Classical Conditioning - Essay Example

People, Organizations and Society During the development of the brain, the person learns about the self, surrounding and consequences of actions through different processes. In these processes, the mind makes use of learning, memory and selective attention which involve stimulus processing which is an important part of psychological and neurological development. The two most commonly forwarded associative learning phenomena are classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning naturally involves coupled presentations of a neutral stimulus together with a relatively significant stimulus towards a response while operant conditioning utilizes consequences in shaping animal or human behavior. This paper aims to define, compare and contrast these two types of conditioning and their applicability to business and employee behavior in the work place (Kirsch, et al., 2004; Dayan et al., 2000). Classical Conditioning "Classical conditioning is also referred to as Respondent or Pavlovian conditioning since it is a type of associative conditioning first popularized by Ivan Pavlov " (Watson & Rayner, 1920; Nevin et al., 1990). During this process, a neutral stimulus is presented together with a relatively significant stimulus in order to elicit a response. The neutral stimulus is called Conditioned Stimulus (CS) by Pavlov and is defined as an event that does not impart an evident behavioral reaction from a particular animal or person. On the other hand, the significant stimulus also referred to as Unconditioned Stimulus (US) as defined by Pavlov pertains to stimulus that induces an instinctive response called Unconditioned Response (UR). Due to recurrent pairing of the CS and the US, these two stimuli become associated in the perception of the animal or human being. In such situation, the subject starts to generate a response to the CS. In Pavlov's famous experiment, classical conditioning was demonstrated in the salivation of dogs. Pavlov observed that dogs learned to associate lab technicians and meat powder due to recurrent pairing of these two stimuli. This was manifested when dogs began salivating in the presence of the lab technicians who feed the dogs with meat powder. To further confirm this phenomenon, he used bells together with meat powder repeatedly as the CS and US, respectively. He obtained similar results, thus referring to this learned relationship as conditional reflex (Watson & Rayner, 1920; Nevin et al., 1990). There are six different types of classical conditioning depending on the interval or sequence of the presentation and the presence of stimuli. These are forward, simultaneous, backward, temporal, unpaired and conditioned stimulus - alone extinction. There are two theories suggested to be behind the classical conditioning process which are considered largely contradicting. The first theory is called stimulus-response (SR) theory while the second theory is called stimulus-stimulus (SS) theory. Stimulus-response theory proposes that humans including animals are capable of learning to associate an introduced stimulus called CS with already present stimulus called US (Nevin et al., 1990). In addition to this is the capability to rationalize, perceive and react to the CS and US as well but not involving conscious thought. On the other hand, stimulus-stimulus theory asserts that there is a role of a cognitive component in the understanding of classical conditioning. The theory explains that the organism is capable of learning the association of CS and US towards the production of a particular reaction (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). There are several known applications for classical conditioning. These include behavior and aversion therapies and systematic desensitization. The concept is to improve the lives of persons by removing association of particular negative experiences with other relevant everyday activities. Examples of which is removing anxiety associated with different types of phobia and detachment from addiction such as alcoholism. In this process, the affected person is repeatedly exposed to the CS and US but in an ideal situation. During systematic desensitization, for instance, the patient is given assistance by removing the object of fear gradually. The person is made to relive the situation with the element of fear and anxiety allayed at each step until the phobia is totally removed (Dayan, 2000; Watson & Rayner, 1920; Nevin et al., 1990). Operant Conditioning "According to the operant conditioning form of learning, occurrence and nature of behavior is dictated by consequences" (Nevin et al., 1990; Neuringer, 2002; Kirsch, et al., 2004; Dayan et al., 2000). The major distinguishing principle of operant conditioning from classical conditioning is the role of consequences in modifying behavior instead of the process of the formation of behavior from previous conditions such as in classical conditioning. In a sense, it seems that behavior modification is a backward process in operant conditioning while it is a forward process in classical conditioning. The core components of operant conditioning are reinforcement and punishment. Together with these two are positive, negative and extinction consequences. "Reinforcement is defined as a consequence that induces a behavior to present with increased frequency". (Nevin et al., 1990; Neuringer, 2002; Kirsch, et al., 2004; Dayan et al., 2000). Conversely, punishment is defined as a consequence that results to a decreased frequency of a particular behavior. Extinction is an absence of consequence after a response. A reduction of frequency of a response results from a situation wherein this response is insignificant since the consequences are neither affirmative nor discouraging (Nevin et al., 1990; Neuringer, 2002; Kirsch, et al., 2004; Dayan et al., 2000). There are four processes in operant conditioning: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment. In these processes, the words positive and negative are used for addition and subtraction, respectively (Nevin et al., 1990). "Moreover, reinforcement is either added or subtracted which is the same in the case of punishment. Positive reinforcement happens when a behavior is followed by an affirmative or pleasant stimulus which results in increased frequency of the said response" (Neuringer, 2002). Negative reinforcement happens when an unpleasant