Classical Conditioning

Pavlov summarised his findings by explaining that Classical Conditioning is the combining unconditioned stimulus with neutral stimulus and seeing the subject of the study learn to associate the NS with the UCS and thus resulting in a conditioned reaction to neutral stimulus which in turn becomes a conditioned stimulus (Kentridge, 1995).
Comparison and limitations of Pavlov and Skinners theories
Whilst Skinner and Pavlov’s work is similar in that they both study the way a person or animal learns, they differ in approaches. Classical conditioning is the study of associations between involuntary response and stimulus. This differs from operant conditioning which is making associations between voluntary behaviours and consequences (Skinner,
1953).
Classical conditioning, as in Pavlov’s study, doesn’t require awareness of the learner. Whilst Operant, as in Skinner’s studies, requires the learner to participate in order to receive a positive or negative reinforcer.
Both areas of study have their strengths of weaknesses. There are arguably two main limitations to Classical conditioning. The first is that it relies primarily on the natural reaction of the subject who is being conditioned, thus the amount of that could be learnt is limited (Pavlov, 1927). The other main limitation is that the study could arguably only work on a certain age range. For example, if a small child is being conditioned to be afraid of something, they learn to associate the thing they are not afraid of with the thing they are and so the NS starts to solicit the same response as the UCS. Whereas if an adult was to undergo the same experiment, it could be argued that an adult would be aware of what was happening and could therefore resist the effect the NS paired with the UCS was trying to create. A key limitation of operant conditioning could be argued that it fails to take in to account the genetic factors and therefore in an incomplete explanation of the learning process. A key limitation of both theories could arguably be that not all learning can be measured by physical responses and both theories rely heavily on the measurement of observable behaviours (S.Cool.co.uk, 2014).
Both areas of study also have their strengths.
Operate conditioning can be used to explain (among others) addiction and the process of learning. For example, if someone smokes in school and they gain acceptance by their peers, that is a positive reinforcement and so they are more likely to continue smoking. Whereas, if a person smokes in school and is caught, suspended from school and receive a punishment for their parents, they would be more likely not to smoke again because the negative reinforcement is strong (McLeod, 2007). A strength of classical conditioning could be argued that it could help people to overcome phobias. For example, if a person is afraid of spiders (UCS) and is paired with a NS of something that doesn’t bother them at all, for example a glove which makes a person’s hands warm during a cold winter, the person could begin to associate spiders with gloves which keep them warm and therefore end up being less afraid of spiders.
Both areas of study have strengths and weakness and whilst similar in some areas, differ greatly in others.
Skinners contribution to understanding human
behaviour
Skinners contribution to understanding human behaviour has been arguably been huge. The emphasis of behavioural psychology has always been to learn how people or animals learn to behave in certain ways. People are constantly learning new behaviours and the responses to those behaviours, Skinner would argue, are what means if we repeat that behaviour or not.
Skinner’s studies focused on the observable effects of reinforcers. Skinner’s experiment with the rats and food pellets showed that with a positive reinforcement, a behaviour could be learned (Mcleod, 2007). Operant conditioning is frequently used in the raising of children. For example, when teenagers take their major exams in school, parents will often be heard to promising their child money if they get certain grades. This is a positive reinforcement that often see’s teenagers studying harder to receive higher grades and earn the promised reward. Skinners operant conditioning is also often used in hospitals with hypochondriac. It has been reported that doctors will give patients claiming to be ill a ‘cocktail’ of medications with disguised doses. These are given at regular intervals which helps the patient to get in to routine and believe in the help which has reportedly seen patients ‘fully recover’ from illnesses and return to a ‘normal’ life (American Journal of Nursing, 1974)
It is arguably a very relevant way of modifying a person’s behaviour, learning style or the way in which they relate to certain circumstances.
For example stickers are often given in schools to encourage certain behaviours and a certain number of stickers could result in a prize. The stickers would be seen as a “secondary enforcer” and the prize as the “primary enforcer” (McLeod, 2007). A limitation of doing this, is that in some cases, it has been reported that when the enforcers stop because the person providing the enforcer feels that the student has fully understood what they were trying to teach, the person could slip back into their previous behaviours as they have become to reliant on the
reward.
Operant conditioning is also used when teaching children with learning difficulties (Mcleod, 2007). Positive reinforcers such as verbal encouragement have been seen has a successful way to encourage a child’s learning because they crave that positive reinforcement they gain by trying hard. It has generally been accepted that for every negative comment, five positive comments is the most effective in modifying behaviours (Mcleod, 2007).
Conclusion
Skinner and Pavlov have both had a great influence on the development of understanding human behaviour. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses. Whilst the theories are similar they have defining differences such as the way Classical conditioning studies making associations between involuntary response and stimulus whereas operant conditioning is about making associations between voluntary behaviours and consequences. Skinner and Pavlov were both revolutionary theorist in their time with both classical and operant conditioning being used in a variety of social settings today.