Chapter 4

Table 1

Your response is orienting eye fixations to novel situations.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

eye fixations to 2.6-3 1.082* .464 .020

novel situations

Table 1 show that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, response is orienting eye

fixations to novel situations as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05

level(sig. = 0.020).

Table 2

Your response is orienting when you listen loud noise in your classroom.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

listen loud noise in 2.0-2.5 1.017* .471 .032

classroom
Table 2 shows that respondents who gain 2.0-2.5 CGPA, response is orienting when they

listen loud noise in your classroom as compare to other students. Difference was significant at

.05 level(sig. = 0.032).

Table 3

Habituation to the number of stimulus (frequency) increases as the number of repetitions

increases.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

stimulus (frequency) 3.1-3-5 .745* .226 .001

increases as the

number of

repetitions increases

Table 3 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, habitual to the number of

stimulus (frequency) increases as the number of repetitions increases as compare to other

students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.001).

Table 4

Whenever there is interval between stimulation in learning are unable to learn.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)
interval between 3.1-3-5 1.132* .544 .038

stimulation in

learning

Table 4 show that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, said that whenever there is

interval between stimulation in learning are unable to learn as compare to other students.

Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.038).

Table 5

Habituation to one stimulus may be blocked by stimulation with another stimulus

(dishabituation).

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

stimulus blocked 3.6-4.0 1.082* .464 .020

Table 5 shows that respondents who gain 3.6-4.0 CGPA, habitual to one stimulus may be

blocked by stimulation with another stimulus (dishabituation). Difference was significant at .05

level (sig. = 0.020).

Table 6

You are able to differentiate between minor difficult and difficult tasks in learning.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

able to differentiate 3.1-3-5 .755* .332 .024

between difficult

tasks

Table 6 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, are able to differentiate between

minor difficult and difficult tasks in learning as compare to other students. Difference was

significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.024).

Table 7

You can discernment words in noisy environment.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

discernment words 3.6-4.0 1.082* .464 .020

in noisy environment

Table 7 shows that respondents who gain 3.6-4.0 CGPA, can discernment words in noisy

environment as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. =

0.020).
Table 8

You can pay attention to the word and attention is drawn away from the noise.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

pay attention to the 2.0-2.5 1.177 .521 .025

word and attention is

drawn away from the

noise

Table 8 shows that respondents who gain 2.0-2.5 CGPA, can pay attention to the word and

attention is drawn away from the noise as compare to other students. Difference was

significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.025).

Table 9

Your impression will be the auditory learning that occurs on a familiar voice or for the visual

representation of a set of dots in a particular order.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

auditory impression 3.1-3-5 -.755 .332 .024

in learning familiar

voice
Table 9 show that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA impression were auditory learning that

occurs on a familiar voice or for the visual representation of a set of dots in a particular order

as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.024).

Table 10

Pre-exposure to the stimulus helps you in differentiation

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

Pre-exposure to the 3.1-3-5 .926 .358 .010

stimulus helps you in

differentiation

Table 10 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, pre-exposure to the stimulus helps

them in differentiation as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level(sig.

= 0.010).
Table 11

In learning you are able to combine complex features together

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

able to combine 3.1-3-5 1.055 .502 .037

complex features

together

Table 11 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, in learning they are able to combine

complex features together as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level

(sig. = 0.037).

Table 12

You are able to unitize words vs. phonemes.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

able to unitize words 3.1-3-5 1.621 .811 .046

vs. phonemes

Table 12 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, they are able to unitize words vs.

phonemes as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.046).
Table 13

Over the time you cannot recognizes whole words and not the phonemes that the words are made

up of.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

Unable to recognize 3.1-3-5 1.082* .464 .020

whole world

Table 13 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, over the time they cannot

recognizes whole words and not the phonemes that the words are made up of as compare to

other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.020).

Table 14

Exposure to stimulus leads to other effects that can be noted.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

Exposure to stimulus 2.6-3.0 .652* .255 .011

leads to other effects

that can be noted

Table 14 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that exposure to stimulus leads

to other effects that can be noted as compare to other students. Difference was significant at

.05 level(sig. = 0.011).

Table 15

You give preference to the east situations in learning

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

preference to the east Below 2 .585* .265 .028

situations in learning

Table 15 shows that respondents who gain below 2 CGPA give preference to the east

situations in learning as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level(sig.

