Classical and Operant Conditioning - Term Paper Example

Introduction Operant and ical conditioning are different methods of learning. Conditioning is the only word that is common, and it is defined as acquisition of specific patterns of behavior when there is a well-defined stimulus. Classical conditioning occurs when a stimuli is linked with an animal such as food, with an unrelated stimuli, were it not for food. The animal has no power over the two things that are related with the learning. The animal has no control over it’s environ in classical conditioning.

On the other hand, in operant conditioning, the animal makes the connection linking things that take place at the same time in that environ. The animal learns to generate a consequence in an environment, frequently a reward (Breed and Moore, 2011) In classical conditioning, the most popular example of this case is the Pavlov’s dog. Ivan Pavlov was a researcher who studied gastrointestinal and he studied insulin production in the dogs. According to Breed and Moore (2011), a helper carrying food entered the dogs kennel with food and then a bell was sounded.

Sometime after, the dog began to salivate at hearing the sound of a bell, whether or not there was food. The cause of the dog to salivate was something irrelevant, a sound of the bell. Other stimuli, for instance an odor of food, are likely to make a dog salivate. A bell is not a relevant stimulus, unless something associated to the bell happens while food order is a related stimulus. The odor is termed as the unconditional stimulus (UCS) and the dog response, salivation, is known as unconditional response (UCR).

No learning that was needed for the dog to salivate when it sensed the odor of the food. When the bell was rang (neutral stimulus/NS) and food presented at the same time (UCS), and this was done continually, the dog associated the bell to the food and began to salivate. At this point, the bell became the conditional stimulus (CS) and salivation became the conditioned response (CR). According to Sharf (2011), classical conditioning can be applied to a wide range of species including human beings and types of behavior.

Other experiments dealt with how long an animal may respond to a conditioned response (CS) with unconditional stimulus (UCS) being presented before. For instance, a light would fail to induce salivation and conditional response would be extinguished. Through this way, the findings of scientists began to develop on the learning process. Investigators have found classical conditioning to be quite difficult as research and behavioral principles begin. However, classical conditioning is influenced by a variety of factors.

First, in order for it to take place, conditional stimuli-unconditional stimuli (CS-US) order is important and CS must come before US. Secondly, a delay in presentation of CS and US influences the effectiveness of classical conditioning (Fong, et al., 2004) In operant conditioning, a laboratory study was carried out and the animal was permitted to survey the environment and make an action, for instance, pressing a lever. The founders of operant theory are B.F Skinner and E.L Thorndike. Thorndike came up with several laws of learning and the most known one is the law of effect.

This law states that behavior that satisfies will be rewarded whereas behavior that does not satisfy will not be rewarded (Fong, et al., 2004). This can be termed as trial and error learning phase. If the animal uses the correct act, its reward is a food item. It also has its consequences. The animals were associated with the two repetitions of operations and the final reward was given. Fong and co-authors (2004) further state that reinforcement and punishment are the key components of operant conditioning.

While reinforcement increases the regularity of behavior, punishment reduces the regularity of the same. Punishing and rewarding can have both negative and positive outcomes. Good behavior is reinforced with a positive reward while negative reinforcement is administered when the occurrence of the behavior increases through an exclusion of a stimulus aversive. they further indicate that reinforcements used must be meaningful to whoever they are been administered to. Sharf (2011) notes that operant conditioning is also known as instrumental conditioning.

Today operant conditioning has largely laid the foundation to what constitutes therapy of behavior. This has created application basis of principles of behavior to a greater range of problems, especially those handling severe mental disabilities such as autism and schizophrenia. Conclusion Classical conditioning develops an association between the existing response and the stimuli but does not involve learning new response. Using this approach, it is directed to help someone to unlearn the connections between inappropriate behaviors and specific stimulus or vise versa.

In operant conditioning, there are techniques that are used to increase the occurrence of the behavior using positive reinforcement. They include behavioral contracts, social skills training (SST), token economies and differential reinforcement. Social skill training drives its effectiveness in classical and operant conditioning. References Breed, M. D. and Moore, J. (2011): Animal Behavior. United States: Academic Press. Fong, C., et al. 2004: Counseling Theories and Techniques for Rehabilitation Health Professionals.

New York: Springer Publishing Company. Sharf, R.S. (2011): Theories of Psychotherapy & Counseling: Concepts and Cases. United States: Cengage Learning.