Comparison of the Concept of Classical and Operant Conditioning - Essay Example

? Compare and Contrast ical and Operant Conditioning Compare and Contrast ical and Operant Conditioning Introduction Both classical and operant conditionings are significant concepts related to behavioral psychology, and the result of the concepts is learning, though it occurs in different processes. In fact, a substantial understanding of the difference between classical and operant conditioning can be attained through exploring their features. In this case, classical conditioning is dependent on the association between the stimulus and response, while operant conditioning relies on reinforcement. The other distinction identifies operant conditioning to be based on voluntary behaviors, and classical conditioning relates to involuntary reflexive behaviors. Nevertheless, the paper will compare and contrast classical conditioning to operant conditioning while discussing the strengths and weaknesses of these concepts. Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning is a concept that was introduced by Ivan Pavlov through an observation of a behavior in his dog, whereby he noticed that it began to salivate in response to a sound of a bell that was repeatedly combined with presentation of food (Pavlov, 1927). Therefore, Pavlov noticed that the response of his dog was learned; hence, he decided to conduct further investigations in the process of conditioning. After his investigations, he identified that classical conditioning involved was related to paring of the natural stimulus such as a bell, and the unconditioned stimulus such as food which was offered to the dog (Trapold, Lawton, Dick, & Gross, 1968). Moreover, he identified that unconditioned stimulus was naturally and automatically triggering the salivation of the dog. The association of neutral stimulus and unconditioned stimulus, which was the sound of the bell, had an effect of evoking the salivating response, hence the sound was considered a conditioned stimulus, and salivating as the conditioned response. Strengths One of the strengths of classical conditioning relates to the fact that it is considered a way of learning that was demonstrated by Pavlov through his experiment. The theory also offers a substantial basis for relating the sound of the bell and the meal, whereby it explains that the dog learned to relate the sound of the bell with food, and the dog went to drooling at the mere sound of the bell (Rescorla, 1994). Therefore, the classical conditioning has attracted numerous researchers for many years, and various models have been developed with an attention attached to real time dynamics of conditioning. Weaknesses The weakness of the approach relates to being a reductionist, whereby it reduces behaviors to simple relationship with the environment, hence ignoring the cognitive factors that are indicated to be substantial behaviors. Nevertheless, the social learning has developed a theory that overcomes these issues, hence developing the notion that not all behaviors are learned. The approach may assert that anger is a trait that is learned, but on the other hand, there are other alternative explanations offered by the biological approach. For example, in a situation when a person is angry, the behaviorist claims that the behavior is imitated, but the biological approach argues that it is a form of aggression caused by high levels of testosterone. Therefore, in situations of behaviorism, classical conditioning has been considered to be of little importance since it fails to offer satisfactory explanation. The other weakness relates to containing the hardest problems in the leaning, hence learners have difficulties in understanding the concepts in the approach of classical conditioning. Operant Conditioning This principle of operant conditioning was investigated by Thorndike through a study that involved cats, whereby they would learn to escape his puzzle box by trial and error. Operant conditioning is an approach that concerns using of reinforcement or punishments for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the occurrence of a certain behavior (Nargeot, Baxter, & Byrne, 1997). In this case, the approach focuses on the connection linking certain behaviors and the penalty of these behaviors, for Instance, in a situation where a trainer teaches a dog to fetch a ball, and when it manages to fetch the ball, it receives a reward, and when it fails to fetch the ball the trainer withholds the reward. Therefore, results of this approach will be an involvement created connecting an action of picking up the ball and getting a reward. Strengths The strength of the operant theory was manifested through Skinner’s formulation of the theory, which involved a child being rewarded for good behaviors, and this makes them increase the occurrence of the behaviors. On the other hand, if there was no reward, the child was not motivated to continue with the desired behaviors (Skinner, 1953). Therefore, the operant conditioning approach has substantial and rational support that is simple to comprehend and to relate with results its experiments. For example, in situations where a child is misbehaving and a negative reinforcement is administered, this will reduce the chance of occurrence. In this case, a child who has been punished for a bad behavior reduces the likelihood of repeating the behavior any other time