= 0.028).
Table 16

You give importance to the familiar situations rather than unseen situations.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

importance to the 2.0-2.5 2.433* .574 .000

familiar situations

rather than unseen

situations

Table 16 shows that respondents who gain 2.0-2.5 CGPA give importance to the familiar

situations rather than unseen situations as compare to other students. Difference was

significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.000).

Table 17

Your teacher is your major facilitator in learning

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

teacher is major 3.6-4.0 2.222* .538 .000

facilitator

Table 17 shows that respondents who gain 3.6-4.0 CGPA said that teacher is your major

facilitator in learning as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig.

= 0.000).

Table 18

Their response was always potentiated in when someone facilitate you

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

response is always 2.6-3.0 1.529* .330 .000

potentiated

Table 18 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA response is always potentiated in

when someone facilitate them as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05

level (sig. = 0.000).

Table 19

If you are simply exposed a few times even for short periods then you will come to prefer the

stimulus that you are exposed to.

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

simply exposed a 3.1-3-5 1.555* .281 .000

few times even for

short periods

Table 19 shows that respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA said that If you are simply exposed a

few times even for short periods then you will come to prefer the stimulus that you are exposed

to as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.000).
Table 20

Your response in loud noise turns into anxiety

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

response in loud 2.6-3.0 1.670 .308 .000

noise turns into

anxiety

Table 20 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA Your response in loud noise turns into

anxiety as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.000).

Table 21

When a loud noise combined with anxiety it will cause a disruptive behavior from your side

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

loud noise combined 2.6-30 1.939 .414 .000

with anxiety cause a

disruptive behavior
Table 21 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that When a loud noise combined

with anxiety it will cause a disruptive behavior from their side as compare to other students.

Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.000).

Table 22

When you are exposed to feared objects gradually they experience a reduction in anxiety through

the process of habituation

Independent variable Independent variable Mean Std. Error Sig.

(I) (J) Difference

(I-J)

exposed to feared 2.6-3 1.104* .288 .000

objects gradually

they experience a

reduction in anxiety

Table 22 shows that respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, when they were exposed to feared

objects gradually they experience a reduction in anxiety through the process of habituation

situations as compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level(sig. = 0.000).
 Chapter 5

Findings:

1. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, response is orienting eye fixations to novel

situations as compare to other students.

2. Respondents who gain 2.0-2.5 CGPA, response is orienting when they listen loud noise

in your classroom as compare to other students.

3. Respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, habitual to the number of stimulus (frequency)

increases as the number of repetitions increases as compare to other students.

4. Respondents, who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, said that whenever there is interval between

stimulation in learning are unable to learn as compare to other students.

5. Respondents, who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, are able to differentiate between minor difficult

and difficult tasks in learning as compare to other students.

6. Respondents, who gain 3.6-4.0 CGPA, can discernment words in noisy environment as

compare to other students. Difference was significant at .05 level (sig. = 0.020).

7. Respondents, who gain 2.0-2.5 CGPA, can pay attention to the word and attention is

drawn away from the noise as compare to other students.

8. Respondents, who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA impression were auditory learning that occurs

on a familiar voice or for the visual representation of a set of dots in a particular order

as compare to other students.

9. Respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, pre-exposure to the stimulus helps them in

differentiation as compare to other students.

10. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, in learning they are able to combine complex

features together as compare to other students.

11. Respondents who gain 3.1-3-5 CGPA, they are able to unitize words vs. phonemes as

compare to other students.

12. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, over the time they cannot recognizes whole

words and not the phonemes that the words are made up of as compare to other

students.

13. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that exposure to stimulus leads to other

effects that can be noted as compare to other students.

14. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA give preference to the east situations in learning

as compare to other students.

15. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA give importance to the familiar situations rather

than unseen situations as compare to other students.

16. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that teacher is your major facilitator in

learning as compare to other students.

17. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA response is always potentiated in when someone

facilitate them as compare to other students.

18. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that If you are simply exposed a few times

even for short periods then you will come to prefer the stimulus that you are exposed to

as compare to other students.

 19. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA Your response in loud noise turns into anxiety as

compare to other students.

20. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA said that When a loud noise combined with

anxiety it will cause a disruptive behavior from their side as compare to other students.

21. Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, when they were exposed to feared objects

gradually they experience a reduction in anxiety through the process of habituation

situations as compare to other students.

