Differences Between Classical And Operant Conditioning

Classical and operant conditioning are two of the most common methods of conditioning we observe, not only throughout our daily lives but in popular media as well. We do not have to look too hard to find a plethora of examples of these conditioning practices. A thirds lens of behaviorism and conditioning that is often looked through is the social cognitive theory. Throughout the following short essay, the three conditioning methods, classical condioning, operant conditioning, and the social cognitive theory, will be introduced and briefly explained, noting their similarities, differences, and how they effectively enact learning and change within an individual’s behavior.

The first conditioning method that will be introduced is classical conditioning. The psychologist responsible for the inception of classical conditioning is Ivan Pavlov. While Pavlov was working at the Institute of Experimental medicine in Petrograd as the director of the physiological laboratory, he took notice of how dogs would salivate once they saw an attendant bringing them their food, or even just at the sound of the attendant’s footsteps. Pavlov noticed that although the food itself was a natural stimulus for the dogs’ reflex of salivating, the attendant had the power to make the dogs salivate by just being associated with the food.

Classical conditioning is a multistep procedure that involves introducing an unconditioned stimulus (USC), which incites an unconditioned response (UCR). Essentially, at its core, classical conditioning is about an association between two stimuli. First, there must be a presentation of an unconditioned stimulus, which would then elicit an unconditioned response. For dogs, an unconditioned stimulus could be meat while the unconditioned response would be salivation. Dogs do not need to be conditioned, or trained, to salivate when they are presented with meat, this occurs naturally. In order to condition (the dogs), you must present a natural stimulus prior to presenting the unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov, for example, would tick a metronome prior to presenting dogs with meat. Initially, the dogs did not salivate when hearing the metronome, however, after presenting the dogs with the meat after ticking the metronome enough times, the dogs associated the sound with the presentation of meat, and eventually, the conditioned stimulus (the metronome), produced a conditioned response (salivation), similar to the original unconditioned response. It is demonstrated that learning has occurred when an association between two stimuli produces a conditioned response reliably.

Pavlov hypothesized that learning was largely related to the nervous system and viewed behavior as a manifestation of neurological functioning. Although B.F. Skinner, the founder of operant conditioning, did not deny this altogether, he believed psychology of behavior can be understood in its own terms without the reference to neurological or other internal events.

The next conditioning method that will be introduced is operant conditioning. Operant conditioning focuses primarily on reinforcement. Reinforcement is responsible for strengthening or increasing a response. There are two kinds of reinforcement, positive and negative, involved in operant conditioning. A positive reinforcement is when a stimulus is added in order to increase a response, whereas a negative reinforcement is when a stimulus, usually negative, is taken away to increase a response. An example of a positive reinforcer may be a piece of chocolate for a student that has read quietly at their desks when asked. An example of a negative reinforcer may be the loud noise or light on the dashboard going away once a driver had put their seatbelt on. Reinforcers are situationally specific and although they may sometimes be easy to predict, no one can know for certain whether a consequence is reinforcing until it is presented after a response.

Another important feature that is more specific to operant conditioning is punishment. Unlike reinforcers which are used to increase a behavior, punishment is used to decrease a behavior. Just like reinforcement, there is positive and negative punishment. An example of a positive punishment would be adding on weekly chores for a child who has misbehaved. An example of a negative punishment would be taking away T.V. time from a child who has misbehaved. Both scenarios aim to decrease a behavior, but one by adding on unpleasant chores, and the other by taking away a pleasant pastime.

The third and final learning theory that will be introduced is the social cognitive theory. Bandura, responsible for social cognitive theory, described human behavior within a triadic reciprocality framework. He believed there were reciprocal interactions between behaviors, environmental variables, and personal factors which could be illustrated using perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a term used to describe one’s beliefs of their own capabilities to organize and implement actions necessary to learn or perform behaviors at designated levels. Essentially, environmental variables, behaviors, and personal factors work together to modify a students self-efficacy as they either fulfill or do not fulfill their goals. Bandura hypothesized that learning occurs either actively through actually doing an activity, or vicariously by observing the behavior of models (parents, teachers, celebrities, etc.). Finally, Bandura’s theory claims that people desire to control the events that affect their lives, or otherwise, self-regulate, a process whereby people activate and sustain behaviors, cognitions, and affects, which are specifically aimed toward reaching or attaining a goal.

The key differences between these three learning theories are the stimuli presented and how they are able to affect behavior. To condition via classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus must be repeatedly presented immediately before presenting the unconditioned stimulus in order to elicit the conditioned response. The neutral stimulus will eventually become a conditioned stimulus that should reliably elicit the conditioned response similar to the original unconditioned response. With this learning theory, the stimulus creates a reaction, whereas with operant conditioning, once the desired behavior is performed by an individual, the individual is rewarded with a stimulus. The order in which an individual is rewarded with a stimulus is different between operant and classical conditioning. Additionally, operant conditioning doesn’t exactly operate off of an individual automatic biological response the same way that classical conditioning does. Finally, social cognitive theory doesn’t exactly “reward” behavior in the same way operant and classical conditioning do. Operant and classical conditioning both operate based on external reward factors, whereas social cognitive theory is largely based on the environment, personal beliefs, and behaviors that all interact with one another in order to cement a behavior or secure a desired outcome.

The learning event I have chosen to discuss now is one involving my dogs going outside to use the bathroom and then returning back to the home. The perspective of learning I have chosen in order to explain this event is operant conditioning. I currently live at home with my parents and our three dogs. Oftentimes when we would let the dogs outside to use the bathroom, they would run off to the neighbors yards, or spend an extended amount of time outside after they had used the bathroom. After a while of this behavior, my mother grew tired of chasing them down and yelling for them to come inside, so she used operant conditioning in order to teach them to come back inside after using the bathroom instead of wondering off or continuing to walk around outside. To begin this process, she would reward the dogs every time they came inside the house after using the bathroom. After a while, they realized that the quicker they came in, the quicker they got their treats. She started rewarding them when they would come inside the house immediately after using the bathroom. This quickly taught our dogs to always come inside after using the bathroom. Now, my mom uses a variable-ratio schedule in order to reinforce our dogs. They do not always get a treat for coming inside after using the bathroom, however, they know if they do it often enough, they will be rewarded. We have had a lot of success with this learning theory and very rarely do our dogs run off or stay out in the yard for a long time after using the bathroom, however, we have learned it is important to watch our dogs closely while they are outside to ensure they have actually used the bathroom and not just come back inside quickly to earn a treat. This learning theory worked in this scenario because it paired the desired behavior (coming inside after using the bathroom) with a positive reinforcement (a treat).

References

• Schunk, D. H. (2019). Learning Theories.. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134984186/