Classical Conditioning versus Operant Conditioning
The development of psychology in the early 20th
century paved an objective and scientific approach to the time-old philosophies
on learning. Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner’s studies on conditioning have since come a long way in shaping the learning
process we know and adapt today.
Classical conditioning, the brainchild of Ivan Pavlov (1927),
is a type of learning in which an "organism" learns to connect, or "associate
stimuli". However, in order to understand classical conditioning, it is
imperative to understand the 2 types of stimuli and the 2 types of responses
first (Santrock, p 233).
The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) automatically produces unconditioned
response (UCR). The conditioned stimulus (CS) which used to be a neutral
stimulus, eventually elicits a conditioned response (CR), or the learned
response (Santrock, p 233). In Pavlov’s original experiment, the dog associated
the bell (neutral stimulus) with food and responded to the sound as though it
were food itself (Berger & Thompson, 1995).
The works of classical conditioning is evident in daily human
events, whether positive or negative. For example, when your mouth waters at
the sight of pizza, or when a child is criticized for failing a test, the child
learns to associate test (CS) with anxiety.
Santrock (2009, p 234) further discussed how certain health
problems might involve classical conditioning, for instance, parents and
teachers’ heavy criticisms could be conditioned stimuli to physiological
responses like asthma, headaches, muscle tension, and even high blood pressure.
However with proper diagnosis, these anxieties can be reduced through "systematic desensitization, a counterconditioning
method that replaces anxiety with relaxation".
Another proponent of learning theory agreed with Pavlov that
classical conditioning explains some types of behavior, however, B.F. Skinner
(1904-1990) believed that operant conditioning plays a much greater role,
especially in complex learning.
In operant conditioning, an organism learns that a particular
behavior elicits a particular response, but it will only repeat a response that
is viewed pleasurable. Skinner believed that rewards could be used to train an
organism to perform a specific behavior. This pleasurable or useful consequence
is called reinforcement. For a grade-conscious
student, getting a 1.0 would be a positive reinforcer, while for the
test-anxious, extra preparation or studying even harder could be a negative
reinforcer. It must be understood however that the ‘negative’ reinforcer is
merely the removal of an unpleasant stimulus and does not connote punishment.
Reinforcers may also be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic
reinforcers come from within the individual and typically involve feelings of
satisfaction, example, for a job well done. Extrinsic reinforcers come from the
environment in the forms of salary, special privilege, or good grades. However,
it is important to understand that the significance of reinforcers varies in
every individual (Santrock, 2009). For some, high salary is a potent reinforcer while for
others, it is appreciation. The main point of learning theorists is to judge
the effectiveness of a reinforcer by how strongly it affects behavior.
Behaviorists believe that reinforcers, not punishment, create
lasting changes in behavior. According to Skinner, punishment does not teach
desirable behavior to replace the one being punished, and someone constantly
punished can become apathetic, frustrated, or an aggressive person ( as cited
by Berger & Thompson, 1995).
References
Ciccarelli,
S.K., & White, J.N. (2009). Psychology.
US: Pearson.
Santrock, J. (2009). Educational psychology. NY: McGraw-Hill.
