Preparedness (learning)

== History and theoretical background ==

== History and theoretical background ==

In a study by [[John Garcia (psychologist)|Garcia]] and Koelling (1966), rats were given water that was simultaneously tasty ([[Saccharin|saccharin-flavoured]]) and ‘bright-noisy’ (paired with light and sound), meaning both stimuli were experienced equally. During training, this combined stimulus was paired with an unpleasant outcome, either an electric shock or nausea induced by radiation or toxin exposure. When the taste and audiovisual components were later tested separately, rats that were made nauseous developed a strong aversion to the taste but not to the light and sound. Conversely, the rats that were shocked avoided the light and sound but not the taste. This pattern was amongst the first challenges to the behaviourist assumption that any stimulus could be equally [[Association (psychology)|associated]] with any outcome and instead suggested that organisms are biologically predisposed to associate certain types of cues with certain types of consequences.{{Cite journal |last=Garcia |first=John |last2=Koelling |first2=Robert A. |date=1966-01-01 |title=Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning |url=https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209 |journal=Psychonomic Science |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=123–124 |doi=10.3758/BF03342209 |issn=2197-9952}} These findings were originally rejected by several journals; however, their successful replication by other researchers helped overcome this initial resistance.{{Cite journal |last=Davidson |first=Terry |last2=Riley |first2=Anthony |date=2015 |title=Taste, Sickness, and Learning |url=https://www.americanscientist.org/article/taste-sickness-and-learning |journal=American Scientist |volume=103 |issue=3 |pages=204 |doi=10.1511/2015.114.204 |issn=0003-0996}}

In a study by [[John Garcia (psychologist)|Garcia]] and Koelling (1966), rats were given water that was simultaneously tasty ([[Saccharin|saccharin-flavoured]]) and ‘bright-noisy’ (paired with light and sound), meaning both stimuli were experienced equally. During training, this combined stimulus was paired with an unpleasant outcome, either an electric shock or nausea induced by radiation or toxin exposure. When the taste and audiovisual components were later tested separately, rats that were made nauseous developed a strong aversion to the taste but not to the light and sound. Conversely, the rats that were shocked avoided the light and sound but not the taste. This pattern was amongst the first challenges to the behaviourist assumption that any stimulus could be equally [[Association (psychology)|associated]] with any outcome and instead suggested that organisms are biologically predisposed to associate certain types of cues with certain types of consequences.{{Cite journal |last=Garcia |first=John |last2=Koelling |first2=Robert A. |date=1966-01-01 |title=Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning |url=https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209 |journal=Psychonomic Science |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=123–124 |doi=10.3758/BF03342209 |issn=2197-9952}} These findings were originally rejected by several journals; however, their successful replication by other researchers helped overcome this initial resistance.{{Cite journal |last=Davidson |first=Terry |last2=Riley |first2=Anthony |date=2015 |title=Taste, Sickness, and Learning |url=https://www.americanscientist.org/article/taste-sickness-and-learning |journal=American Scientist |volume=103 |issue=3 |pages=204 |doi=10.1511/2015.114.204 |issn=0003-0996}}

[[File:Preparedness continuum (cropped).jpg|thumb|555x555px|Diagram illustrating Seligman's preparedness continuum.]]

[[File:Preparedness continuum (cropped).jpg|thumb|425x425px|Diagram illustrating Seligman's preparedness continuum.]]

Seligman (1971) proposed that the ease with which associations are learned falls along a [[continuum]]. At one end, ‘prepared’ associations are acquired rapidly with very little input, sometimes in a single trial, are highly resistant to [[Extinction (psychology)|extinction]] (the fading of a learned response once reinforcement stops) and are difficult to override through reasoning alone. At the other end, ‘contraprepared’ associations are very difficult to establish, even with many repeated pairings. Standard laboratory conditioning that requires multiple trials is considered ‘unprepared’ learning, which falls in the middle of the continuum. Seligman applied this model to explain the uneven distribution of human phobias across all potentially dangerous objects; fears of snakes, spiders and heights are significantly more prevalent than fears of electrical outlets or hammers, despite the latter being more frequently associated with injury in modern life. He argued that common phobias are non-arbitrary and comprise objects and situations related to threats faced throughout human evolutionary history.

Seligman (1971) proposed that the ease with which associations are learned falls along a [[continuum]]. At one end, ‘prepared’ associations are acquired rapidly with very little input, sometimes in a single trial, are highly resistant to [[Extinction (psychology)|extinction]] (the fading of a learned response once reinforcement stops) and are difficult to override through reasoning alone. At the other end, ‘contraprepared’ associations are very difficult to establish, even with many repeated pairings. Standard laboratory conditioning that requires multiple trials is considered ‘unprepared’ learning, which falls in the middle of the continuum. Seligman applied this model to explain the uneven distribution of human phobias across all potentially dangerous objects; fears of snakes, spiders and heights are significantly more prevalent than fears of electrical outlets or hammers, despite the latter being more frequently associated with injury in modern life. He argued that common phobias are non-arbitrary and comprise objects and situations related to threats faced throughout human evolutionary history.