Conclusions:

On the basis of findings of the study following conclusions were made

Respondents who gain 2.6-3.0 CGPA, response was orienting eye fixations to novel

situations as compare to other students, in learning they were able to combine complex

features together as compare to other students, response was always potentiated in when

someone facilitate them as compare to other students. are simply exposed a few times even for

short periods then they will come to prefer the stimulus that they were exposed, response in

loud noise turns into anxiety And When a loud noise combined with anxiety it will cause a

disruptive behavior from their side as compare to other students.

Respondents orienting when they listen loud noise in their classroom, habitual to the

number of stimulus (frequency) increases as the number of repetitions increases, whenever

there is interval between stimulation in learning are unable to learn as compare to other

students, were able to differentiate between minor difficult and difficult tasks in learning as

compare to other students, can discernment words in noisy environment and can pay attention

to the word and attention is drawn away from the noise as compare to other students.
References

Annau, Z., and Kamin, L. J. (1961). The conditioned emotional response as a function of
intensity of the US. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 54, 428–432. doi: 10.1037/h0042199

Barrett, L. C., and Livesey, E. J. (2010). Dissociations between expectancy and performance in
simple and two-choice reaction-time tasks: a test of associative and nonassociative
explanations. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 864–877. doi: 10.1037/a0019403

Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., Pineno, O., and Miller, R. R. (2005a). Outcome additivity and
outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn.
Mem. Cogn. 31, 238–249.

Beckers, T., Van den Broeck, U. V., Renne, M., Vandorpe, S., Houwer, J. D., and Eelen, P.
(2005b). Blocking is sensitive to causal structure in 4-year-old and 8-year-old children. Exp.
Psychol. 52, 264–271. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.52.4.264

Blanco, F., Baeyens, F., and Beckers, T. (2014). Blocking in human causal learning is affected
by outcome assumptions manipulated through causal structure. Learn. Behav. 42, 185–199. doi:
10.3758/s13420-014-0137-y

Blanco, F., Matute, H., and Vadillo, M. A. (2012). Mediating role of activity level in the
depressive realism effect. PLoS ONE 7:e46203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046203

Boddez, Y., Haesen, K., Baeyens, F., and Beckers, T. (2014). Selectivity in associative learning:
a cognitive stage framework for blocking and cue competition phenomena. Front.
Psychol. 5:1305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01305

Cobos, P. L., Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Morís, J., and Luque, D. (2016). Dependent measure and
time constraints modulate the competition between conflicting feature-based and rule-based
generalization processes. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000335 [Epub
ahead of print].
Colagiuri, B., and Livesey, E. J. (2016). Contextual cuing as a form of nonconscious learning:
theoretical and empirical analysis in large and very large samples. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 23,
1996–2009. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1063-0

De Houwer, J. (2009). The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for

association formation models. Learn. Behav. 37, 1–20. doi: 10.3758/LB.37.1.1

De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., and Glautier, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate
blocking. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 55A, 965–985. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000578

Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., and Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: the
role of selective attribution. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36, 29–50. doi: 10.1080/14640748408401502

Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Otto, R., and Livesey, E. J. (2016). Rule abstraction, model-based
choice and cognitive reflection. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 23, 1615–1623.

Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Otto, R. A., and Livesey, E. J. (2015). “Connecting rule-
abstraction and model-based choice across disparate learning tasks,” in Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds D. Noelle, R. Dale, A. Warlaumont, J.
Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. Jennings, et al. (Pasadena, CA: Cognitive Science Society), 590–595.

Don, H. J., and Livesey, E. J. (2015). Resistance to instructed reversal of the learned
predictiveness effect. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 1327–1347. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.979212

Fiedler, K., and Juslin, P. (2006). Information Sampling and Adaptive Cognition. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Goujon, A., Didierjean, A., and Thorpe, S. (2015). Investigating implicit statistical learning
mechanisms through contextual cueing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 524–533. doi:
10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.009
Gredebäck, G., Winman, A., and Juslin, P. (2000). “Rational assessments of covariation and
causality,” in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds
L. R. Gleitman and K. Joshi (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 190–195.

Harris, J., Livesey, E., Gharaei, S., and Westbrook, F. (2008). Negative patterning is easier than
a biconditional discrimination. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34, 494–500. doi:
10.1037/0097-7403.34.4.494

Harris, J. A. (2006). Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning. Psychol.

Rev. 113, 584–605. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.584

Harris, J. A., and Livesey, E. J. (2008). Comparing patterning and biconditional discriminations
in humans. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34, 144–154. doi: 10.1037/0097-
7403.34.1.144