Get help from the best in academic writing.

answer 7 question.

answer 7 question.. I don’t understand this English question and need help to study.

What is and isn’t a summary?
How did you annotate the whole reading and the short reading on the creatures, in particular?
Write a one-paragraph summary of the short reading on the creatures.
Think of a piece of fiction you read that had an impact on you, and write a one-paragraph summary of the text. Then write a one-sentence summary of the situation in which you read the text (the context).
In 3.1, you read and summarized the short piece about the creatures (question 3). Now write a one-paragraph response to that same piece.
You also summarized a piece of fiction that had an impact on you (question 4). Now write a one-paragraph response to the fiction text and context you summarized.
Finally, write a one-paragraph explanation of the difference between summary and response.

answer 7 question.

Blackbird Play Review And Analysis Theatre Essay

Blackbird Play Review And Analysis Theatre Essay. After being separated for 15 years, Una comes looking for Ray at his workplace after discovering his picture in a magazine. They once had an illicit relationship, and have been suffering the consequences ever since. What transpires next is a series of chilling twists and turns as details of their sordid past begin to unravel. Blackbird is essentially a 75-minute duologue between two tormented souls, in an extremely filthy and under-maintained office pantry, which Ray calls a “pigsty”. This intense confrontation, being the focal point of the entire play, situates itself in a confined space. The claustrophobia is evident in the beginning of the play, when Ray keeps finding excuses to leave the pantry. Director Tracie Pang’s artistic directions add a dimension of compelling realism, that would have been otherwise missing from the near-claustrophobic confrontation taking place onstage. The minimalist set design by Nicholas Li (with just a dim fluorescent tube light, a dispensing machine, a clogged litter bin, a few lockers, one table and four chairs) echoes Ray’s repressed life. The barbed wire lining the top of the set is a fitting reminder of the entrapment Una felt throughout her entire life. The subtle use of sound by Darren Ng (constant buzzing sound of a dully running office) also contributes to the mellow tone of the play. The most sublime scene in the play fully transports the audience to relive that fateful moment of elopement 15 years ago. The interplay between actors, set, lights and sound is at its best. Darren Ng’s sound design (seagulls on a beach, a bell tolling midnight) balances perfectly with the action onstage, teasing out the nuances during that scene. The projection of symbolic images on the pantry windows also creates a stunning effect. It is no surprise that David Harrower’s script has received the critical acclaim it has. The beauty of the script lies in its emotive capture of the juvenile mindset. The lines written for Una’s flashback of her younger days (the yearning thoughts, the defence mechanism, the way a young girl would see the world) is spot-on and succinct. I am impressed by how Harrower slowly teases the audience by choosing to reveal morsels of new information about their past as the plot unfolds, thus ensuring that the audience is constantly engaged. Every line of dialogue between Una and Ray is wrought with a dark emotion which blurs the boundaries between right and wrong. The audience plunges deep into the damaged and disturbed psyches of Harrower’s two characters who seek for answers but arrive at none. Like most plays dealing with illicit affairs, Blackbird leaves the audience questioning: Who is the culprit? Who is the victim? Is there necessarily a clear-cut right and wrong in their relationship? It is Una who discovered Ray’s whereabouts and sought him out, but to what purpose: Revenge, reconciliation