Classical & Operant Conditioni
A COMPARISON BETWEEN CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING.This essay outlines the basic principles of classical and operant conditioning and considers the similarities and differences between these two models of learning.Classical conditioning is so named after the experimental procedure devised by the physiologist, Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), when he changed his focus from the digestive system to conditioning, after noticing a dog salivate when it saw the bucket in which its food was kept.Pavlov devised an instrument to measure the salivation of the dog when giving it meat powder. The meat powder was the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and the response was salivation, an unconditioned response (UCR). 'Unconditioned' means that the response is automatic, based on instinct. He then rang a bell, the neutral stimulus, and directly afterwards gave some meat powder (UCS) to the dog. The dog responded by salivating. Pavlov repeated this several times a day for 1 week and discovered that if he rang the bell but did not give the dog meat powder it still salivated. He now saw the bell as a conditioned stimulus (CS), and the salivation as a conditioned response (CR), as it had been learned.
The UCS is fear of a fire, the CS is the alarm's ring, and the CR is leaving the building. In the case of arachnophobia, the person would be shown the mildest image of a spider, eg a cartoon drawing, and then asked how they felt. Of the two, operant conditioning is the more adaptable, employing shaping and schedules of reinforcement, thus going some way to overcoming the shortcomings and fragility of the rigid classical model. An everyday example of this would be a person leaving a building upon hearing the fire alarm. It is apparent that both models, with their heavy behaviourist leaning, fall short of explaining the complexities of human behaviour. ' Skinner devised machines for his experiments, named 'Skinner's boxes', and he mostly used rats and pigeons. Principles to Classical Conditioning· Stimulus Generalisation - this refers to using similar stimuli to the CS, a bell with a slightly higher ringing tone to the original one, for example, that will probably evoke the salivary response. Firstly there is 'systematic desensitisation'. Pavlov paired a black ellipse with the meat powder, combining this with the bell and once the black ellipse had produced a CR he paired the UCS (meat powder) with a similar shape and not with the ellipse. This is the most effective technique, but generally less extreme techniques are favoured. As shown, stimulus generalisation, discrimination and extinction are all common characteristics. Without some level of reinforcement, extinction of the CR will ultimately occur. · Extinction - this occurs when the CS loses its ability to produce a CR. · Stimulus Discrimination - this refers to the ability to evoke a response to a CS, but not to other similar but different stimulus.
Common topics in this essay:
BF Skinner,
Ivan Pavlov,
Conditioning Classical,
Classical Operant,
EL Thorndike,
DIFFERENCES Classical,
Stimulus Discrimination,
Law Effect',
Stimulus Generalisation,
CR CS,
operant conditioning,
meat powder,
classical conditioning,
neutral stimulus,
introduction psychology,
classical operant conditioning,
classical operant,
paired ucs,
produce response,
schedules reinforcement,
rc smith bem,
'pleasant consequence',
atkinson rc smith,
smith bem dj,
bem dj hilgard,
|
Acceptance Essays
