Week 6 — What Changed the Behavior? A Learning Brief

Assignment 6 of the term — compute two short counts from this week's studies and scenarios, label what kind of learning and which consequence each case shows, and tell someone new to psychology what negative reinforcement really means.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based brief. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned to read an experiment and to judge whether a study treated its participants ethically; this week both tools come back, in the Little Albert and Bobo doll studies. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together and explain them.

The task

Watson and Rayner (1920) conditioned fear in an infant by pairing an object he had not feared with something that frightened him. In Bandura's Bobo doll study (1961), children who had watched an adult attack an inflatable doll were more likely to act aggressively toward it themselves, with no reward of their own. The everyday learning scenarios are the can opener, hot stove, parking ticket, snooze alarm, punch card, paycheck, slot machine, and surprise inspection; only the can opener is classical conditioning.

Work these two problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. Watson and Rayner's Little Albert study was published in 1920, and Bandura's Bobo doll study was published in 1961. How many years separate the two studies?
2. The week's everyday learning scenarios number 8, and 1 of them is a classical conditioning case. How many of the scenarios are operant cases?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation. For problem 1, label the parts of the Little Albert study with this week's terms (which event was the UCS and which once-harmless object became the CS), name two research ethics standards the study fails, and explain what the Bobo doll study showed that conditioning by direct consequences does not predict. For problem 2, label the snooze alarm and the parking ticket with the four consequences, saying for each what was added or removed and whether the behavior went up or down, and explain why the slot machine's variable-ratio schedule keeps a player pulling.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has never studied psychology says, "I use negative reinforcement with my teenager: when she breaks curfew, I take her phone away for the weekend." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, what the friend is actually describing, what negative reinforcement would look like instead, and one limit: a label depends on what really happens to the behavior afterward. Explain any technical term in everyday words.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a neighbor who asks why their dog barks every time a doorbell rings on television. Model answer: "Your dog learned that the doorbell sound means someone is arriving, so the sound alone now sets off the barking. A TV doorbell sounds close enough to yours that it triggers the same reaction; psychologists call that spread generalization. If the TV doorbell keeps ringing with no visitor, the barking at it may fade over time. Dogs differ, though, so some will keep reacting longer than others."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own explanation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, the two brief interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the brief for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about learning: classical conditioning and its labels (UCS, UCR, CS, CR), operant conditioning and the four consequences, schedules of reinforcement, observational learning, and research ethics. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The facts: Watson and Rayner (1920) conditioned fear in an infant by pairing an object he had not feared with something that frightened him. In Bandura's Bobo doll study (1961), children who had watched an adult attack an inflatable doll were more likely to act aggressively toward it themselves, with no reward of their own. The everyday learning scenarios are the can opener, hot stove, parking ticket, snooze alarm, punch card, paycheck, slot machine, and surprise inspection; only the can opener is classical conditioning. Positive means something is added and negative means something is removed; reinforcement makes a behavior more likely and punishment makes it less likely, so negative reinforcement is not punishment. Of the four partial schedules, variable-ratio reinforcement produces the highest and most extinction-resistant response rates.
PROBLEM P1: Watson and Rayner's Little Albert study was published in 1920, and Bandura's Bobo doll study was published in 1961. How many years separate the two studies?
PROBLEM P2: The week's everyday learning scenarios number 8, and 1 of them is a classical conditioning case. How many of the scenarios are operant cases?
After the two answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, label the UCS and the CS in the Little Albert study, name two research ethics standards it fails, and explain what the Bobo doll study showed that conditioning by direct consequences does not predict; for P2, label the snooze alarm and the parking ticket with the four consequences, saying what was added or removed and which way the behavior moved, and explain why the slot machine's variable-ratio schedule keeps a player pulling. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend who says taking a teenager's phone away after a broken curfew is negative reinforcement, explaining in everyday words what the friend is describing, what negative reinforcement would look like instead, and one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts and computations (20 points), learning and consequence reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the friend only with P2, not again with P1.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH a correct UCS and CS label for the Little Albert study with two correctly named ethics standards AND an accurate account of what the Bobo doll study showed = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P2, BOTH correct labels for the snooze alarm and the parking ticket, each with what was added or removed and which way the behavior moved, plus the variable-ratio reason, AND a message to the friend that correctly calls the phone removal negative punishment, describes negative reinforcement correctly, and names a limit = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Calling negative reinforcement a kind of punishment, swapping the CS and the UCS, or reading positive as good does not count. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the friend with P2 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the two starting values and the subtraction shown = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Offer the reflection as a choice of two equally weighted prompts and let me pick one: (a) what did the revision change about how I label a consequence, or (b) what would I now tell a friend differently about rewards and punishments. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised learning brief, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised learning brief with both answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of the four consequences with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 6 skills — labeling classical conditioning with the UCS, UCR, CS, and CR, sorting the four consequences of operant conditioning by what was added or removed and which way the behavior moved, explaining why variable-ratio reinforcement persists, describing observational learning, and judging a study against research ethics — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two brief interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised learning brief, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com