or resolution? Augusto Boal, the founder of Theatre of the Oppressed, sees theatre as “the passionate combat of two human beings on a platform” (Boal, 1995). Boal’s approach attempts to substitute passivity with empowerment (monologue with dialogue). Monologue creates a relationship of oppressor versus oppressed, as the person talking forces his counterpart into listening. All relationships could tend to become a monologue, a man and a woman, one of them tends to become the actor and the other one, the spectator. Human relationship should be a dialogue but one of them sometimes becomes active and the other passive. So oppression is this: All dialogues that become monologues (Boal, 1979). In Blackbird, the roles of the oppressor and the oppressed are constantly reversed as Una and Ray attempt to assume power over each other. The confrontation between Una and Ray starts at a frenetic pace with Una being the oppressor, circling Ray like a vulture and forcing him into a corner with words like a scalpel. Ray keeps finding excuses to leave the pantry as he suspects Una of hiding a weapon. However, the tables are turned (literally) when Ray starts to justify his wrongdoings with an assertive tone, leaning towards Una with clenched fists, while Una tries to avoid him by facing the wall. During Una’s flashback monologue, she clutches her bag tightly as she recalls about her suffering, while Ray collapses into a chair, burying his head in his palms with repent. The tug-of-war continues as they dig up the past through passion-laden monologues and exchanges. Blackbird is a dialogue of hurt and wayward passion, told with superb onstage chemistry. Credit goes to Daniel Jenkins and Emma Yong for digging deep to produce extraordinarily layered performances. Their excellent turns bring Harrower’s deservedly-acclaimed script to life. I specifically wish to highlight Emma Yong’s performance. Yong’s connection to her character Una is exceptionally amazing. She shows her remarkable versatility as a 27-year-old who has experienced deep tragedy as a child. This illicit affair resurfaces after 15 years where Ray has moved on to a new life, while Una has been left to drown in shame. She remains stone-faced the entire time but her eyes express a myriad of emotions, from hatred to madness to confusion to yearning. Yong’s tears of conflicted pain during her flashback monologue is beautifully heart-wrenching. She ably navigates the complex psychological aspect of Una’s character and conveys the emotional range required for a character who had sexual intimacy with a man at a tender age. However, one minor flaw would be her pace in line delivery, which sounds rushed at times. Jenkins plays his character Ray with equal passion. His pace, in contrast to Yong, is more balanced. He discharges his performance with gusto, engaging the audience and leading them to sympathise with his plight as the drama unfolds. I was surprised that Jenkins was not initially cast as the male lead. Blackbird was postponed from March 2010 to September due to the unusual circumstance of actor Patrick Teoh quitting the production. Teoh felt that he was unable to fulfil the demands of the role. After watching the play, one could probably see where he was coming from. It is essentially just two people in the same space for 75 minutes, but truth be told, it did not feel that long at all. The 75-minute playing time is filled to the brim with palpable tension and raw emotions. When the cliffhanger climax ended with a truly unexpected twist, I found myself at the edge of my seat. Quoting Una’s opening line: “Shocked?” Yes indeed. Blackbird appears to be a simple situation begging for a simple judgment: “It was abuse, was it not?” But the complicated tangle of emotions leaves one with a feeling of disquiet and unease which is hard to shake off, even after the curtain falls. Blackbird Play Review And Analysis Theatre Essay

