Learning and Cognition Handbook Repost

Traditional Learning Theories: Classical and Operant Conditioning

Name

University

Professor

March 19, 2018

Traditional Learning Theories: Classical and Operant Conditioning

The focus of traditional learning theories tends to be on behaviors which are observable as opposed to the inner cognitive processes which only the particular individual can elaborate. Yao et al. (2017) argues that once learning has happened, there is apparent external observable behavioral change. This does happen with classical as well as operant conditioning. Commons & Giri (2016) argue that classical and operant conditioning is important concepts that are fundamental to behavioral psychology. Although the two prompt learning; the processes are, nonetheless, rather different (Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz, 2014).

Classical and Operant Conditioning

Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz (2014) argue that the understanding of how classical and operant conditionings modify behavior is based on establishing the differences between them. The fundamental differences are that while classical conditioning is about placing neutral signals prior the reflexes, operant conditioning is where punishments or reinforcements are applied after the behavior (Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016). This depends on whether the behaviors are acceptable or not. Classical conditioning was initially described by a Russian physiologist called Ivan Pavlov, while operant conditioning is credited to an American psychologist named B.F. Skinner (Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz, 2014).

Liefooghe & De Houwer (2016) asserts that the focus of classical conditioning is the automatic and involuntary behaviors triggered by specific signals, while operant conditioning is basically about weakening or strengthening voluntary behaviors by the subjects. In essence, a significant aspect of classical conditioning is involuntary while voluntary decisions and conducts are needed in the case of operant conditioning (Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016; Yao et al., 2017).

The Classical Conditioning Theory and its Contribution to Psychology

Ivan Pavlov conducted an experiment where he realized that dogs started salivating when a certain tone rang. This was after the tone had been paired repeatedly with the act of presenting food once that sound was made. Pavlov indicated that the response to the sound must have been learned as a result of the association between a stimulus that existed naturally and one that had previously been neutral (Commons & Giri, 2016; Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz, 2014).

Researchers such as Krause-Utz et al. (2016) have concluded that classical conditioning is about pairing previously neutral stimuli, like the sounding of a bell, with such unconditioned stimuli as the smell or even taste of food. After the association has lasted long enough, the previously neutral stimuli (or even a stimulus) is able to evoke the same results while presented alone. The previously neutral stimuli are said to have been transformed into conditioned stimuli; and the responses the subjects have as a consequence are known as conditioned responses (Krause-Utz et al., 2016; Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016).

Applicability of Ivan Pavlov’s Findings in Humans

Classical conditioning is also common with humans. Children and adults alike have been conditioned in this way; and they actually end-up learning the kinds of behaviors which could have significant impacts on their lives and health alike. One of the most famous examples of classical conditioning in humans was when John B. Watson conducted experiments with a boy called Little Albert where the latter was conditioned to fear white rats and fuzzy white objects in general (Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016). Albert had initially not shown any fear of white rats. John B. Watson paired the appearance of white rats with scary and loud sounds for some time. The child ended-up fearing and crying whenever he saw a white rat (Krause-Utz et al., 2016).

Another example of classical conditioning is where the teacher starts to count down from 5. The mere counting does not prompt the students to do anything. He then tells the students to clean the room. The students oblige. That is prior the conditioning. During the condition, the teacher tells his students to do the cleaning and counts from 5 downwards. They do clean in the process. After these two stimuli are paired for a number of times, the students start cleaning whenever the teacher starts to count. Classical conditioning is involuntary learning through stimuli pairing (Commons & Giri, 2016; Yao et al., 2017).

The Operant Conditioning Theory and its Contribution to Psychology

Yao et al. (2017) argues that operant conditioning is focused on the use of either punishment and/or reinforcement depending on whether the intervening party is after decreasing or increasing the behaviors in question. After some time, the stakeholders in question end-up forming an association between behaviors and consequences which come as a result of that behavior (Commons & Giri, 2016). A case in animals is when a trainer attempts to training dogs to fetch balls. Every time a dog succeeds, it is praised and rewarded with a bite of meat. Failure to get the ball makes the trainer to withhold the praises and rewards. Such a dog with eventually form an association between the two and endeavor to act in ways which assure it of rewards (Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016; Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz, 2014).

An example in school is when the teacher rewards students who remain keen in class by allowing recess, while those who happened to be troublesome are denied recess. The association of this behavior and its consequence ends up reducing the problematic conduct in class since every rational student wish to be appreciated and rewarded. The same can be said about children at home, and employees at their places of work. Those who wish not to be punished and rather get rewarded with act in a way that will guarantee this outcome (Krause-Utz et al., 2016).

Conclusion

The simplest way of differentiating between operant and classical conditioning is appreciating that while the former is voluntary and in search of praise and reward, the latter is involuntary. The latter happens as a result of such a significant period of pairing that a previously neutral stimulus ends up triggering a behavior or thought. Operant conditioning is where the learners are rewarded with various kinds of incentives (Commons & Giri, 2016). This is unlike is the case with classical conditioning since there are no enticements. Classical conditioning is, in fact, a scenario where the learner is passive. With operant conditioning, the learners are actively participating and their actions are geared towards averting punishment and acquiring rewards (Krause-Utz et al., 2016).

