Biological Behaviorism: Timberlake

1. Biological Behaviorism: Timberlake 3 theories for why instinctual behavior instinctive drift pavlovian theories: by product of token-reward pairings appetitive structure view: species typical foraging and food handling behaviors elicited by paring food with stimuli that resemble natural cues controlling food-gathering activities both physical similarity and temporal relation to food

2. Behavior Systems Theory behavior systems theory can explain many of the �biological boundaries� basic model states: behaviors which are elicited through noncontingent rewards (e.g.- as in autoshaping) are NOT arbitrary behaviors are behaviors which make up a particular behavior system or mode for that organism particular behavior elicited by a particular stimulus is a combination of many factors: type of stimulus type of reward natural selection past learning and conditioning

3. Behavior Systems Modes

4. Research evidence Timberlake's research demonstrates this: with pigeons: where place feeder makes a difference in the wall in the floor Also rat studies: Exp 1: 4 groups: CS only: Random, Programmed Exit and Actual exit 25% of all rats showed orientation approach Actual exit: marked increase in interactions for all subjects (also chewing and grabbing) Programmed exit: stayed at food tray; lots of post-pellet interaction with ball bearing Food tray behavior blocked ball-bearing behavior EXP 2: replication of Exp 1, except made trough for ball bearing so that could roll UNDER the rat lots of carrying of ball bearing saw more contact for actual exit and after-programmed exit groups; not so much contact for before-programmed exit � EXP 3: omission trials: no food if contacted ball bearing reduced contact significantly extinction increased contact- most for before-contact

5. Research evidence EXP 4 and 5: positive response contingency: must contact ball bearing to obtain food examined nature of contact: did topography change? before-exit and exit groups got lots and lots of contact- 100% chews carries dug the ball bearing out of the entry hole EXP 6: used naive animals; same procedures as in exp 4 occurrence of complex misbehavior NOT depend on requirement of sustained contact with ball bearing or on delay between contact and food delivery misbehavior not affected by overlap between presence of bearing and presence of food did find facilitation by prior experience with pre-pellet misbehavior: naive animals showed less than experienced

6. So why is all of this important for applied psychologists? Even some human behaviors are likely to be �innate� or biologically based Understanding underlying biology helps understand, predict and control human behavior (particularly �misbehavior�). Understand that what is �optimal� in one setting may not be optimal in another- environment interacts with biology!

7. Sociobiology: �� Outgrowth of comparative psychology Four classes of questions about Human behavior: � immediate causation � Development of behavior � Evolutionary history � Adaptive significance Evolutionary research: �� Collection of relevant evidence � behavior was or is adaptive �behavior apparent in most members of a species �behavior is apparent in most closely related species �behavior is influenced by genetics ��examine plausible explanations ��map the course of (human) evolution

8. Applications Development of phobias Likely to be set of innate �fears� Heights, water, snakes, poisons Some developmental evidence: Visual cliff studies (Campos, Langer, & Krowitz, 1970) Developmental time course: Precocial animals: show immediate fear Human and other primate newborns: can see depth Older infants begin to show fear Innate recognition of mom; Stranger anxiety Separation anxiety Probably biological foundation for this

9. Safety training: Understanding fear and reaction to fear critical Fear/flight/fight response SSDRs But: humans can �overrule� innate fear responses with well learned response Must over-train safety responses Must be �stronger� than innate response

10. Mate Selection � Mate Selection �� sociobiology view: male � only impregnate 1 female every 9 mos x 30 years � by male limiting to 1 female- restrict # of offspring � roam: produce more � little parental investment � chimps, etc.: kill babies, impregnate females �� female view: � more parental investment � more risk �remember: in humans are strong social/cultural norms that go along with this

11. Mate Selection �Again: we can replace innate tendencies with well learned tendencies Women choose men with $$$$ over muscles Money gets you farther than muscles these days Not necessarily true for men Women who make lots of $$$$ less likely to bear offspring Go for younger, more fertile women Are we �designed� to be monogamous? Chimp strategies suggest not really Social norms, environmental strategies more likely override tendencies to be monogamous or not �remember: in humans are strong social/cultural norms that go along with this