USF The State Of Organ Donation The Inability Of The Current System

online assignment help USF The State Of Organ Donation The Inability Of The Current System.

Students are asked to play the role of economic policy advisor to the Governor of Florida and required to summarize and evaluate economic/market conditions as well as offer a creative solution to current policy issues related to those conditions. They are expected to draw upon analytical, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills in order to break down the complex problem that exists in the policy application and help the Governor examine, propose, and support potential solutions. Students are encouraged to propose an original solution or contribution even if it deviates from mainstream solutions. See below for assignment details.You should refer to the rubric before you begin writing as well as during the writing process: GEA1 Rubric.pdfMake sure to include a title page, graphs, and an updated citation page (all should be on their own pages and not share a page with the body of the text). Your document must follow formatting rules (font, spacing, margins, etc), double-spaced, 1″ margins, and size 11 Calibri FONT#GEA1 Assignment DetailsSuppose you are a policy advisor for Governor DeSantis. He has just informed you that his constituents would like him to comment on the state of organ donation and address the inability of the current system to meet demand. His office is in charge of finding solutions to the difficult issue of organ trade.He will be addressing the issue in the upcoming commission meeting and needs an economic analysis of the situation completed before then for review. Refer to the articles Black Market Bodies and Meat Market (posted below) to help you begin to your analysis. Use the articles and other references you may find to evaluate the limitations that exist with the current ‘solution’ to meeting organ demand in the US.The governor asks that you draw upon your critical thinking and problem-solving skills in order to break down the complex problem that exists in the market for organs and help him examine, propose, and support potential solutions. You are encouraged to propose an original solution or contribution even if it deviates from mainstream solutions.In your analysis you must include the following 6 Sections:Current State of the Kidney Market in the U.S.: What is the current state of kidney donation in the US according to the first article? Describe this market using supply and demand; reference your graph in your description. Include “graph 1” of this market at the end of the paper (not included in page count).Deregulation of the Kidney Market: Consider what would happen if the US did allow payment for kidney donation [if there is payment involved, can we still call it “donation?”]. Describe the deregulated market (no government intervention, free market system) using supply and demand; reference your graph in your description. Include “graph 2” of the deregulated market at the end of the paper (not included in page count).Equity and Efficiency in the Kidney Market: Who gains and who loses in the current state of the kidney market. Who gains and who loses in a deregulated market? Discuss the economic efficiency of the market in its current state and after deregulation; reference your graphs 1 and 2 in your discussion.Donation Systems Around the World: Explore the policies that are currently implemented across the globe (i.e. those discussed in the articles – routine removal, presumed consent, organ donor points, “no give, no take”, etc.). Evaluate the limitations of these policies. Also consider how these policies fare in terms of the efficiency vs. equity debate. (You do not need to critique them all, just select 2 or 3 that you find interesting/appealing.)New Policy Proposal: Come up with a policy proposal of your own that might help deal with the vast shortage of kidneys in the US. Use a supply/demand diagram to show how the policy will decrease the current shortage of kidneys and analyze the impact to society; reference your graph in your description. Include “graph 3” of the market with your new policy changes at the end of the paper (not included in page count).Recommendations: If you had to pick from one of the policies you described (current state of the market, deregulation, other policies, or your own proposal), which would you recommend for the US? Why? You must defend the policy you choose. If you recommend no changes to the current policy you must defend this recommendation.Keep in mind, Governor DeSantis is not one for 1,000 page policy briefs. He prefers his analysis to be professional, clear, complete, correct, and most importantly concise. His constituents also require credible sources so be sure to document all references, including but not limited to those listed below. See rubric and Citation Guidelines under GenEd AssignmentsRelated Articles:#GEA1 Article1 Black Market Bodies.pdf#GEA1 Article2 Meat Market.pdfHelpful Steps to Examine How a Market Change Will Affect Consumers and Producers: determine how the supply/demand curves will shift. determine how these shifts will change the equilibrium price/quantity and if a shortage exists/changes. determine if the market is more or less efficient.Analyze how these changes will affect the consumers, producers, and society.
USF The State Of Organ Donation The Inability Of The Current System

