Research Report:

Stimulus Discrimination in Children as a Function of Age and Gender

Ashley Davis

February 7, 2013

Introduction
From the very beginning of psychology, the learning patterns of people have been studied in great detail. Psychologists define learning as any process through which experience at one time can alter an individual's behavior at a future time (Marshal, 1998). Learning has been categorized into 3 different methods: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning, according to Zambardo (et al) (2010). Ivan Pavlov (1849-1963), stumbled upon the classical conditioning form of learning in his studies of the digestive system of dogs (Pavlov, 1928) when the dogs began to salivate before the food was placed in their mouths (Dewsbury, 1997). In fact, the dogs began to salivate even when they only heard the sound of the footsteps of the lab assistants bringing the food to the dogs (Zambardo et al, 2010). According to Zambardo (et al) (2010), Classical conditioning is currently defined as a basic form of learning in which a stimulus that produces an innate reflex becomes associated with a previously neutral stimulus, which then acquires the power to elicit essentially the same response. There are three stages in the process of classical conditioning: before conditioning, during conditioning (acquisition), and after conditioning. In the beforeconditioning phase, the unconditioned stimuli automatically elicits the unconditioned response, and the neutral stimulus elicits an irrelevant response if any response at all. During the acquisition phase, the conditioned stimulus (previously referred to as the neutral stimulus) followed by the unconditioned stimulus elicits the unconditioned

response. Finally in the after conditioning phase, the conditioned stimulus elicits the conditioned response (previously referred to as the unconditioned response). Over 80 years ago, John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted an experiment which demonstrated conditioned a conditioned fear in humans (Brewer, 1991; Fancher, 1979). In this experiment, Watson and Rayner conditioned a nine-month-old baby boy named Albert to be afraid of rats. The experimenters presented him with a rat, followed by a very loud noise, which naturally made the young boy cry. Little Albert associated the rat with the frightening noise and began to cry whenever the rat was presented even when the presentation of the rat was not followed by the loud noise. Watson and Rayner found that Little Alberts fear of the rat was generalized to other white, fuzzy objects such as a Santa Claus mask, and a white fur coat. According to Gordon Marshal, stimulus generalization denotes the way in which responses, initially conditioned to a particular stimulus, are also evoked by other stimuli that bear some similarity to the original (1998). Researchers have found that as age increases, an individual's ability to discriminate between stimuli increases. This means that that individuals stimulus generalization has decreased in range. One theory as to why this happens is that the individual is better to understand what the stimulus is with the exposure over time. Using the same situation as the one in the case of Little Albert, if the fear was instead conditioned in an adult, then the fear would most likely be limited to rats. Is there a difference in the learning patterns of male and female students regarding the range of stimuli generalization as a function of age? The purpose of this

research plan is to outline the process by which the experimenter plans to answer this question.

Hypothesis
It has been well documented that females reach a mental maturity at an earlier age than males. Based on that statement, it was hypothesized that the ability of female students to discriminate between stimuli as a function of age will increase at a quicker rate than that of the male students. If there is a difference in the generalization ranges in male and female students, then there should be an extended number of age groups wherein female students should have a greater ability to discriminate between stimuli.

Materials and Methods

Tuning fork application on iPad. Speaker Lemon juice for each student Paper cups for each student Spreadsheet to record responses.

In a classroom setting, each student was given a small paper cup filled with lemon juice. The tuning fork application was opened and the iPad was plugged into a speaker to amplify the frequency. In the preconditioning phase, each student was asked to take a sip of the lemon juice. The frequency of 455 Hertz was played for the students which did not elicit any relevant response. During the conditioning phase, the same frequency of 455 Hertz was played after which the students took another sip of lemon juice. This action was repeated 10 times or until each student salivated simply at the sound of the frequency. After a short 5 minute break, which gave the students time to generalize the frequency in their minds, 5 Hertz variants of the 455 frequency were played and responses were recorded on a self-report basis as to whether or not salivation occurred. Data was recorded in a spreadsheet and analyzed for a significant difference in stimulus generalization in male and female students as a function of age.

Data
In figure 1 (shown below), The correlation between age and discriminatory ability is analyzed. The R squared value, 0.00155, indicates that there was no correlation between age and the ability of an individual to discriminate between the conditioned stimulus and the variant frequencies.

Age and Range

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 Age Figure1: This graph shows the age of subjects and their average stimulus generalization range. This graph shows almost no correlation. Previous studies have been done that indicate that as age increases, as does that persons ability to discriminate amongst stimuli presented in a classically conditioned setting. 10 15 R = 0.0016

Figure 2 (shown below), analyzes the correlation between age and discriminatory ability in females. There is a very slight negative correlation, which means that as the age increased, on average, the generalization of the stimulus occurred less frequently.

Range (Hz)

Female Age and Range

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 Age 10 15 R = 0.0841

Figure 2: This graph shows the correlation between the age of females and their ability to discriminate between the stimulus they were conditioned to, and the variant frequencies played afterward.

