Did a quick search on PubMed on whether awareness of the reinforcement contingencies affected learning. In a nutshell its as a I said earlier, awareness didn't seem to matter, conditioning took place regardless of subject awareness. For instance:
http://tinyurl.com/yhqsqsf Pavlov J Biol Sci. 1985 Jul-Sep;20(3):140-8. A functional analysis of social reinforcement in vicarious verbal conditioning. Donohue GB, Tryon WW. This article reports the results of 629 subjects in three experiments designed to replicate and extend the phenomenon of vicarious verbal conditioning. Experiment I replicated the finding that subjects who responded most to vicarious verbal conditioning were aware of the contingency involved. Experiment II attempted to examine the effects of prior history with the verbal reinforcer on vicarious verbal conditioning by providing seven groups of subjects with varying classic conditioning histories prior to vicarious verbal conditioning. The null results associated with this experiment were hypothesized to be due to the fact that the vicarious verbal conditioning took place in a language laboratory where the subjects could hear but not see the model. Experiment III replicated Experiment II in a live group context as was done in Experiment I. The results showed that vicarious verbal conditioning was again found to take place, that associating the verbal reinforcer with a tone or tone plus money via forward classic conditioning potentiated the effects of the verbal reinforcer, that backward classic conditioning did not potentiate the reinforcer, d) nor did either of two sensitization procedures potentiate the effects of the verbal reinforcer. Both aware and unaware subjects evidenced vicarious verbal conditioning. here's the complete search: http://tinyurl.com/yg7ydqd On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think it's a good question that harkens back to subliminal ads like > they had in The Hidden Persuaders. I don't like the idea of being > manipulated below the surface of my awareness but since even music > will do this I am not sure you can or should regulate it either. For > sure though, it's better to know it happens than not to know. Would > your professor have been as affected if he knew what the class was > doing? > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That is one of the most important aspects of addiction. For instance >> one of the strongest predictors of recovery from cigarette addiction >> is the person's assessment of those situations, thoughts and behaviors >> where they would have the most difficulty in not smoking. While there >> are other factors involved, from what I remember the R squared value >> was well above .6, suggesting that you could account for a >> considerable portion of the variance in later measures of smoking >> cessation. >> >> What part of the R squared value can be represented by Free Will? >> Operationally define Free Will and I can let you know. >> >> The thing is that given our increasing knowledge of how the human >> system works means that its rapidly becoming a technology rather than >> an art or some prescription by a philosophy or religion. As such who >> ends up controlling this technology? >> >> For instance advertising agencies are jumping into functional MRI >> studies to determine what attracts people to products services etc. >> Should there be unregulated use of this? How do you feel about >> advertising that uses hooks that lie very deep down in our nervous >> system? Where is the free will in this case? >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think it belittles free will a bit when you bring it down to the >>> level of an addict avoiding triggers. I also think it shows a >>> misunderstanding of addiction to try to solve it with free will. From >>> what I understand, that's about like telling Larry that he should >>> accept personal responsibility for having diabetes. >>> >>> This message was brought to you by the Committee on Seeing the Shades of >>> Grey >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Cameron Childress <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> a much more simple explanation is that you are avoiding the discrete >>>>> stimuli that trigger a behavioral response. Or take it one step >>>>> higher, you avoid those situations or cues that can trigger those >>>>> cognitions beliefs and emotions that lead to additive behavioral >>>>> responses. >>>> >>>> If that's simple - pigs fly. >>>> >>>> The simple version is "I make personal choices and take responsibility >>>> for the outcome". >>>> >>>> -Cameron >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312817 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