in the future. Therefore, it is clear to understand that the negative reinforcement methods have the potential to change the human behaviors, and this demonstrates the strength of operant conditioning. . The other strength of operant conditioning relates to assistance offered by the approach in controlling people behaviors, for example, students and employees, in order to achieve a certain objective. In this case, the subjects are made to understand that misbehaving results in punishment and good behaviors are rewarded. Therefore, teachers and managers are given the privilege of withholding the rewards and giving the rewards to their subjects in order to alter their behaviors in the desired way. For example, the teacher can withhold privileges, issue extra homework and alter the sitting arrangement of students in order to change their behaviors, and this may be a positive or a negative reinforcement to children. Another instance where the operant condition is applied relates to the grades, whereby students are given grades after a test, and the low grades are negative reinforcement and high grades are positive one. Weaknesses The operant conditioning focuses mainly on distinct behaviors, which include: good or bad, but there is nothing between them, and the positive reward is not always used after the first few occurrence of a good behavior. In fact, a person is expected to get involved with a habit of good behaviors after the stoppage of good reinforcement. The operant conditioning ignores the fact that a rewarding for a good behavior becomes extinct with time. Nevertheless, there are chances of a good behavior stopping after the positive reinforcement is stopped, and in a situation where punishment is administered, motivation is lost. On the other hand, there is a notion that contradicts the idea in operant conditioning, and this notion claims that even the badly behaving people need to be motivated. Therefore, the operant conditioning does not apply in every situation, especially where there is negative reinforcement seeking to reduce occurrence of a bad behavior. The operant conditioning offers little room for people to engage actively in situations such as a classroom, where students are expected to ask questions. Therefore, the operant conditioning expects the student to commence at a low level of thinking and they are upgraded through a process of reinforcement. In a situation of a classroom, the operant conditioning theory expects teachers to repeat a certain task related to reinforcement of positive behaviors, but this does not work after a first few occurrences. Moreover, the theory also lacks engagement and motivation to subjects, and this is a weakness. In this case, application of operant conditioning does not allow group discussions and people figuring out things on their own research and experimentations. Comparing Classical and Operant Conditioning The difference involving the classical and operant conditioning relates to the focus on behaviors being intentional or unintentional, whereby classical conditioning involves establishing a relationship between stimuli that are involuntary, while the operant condition concerns identifying the relationship between voluntary behaviors and their consequences. Therefore, in operant conditioning, subjects are rewarded with incentives, and in the classical conditioning approach, there is no involvement of rewards. Moreover, classical conditioning is considered passive on the part of learner, while on operant condition the subject is expected to participate actively in order to achieve a certain objective through behaviors that are rewarded or punished. Nevertheless, both of these theories are applied for a variety of reasons by teachers, managers, psychologists, animal trainers, but the common idea relates to change of behaviors of their subjects. For instance, an animal trainer is expected to utilize an approach such as classical conditioning by pairing sound and a taste of food, and the sound begins to cause the response that was caused by the taste of food. On the other hand, a teacher may utilize operant conditioning by providing incentives in order to reinforce good behaviors from the students, and these result in improved performance. In conclusion, the paper has compared and contrasted both classical and operant conditioning theories and identified their strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, the first section was aimed at offering an overview of the approaches in order to establish a basis for understanding their strengths and weaknesses, and their differences and similarities. Therefore, the objective of the paper has been achieved, which was set out through the thesis statement. References Nargeot, R., Baxter, D. A., & Byrne, J. H. (1997). Contingent-dependent enhancement of rhythmic motor patterns: an in vitro analog of operant conditioning. J. Neurosci., 17, 8093–8105. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press. Rescorla, R.A. (1994). Control of instrumental performance by Pavlovian and instrumental stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process, 20, 44–50. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. Trapold, M. A., Lawton, G. W., Dick, R. A., & Gross, D. M. (1968). Transfer of training from differential classical to differential instrumental conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol., 76, 568–573. Read More