In figure 3 (shown below), the correlation between the age of males and their ability to discriminate between the stimulus they were conditioned to and the variant frequencies played afterward is investigated. In this graph, there is a relatively positive correlation between the age and discriminatory abilities. This means that as the age increases, their generalization of the conditioned stimulus increases.

Range (Hz)

Male Age and Range

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 Age 10 R = 0.2709

Range (Hz)

15

Figure 3: This graph shows the positive correlation between the age and the ability of male students to discriminate between the stimulus they were conditioned to, and the variant frequencies played afterward.

In figure 4 (shown below) the difference between the male and female average range of generalization as a function of age is analyzed. In the age range of 6-8, females seemed to have a better innate ability to discriminate between the stimulus and the variant frequencies. However, in the age group of 9-12, excluding age 11, male students seemed to have better discriminatory abilities.

Male and Female Average Range

35 Average Range (Hz) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 MALE: FEMALE: 6 28.75 7 29 8 9 10 11 12 30 27.5

15.90909 26.66667 26.07143 24.13043 28.33333 20.71429 31.25 13.88889 15.66667 25.71429 Age

Figure 4: This graph ventures to illustrate the differences in ability to discriminate between stimuli in males and females. Notice the major differences in age groups 6, 9, and 10.

In table 1 (shown below), the results of a series of seven T-Tests are shown. The output of these tests is the P-Value, which states the probability that the data set tested was due to chance. The P-Value of age groups 6, 9, and 10 state that there is a significant difference between male and female generalization ranges, and that there is less than 5% chance that the difference occurred by chance.

AGE: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

P-VALUES 0.060445236 0.573478844 0.163198561 0.001564074 0.00595941 0.37612586 #DIV/0!

Table 1: Shows age and the respective P-Values, which show significance or lack thereof in the difference between the generalization range in males and females. Note that there is no P-Value for age group 12, due to the fact that there was only one representative from the male gender in this age group.

Conclusion
The hypothesis posed for this study was partially supported. There was a significant difference in male and female students generalization range, but only in age groups 6, 9, and 10. It was also partially supported in the fact that in the age groups that there was a significant difference in generalization range, only one group of the three suggested that female students had a better ability to discriminate between stimuli. The hypothesis was not supported as far as the suggestion that as the age of both male and female students increase the generalization range would decrease. There seemed to be no correlation between the two variables.

Discussion
One explanation as to why the data might not have turned out as expected, is that there were not enough people in each age group for each gender to establish complete significance. At least 30 students for each group and gender would need to be studied in order to reach this level of significance. None of the groups studied had that many participants. Another problem associated with this study is that they took place in a classroom setting with multiple people in the room being tested at a time. This introduces a social pressure factor. If a student whose mouth did water at the sound of one of the variant frequencies, was sitting next to a friend whose mouth did not water, the student will be less likely to write down that his/her mouth did water, and vice versa. This specific event was observed multiple times within this study. When dealing with children as young as 6 years old, many misunderstandings can occur. At times within this study, a greater understanding was required of the students than they might have been capable of. Misunderstandings of instructions led to unusable data, and data that might not have been accurate. Sometimes the power of thought might have been a stimulus of greater strength than the variant frequencies played after conditioning. The thought of lemon juice does have the power to make a persons mouth water, if that thought has been provoked. The conditioning phase had 10 sets in every classroom that was tested. If a student was having a particularly difficult time associating the mouthwatering effect of the lemon juice with the frequency of 455Hz, then this association might not have been made by the end of the 10 sets.

There was another variable that was not accounted for as far as experience with music, and sound. While relatively, each of the age groups should have around the same experience with sound, there might not be the same relative exposure to music. If a student had previously taken a music lesson of some sort, he/she might have a better sense of pitch and frequency, and therefore would be able to tell that there was a difference in frequency, where other students might not have the same ability. There was also a variable of exposure to lemon juice to be considered. Some students that were tested expressed a like for sour things, and in particular, lemon juice. If a student drank lemon juice on a regular basis could have grown accustomed to the taste, and his/her mouth might not water as much due to the level of exposure to it. This would make it difficult for the student to associate the mouthwatering effect from the lemon juice with the frequency that other students were conditioned to.

References
Brewer, C. L. (1991). Perspectives on John B. Watson. In G. A. Kimble, M. Wertheimer, & C. L. White (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in psychology (pp. 170186). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Dewsbury, D. A. (1997). In celebration of the centennial of Ivan P. Pavlovs (1897/1902) The work of digestive glands. American Psychologist, 52, 933-935. Fancher, R. E. (1979). Pioneers of psychology. New York: W. W. Norton. Marshall, Gordon "stimulus generalization." A Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Retrieved January 04, 2013 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-stimulusgeneralization.html Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes: twenty-five years of objective study of higher nervous activity (behavior of animals) (Vol. 1, W. H. Gantt, Trans.). New York: International Publishers. Zimbardo, P. G., Johnson, R. L., Weber, A. L., & Gruber, C. W. (2010). S. Hartman (Ed.), Psychology AP edition with discovery psychology (1st ed.).