the experimenters on;
Supervisior; Dr Simon Dymond ([email protected]) Telephone: 01792 295602
If you would like more information about this area of research, please follow these references;
Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 88, 249-262.
Olsson, A., Nearing, K. I., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Learning fears by observing others: the neural systems of social fear transmission. SCAN, 2, 3-11.
Thank you for taking part in this study. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of observed learning and derived learning pathways of avoidance.
Throughout this study we were testing whether you had learnt the correct same and opposite pairings for this experiment phases, so some phases had the threat of electric shocks whilst others did not and was just to test you.
We would like to remind participants that if you feel uncomfortable with this study, then you are free to withdraw your data from this study at any time, although we would also like to remind you that all results are confidential and at no time will any data be identifiable to you or your name.
If this study has resulted in any discomfort to yourself, we would like to inform you of the Student Counselling Service provided on campus at Horton House or alternatively, you can contact them on +44 (0) 1792 295592 or email [email protected]
We would like if you would refrain from talking about this experiment to others whilst it is still running as any details you reveal could affect future results.
If you would like to be informed of the results of this study once it is completed, feel free to contact the experimenters on;
Supervisior; Dr Simon Dymond ([email protected]) Telephone: 01792 295602
If you would like more information about this area of research, please follow these references;
Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 88, 249-262.
Dymond, S., & Whelan, R. (2010). Derived relational responding: A comparison of matching to sample and the relational completion procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 37-55.
Appendix 4 – Computer instructions for Observed and Inferred
Observed
Phase 1: Habituation.
“Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. In this phase, on every trial you will be presented with one of two coloured circles. Each circle will appear for 3 seconds. Your job is to simply watch the screen. If you
have any questions please ask the experimenter now.”
Phase 2: Pavlovian Avoidance and Phase 3: Avoidance Acquisition
“You will now watch a short film of a person doing an experiment similar to the one you yourself are going to be doing afterwards. The person in the film is going to receive shocks paired with one of two coloured circles
presented to him. Pay close attention to which coloured circle is followed by shocks and which is not. The person in the film is then going to learn to press one of two marked keys on the keyboard to cancel the
upcoming shock. Again, it is important you pay close attention to the film, because, in the experiment you are going to do afterwards, you are going to have to learn which one of the marked keys cancels the upcoming
shock. When you are ready to view the film, press ‘Continue’.”
Phase 4: Extinction
“Now you are going to take part in an experiment similar to the one you have just watched. You will be presented with the same number of coloured circles as the person in the film, but in a different order.
Importantly, you will receive shocks paired with the same colour as the person in the film. However, you will be able to cancel upcoming shocks by pressing one of the marked keys on the keyboard. When you are ready to
proceed, press ‘Continue’.”
Derived
RCP General Procedure;
“Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. You will be presented with a series of images or nonsense words on the top half of the screen from left to right. Then you will be presented with 3 images or nonsense
words on the bottom of the screen.Your task is to observe the images or words that appear from left to right and drag one of these images or words from the bottom to the blank, yellow square. Click and hold the mouse over the image or word to drag it to the blank square. To confirm your choice, then click ‘Finish Trial’. If you wish to make another choice, then click
‘Start Again’.Sometimes you will receive feedback on your choices, but at other times you will not. Your aim is to get as many
tasks correct as possible. It is always possible to get a task correct, even if you are not given feedback.”
Phase 5: Habituation
“Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. In this phase, on every trial you will be presented with one of two words. Each word will appear for 3 seconds. Your job is to simply watch the screen. If you have any
questions please ask the experimenter now.”
48
Phase 6: Pavlovian Avoidance
“In this phase, on every trial you will be presented with one of two words. Each word will appear for 3 seconds followed by either a 250ms shock or no shock. The shock will be set at the level you have just selected. At the
end of this phase, you will be asked to make some ratings as to how much you expect shock to follow each of the words. Please follow the onscreen instructions, and if you have any questions please ask the experimenter
now.”
Phase 7: Avoidance Acquisition
“In this phase, you will again be presented, on every trial, with one of two words. When a word appears on the screen, the marked keys on the keyboard will be available to be pressed. Pressing the correct key when one of the words appears will cancel a pending shock. The same key will cancel the shock for the remainder of the
study. You can learn which key is correct by paying close attention to the screen. At the end of this phase you will be asked to make some ratings as to how much you expect a shock to follow each of the words. Please
follow the onscreen instructions, and if you have any questions, please contact the experimenter now”
Phase 8: Extinction
“This phase is important. Remember that all of the phases you have completed are interrelated and that the words seen here are the same seen earlier.”