Separation By Extraction Of Benzoic Acid And Nitrotoluene

Separation By Extraction Of Benzoic Acid And Nitrotoluene. Aim: To use the extraction separation technique so as to separate a mixture of benzoic acid and 4-nitrotoluene provided. This is carried out so as to obtain the individual components of the mixture in a purified form by recrystallisation process and whose metling point is determined to prove the identity of the compound obtained. 1. Introduction: Separation by extraction is a technique which allows the separation of compounds based on their difference in solubility in two immiscible solvents. If a solute X is allowed to distribute itself bewteen two immiscible solvents, A and B, then the following equilibrium will be reached: X (A) X (B) where A is usually water, the aqueous phase and B is the water-immiscible organic solvent, such as diethyl ether as in this case. The equilibrium constant for this process is known as the distribution coefficient or the partition coefficient, KD or BDA and is given by: KD (X) = BDA (X) = the concentration of X in phase B = [X]B the concentration of X in phase A [X]A similarly, for solutes X and Y distributed into two immiscible solvents A and B we may define the following equilibria: X (A) X(B) Y (A) Y(B) and for effective separation by extraction of X and Y using solvents A and B, we require that: KD (X) >> KD (Y) in which case most of X will find itself in solvent B and most of Y will find itself in solvent B, or, KD (X) << KD (Y) in which case most of X will find itself in solvent A and most of Y will find itself in solvent B. Structural formula of 4-nitrotoluene Structural formula of benzoic acidAll this is just a brief background simply showing that the aqueous layer, being water and the ether, which are both solvents and are referred to as A and B, are in equilibrium with each other. Then the benzoic acid / 4-nitrotoluene mixture to be separated by extraction, referred to as Y and X, are the solutes. These species are both insoluble in water and so do not like the polar environment. Hence this is why sodium bicarbonate solution is used. This is useful as to convert the benzoic acid to the water soluble sodium benzoate. This will then go into the aqueous layer rather than staying in the ether layer. Then concentrated hydrochloric acid is used to convert back to benzoic acid since the benzoic acid is required to be collected and be purified! C6H5COOH(s) NaHCO3 (l) C6H5COO-Na (aq) H2O (l) CO2 (g) C6H5COO-Na (aq) HCl (l) C6H5COOH (s) NaCl (aq) Adding on the above equations one could also mention the fact that according to the Bronsted – Lowry definition, an organic acid is a compound that reacts to donate a proton (H ) to a base such as OH- ion. R-COOH (s) OH- (aq) R-COO- (aq) H2O (l) Organic acid conjugate base (insoluble in water) (soluble in water) As can be seen from this reaction, the result of the loss of a proton causes the formation of the carboxylic acid’s conjugate base with a negative charge. This charge now allows the compound to dissolve in water. A carboxylic acid’s property of forming an ionic conjugate base is useful as it allows the separation of carboxylic acids from other compounds that do not have this chemical property. In actual practice the acid and non – acid mixture is first dissolved in ether, an organic solvent that dissolves most organic compounds. It is noted that most compounds will dissolve in ether or in water, but not in both. In order to conclude once the mixture is separated by extraction, recrystallisation processes are carried out in order to obtain the individual purified substances. Then the melting point is determined for each in order to confirm the purity of the substance obtained. 2. Method: 2.1 Chemicals used Reagent: Grade: Manufacturer: Nitrotoluene GPR Riedel de Haem Benzoic acid GPR BDH Ether GPR BDH Sodium hygrogen carbonate GPR BDH Hydrochloric acid GPR Riedel de Haem Ethanol GPR BDH 2.2 Apparatus a spatula, glass rod, electronic balance, Bunsen burner, capillary tubes, melting point apparatus, thermometre, separating funnel, stopper, measuring cylinder, 250 mL conical flasks, 100 mL conical flask, beaker, Buchner flask, Buchner funnel, cork, filter paper, fluted filter paper, stemless funnel, oven, steam bath (flameless oven) in the fume cupboard, ice-cold water, distilled water. 2.3 Procedure Part a) Separating the benzoic acid and 4-nitrotoluene mixture 2.001 g benzoic acid / 4-nitrotoluene mixture were weighed on an electronic balance and placed in a 250 mL conical flask by means of spatula. 