<p>If you think of the stimulus being represented by a distributed set of features (Tanifuji et al., 2001), then I would not say it was a <em>failure</em> to discriminate. During the conditioned response training for Albert, all features were present as the stimuli. It wasn't that he couldn't discriminate the features, just that each of the features were trained as conditioned stimuli.  </p>

<p>I suspect that an adult would think of the rat symbolically, and the conditioning would be done on that mental rat symbol. The individual features would likely not produce fear. Children of Albert's age are not thought to have yet developed symbolic thought (DeLoache, 1987). So, the conditioning would be done on the visual components themselves.</p>

<p><strong>References</strong></p>

<p><a href="http://anon.cs.rochester.edu/users/faculty/dana/tanifuji.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://anon.cs.rochester.edu/users/faculty/dana/tanifuji.pdf</a>
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/238/4833/1556.short</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-16T02:36:25.873Z
2012-09-06T02:00:38.587Z
2012-09-06T02:00:38.587Z
Preece
<p>The classic case of <a href="http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/stimgen.htm" rel="nofollow">Stimulus Generalization</a> is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment" rel="nofollow">Little Albert</a>. The About.com link also explains it in terms of dogs. I note that in both cases, it seems highly likely that the subject (dog or infant) is <em>unable to discriminate stimuli</em> or unable to determine which <em>part</em> of the stimulus is relevant.</p>

<p>Have there been studies on stimulus generalization in adults? </p>

<p>Specifically, I wonder if stimulus generalization results from the inability to determine what part of an unconditioned stimulus (white rat) is associated with the conditioned stimulus (loud noise). </p>

<p>I know that discrimination can be caused by conditioning with relevant stimuli and extincting non-relevant stimuli, but would an adult human generalize fear to a general stimulus or a specific one and why?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-10T18:22:13.250Z
a [related CogSci.SE question](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/216/29)
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-11T03:59:36.480Z
It'll be closer to the dog level than to the human, but there is an *extensive* body of literature using the physiology of eyeblink conditioning in the rabbit as a model.  See [this](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14557607) for a recent and relevant example, but there are literally thousands of papers in this area.  The key is in the connections between the cerebellum and the hippocampus and within the cerebellum itself.
Chuck Sherrington
<behaviorism><conditioning>
Is stimulus generalization acquired due to inability to discriminate stimuli?
Zelda
# Is stimulus generalization acquired due to inability to discriminate stimuli?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-02-10)

The classic case of [Stimulus Generalization](http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/stimgen.htm) is [Little Albert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment). The About.com link also explains it in terms of dogs. I note that in both cases, it seems highly likely that the subject (dog or infant) is *unable to discriminate stimuli* or unable to determine which *part* of the stimulus is relevant.

Have there been studies on stimulus generalization in adults?

Specifically, I wonder if stimulus generalization results from the inability to determine what part of an unconditioned stimulus (white rat) is associated with the conditioned stimulus (loud noise).

I know that discrimination can be caused by conditioning with relevant stimuli and extincting non-relevant stimuli, but would an adult human generalize fear to a general stimulus or a specific one and why?

**Tags:** behaviorism, conditioning

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: a [related CogSci.SE question](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/216/29)  
> **username_2**: It'll be closer to the dog level than to the human, but there is an *extensive* body of literature using the physiology of eyeblink conditioning in the rabbit as a model.  See [this](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14557607) for a recent and relevant example, but there are literally thousands of papers in this area.  The key is in the connections between the cerebellum and the hippocampus and within the cerebellum itself.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-02-16. Score: 3

If you think of the stimulus being represented by a distributed set of features (Tanifuji et al., 2001), then I would not say it was a *failure* to discriminate. During the conditioned response training for Albert, all features were present as the stimuli. It wasn't that he couldn't discriminate the features, just that each of the features were trained as conditioned stimuli.

I suspect that an adult would think of the rat symbolically, and the conditioning would be done on that mental rat symbol. The individual features would likely not produce fear. Children of Albert's age are not thought to have yet developed symbolic thought (DeLoache, 1987). So, the conditioning would be done on the visual components themselves.

**References**

<http://anon.cs.rochester.edu/users/faculty/dana/tanifuji.pdf>
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/238/4833/1556.short


---