12. Parenting Invest in child with greater probability of survival Selective rearing Even infanticide Spacing of pregnancy Mama bear syndrome Don�t mess with a mom�s baby Lots of parental investment Mom, in sense, has more investment than dad Even in animal world, moms tend to be more aggressive in defending child

13. Chance of Child abuse covaries with relatedness Abusive adults tend to be: from abusive homes poor impulse control� more accepting of violence Often not directly related to the child Environmental conditions high stress high frustration: no coping/parenting skills In nature: low resources = increased probability of infanticide Stressed animals eat their young! Characteristics of abused child selective: single one kid out Often a child who �looks different� premature or disabled = very high risk �� lack of special char's �� funny cry �� not interact in wild- not fit to survive, may be instinct to kill it

14. Parenting relatedness may be factor: � non-biological parent more likely to abuse � may be due to how related parent is � e.g. Nonhuman primate behavior �� kill unrelated infants �� abort fetuses �� mate with all females �� ensures that offspring are 'his' ��suggestion: given above, physical characteristics may be "straw that ��broke camels back" � in general: premie ok � in bad environment- can be lethal �

15. Sibling Rivalry �children fight w/sibs: �limited resources �must compete for these resources �want parents� attention and resources �� Then why defend your sib in fight with other kids? � your sib is more closely related � thus: will protect: rather their genes (your genes) that unrelated genes be passed on

16. Altruism and moral behavior Aggression ��Cost analysis: how much does it cost the animal? � If it gets the animal access- okay �Must distinguish between DEFENSIVE and OFFENSIVE behaviors �Biological wiring: hypothalamus 4 F�s of the hypothalamus Interaction between sex/hunger/aggression/fear ��3 Territoriality issues Protect one�s mate/offspring Protect one�s resources Altruisim

17. Altruism and moral behavior ��Altruism �� similar to sibling rivalry �� save those genetically close to you first �� then begin to save less and less related � e.g. cousins � similar culturally/nationally � racially, etc. �� Reciprocal altruism: helps explain varying levels of altruism: � more likely to save someone like yourself � less likely to save someone far away, unlike yourself � more likely to save child Helps understand why U.S. more likely to help Bosnia, or even Afghanistan than children in Africa.

18. Applications to education? Fire safety/evacuation training Understanding human tendencies allows safety engineers to design better evacuation procedures Firefighters: learn the behavior of fire, override natural fear of fire Emergency preparedness What kind of animal are you? Level of anxiety Types of preparedness Behavior systems mode: Understanding different environments may elicit different behaviors Waiting behavior: Engage in behaviors related to what waiting for/anticipating Important for �side effects� of reinforcement Stress effects: tends to bring out the animal in us!

19. Is sociobiology correct? Difficult question: hard to test scientifically tests usually limited to nonhumans when do use humans, hard to factor out environmental issues After the fact issue: Researchers don�t live long enough to conduct the experiment! Lifespan studies suggest stronger impact of biology than we like Twin studies Personality studies Even IQ studies: heritability is about 50% �

20. Is sociobiology correct? �Differences may exist in different populations/genders, but causes difficult to determine �Example: IQ differences: African Americans score an average of 15 points below Whites Whites score an average of three points below East Asians East Asians score an average of three points below middle Eastern �European Jews These differences are very stable, despite attempts to alter educational opportunities, etc. Is it IQ, or is it due to different sets of behaviors which may underlie intelligence/academic performance? Anxiety levels which then tie into academic performance/grades? Importance of belonging/fitting in to group or being independent? Are these socially driven or do they have strong underlying biology?

21. Is sociobiology correct? �Can't argue with data: differences exist �BUT: causes for differences could be many: Genetic difference Prenatal differences: prenatal care levels (tied to infant mortality rate) Experience in womb: different even for twins Underlying motivational differences: could be biological Lead to different performances Educational opportunity differences Differences in wiring in brain due to experience + genetics Differences in experiences result in different brain wiring Even differences in culture result in different brain wiring Tests may be culturally biased �

22. Is sociobiology correct? Bottom line: we are animals: instinct and instinctual/genetic variables do affect our behavior we are also highly social animals who are highly responsive to environmental �change we have a lot more neocortex- allows for more cognitive processing, and �possibly less reliance on instinctual behaviors Question: can an entity study itself? �� can we ever truly determine the answer? �� do we really want to know the answer?