Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org
determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
[13] Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539–579.
[14] Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company.
[15] Rotter, J. B. (1945). Social learning and clinical psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Bandura, A. (1977). Social
learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press; Miller, N., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
[16] Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
[17] Poundstone, W. (1992). The prisoner’s dilemma. New York, NY: Doubleday.
7.5 Chapter Summary
Classical conditioning was first studied by physiologist Ivan Pavlov. In classical conditioning a
person or animal learns to associate a neutral stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, or CS) with a
stimulus (the unconditioned stimulus, or US) that naturally produces a behavior (the
unconditioned response, or UR). As a result of this association, the previously neutral stimulus
comes to elicit the same or similar response (the conditioned response, or CR).
Classically conditioned responses show extinction if the CS is repeatedly presented without the
US. The CR may reappear later in a process known as spontaneous recovery.
Organisms may show stimulus generalization, in which stimuli similar to the CS may produce
similar behaviors, or stimulus discrimination, in which the organism learns to differentiate
between the CS and other similar stimuli.
Second-order conditioning occurs when a second CS is conditioned to a previously established
CS.