The Contrast between Operant Conditioning with Classical Conditioning - Essay Example

Contrast between Operant Conditioning with ical Conditioning Braslau-Schneck (2003) argues that both humans and animals are capable of learning.Learning usually takes place almost on a daily basis as people tend to come across different things that they never knew before. However, learning can take place in different forms. For example, human beings are capable of adjusting their learning methods in accordance with prevailing circumstances. Coon and Mitterer (2008, p. 226) note that there are three main learning types: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and modelling/observational conditioning. Classical conditioning is a type of learning model which holds that people learn through association. Operant conditioning holds that individuals learn through consequences while modelling is a theory that holds that people learn through observation. The objective of this paper is to contrast operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is one of the major types of learning formulated by Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) during an experiment aimed at understanding the pattern of digestion in dogs (Coon and Mitterer 2008, p.227). Classical conditioning holds that learning takes places when two or more interrelated stimuli are repeated. In this regard, learning is only said to occur if the stimulus triggers a response which it had not produced before. Coon and Mitterer (2008, p.226) reveal that classical conditioning pertains to a conditioned stimulus and response as well as an unconditioned stimulus and responses. The conditioned stimulus (CS), according to classical conditioning (CC), is a stimulus that becomes neutral at the beginning of the conditioning processes and does not produce unconditioned response. Nevertheless, the same conditioned stimulus is capable of producing a similar response similar to the unconditioned stimulus (US) through repeated collaboration with conditioned stimulus. The resultant response brought about by conditioned stimulus is the learned process. However, what is noted is that the conditioned response only occurs when both conditioned and unconditioned stimuli are linked (Coon and Mitterer 2008, p.226). The unconditioned stimulus, on the other hand, is a type of stimulus whose reaction results in a natural response. The resultant unconditioned response in this case is an involuntary response produced by unconditioned stimulus, according to Hellriegel and Slocum (2007, p.97). Pavlov discovered such responses during an experiment he conducted on dogs by giving them meat after inserting tubes into their organs so as to be able to determine their bodily responses (Coon and Mitterer 2008, p.227-229). In this regard, Pavlov discovered that the dogs get stimulated by just seeing the meat resulting in the production of saliva even before the meat was put into their mouths. As a result, the dogs developed a habit of salivating any time they saw the person who fed them enter a room, whether the person had the food or not, thereby resulting into the development of the classical conditioning theory. Another typical example of classical conditioning is seen when one responds to hot or cold objects. For instance, when one touches a cold ice cube, or a hot object, the body’s reflex action respond to such conditions automatically by removing the hand from the object. In this regard, no learning takes place since the response is instant. This implies that the person does not need to learn that the object is hot before he or she can decide to remove the hand from a hot or cold object. Therefore, response acts as a survival instinct. It is after the experiment that Pavlov concluded that people make links which make them generalise responses to a single stimuli onto a natural stimuli to which it is linked (Hellriegel and Slocum 2007, p.98-100). What was discovered by Pavlov under classical conditions certainly explains why people respond to certain stimuli the way they do. Coon and Mitterer (2008, p.227-229) note that oftn individual’s behaviour today is influenced by linking to certain stimuli. For instance, people tend to react to certain things differently. One such example is the response to perfumes, which sometimes affects people’s emotions. Classical conditioning in this regard holds that the emotions are not caused by the feel of the smell of the perfume, but rather what the smell of the perfume has been paired with. This implies that a person who might have had an unpleasant experience of a perfume before is more likely to associate the smell of any other perfume with the bad smell felt before, thereby causing the emotions. A classical conditioning scenario can also be explained by the behaviour of a person toward a dog which attacked them before (Hellriegel and Slocum 2007, p.98-100). According to classical conditioning, an individual who gets attacked by a certain dog every time he or she passes past a certain home tends to associate the home in question with the dog, resulting in the person avoiding the home thereafter (Hellriegel and Slocum 2007, p.101). They note that in such a scenario, the dog becomes the unconditioned stimulus; the fear generated becomes the unconditioned response; the house becomes the conditioned stimulus, and avoidance of the house becomes the conditioned response. Operant conditioning, on the other hand, is a type of learning which is based on how human beings operate in the environment. This implies learning that results from the natural consequences of people’s behaviour or actions. The philosophy was fronted by B.F Skinner, who suggested that an individual should concentrate on external, observable behaviours instead of focusing much on internal motivations and thoughts (Cherry, 2012). This type of learning is based on the assumption that organisms have the habit or repeating behaviours that result in positive consequences and avoid those behaviours whose consequences do not give any positive results (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007, p.102-107). To demonstrate an operant conditioning, an experiment was conducted by placing a cat inside a box which had only one opening, which it could use as a door. This was followed by pressing of an area so as to open the door for the cat to be able to get out. It was observed that, at the beginning, the cat made serious attempts to get out of the box since there was freedom in the offing. As the cat tried to come out of the box through the opening, an area of the box was triggered forcing the door to open allowing