stimulus is removed following a response thus increasing the frequency of the said response. Positive punishment happens when an unpleasant stimulus is applied following a response resulting to a decrease in frequency of the said response. Negative punishment happens when an undesired response is followed by a removal of a pleasant stimulus resulting to a decreased frequency of the said response (Neuringer, 2002). Edward Thorndike is credited as the first person to extensively demonstrate operant conditioning which he expounded through his Law of Effect. He postulated that successful behavior, which are followed by favorable consequences, are inculcated in the brain through experience to be repeated more in the near future while unsuccessful behavior is removed due to the unfavorable consequence following it. Aside from Thorndike, B.F. Skinner also provided detailed analysis of operant conditioning. He focused on reinforcement, punishment and extinction in explaining behavior with relation to consequences. Reflexive, impulsive and instinctive behaviors were rejected by Skinner and like-minded researchers as components of operant conditioning (Thorndike, 1901; Kirsch, et al., 2004; Dayan et al., 2000). There are four factors that are said to affect the effectiveness of consequences to modify responses or behaviors. These include satiation which tends to decrease effectiveness, immediacy which increases effectiveness, contingency which decreases effectiveness and size which corresponds to the effectiveness of consequences. Applications of operant conditioning include shaping animal behavior and verbal behavior in humans. In animal training, appropriate behaviors are reinforced using any of the five consequences. In verbal behavior in humans, language and linguistics are used for exploring functional and controlling relationships (Nevin et al., 1990; Neuringer, 2002). Classical Conditioning versus Operant Conditioning in Business Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are similar in utilizing different external factors in explaining animal and human behavior. Both realize the variable range of responses that are induced in the subjects with the different conditions presented. Although there are differing theories behind the two types of conditioning, biological or neurological bases of these two are being studied. The most remarkable difference between classical conditioning and operant conditioning is the use of stimuli and consequences, respectively, in explaining animal and human behavior. CS and US are paired in classical conditioning to determine the production of a particular response. In operant conditioning, five consequences are presented for explaining the frequency of a particular response. Animal or human behavior is either reinforced, punished or become extinct in operant conditioning while these classifications are absent in classical conditioning since the response is always expected even with differing interval, sequence and presence of CS and US. Therefore, classical conditioning is more of passive in eliciting response whereas operant conditioning is more of active (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Nevin et al., 1990). In business context, a more aggressive stance of conditioning is relevant. Since business is about results and obtaining maximum returns any possible method that is efficient is welcome in improving business setup. In terms of changing employee behavior in the workplace through training courses, operant conditioning can be more relevant compared to classical conditioning. Apparently, reward and punishment is widely accepted in most business institutions. This is evidenced by hefty bonuses and promotions that are given whenever successful business ventures are initiated or when a particular employee surpassed sales quota. While classical conditioning can be effective at some degree for many kinds of organization aside from business institutions, it lacks the impact to drive employees to strive harder. Operant conditioning can be appropriately applied in designing a training course for changing employee behavior. This can be achieved in few steps since what is important is the clear distinction between the consequences. The first step is to establish the present status of employees in the company. This includes enumeration of behavior or practices that have an effect to the efficiency and success of the business. The facilitator should make sure that the cause and effect nature of particular practices in the workplace. After doing this, a list of consequences should be presented. For reinforcement: affirmation, promotion, increase in salary and bonuses are very tangible consequences for employees. This can obviously increase the frequency of responses such as surpassing sales quota or being more productive. On the opposite side, punishment such as demotion, termination or lack of incentives is also palpable consequences for underperformers. These are expected to decrease the frequency of practices such as tardiness, laziness and insubordination. There are subtle efforts through positive, negative or extinction consequences which can be translated to commendations or reprimands. In summary, classical conditioning and operant conditioning are learning pathways that use stimuli and consequences, respectively in modifying response or behavior. This major difference which is the use of consequence instead of stimuli makes operant .conditioning more relevant in the business context. Rewards and punishment such as bonus and demotion are widely applied in encouraging or discouraging particular employee behaviors. In the design of training courses, these factors should be elucidated clearly to employees to obtain desired effects. Works Cited Dayan, P., Kakade, S., & Montague, P.R. (2000). Learning and selective attention. Nature Neuroscience 3, 1218 - 1223. Kirsch, I., Lynn, S.J., Vigorito, M. & Miller, R.R. (2004). The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 369 - 392. Nevin, J.A., Tota, M.E., Torquato, R.D., & Shull, R.L. (1990). Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53(3), 359-379. Neuringer, A. (2002). Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 672-705. Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Thorndike, E. L. (1901). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2, 1-109. Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Read More