Define “experimental neurosis”, and describe Shenger-Krestovnikova’s procedure for producing it. In your personal reflection, discuss your thoughts on Pavlov’s theory of personality.
This assignment entails a 1.5 – 2 page, double-spaced report. Please include a title page and a separate references page with the course reference citation. APA 7th Edition format is required. Please be sure that you have the title page correctly formatted as well as your first-level headings. Follow the rubric closely.
References page: I am sharing the correct APA 7th Ed format for our text below. You may use this citation in your report –be sure that the format you see here is what transfers to your paper.
Powell, R. A., Honey, P, L., & Symbaluk, D. G. (2017). Introduction to learning and behavior (5th Ed.). Cengage.
Turnitin: Your similarity percentage must not exceed 20%. Make sure to complete your edits if you need to lower the similarity percentage and re-submit your paper before the due date. The 20% percentage accounts for the title page and the references page.
The chapter reading:
Experimental Neurosis
Overgeneralization is not the only way that processes of discrimination versus generalization influence the development of a psychological disorder. For example, Pavlov (1927, 1928) reported an interesting discovery made by a colleague, Shenger-Krestovnikova, that arose during a discrimination training procedure. In this experiment, an image of a circle signaled the presentation of food and an ellipse signaled no food (see Figure 4.3). In keeping with normal processes of discrimination, the dog duly learned to salivate when it saw the circle (a CS+) and not salivate when it saw the ellipse (a CS−). Following this, the ellipse was gradually made more circular, making it more difficult for the dog to determine when food was about to appear. When the ellipse was almost completely circular, the dog was able to make only a weak discrimination, salivating slightly more in the presence of the circle than in the presence of the ellipse. Interestingly, continued training with these stimuli did not result in any improvement. In fact, after several weeks, the discrimination was lost. More interestingly, however, the hitherto well-behaved dog became extremely agitated during each session—squealing, wriggling about, and biting at the equipment. It acted as though it was suffering a nervous breakdown.
Figure 4.3
Discrimination training procedure used by Shenger-Krestovnikova in which the picture of a circle functioned as the CS+ and the picture of the ellipse functioned as the CS−.
Pavlov called this phenomenon experimental neurosis, an experimentally produced disorder in which animals exposed to unpredictable events develop neurotic-like symptoms. Pavlov hypothesized that human neuroses might develop in a similar manner. Situations of extreme uncertainty can be stressful, and prolonged exposure to such uncertainty might result in the development of neurotic symptoms. Thus, in the opening vignette to this chapter, it is not surprising that Jana’s boyfriends often display increasing symptoms of neuroticism as the relationship progresses. A little uncertainty in one’s romantic relationships can be exciting, but extreme uncertainty might eventually become aversive.
In carrying out their studies of experimental neurosis, Pavlov and his assistants also discovered that different dogs displayed different symptoms. Some dogs became anxious when exposed to the procedure, while others became catatonic (rigid) and acted almost hypnotized. A few dogs, however, displayed few if any symptoms and did not have a nervous breakdown. Pavlov speculated that such differences reflected underlying differences in temperament. This was an extension of one of Pavlov’s earlier observations that certain dogs condition more easily than others. Shy, withdrawn dogs seemed to make the best subjects, conditioning easily, whereas active, outgoing dogs were more difficult to condition (which is quite the opposite of what Pavlov had originally expected).
Based on results such as these, Pavlov formulated a theory of personality in which inherited differences in temperament interact with classical conditioning to produce general patterns of behavior. Eysenck (1957) later utilized certain aspects of Pavlov’s work in formulating his own theory of personality. A major aspect of Eysenck’s theory is the distinction between introversion and extroversion. In very general terms, introverts are individuals who are highly reactive to external stimulation (hence, cannot tolerate large amounts of stimulation and tend to withdraw from such stimulation), condition easily, and develop anxiety-type symptoms in reaction to stress. By contrast, extroverts are less reactive to external stimulation (hence, can tolerate, and will even seek out, large amounts of stimulation), condition less easily, and develop physical-type symptoms in reaction to stress. Eysenck’s theory also proposes that psychopaths, individuals who engage in antisocial behavior, are extreme extroverts who condition very poorly. As a result, they experience little or no conditioned anxiety when harming or taking advantage of others, such anxiety being the underlying basis of a conscience.
Both Pavlov’s and Eysenck’s theories of personality are considerably more complicated than presented here, involving additional dimensions of personality and finer distinctions between different types of conditioning, especially excitatory and inhibitory conditioning. Thus, extroverts do not always condition more poorly than introverts, and additional factors are presumed to influence the development of neurotic symptoms (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Eysenck, 1967; Monte, 1999). Nevertheless, processes of classical conditioning interacting with inherited differences in temperament could well be major factors in determining one’s personality.
The experimental neurosis paradigm also suggests that prolonged exposure to unpredictable events can sometimes have serious effects on our well-being.