In Scenario C, several facts and definitions are inconsistent with the true facts of the
terms used in this research. Specifically, the definition of classical conditioning is explained
falsely within the scenario, as well as facts about the term conditioning and primary reinforcers.
When defining the term classical conditioning, Dr. Breal describes it as a process of learning for
an individual with the help of rewards. However, instead of defining classical conditioning, the
psychologist defines the term operant conditioning. In Lilienfeld’s (2014) terms, operant
conditioning is “learning controlled by the consequences of the organism’s behaviour,” just as
Dr. Breal describes in Scenario C (pg. 220). In contrast, classical conditioning is a “form of learning in which animals come to respond to a previously neutral stimulus that had been paired with another stimulus that elicits an automatic response” (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 212). In short, classical conditioning does not require the aid of rewards, but involves the association of two different stimulus to trigger a response from a participant. Furthermore, Dr. …show more content…
Breal claims that the sweet treats given to participants when they
complete their exercise are called conditioned reinforcers. Yet, in Lilienfeld’s (2014) terms, this
definition of conditioned reinforcers is paired with the term primary reinforcer, an “item or
outcome that naturally increases the target behaviour,” which is identical to the psychologist’s
definition of conditioned reinforcers. (pg. 231).
When introducing the term conditioning, Dr. Breal states that this psychological
technique has only been discovered only recently. However, according to Lilienfeld (2014),
“several centuries ago, a school of thinkers called the British Associationists believed that we
acquire virtually all of our knowledge by conditioning” (pg. 212). More specifically,
conditioning was developed back in the early 1800s, rather than newly discovered.
In Scenario C, Dr. Breal asserts that he has made a new discovery that maintaining
regular exercise prevents illness and improves one’s overall health, and what’s more, being
rewarded a treat increases the duration of a one’s exercise. However, what Dr. Breal doesn’t
realize is that his claim is pseudoscientific since it does not follow the guiding principle of extraordinary claims. This principle states that a claim which tries to persuade one to believe their discoveries are a new breakthrough, when in reality is already familiar, must have a great deal of evidence to back up the claim (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 26). Dr. Breal’s findings have already been introduced into society for a long time, and the positive reinforcement he uses in his experiments are widely practiced by many individuals to encourage more exercise. What’s more, if Dr. Breal insists his discovery is only newly introduced, he must back up his claim with more evidence, such as evidence that there is no trace of this conditioning technique within society. The pseudoscientific claim of talk of ‘proof’ instead of ‘evidence’ suggests that a claim must have solid evidence to back it up since merely speaking of proof can lead to future claims to disprove it, or claim that it’s only partly true (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 15). When discussing his discovery about positive reinforcement when encouraging exercise, he simply states that the participants improved on the amount of exercise they performed but failed to present solid evidence, such as how many participants improved their exercise after being rewarded compared to the participants who didn’t,
terms used in this research. Specifically, the definition of classical conditioning is explained
falsely within the scenario, as well as facts about the term conditioning and primary reinforcers.
When defining the term classical conditioning, Dr. Breal describes it as a process of learning for
an individual with the help of rewards. However, instead of defining classical conditioning, the
psychologist defines the term operant conditioning. In Lilienfeld’s (2014) terms, operant
conditioning is “learning controlled by the consequences of the organism’s behaviour,” just as
Dr. Breal describes in Scenario C (pg. 220). In contrast, classical conditioning is a “form of learning in which animals come to respond to a previously neutral stimulus that had been paired with another stimulus that elicits an automatic response” (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 212). In short, classical conditioning does not require the aid of rewards, but involves the association of two different stimulus to trigger a response from a participant. Furthermore, Dr. …show more content…
Breal claims that the sweet treats given to participants when they
complete their exercise are called conditioned reinforcers. Yet, in Lilienfeld’s (2014) terms, this
definition of conditioned reinforcers is paired with the term primary reinforcer, an “item or
outcome that naturally increases the target behaviour,” which is identical to the psychologist’s
definition of conditioned reinforcers. (pg. 231).
When introducing the term conditioning, Dr. Breal states that this psychological
technique has only been discovered only recently. However, according to Lilienfeld (2014),
“several centuries ago, a school of thinkers called the British Associationists believed that we
acquire virtually all of our knowledge by conditioning” (pg. 212). More specifically,
conditioning was developed back in the early 1800s, rather than newly discovered.
In Scenario C, Dr. Breal asserts that he has made a new discovery that maintaining
regular exercise prevents illness and improves one’s overall health, and what’s more, being
rewarded a treat increases the duration of a one’s exercise. However, what Dr. Breal doesn’t
realize is that his claim is pseudoscientific since it does not follow the guiding principle of extraordinary claims. This principle states that a claim which tries to persuade one to believe their discoveries are a new breakthrough, when in reality is already familiar, must have a great deal of evidence to back up the claim (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 26). Dr. Breal’s findings have already been introduced into society for a long time, and the positive reinforcement he uses in his experiments are widely practiced by many individuals to encourage more exercise. What’s more, if Dr. Breal insists his discovery is only newly introduced, he must back up his claim with more evidence, such as evidence that there is no trace of this conditioning technique within society. The pseudoscientific claim of talk of ‘proof’ instead of ‘evidence’ suggests that a claim must have solid evidence to back it up since merely speaking of proof can lead to future claims to disprove it, or claim that it’s only partly true (Lilienfeld, 2014, pg. 15). When discussing his discovery about positive reinforcement when encouraging exercise, he simply states that the participants improved on the amount of exercise they performed but failed to present solid evidence, such as how many participants improved their exercise after being rewarded compared to the participants who didn’t,