20 mL of diethyl ether were measured using a measuring cylinder and added to the mixture in the conical flask. The mixture was the transferred to a separating funnel and 20 mL diethyl sodium bicarbonate solution (5% by mass) were added to it. It was noted that this coverted the benzoic acid to the water soluble sodium benzoate. The separating funnel was stoppered and shaken for a short while. Then it was inverted and the tap was opened so that pressure was released. It was then closed and shaking was continued, and the pressure was released frequently until further shaking developed little or no additional pressure. Finally the layers were allowed to separate for some time and then the bottom layer was run off into a 100 mL conical flask. Then 10 mL of water were added to the separating funnel and the aqueous layer was run off into the same conical flask. Part b) Recovering benzoic acid and testing its purity A few drops of concentrated hydrochloric acid were added to the aqueous phase until the pH was less than 2. The pH was checked by adding a drop with the glass rod onto pH papers provided and the colour obtained was checked and compared with the ones provided on paper for reference. The colour observed was orange. The solution was allowed to stand until crystallisation of benzoic acid was complete. The beaker was placed in ice-cold water so that all the solid was allowed to form. Vacuum filtration was carried out. The apparatus was set up and the solution was filtered under suction. The crude benzoic acid crystals were collected in the Buchner funnel on the filter paper. The crystals were washed twice with water and allowed to drain. They were then recrystallised from water and the benzoic acid crystals collected were now purified and were transferred to a clean watch glass using a spatula. Then they were allowed to dry on the bench for some time. The mass of the purified benzoic acid was found by weighing the watch glass and the product. Then when the experiment was over the watch glass was weighed empty and subtraction was done in order to obtain the mass of the purified benzoic acid. The melting point was then determined. This was done by first placing a capillary tube, from its centre, in a Bunsen flame so that two melting point tubes were produced as the capillary tube melted into half. Then one tube was used to tap 2-4 mm of pure benzoic acid into the tube. This was then inverted and tapped against the bench so that the sample taken in was allowed to move to the bottom of the tube. The tube was then placed in a melting point apparatus and the melting point temperature range was found. Then the percentage recovery was worked out. Part c) Recovering 4-nitrotoluene and testing its purity The ether solution was evaporated to dryness over a steam bath (flameless oven) in the fume cupboard. It was noted that when no further loss of the solution, by evaporation, was present the conical flask was removed and was allowed to cool to room temperature. When cooled it was placed in ice-cold water until the formation of crystals occurred. The crystals formed were collected and recrystallised from ethanol. The mass of the pure 4-nitrobenzene was found using an electronic balance. The melting point was determined and the percentage recovery was worked out. Diagram: Separation of two immiscible liquids (the lighter liquid being the ether layer and the denser liquid being the aqueous layer, in this case) Precautions It was ensured that all the apparatus was washed with distilled water so as to prevent contamination. It was ensured that the tap of the separating funnel was tightly closed from the bottom before the mixture was transferred to it, otherwise this will run out and hence there would be loss of sample mixture prepared! It was ensured that the separating funnel was shaken slowly and carefully and the stopper was pressed during the process so as to prevent it from detachment due to pressure. It was ensured that the tap of the separating funnel was frequently opened once the funnel was shaken and inverted. This was important so that excess pressure was relieved preventing the funnel from breaking or collapsing. It was ensured that the aqueous layer was run out very slowly once the interphase between the ether and the aqueous layer approached. This was important so as to be able to control the tap and close it quickly in time so as to prevent drops of ether from running out of the funnel with the aqueous layer. It was ensured that the Buchner flask was pressed downwards with the hands during the vacuum filtration process. This was done so as to ensure that full suction was present and so vacuum was created, so that filtration was done completely. It was ensured that the rubber tubing was disconnected first and then the water aspirator turned off, so as to prevent sucking back and so contamination of the solid product. It was ensured that both the stemless funnel and the conical flask were warmed just a little before hot gravity filtration was carried out, by placing them in an oven for a short time. This was important so as to prevent premature crystallisation. It was ensured that care was taken when the capillary tube was placed into the Bunsen flame in order to melt it into half, otherwise one could have injured the hands or fingers even though gloves were worn. 3. Results and Calculations: 3.1 Results mass of benzoic acid / 4-nitrotoluene mixture weighed = 2.001 g For purified benozic acid: mass obtained = 0.333 g melting point temperature range obtained = 120 – 122 ÌŠC percentage yield calculated = 33.3 % For purified 4-nitrotoluene: mass obtained = 0.268 g melting point temperature range obtained = 51 – 52 ÌŠC percentage yield calculated = 26.8 % 3.2 Calculations mass of purified benzoic acidSeparation By Extraction Of Benzoic Acid And Nitrotoluene

