Exam thoughts

[bingbinglanglang]

omgsh yeah ur situation is just like me!!....but wasnt last semesters exam you had to get above 95% to get an a+? if you got 80% in exam 1, it was equilavent to a B or B+......thats wat i heard??

[FromOutside50]

im fairly sure its classical. The anxiety being the CR to arriving at work, the CS.

[username]

I said operant conditioning, as there is no reinforcement in classical conditioning. By not coming to work, he was negatively reinforced as it removed the unpleasant stimulus of his boss' criticisms.

I also said spontaneous recovery did not occur, simply because extinction didn't. My reasoning for this is that for extinction to have occurred, James would have needed to feel no anxiety despite his boss' criticisms, which didn't happen since he hid in his house.

What did you guys say about the question with the consolidation theory?

[KeyMan]

UCS - being critisized
UCR - anxiety
CS - work
CR - anxiety for work

it fits classical.

I thought it was operant, James not going to work is negative reinforcement, he is taking away an aversive stimulus (going to work) in order to receive a pleasant consequence (no anxiety).

And it wasn't spontaneously recovered as it was never extinguished in the first place.

I stuffed up question 8 a) iii. I though it meant Gayle (the girl) and the father so I thought it was referring to two people. Then when i came out of the exam, I had a second look at my teacher's copy and realised it was asking about just the father. I couldn't answer it properly because I was lost, how do I answer it for both the girl and her father when I've already answered for the girl in the first part of the question. Curse my stupidity ><

[bingbinglanglang]

bingbinglanglang
VN Newbie


Karma: 0
 Online

Posts: 10


     Re: Exam thoughts
« Reply #75 on: Today at 01:06:54 PM » Quote Modify Remove  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
omgsh yeah ur situation is just like me!!....but wasnt last semesters exam you had to get above 95% to get an a+? if you got 80% in exam 1, it was equilavent to a B or B+......thats wat i heard??

[j.el-halabi]

omgsh yeah ur situation is just like me!!....but wasnt last semesters exam you had to get above 95% to get an a+? if you got 80% in exam 1, it was equilavent to a B or B+......thats wat i heard??

yeah thats what i heard to.. i dunno i hope i can get 38 atleast.. worked my butt off all year just havent prevailed

[hopelessxhearts]

Holy shit I think I wrote Classical Conditioning and then put Negative Reinforcement...haha oh dear.
Now I'm just even more confused.

[mariaz]

i think i did the same, wrote classical conditioning but then wrote about negative reinforcement. oh my im confused. lol and i also sed it wasn't spontaneously recovered because it was never extinguished.

[Lulu]

[quote author=hopelessxhearts link=topic=7098.msg87312#msg87312
I stuffed up question 8 a) iii. I though it meant Gayle (the girl) and the father so I thought it was referring to two people. Then when i came out of the exam, I had a second look at my teacher's copy and realised it was asking about just the father. I couldn't answer it properly because I was lost, how do I answer it for both the girl and her father when I've already answered for the girl in the first part of the question. Curse my stupidity ><

haha yes! that's what I did too, the wording sucked.

"Gayle and Luke's father" - i thought they were from different parents or something random

I think i still put the right answer in there somewhere though, for the second part. sigh, couldn't they have just written 'the father'?

[bingbinglanglang]

hhahaha i did that tooo...i put classical conditioning for the first part and then in the next question wrote negative reinforcement!!

[nickalaz]

im fairly certain it was classical conditioning, for the reasons everyone has given
BUT
if you noticed, AFTER that question, it gave you new information about his situation - it was telling you about how he behaved
that then prompted you to talk about negative reinforcement.

that EXTRA information is what changes everything

[Lulu]

Holy shit I think I wrote Classical Conditioning and then put Negative Reinforcement...haha oh dear.
Now I'm just even more confused.

couldn't it be a 'hybrid' case? like the second part of the question was where operant conditioning principles applied i.e. negative reinforcement and the first part was referring to classical conditioning?

The way they have set out of question seems like that...how they write a separate scenario for the second part (i.e. sick leave) to trick us into writing the same for both.

sorry if this didn't make much sense...

uh yeah, what the person above said

[hopelessxhearts]

[quote author=hopelessxhearts link=topic=7098.msg87312#msg87312
I stuffed up question 8 a) iii. I though it meant Gayle (the girl) and the father so I thought it was referring to two people. Then when i came out of the exam, I had a second look at my teacher's copy and realised it was asking about just the father. I couldn't answer it properly because I was lost, how do I answer it for both the girl and her father when I've already answered for the girl in the first part of the question. Curse my stupidity ><

haha yes! that's what I did too, the wording sucked.

"Gayle and Luke's father" - i thought they were from different parents or something random

I think i still put the right answer in there somewhere though, for the second part. sigh, couldn't they have just written 'the father'?

LOL me too. I was like wait, Gayle AND the father? But it already asked for Gayle.. then I realised it was just the father.. they should've been worded as -
Luke:
Gayle:
Their Father:

Since i over analyse everything wayy too much.

[mariaz]

im fairly certain it was classical conditioning, for the reasons everyone has given
BUT
if you noticed, AFTER that question, it gave you new information about his situation - it was telling you about how he behaved
that then prompted you to talk about negative reinforcement.

that EXTRA information is what changes everything

what did you put for the spontaneous recovery??

[nickalaz]

NO, spontaneous recovery didn't occur
Because he was purely avoiding the unpleasant stimulus - had spontaneous recovery occured, the behaviour had to have been extinct. and there was no evidence to tell us that it had been extinguished.

to me it seems just a trick question, to separate the men from the boys... most people who don't think about it enough, will just assume that it occurs