Author Archives: Amber Noel Bailie

I unintentionally classically conditioned my husband

Over the years that my husband and I have been together, we have come to know each other better than we know ourselves. This includes knowing what the other person will say before they even say it. Without realizing it, every time I would say, “guess what” to my husband, I would follow it up with “I love you.” Eventually, he began to expect that. This particular conversation between my husband and I is a perfect example of classical conditioning because he now associates my words, “guess what” with “I love you.”

Classical conditioning, according to our textbook definition, “occurs when the following two stimuli are paired: (1) a neutral stimulus that initially does not result in a response and (2) a conditioning stimulus that does result in a response” (Goldstein, 165). Therefore, the neutral stimulus then prompts the conditioned response. In my example of the conversation between my husband and I, the neutral stimulus would be “guess what” (which would usually result in a simple “what?”). The conditioning stimulus here is “I love you,” which obviously results in an “I love you too” response. After countless conversations like this, he apparently realized that I was going to say, “I love you,” and decided to skip the unnecessary part of the conversation by replying with “I love you too” right away. It never really occurred to me that I had classically conditioned him, until one day I said, “guess what,” and actually had something exciting and different to say. That conversation went something like, “hey, guess what,” to which he responded, “I love you too.” I was speechless, before finally saying “well yeah, that, but..” and I told him what I was excited about. My husband associated “guess what” with “I love you,” because I repeatedly paired the two stimuli in our conversations. Normally, however, these two stimuli are completely unrelated. It was only due to classical conditioning that they became related for my husband.

In the past, I had heard of individuals classically conditioning people they know as part of a project or experiment for school. Until recently, I had no idea that classical conditioning was a part of my life. It is quite fascinating that this was occurring right in front of me, and I was completely unaware of it!

Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Knowledge can Affect Categorization

My husband is in the Army, and obviously is very knowledgeable about the tanks, helicopters, and other vehicles that they use. I, on the other hand, hardly ever know what he is talking about when he mentions their specific names. To me, they are just tanks or just helicopters. Our differences in what we call these vehicles are a good example of how knowledge can affect categorization, because his job requires him to use their specific names, but I never needed to learn the specific names of each of the vehicles.

Categorization is our way of placing things into groups or categories. Elinor Rosch explained that there are different levels of categories, and that our knowledge will help to determine which category to use. She separated the levels into superordinate, basic, and subordinate. Our textbook calls them global, basic, and specific. Although the basic level of categorization is typical for most people in most situations, those with expert knowledge about a subject will categorize it at the subordinate, or specific, level (Goldstein, 248). This is demonstrated in our textbook, with an experiment by Tanaka and Taylor (1991), in which bird experts called the birds by their species, but nonexperts simply called them birds (Goldstein, 249). Experts have more familiarity and experience with a subject, therefore making the specific categorization more accessible than for those without expertise.

My husband is very familiar with military vehicles. Sometimes, when we drive on base, he will point out a tank and ask me, “What’s that?” Of course, he is trying to quiz me, and I never know the answer. I would just say tank, but obviously, that is not what he wants me to say. Although I do try to learn the names of some of the tanks and helicopters, my lack of familiarity with them makes it very difficult. Unlike him, I do not work with these vehicles daily. My limited experience causes me respond by saying “a tank” or “a helicopter.” He knows these vehicles by different, more specific names, such as a Bradley, an Abrams, and may others. Our difference in knowledge of these vehicles causes us to refer to them by different names.

In other words, my husband has more expertise about these vehicles, allowing him to categorize them at the subordinate, or specific, level. In fact, it is likely required that he refer to them by their specific names at work, because he needs to distinguish between the different vehicles. Basic categorization would be too broad for their purposes. However, I categorize them at a basic level, due to my limited knowledge. As you can see, it is obvious that our experiences, or lack of experiences, have shaped how we categorize these subjects.

Overall, my example of how my husband and I categorize these vehicles differently supports the idea that knowledge and experiences affect how we categorize things. More expertise on a subject can cause more specific categorization than the typical, basic categorization that most people use.

Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Match Learning and Testing Conditions

There are many ways that you can study more effectively. One of the simplest ways is to match your learning and testing conditions. In the context of location, this could mean studying in the same place, or it could also mean studying in a similar place. Our textbook states that studying in the classroom where you take the exam is probably not very practical, and offers other possible solutions. Although it would be beneficial to study in a number of locations to avoid associating the material with one particular place, studying in the place you take the exam is great if you really just want to do well on the exam. Since I began my journey at Penn State World Campus, I have found that online classes with non-proctored exams make it very easy for me to match my learning and testing conditions because I have the luxury of being able to study and take the exam in the exact same place every time.

The idea that it is beneficial to match study and test locations is not simply speculation. It makes sense that you would retrieve the information more easily if it had previously been encoded in the same place. This supports the idea of encoding specificity. According to our textbook, “we encode information along with its context.” This includes many circumstances like how we feel at the time, the amount of background noise we hear, and the atmosphere around us. Focusing on location, there have been a number of studies to support encoding specificity. One of these studies includes the “diving experiment,” conducted by Godden and Baddeley. This experiment from our textbook concludes that it is easier to retrieve information that was encoded in the same location. This reinforces the idea of encoding specificity, and it makes it clear that matching study and test locations can help you study more effectively.

Since I started taking online classes through Penn State World Campus this fall, I have been consistently matching my study and test conditions. Unlike courses that are held inside a classroom, I am able to take my exams wherever I feel most comfortable. I study in my living room, sitting in the same exact seat, with my laptop and books the same exact way every day. Then, when it comes time for a quiz or exam, I take it in that very same seat in my living room. I originally started doing this unintentionally, simply because I felt comfortable in “my spot.” Until I recently read Chapter 7 of our textbook, it had not occurred to me that I might be benefitting from this behavior.

Although I cannot be positive that studying and testing in the same exact place has directly had an impact on my personal academic performance, I believe that it is very likely. It may not be a significant impact, but I must be doing something right, because I generally perform well on my exams. For this reason, I definitely do not plan to switch up my routine of learning the material and taking the exam under the same conditions!

Overall, studying and taking my exams in the same place, or matching my learning and testing conditions, has been a great experience for me since I began online classes this fall. I believe this behavior has been effective in helping me to retrieve the information that was encoded while studying. I do plan to continue matching my study and test locations whenever possible in the future!

Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Neurons and Autism

In Chapter two of our textbook, E. Bruce Goldstein’s “Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience,” we discussed the role of neurons and how they send us signals about our surroundings. The focus here, for our purposes, is the 180 billion neurons in the brain (Goldstein 42). So what exactly do these neurons do for us and how do they do it? Could an abnormal number of neurons be the cause of a common mental disorder? How might scientists and doctors be able to use this information to treat patients with such a disorder?

Before we can look deeper into neuron abnormalities, we first need to understand what a neuron is and what it does. The brain consists of billions of neurons that form a nerve net, or a pathway. Neurons send signals throughout this net to different parts of the brain. Essentially, these neurons are individual cells that send and receive information to each other using neural circuits, or specific connections to other neurons (Goldstein 26). These cells and their connections are very important for us to live a normal life.

If there is an abnormality involving how these neurons work, it may lead to neurodevelopmental disorders. Studies have shown that Autism may be caused by hyper-connected neurons (www.sciencedaily.com). This means that there are too many places for the neurons to connect and communicate. Perhaps science is getting closer to understanding why Autism occurs, or at least how brain function differs in people with Autism.

If scientists and doctors are able to understand neuron differences and more about Autism, they have a greater chance of finding solutions to treat Autism. Doctors diagnose Autism through observation, meaning they cannot diagnose immediately. Imagine how helpful it would be for doctors to be able to diagnose sooner. Today, there are many methods for treating Autism. What if a simple procedure could change the lives of many children diagnosed with Autism?

It appears that this knowledge could lead scientists in the right direction. If they could find a way to normalize the neurons in children with Autism, maybe it could eventually allow them to live completely normal lives.

 

Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Social symptoms in autistic children may be caused by hyper-connected neurons. (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2014, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107123039.htm