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue

Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue. TITLE Using a human fear paradigm, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to show competition between an instrumental avoidance response and a Pavlovian safety signal for association with omission of shock. Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning are two forms of associative learning. Pavlovian conditioning involves humans learning that initially neutral conditioned stimuli (CSs), such as a tone or colour, predicts an outcome (US), such as electric shock, or in the case of safety signals, safety, such as an omission of shock. Instrumental learning refers to learning associations between voluntary responses (such as a button press, or an ‘avoidance’ response) and outcomes or ‘reinforcers’, such as shock or an omission of shock. In their first, overshadowing, experiment, expectancy data but not skin conductance levels (SCLs) suggested mutual overshadowing, as when the avoidance response (button press, *) and safety signal (C) were both presented with stimulus A, expectancy of shock was significantly lower than when A was only presented with the avoidance response or safety signal. In the second, blocking, experiment, no matter whether the avoidance response or C was pre-trained, the pre-trained element yielded the lowest expectancies of shock (i.e. greater safety learning), while safety learning of the alternate element was suppressed. Lovibond et al (2013) conclude that the expectancy data, as well as the non-significant SCL data, in the blocking and overshadowing paradigms exhibit evidence that competition occurred between the instrumental avoidance response and Pavlovian safety signal, and therefore a common learning mechanism underlies both forms of associative learning. In this paper, Lovibond et al’s (2013) experiments, and their conclusions, shall be critiqued. Strengths Lovibond et al (2013) exhibited considerable strength in the planning of their experiments. In both experiments, they used a variation of a previously used paradigm, such that their experiments already had relatively sound internal consistency and construct validity. They had the foresight to acknowledge the possibility that participants would learn a response-stimulus-outcome relationship rather than viewing the avoidance response and safety stimulus C as separate predictors. That is, they saw a potential weakness in their experimental design in that C could become a mediator of the causal efficacy of the avoidance response, rather than a competing cause. As such, in both experiments, they deliberately adjusted their design in order to prevent this by adding BC- trials and varying the time interval between the avoidance response and safety signal, to weaken the response-stimulus C association. They additionally asked participants to rate the degree of association between them, as well as with shock, so that they would know if response-stimulus-outcome learning had nonetheless occurred. Lovibond et al (2013) used previous research in order to resolve potential issues that could arise before running their experiment. For example, they doubled the number of B- trials in the pre-training phase because a prior study of theirs showed that predictors of no shock are more slowly learnt than predictors of shock, and they needed to ensure differential conditioning to stimuli A and B had occurred. Furthermore, aware that C being novel could be more anxiety-provoking and hence confound results by resulting in more conservative expectancy ratings and a higher SCL, Lovibond et al (2013) ensured that the first trial of the compound phase was always a BC- trial to reduce the novelty of C before it was paired with stimulus A. They acknowledged , in experiment 1, the possibility of participants having never experienced a trial with just the instrumental response or just the safety signal before the test phase, and thus participants may have been more conservative in their judgments, and account for this through directly evaluating competition via a blocking paradigm in experiment 2 where one group pre-trained Pavlovian (AC- trials) and the other pretrained (A* ( )) to ensure wasn’t just conservative ratings etcetera Lovibond et al (2013) also exhibited strength in their rigorously controlled experimental design. The use of headphones constantly emitting white noise (except when the tone stimulus was presented), ensured safety signal-shock learning was not confounded by external, extraneous sounds. The 180 degree rotary dial presented a more accurate measure of expectancy than a typical Likert 1-10 confidence scale. Lovibond et al (2013) used inter-trial intervals to ensure adequate time between trials to prevent confusion, to ensure shock was paired with the correct stimulus (A or B), and to allow SCL to return to baseline levels. Furthermore, they used Bonferroni correction to control for the extra possibility of type I error from using two measurements (expectancy and SCL data). In terms of theoretical strengths, Lovibond et al (2013) attempted to explain unexpected results; and provide alternate explanations for expectancy data. In experiment 1, they excuse the lack of difference in expectancy to shock between A and B- trials in the pre-training phase, by explaining that across the remainder of the experiment, there was a significant difference in expectancies between the two (that is, differential conditioning occurred, it simply took longer than they expected). In experiment 1, they also provided an explanation for SCL unexpectedly increasing in the compound phase from trial 1 to trial 2, explaining that only 37% of participants made an instrumental response on the first trial, so that most participants received a shock then (so SCL would have been higher for trial 2 as they would be more anxious about being shocked), and from trial 2 onwards SCL declined appropriately. In experiment 1, they provided an alternate explanation for the expectancy data, by claiming that it may have just been the novelty of A*- and AC- (that is, the novelty of testing the avoidance response and safety signal individually) that may have lead to the more conservative expectancy ratings when they were presented individually compared to when in conjunction. That is, they highlighted that it may not have been mutual overshadowing or competition that lead to lowered shock