Research Paper: Classical Conditioning by Pavlov

Pages: 11 (5439 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 10  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Psychology  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] It is basically a glutmate antagonist, which acts by creating obstruction of voltage-dependent sodium and calcium channels. Conditioned emotional response (CER) model was used in rates by Mirza and some others. Under this model, houselights (CR) were used with electric foot shocks. This was done to check whether this CS would result in compact lever pressing for getting the food. Through research it was confirmed that Na+ agonist caused blockage of the anxiolytic possessions of lamotrigine while Ca+ channels failed to do so. Therefore, a conclusion was reached that axxiolytic traits can be removed by the usage of Na+ channels (Mirza et al., 2005). When lamotrigine was used with PTSD by Hertzberg and colleagues, under the petite double blind test of patients, it was found to be more effective than placebo. It removed the symptoms of PTSD up to a greater extent, such that the chances of re-occurrence were also reduced (Hertzberg et al., 1999). One more treatment for the anxiety disorders is offered by VGCC inhibitors (see table 1). Pregabalin is considered to be the therapeutic mediator for the generalized anxiety disorders (GAN) (Rickels et al., 2005). Pregabalin is actually anticonvulsant that joins to the alpha-2-delta protein order to obstruct VGCC. It may also achieve appreciation by the ending of 2007.

Theoretical and empirical support

The theories of the past have explicit prophecy regarding the bond between fear conditioning and clinical anxiety. Whenever there is a failure in the fear conditioned response (CR), a pathological anxiety takes place; this has been said by Eysenck (1979). There is an argument given by Eysenck which states that CR, which is regarded as an inner state of terror, is uncomfortable and may act as an aversive U.S. substitute. Therefore, the strengthening of CS should carry on during EXT. The theories presented by Eysenck apply only to the Pavlovian B type conditionin. Under B type, the conditioned response mainly produces the unconditioned response to the U.S. A complete description of type A and B. is given in Grant (1964).

The formulation presented by Eysenck (1979) state that all of the anxiety patients will get stronger learning of terror rather than controls, thus resulting in further strengthening of CS in the nonexistence of U.S. (i.e., stronger CRs during EXT). This thus leads to declining rates of EXT within the individuals who were bearing anxiety disorders. This theory comes up with two suggestions; one, that all of the patients suffering from anxiety disorders would be displaying better conditioned fear responses during achievement (AQC), and two, there will be more confrontation shown to EXT when the competition between anxiety patients and controls is there (e.g., Annau & Kamin, 1961; Hilgard & Marquis, 1940).

According to Davis et al. (2000), when there are no safety signals, fear response may not be exhibited, which ultimately leads to pathological anxiety. Various experiements related to fear conditioning have agreed to this idea. This idea is also mentioned in a study regarding FPS (fear potention startle) when anxiety patients were exposed to CS (Conditioned Stimulus provides safety signal when unpaired with U.S. In aversive learning models) (Grillon & Morgan, 1999). However, it was under unhealthy controls. Contrary to this, in case of low anxious participants receiving safety signals, FPS decreased (Grillon & Ameli, 2001). In addition to this, larger electrodermal responses to CS was larger electrodermal responses to CS were found among anxiety patients vs. control in 2 studies (Orr et al., 2000; Peri et al., 2000). Similarly, 2 reports identified that subjective anticipatory anxiety was increased when exposed to CS presentations among anxiety patients vs. controls (Clum, 1969; Hermann, Ziegler, Birbaumer, & Flor, 2002). Like other theories, Davis's theory is not applicable in this study as it fails to do any comparison of the impact fear inhibition has on patients and controls. However, as mentioned below, the levels of discrimination fear conditioning affecting anxiety patients in the presence or absence of healthy controls will be discussed.

In simple conditioning, a CS is paired with U.S. frequently. Under subject conditioning, the effects are indexed when ITI (inter-trial-interval) levels of arousal or baseline is subtracted from CS arousal levels. There are 2 CS aspects that are mostly found in discrimination paradigms. CS is not paired with U.S., but CS+ is. Difference between CRs to CS and CS+ is indexed to be discrimination learning. In case patients do not show fear even when safety cues are provided, they should have fear response to CS and CS+. This would mean low levels of discrimination, though they depict conditioning to CS+. On the other hand, discrimination learning may increase in the presence of healthy controls, as they hold back the fear response generated under CS presentations. It must be kept in mind that patient's responses to CS and CS+ can be regarded as stimulus generalization. However, predictions concerning discriminative learning that have been mentioned above are supported by either conceptualization (i.e. not showing any fear; and stimulus generalization) (Lissek et al., 2005).