With operant conditioning, the learner has to start by displaying a certain behavior. It is this behavior that is either punished or rewarded. Both the operant and classical conditions have been utilized by such stakeholders as parents, teachers, animal trainers, psychologists, and several others. They are both valuable, and their importance are determined by the context. Therefore, it is important to comprehend both in order to recognize where either fits best (Liefooghe & De Houwer, 2016; Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz, 2014).

References

Commons, M.L., & Giri, S. (2016, April). Account of operant conditioning based on coordinating three procedural steps of respondent conditioning processes. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 21(1), 14-32. DOI: 10.1037/bdb0000017

Commons & Giri (2016) seeks to demonstrate that studies on operant conditioning need to move beyond the usual analysis of the effects of a single of two-factor theory. They argue that with chaining, it is possible to demonstrate how operant conditioning happens even with temporal gaps in the environment. They also argue that according to their study, it appears as if only complex animals tend to be conditioned ‘operantly’. In this case, their argument is that the operant properties emerge from the respondents. If more than two stimuli are paired, it is found that the organisms in question address wider range of issues. This is a credible resource for the study since in addition to bring-out the gaps in research; it does prompt progress beyond what has traditionally been the basis for evaluating operant conditioning.

Krause-Utz, A., Keibel-Mauchnik, J., Ebner-Priemer, U., Bohus, M., & Schmahl, C. (2016, June). Classical conditioning in borderline personality disorder: An fMRI study. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 266(4), 291-305. DOI: 10.1007/s00406-015-0593-1

Krause-Utz et al. (2016) was selected in the sense that it is based on the assessment of how classical conditioning can come in handy with regards to addressing borderline personality disorder among other challenges faced by individuals in their daily lives. This is utilizing the theory and practice behind classical conditioning in assessing the kind of activities which take place in the brains of humans during the various phases of conditioning among the patients of borderline personality disorder. The cues which they bring-out can be used in several other scenarios; and this is what makes their study important in this research. It is also noteworthy that the study employs both the experimental and the control group. This enhances its credibility and hence the value in this study.

Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2016, Feb.). A functional approach for research on cognitive control: Analyzing cognitive control tasks and their effects in terms of operant conditioning. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 28-32. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12179

Liefooghe & De Houwer (2016) appreciate that cognitive control is valuable in regards to ensuring that one adapts to the kind of behavior that is valuable to them, and it does also facilitate the societal progress. The authors argue that the appropriateness of the processes vary in accordance to the context, the contemporary goals, and the capacity to enhance flexibility. With cognitive control, the human mind creates information-pictures which guide behavior. One is compelled to select certain behaviors in accordance to how appropriate they appear. They do also reject others if they are deemed to be inappropriate. According to Liefooghe & De Houwer (2016), cognitive control is a means of clarifying long-term purposes and goals; and they facilitate the changing of what one is doing so that they can attain these goals. The authors suggest that cognitive control is a facilitator of self-awareness. They go ahead to explain how conditioning speed-up the process of selecting the appropriate conduct.

Weiss, S.J., & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on operant/classical conditioning: Comparisons, intersections and interactions. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(4), 515-25. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4c46c9gg

Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz (2014) addresses the foundations of both classical and operant conditioning. They compare the two processes and explain that in some cases, they are found to be working in tandem and hence speeding-up knowledge acquisition and behavioral changes. Their endeavor is to bring-out how conditioning in general impact on learning and cognitive ability. As a consequence, they share several facts and concepts about these issues in ways which will aid the completion of the study. Their views are invaluable in this research since just a handful of researchers have sought to explain the link between these two seemingly differentiated processes. Weiss & Rosales-Ruiz (2014) argue that both operant and classical conditioning can be categorized as the kind of learning that is observational. This is as opposed to having evolved innately. It is a credible source for this study.

Yao, J., Wu, B., Wu, G.Y., Li, X., Ye, J.N., & Sui, J.F. (2017, June 2). Establishment and transfer of classical eye-blink conditioning using electrical micro-stimulation of the hippocampus as the conditioned stimulus. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 1-17. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178502

Yao et al. (2017) focused on the ideas behind conditioned reflexes, memory, and learning. They did an exhaustive study where the least significant difference and a two-way ANOVA were used in data analysis. It is imperative to point-out that psychology has largely progressed from philosophical opinions. Bringing statistics into the analysis and explanation of psychological issues enhance their credibility. This is because of how they clarify concepts by showing the sampling distribution. Based on the fact that several other studies had been selected for their factual and conceptual value, it was determined to be important to select one that could facilitate the understanding of the use of statistics in psychology. Therefore, Yao et al. (2017) is valuable for this exercise.