Paul Brandon wrote:
"Its special nature is demonstrated by the fact that all stimuli
present during ingestion do not become CS's; just the taste/smell of
the food. You don't usually acquire an aversion to the person you
ate the food with."
But in this case the smell of the wood chips has become a CS. Isn't that
unusual for a taste aversion? If this were similar to a taste aversion,
he would smell the wood, get physically ill and then get ill whenever he
smelled wood chips again. He was not the one who originally got sick. He
only made the connection between the two smells at school.
Rick
OK -- it looks a bit more complicated (read question before
answering it, as I tell my students ;-).
To fit it into conditioned taste aversion we'd have to assume
that either the smell of vomit is itself a UCS for conditioned taste
aversion, or that second order conditioning is involved, with the odor
(of vomit) being the earlier CS for taste aversion and the smell of
wood chips being a second order conditional stimulus.
Anyone know if second order classical conditioning has been
demonstrated with taste aversion?
--
The best argument against Intelligent
Design is that fact that people believe in it.
* PAUL K.
BRANDON
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