Orr and colleagues opposed prediction for discrimination effects across patients and controls by stating that healthy patients may be less conditional than to the individuals going through pathological anxiety (Orr et al., 2000; Peri et al., 2000). Condition ability over here means the degree to which responses for CS is less than that to CS+ during EXT and/or AQC. This model has been empirically tested for predicting higher discrimination conditioning among patients experiencing anxiety at EXT and AQC, which was not evident in the predictions of Davis's model (Orr et al., 2000; Pitman & Orr, 1986). The current research would analyze predictions of both, Orr and Davis.

As inhibitory effects have no influence over simple conditioning (only measurement of excitatory conditioning to CS is undertaken); and higher AQC, followed by greater resistance to EXT of excitatory fear associations in patients is identified by the models of Orr and Eysenck, simple fear conditioning is much stronger tool of prediction across patients vs. controls in both EXT and AQC. Inhibitory mechanisms in the pathogenesis of anxiety disorders have been discussed in theory of Davis and colleagues. In addition to this, their formulation did not reveal any information about the predictions of excitatory learning, such as simple conditioning (Lissek et al., 2005).

Phobic anxiety and preparedness

Human beings have the blessed capability to avoid the situations which can cause danger to life. For example, approximation to spiders, snakes and staying in closed spaces. This study was first presented by Seligman (1971) though at later stages many scholars supported it through empirical evidence (see Mineka & o hman, 2002 for instance). Gradually the concept emerged as the focal point of phobic anxiety related studies. This paper does not discuss the element of preparedness of human being to avoid the dangerous stimuli. The reason is limited availability of literature upon the subject.

Consolidation and Reconsolidation

Memories are stored in the mind though their relative association with each other. Every memory forms an associated complex with other memories to restore in the mind. Short-term memory is also known as labile. It can be converted to long-term memory with the help of protein synthesis. This process is called consolidation. Usually, this process is supposed to take place once only. But, when the transient information is retrieved, protein synthesis is to be done again. When information is retrieved from the memory, the trace of memory becomes unstable. In order to restore the information in the memory, reconsolidation is a mandatory process. Debiec and colleagues (2006) recently applied the concept of second-order fear conditioning (SOFC) paradigm to see if the protein synthesis is blocked, does it disrupt the whole network of memories or the single one. As per paradigm, CS linked with each other to create U.S.. The memories which were directly reactivated were short-term but there occurred no affect on the complex network of memories. This experiment led to the conclusion that unpleasant memories which revive themselves with fear stimulus can be erased from the memory even without lapse of short-term memory (as cited in Garakani, 2006).

If a stimuli is linked with emotions, it is quite possible that it will recall the past experience and the person will forget the words he was about to speak before that memory. It does not happen in case of normal stimuli. The repeated retrieval of memory makes it long-term. If U.S. are not present, fear related memories cause anxiety and the unpleasant memories become permanent (as cited in Garakani, 2006).

The involvement of beta-adrenergic receptors and NMDA receptors cause reconsolidation to occur. Cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element binding protein (CREB) also plays its role. Propranolol is a major receptor antagonist which is beta-adrenergic in nature. It blocks recognition of unpleasant memories and hinders retrieval of emotional stimuli. However, it preserves the neutral words. The emotional memories create loss of short-term memory which can be restored through drugs. Propranolol plays its role in blocking conversion of short-term memory into long-term memory. It is important… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 11-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Classical Conditioning Term Paper

Principles of Classical Conditioning Term Paper

Classical Conditioning and Phobia Treatment Fear Term Paper

Conditioning and Free Will Term Paper

Psychology of Learning Term Paper

View 61 other related papers  >>

Cite This Research Paper:

APA Format

Classical Conditioning by Pavlov.  (2012, April 3).  Retrieved July 22, 2019, from

MLA Format

"Classical Conditioning by Pavlov."  3 April 2012.  Web.  22 July 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"Classical Conditioning by Pavlov."  April 3, 2012.  Accessed July 22, 2019.