the cat out of the box. If the same cat is placed inside the box next time, the cat would be able to remember how it managed to get out of the box the last time it was confined inside the box, by pressing the area that it pressed the last time it got out of the box. As such, it is expected that the more the cat is placed in the box, the more it would learn how to get out of the box thereby lessening the time it would take to get out of the box for its freedom. This is because the cat will have learned via natural consequences how to get out of the box to enjoy its freedom. The freedom granted because of getting out of the box is a positive consequence of the actions of the cat, thus operant conditioning (Cherry, 2012). Another example is a response developed by a student after being awarded for good behaviour. In this regard, it is noted that students who get rewarded points by their teachers for behaving well in class eventually realise that when they portray good manners in class, they will likely get reward points from the teachers. As a result, such students will certainly improve their behaviour so as to be awarded points by their teachers. This has contributed to good behaviour among many people in the society as they pursue those activities that they associate with positive consequences (Coon and Mitterer, 2008, p.229). It is evident that the two learning theories are also different in the sense that whereas classical conditioning pertains only to voluntary responses, operant conditioning involves both voluntary and involuntary responses (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007, p.98-100). The other difference that is apparent between the two learning theories is that, whereas classical conditioning is passive on the learner, operant conditioning requires that the learner be active during the process of learning. In addition, whereas operant conditioning provides an incentive for the learner, classical conditioning does not, according to Cherry (2012, Par.6). Similarities Certainly, the two theories are also similar in many ways. One of the most evident similarities that exist between the two learning processes is that the two share the conditioning process, which pertains to how people acquire certain patterns of behaviour as a result of stimuli. For instance, in classical conditioning, learning occurs when two or more interrelated stimuli are repeated. This implies that one develops certain behaviour as a result of repeated stimuli. Operant conditioning also has the aspect of conditioning in that learning takes place because of the consequences of an action (Cherry 2012). The other similarity is that both conditionings result in a common phenomenon. The inherent phenomenon that results from the two conditionings is the inheritance of behaviour. As earlier demonstrated in classical conditioning, learning is said to have taken place when a stimulus triggers a response which it did not produce before. For instance, this is seen when a dog tends to react naturally to food by salivating even before being given the food for the first time, an action that is repeated the next time it sees the person who had given it food before. This behaviour is repeated every time as a result of the stimulus that triggered the response which had not previously been produced. Operant conditioning also leads to the inheritance of behaviour in that it is based on the assumption that people tend to repeat behaviours that result in positive consequences. Therefore, the similarity in the two conditionings is evident as both lead to the inheritance of certain behaviours that are repeated after they have been learnt (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007, p.98-100). It is also evident that the two are similar with regard to extinction which may occur to the two types of learning. For instance, under classical conditioning, extinction occurs because of a reduction in the frequency of learned response where the paring of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli fails. A similar extinction also occurs in operant conditioning. For instance, it is evident that operant conditioning is based on reinforcement which occurs when a stimulus triggers a reaction capable of recurring in the future. Nevertheless, if such reinforcements fail to take place, extinction will follow in operant conditioning. A similar scenario was realised when an organism was trained to act in a certain way, and the reinforcement stopped thereafter. It was observed that the same organism could still behave in the desired manner later. It is reported that organisms trained through classical and operant conditioning are capable of undergoing a process known as stimulus generalisation. A typical example would be seen if any of Pavlov’s dogs could have salivated in response to a sound different from that which it had initially been trained to respond to (Cherry 2012). It is also clear that both conditionings share the stimulus discrimination phenomenon. This is a situation which occurs when an animal learns how to respond to just a single stimulus and fails to respond to any other stimulus apart from that for which it has been conditioned. For instance, when an animal is trained to respond to a particular smell or sound, such animals tend to learn to discriminate any other smell or sound, as was demonstrated by Pavlov’s experiment (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007, p.98-100). Conclusion Learning is a continuous process that happens to every human being and other living organisms. However, it is evident that the form of learning may differ from one person to another depending on the prevailing situation, as is manifested through the classical and operant learning theories. What is also evident is that despite the two being different learning theories, they have several differences and similarities. For instance, the two share a common factor – conditioning. On the other hand, they differ widely in term of reflexes in which classical conditioning involves only the involuntary response whereas operant conditioning involves both voluntary and involuntary responses. Bibliography Braslau-Schneck, S., 2003. An animal trainers introduction to operant and classical conditioning. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Nov. 2012] Cherry, K., 2012, Classical vs. Operant Conditioning. Available at: [Accessed 10 Nov. 2012] Coon, D., & Mitterer, J., 2008. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior, New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W., 2007. Organizational Behavior. NJ: Cengage Learning, Hoboken. Read More