expectancies when in conjunction compared to when elements were presented individually, but rather an effect of novelty. This retained a sense of objectivity that is often forgotten in psychological reports which are determined to present their findings as definitive conclusions. Furthermore, while they do not bring this argument up, it is clear that this was not the case based on similar expectancy data from the blocking paradigm in Experiment 2, where either A* or AC- were pre-trained (that is, they were not novel in the test phase), and similar results emerged. They conclude by mentioning that the evidence of a single learning mechanism found in the paper is preliminary, not definitive, which is a strength as it highlights the need for repetition and an accumulation of more data to prove without a doubt that there is a single learning mechanism – Lovibond et al (2013) do not make any assumptions. This is furthered by their outline of limitations in their own experiment – by attempting an objective evaluation of their own experiment, a practice which is sometimes forgotten by psychologists who wish to convince their readers of their findings. As they highlight, the strongest evidence for competition was a cross-experiment comparison. They attempt to dismiss this limitation by saying that the same participant pool was used, with the same equipment, experimenter and same time frame, and that the common trials (A and B-) gave highly congruent data, suggesting that the test phases could be directly compared across experiments. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that a within-subjects design would be better. They highlight the limitation that only the expectancy measure yielded significant effects, but attempt to excuse this by explaining that autonomic conditioning results are often insignificant due to large individual differences which inflate the error term and reduce power. Weaknesses Unfortunately, Lovibond et al (2013)’s design had some flaws. Although they added BC- trials and varied time intervals between the avoidance response and presentation of safety signal C to ensure the avoidance response and stimulus C were independent, competing causes of shock, the post-experiment questionnaires where participants rated the degree of relationship between the two revealed that they were aware of a relationship between them. This means that the results (the lowered expectancies to shock when the avoidance response and safety signal were presented together, than when presented individually), which Lovibond et al (2013) saw as evidence for competition between an avoidance response and safety signal (and thus evidence for a single learning mechanism) may have simply occurred as the safety signal C, as a mediator of causal efficacy of the avoidance response, would have resulted in lower expectancy of shock when combined with the avoidance response, than when they were separate (no competition necessary), whether in the blocking or overshadowing paradigm. Lovibond et al (2013) failed to discuss this, brushing it off as an intrinsic problem when there are voluntary responses. Continuing, while not the most ethical option, conditioning may have been more robust (in particular, SCL results may have been significant) if the level of shock selected for participants was manageably painful instead of just uncomfortable. This is because more variability in SCL would have emerged as participants would have been more anxious. The highly constructed laboratory setting, where they deliberately presented twice as many B- trials, and made as many adjustments as possible to find significant results, begs the question as to how often competition between avoidance responses and safety signals occurs in real life, and whether the single mechanism of learning proposed by Lovibond et al (2013) really exists or is just a fabrication of the laboratory procedures used. Furthermore, humans are quite intelligent: by giving them instructions telling them that pressing a button or hearing a tone ‘may or may not’ effect an outcome, it would be much easier for them to gain an accurate perception of expectancy of shock, particularly if they were undergraduate psychology students, which they probably were, and this may have confounded the results by lowering the expectancies in significant amounts accordingly – that is, rather than genuine competition, participants may have just believed that there were connections from the instructions given, that there was less chance of shock when a button press or tone, and in conjunction, there was the least chance. Continuing, Lovibond et al (2013) claim, in their first experiment, that they had 53 participants, and in their second experiment, 89 participants, but after exclusions, the sample sizes of these experiments were 30 and 57 respectively. While they still had significant expectancy data, Lovibond et al (2013) should have specified more accurately the number of participants in each experiment. Furthermore, if they had had a larger sample size, they may have found significant SCL results due to greater power. Lovibond et al (2013), make faulty conclusions regarding SCL data. They conclude that the SCL data pattern mirrors that of the expectancy data across both experiments. However, as the SCL results were not significant, it is inappropriate to conclude this, as there is a higher probability that any mirrored ‘pattern’ could be the result of chance alone. Statistically speaking, if the SCL data was not significant, than no real differences between the instrumental response and safety signal tested individually versus together have been found. Furthermore, Lovibond et al (2013) brush off the lack of findings in SCL data by claiming that the SCL measure is unreliable. However, it must be asked then, why Lovibond et al (2013) used such a measure in the first place if it is so ‘unreliable’. They claim that SCL have greater individual variability and greater sensitivity to extraneous factors and that is why there were no significant results, but in real life, those extraneous factors are bound to interfere, and if there were non-significant results with such factors, one must ask how applicable a single learning mechanism approach is. Granted, it could be argued that Lovibond et al (2013) is a highly theoretical paper by nature, interested in modeling conditioned learning (by claiming a single underlying mechanism defines conditioned