The correct answer shows that the central route is when a person deeply understands the message because they have thought about it, understand the logic, and are motivated by it. The correct answer also shows that the peripheral route influences a person through general impressions and requires less thought processing. The effect of peripheral routes is not likely to last as long as central routes. 

The incorrect answers focus more on elements of time, efficiency, clarity, and focus. These are not central to the definition of elaboration likelihood. 

The correct answer is the example about choosing fruit over chocolate pudding, because the positive example was modeled. The examples about drawing on the wall or logging workouts relate to systems of rewards and punishments, not modeling. The example concerning the whistle is about conditioning, not modeling. Finally, the example about the muscle is an interesting metaphor, but it is not relevant here. In fact, once certain patterns of behavior are established through modeling, they may remain intact without continuing the modeling, as would be required by this example. 

Punishers seem to decrease the strength of a behavior.

On the other hand, "positive reinforcement" uses a reward to encourage some behavior. "Negative reinforcement" involves the removal of some sort of (usually aversive) stimuli after a behavior has been displayed, which increases the strength of the behavior. Last, "resistance to extinction" is not a form of behavior modification.

Albert Bandura famously conducted the Bobo doll experiment which demonstrated observational learning. Margaret and Harry Harlow conducted experiments with monkeys, showing the importance of "contact comfort" for healthy social development and attachment. Ivan Pavlov conducted the famous classical conditioning experiment, pairing a bell ringing with food to elicit salivation in dogs. B.F. Skinner conducted experiments demonstrating concepts of operant conditioning. Milgram's famous experiment demonstrated ground-breaking findings involving obedience. Philip Zimbaro's Standford Prison experiment demonstrated shocking psychological effects of the prisoner and guard dynamic.

The unconditioned stimulus is the cats and the unconditioned response is whining. This is because it is made clear that, from the beginning, the dog whines upon seeing cats. No conditioning has occurred to cause this behavior. The house represents the neutral stimulus, because it is being paired with the unconditioned stimulus (i.e. the cats). Walking past the house with the cats every morning represents the period of the dog's conditioning (i.e. he is repeatedly seeing the unconditioned stimulus paired with the neutral stimulus).

Eventually, the unconditioned stimulus (the cats) disappears. This is the period after conditioning, and if conditioned well, then the dog will continue to whine (which is now the conditioned response) when seeing the house (which is now the conditioned stimulus). 

For comparison, Pavlov's dogs always salivated (unconditioned response) in response to seeing food (unconditioned stimulus). During the conditioning period, a neutral stimulus (a bell) was rung while showing the food to the dogs (i.e. the neutral stimulus is paired with the unconditioned stimulus). Following the conditioning period, the bell alone (no food) triggered salivation in the dogs. The bell became the conditioned stimulus and the salivation became the conditioned response.

The process of repeatedly seeing the conditioned stimulus (e.g., the opening of the closet door) without the unconditioned stimulus (e.g., vacuuming) is extinction. The dog has stopped associating the opening of the closet door with the frightening vacuum. 

If the subject is not exposed to the conditioned stimulus (e.g. opening the closet door) for a period of time (e.g. several months, though this could be shorter or longer depending on the situation) and then is suddenly re-exposed to the conditioned stimulus, then spontaneous recovery can occur. The conditioned response suddenly occurs again when exposed to the conditioned stimulus. In this case, Alice opens the door several months later and the dog barks again. If she continues to open the door again, without using the vacuum, the extinction process will occur again.

“Acquisition” is the initial process of conditioning, during which the neutral stimulus (e.g. opening of the closet door) is paired with the unconditioned stimulus (e.g. vacuuming). “Generalization” is when similar stimuli to the conditioned stimulus trigger the conditioned response. For example, if the dog began barking when Alice opened any door. “Discrimination” is when only the specific conditioned stimulus triggers the conditioned response (i.e. only the opening of the closet door, not any other, door) elicits the barking. 

When Diana sees a set of stairs, they act as a stimulus to induce anxiety. Since she did not feel this way before the accident, the sight of stairs would be a “conditioned stimulus.” Anxiety is the “conditioned response.” The initial stumble and injury would be the “unconditioned stimulus” and “response,” respectively.

Classical conditioning, as described in the passage, pairs a stimulus (e.g. the sound of a bell) with another behavior (e.g. receiving food). Eventually, according to the precepts of classical conditioning the bell will elicit a response (e.g. salivating in anticipation of receiving food). On the other hand, operant conditioning is a type of learning that is mediated by punishments and rewards/reinforcements. The punishment or reinforcement either encourages or discourages the learner from repeating a certain behavior.

According to the idea of generalization, a stimulus similar to the conditioned stimulus will elicit the conditioned response. If this hamster has generalized the stimulus, then he will recognize the knock on his cage as being similar (or the same) as the flick on his cage. As a result, we can expect the hamster to run to his food dish in anticipation of being fed. If the hamster ignored the stimulus, then that would be a good example of discrimination, not generalization. Additionally, while it is possible, we have no reason to believe that the hamster would become fearful or would run on his wheel based on the idea of generalization.

According to the idea of discrimination, a conditioned stimulus can be distinguished from other stimuli. If the hamster has been able to discriminate, then it is likely that he will ignore the knock on the cage, and recognize that the knock sound is not the same as a flick sound. On the other hand, if the hamster generalizes the stimulus, then he will respond to the knock in the same way that he responds to the flick, and run to his food dish. Based on the idea of discrimination, we have no reason to expect the hamster to run on his wheel, or to try to escape in fear.