learning structure), rather than application. However, one must ask how relevant or important a model could be if it does not have any external validity. Lovibond et al (2013), furthermore, make assumptions in their conclusions. They fail to explain why it follows that because there seems to be a common associative mechanism that the critical association in instrumental learning is an R-O association in order to explain competition with a Pavlovian S-O association. They do not attempt to explain why, in their cross-experiment comparison, expectancy measure responding in the blocked condition was significantly higher than in the overshadowing condition. Continuing, they assume that if there is a single-learning mechanism, it must be propositional by nature. This is problematic, because while the common thought among single-learning mechanism theorists is that the mechanism is propositional, Lovibond et al (2013) do not explain how their experiment exhibits a propositional mechanism. Even if they have provided evidence for a single-learning mechanism, they have not provided evidence regarding the nature of this single-learning mechanism. Propositional accounts claim that associative learning depends on effortful, attention-demanding reasoning processes. However, one must ask which part of this experiment showed that learning was an effortful process. Continuing, propositional models are faulty. Propositional accounts of learning fail to align with animal and developmental psychology. Non-human animals exhibit associative learning, although they do not have the language to deploy propositions to infer relations about events. “If p, then q” (or contingency) propositions, are not understood until children are 6years old. However, despite lacking the language abilities and contingency propositions to infer relations about events, backward blocking and other evidence of associative learning has been shown in children as young as 8 months. As X claims, there is not enough evidence to justify structured mental representations existing when associative learning occurs (i.e. a propositional model), over a broad, non-propositional associative link between representations. In their introduction, Lovibond et al (2013) are pedantic with their definitions in their introduction when explaining how Pavlovian and instrumental learning could be separate mechanisms. They differentiate between performance and learning claiming that Pavlovian performance is involuntary while instrumental responses are voluntary, but that does not mean they are not learnt the same way. However, if they are to be differentiated, as Lovibond et al (2013) do, whether in their experiment they are actually measuring an underlying mechanism or performance in the test phase, as generated expectancies could simply be another measure of performance – their anxiety levels (CR) conditioned to the safety signal or avoidance response. Continuing, they claim that the notation E1 and E2, where E1 could be a stimulus (Pavlovian) or action (Instrumental conditioning), and where E2 is the outcome, reinforces the notion that a single learning mechanism may underlie both types of associative learning. However, this is simply induced notation. Equally, one could use the notation S-S for Pavlovian learning (the CS-US link, hence S-S), and R-O for instrumental learning (the response-outcome relationship), to portray them as separate learning mechanisms, and to support a dual-process model. Thus, Lovibond et al’s (2013) proposal of a single learning mechanism is largely based on unfounded claims. Furthermore, in their introduction, while Lovibond et al (2013) attempt to provide evidence for a single-learning mechanism, evidence can also be provided for a dual-process model. For example, a single learning mechanism assumes awareness is required for conditioning. However, Baeyens et al 1990 found flavour-flavour learning occurred in absence of any contingency awareness. Continuing, in Perruchet’s task where a tone was either paired with an air-puff or was presented alone, when the tone and airpuff had recently been paired together, expectancy of an air puff on the next trial was reduced, the probability of an eyeblink CR occurring was heightened. Furthermore, neurological data suggests different brain regions are involved in different learning processes, for example, the amygdala plays a large role in fear conditioning. Therefore, it is possible that instrumental and pavlovian are equally run by different parts of the brain. Lovibond et al (2013) did not actually provide evidence against such a model. For example, they could have argued against the dual-process model by claiming that the dissociation between the eyeblink CR and expectancy when CS-US pairings have recently been presented in the Perruchet task, which some learning theorists use to support the dual-process model, that the eyeblink CR results from sensitisation from recent US presentation (a recent air puff). Alternately, they could counter-argue that while the amygdala has a large part in fear learning, it could simply be a subcomponent of a broader, singular system of learning. It would have been a more convincing argument that the experiments were necessary and that a single learning mechanism were possible if they had had more depth in the lead up to their hypotheses. Conclusion Lovibond et al (2013) claim from their experiments that a single learning mechanism underlies Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning. However, despite their attempts to remain objective and their rigorous planning and control of their experiment, they fail to address vital problems to their experiment (such as the possibility of the safety signal being a mediator for the efficacy of the avoidance response), assume, without sufficient evidence, that if a single learning mechanism underlies both types of associative learning, it must be propositional in nature (a faulty assumption), speak of SCL data as if it were significant when it was not, and in the lead-up to their hypotheses regarding a single learning mehcanism, fail to dismiss the possibility of a dual-process model. Reference Lovibond, P.F. and Colagiuri, B., 2013. Facilitation of voluntary goal-directed action by reward cues. Psychological Science, 24(10), pp.2030-2037. Facilitation of Voluntary Goal-directed Action by Reward Cue

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service




Rating: