classical and operant conditioning essay

Classical vs. Operant Conditioning: Differences and Similarities

Conditioning in psychology is a learning process where two things are repeatedly paired to form a new association. There are two main types: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Both classical and operant conditioning are forms of associative learning. While classical conditioning focuses on involuntary responses by pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response, operant conditioning deals with voluntary behaviors, pairing them with consequences to strengthen or weaken the behavior. In real life, these two types of conditioning often happen together. Let’s look at the differences and similarities between classical and operant conditioning and how they occur in everyday life.

Table of Contents

What is conditioning in psychology?

In psychology, conditioning refers to behavioral conditioning. Conditioning is a learning process that repeatedly pairs two things together to form a new association, which is learning.

What are the types of conditioning?

The two main types of conditioning in psychology are classical and operant conditioning. They are two fundamental methods of learning through association.

Classical conditioning

• Definition : Classical conditioning , also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning, was first studied by Ivan Pavlov. It involves learning through an association between two stimuli.
• How it works : It begins with a naturally occurring stimulus that automatically elicits a response (unconditioned stimulus leading to an unconditioned response). A neutral stimulus, which initially does not trigger the response, is then repeatedly presented alongside the unconditioned stimulus. Eventually, the neutral stimulus alone can evoke the response, which becomes a conditioned stimulus eliciting a conditioned response.
• Example : A famous example is Pavlov’s dogs, where the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) was paired with the presentation of food (unconditioned stimulus). Eventually, the bell alone could cause the dogs to salivate (conditioned response).

Operant conditioning

• Definition : Operant conditioning , developed by B.F. Skinner involves learning through the consequences of behavior.
• How it Works : It is based on the idea that behaviors followed by positive consequences (reinforcements) are more likely to occur again in the future, while behaviors followed by negative consequences (punishments) are less likely to be repeated. Reinforcement (positive, like receiving a reward, and negative, like avoiding an unpleasant situation) increases the likelihood of a behavior. Punishment (adding an unpleasant consequence or removing a pleasant one) decreases the likelihood of a behavior.
• Example : A child gets a treat (positive reinforcement) for doing chores, increasing the likelihood of doing chores again. Alternatively, a teenager loses phone privileges (negative punishment) for missing curfew, decreasing the likelihood of coming home late again.

What’s the difference between classical and operant conditioning?

Classical and operant conditioning are fundamental concepts in behavioral psychology, each facilitating learning through the mechanism of association. However, they differ in how learning occurs and is reinforced. Here are the main differences between the two.

What are the similarities between classical and operant conditioning?

Here are the similarities between classical and operant conditioning.

Classical and operant conditioning: which is better?

One type of conditioning isn’t necessarily better than the other. Both classical and operant conditioning have their own strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness depends on the specific situation and goals you’re trying to achieve.

Here are the strengths and weaknesses of classical and operant conditioning.

Can classical and operant conditioning occur at the same time?

Yes, classical and operant conditioning can occur at the same time. In everyday life, they often occur together to reinforce a learned behavior.

Here are some examples.

Classical conditioning enhancing operant conditioning

The clicker (a neutral stimulus) initially has no specific meaning to the dog. When your dog successfully sits on command, you immediately follow it with a treat (an unconditioned stimulus), which naturally elicits a positive response (unconditioned emotional response) from the dog.

After consistently repeating this process – the dog sits, a click is made, and then a treat is given – the dog begins to form an association between the clicker sound and the treat, leading to an anticipation of the positive experience. Consequently, the clicker transforms into a positive reinforcement, serving as a desired consequence that motivates the dog to repeat the behavior to receive the reward.

Operant conditioning enhancing classical conditioning

A student studies hard and is praised for getting good grades. The praise is a positive reinforcement leading to more studying. Over time, more hard work leads to more good results and positive emotional responses. The student starts to associate studying with feelings of accomplishment. The student now inherently finds studying a positive and rewarding activity.

References For Classical vs. Operant Conditioning

• 1. Skinner BF. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review . Published online 1950:193-216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054367
• 2. Kirsch I, Lynn SJ, Vigorito M, Miller RR. The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. J Clin Psychol . Published online 2004:369-392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10251

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider for medical concerns.

Difference Between Classical and Operant Conditioning

Categories Behavior

Both classical conditioning and operant are central to behaviorism , but students often get confused about the differences between the two. Classical and operant conditioning are both types of learning that involve learning by association. However, there are important differences between the two.

The main difference between classical conditioning and operant conditioning is that classical conditioning involves pairing a neutral stimulus with a reflexive response. In contrast, operant conditioning involves reinforcing or punishing voluntary behaviors to either increase or decrease their frequency.

Table of Contents

Classical vs Operant Conditioning: Understanding the Differences

For many students, remembering what makes classical conditioning and operant conditioning different can be a real challenge. Fortunately, there are some handy tricks for remembering and identifying each type of conditioning process.

Classical conditioning:

• Involves involuntary behaviors that occur automatically
• Involves a neutral stimulus that naturally and automatically triggers a response
• Involves placing a previously neutral stimulus before a naturally occurring reflex

Operant conditioning:

• Involves voluntary behaviors
• Requires the use of reinforcement or punishment
• Involves placing a consequence after a behavior

What Is Classical Conditioning?

Classical conditioning is a learning process in which an association is formed between a naturally existing and neutral stimulus. Once an association has been formed, the neutral stimulus will come to evoke the same response as the naturally occurring stimulus.

Sounds confusing, but let’s break it down:

• A dog will salivate when it sees food. The food is a naturally occurring stimulus that automatically triggers a response.
• Now imagine that you begin to wear a white coat every time you present the food to the dog.
• Eventually, the animal forms an association between the natural stimulus (the food) and the previously neutral stimulus (the white coat).
• Once this association has been established, the dog will begin to salivate when it sees the white coat, even in the absence of the food.

This process was discovered by a Russian physiologist named Ivan Pavlov and has become a vital concept within the field of behavioral psychology. The classical conditioning process often occurs in the real world, and can also be used to purposefully alter behaviors and teach new behaviors.

How Does Classical Conditioning Work?

Ivan Pavlov was a Russian physiologist, but his most famous discovery had a significant effect on the field of psychology. If Pavlov’s name rings a bell, then you have probably heard of his famous experiments with dogs. Pavlov experimented on 40 dogs during the course of his experiments.

Pavlov was conducting experiments on the digestive systems of dogs when he noticed something interesting. Whenever a lab assistant would enter the room, the animals would begin to salivate.

Pavlov’s digestive experiments involved introducing both food and non-food items to the animals and then measuring the salivary response. Why were the animals salivating whenever they saw the lab assistant?

Pavlov quickly realized that salivating had actually become a learned response . The animals had grown to associate the sight of the assistant’s white lab coat with the presentation of food. Eventually, simply the sight of the assistant could trigger this response, even in the absence of food.

Pavlov’s discovery became known as classical conditioning. In this process, a previously neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus or something that naturally and automatically triggers a response. In Pavlov’s experiments, he paired the sound of a bell with the presentation of food.

After several pairings, an association is formed and the neutral stimulus will also trigger the response. At this point, the neutral stimulus is known as the conditioned stimulus and the response becomes known as the conditioned response . In Pavlov’s experiments, the sound of the bell eventually began to provoke the drooling response, even when no food was present.

The Influence of Classical Conditioning

The discovery of classical conditioning had an enormous impact on the school of thought known as behaviorism. Advocates of behaviorism included the psychologist John B. Watson, who utilized classical conditioning in an experiment to demonstrate how fear could be a conditioned response.

The behaviorist John B. Watson also utilized this process in his famous Little Albert experiment. In the experiment, a child known as Little Albert was exposed to a white lab rat. The child initially showed no fear of the animal, but Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner then paired the presentation of the rat with a loud clanging sound.

After several pairings, the child eventually began to cry whenever he saw the white rat. By associating the sight of a white rat with a loud, clanging sound, Watson was able to classically condition a young boy to fear the white rat. Little Albert’s fear even bled over to other white, furry objects including stuffed toys, Rayner’s white fur coat, and the sight of Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.

What Is Operant Conditioning?

Another psychologist named B.F. Skinner realized that while classical conditioning was powerful, it could not account for all types of learning. He suggested that intentional behaviors and the consequences that follow were also important.

Skinner described a process known as operant conditioning in which actions followed by reinforcement become more likely to occur again. If a child cleans her room and her parents give her a treat as a reward, she will become more likely to clean her room in the future.

Actions immediately followed by punishment will make the behavior less likely to occur.  If you talk out of turn in class and the teacher reprimands you, chances are you will be less likely to speak out again without first raising your hand.

Operant conditioning is often used by parents, teachers, and behavioral therapists to help teach new behaviors and discourage undesirable ones.

A teacher, for example, might utilize praise and reward systems to encourage good classroom behavior, while also using punishments to minimize disruptive actions. Kids who behave appropriately might be awarded tokens, which they can then turn in to receive a reward. Those who disrupt class, on the other hand, might have to miss recess or some other desired activity.

Operant conditioning utilizes reinforcement and punishment to create associations between behaviors and the consequences for those behaviors.

For example, imagine that a parent punishes a child for throwing a toy. Because of this punishment, the child forms an association between the action (throwing) and a result (getting punished). As a result of this consequence, the child becomes less likely to throw the toy again in the future. Once this association is learned, the problematic behavior decreases.

There are a few different factors that can influence how quickly and how strongly a response is learned.

• The salience of the consequence can play a role, as well as the timing and frequency of the consequence.
• The timing and frequency of consequences in operant conditioning are known as schedules of reinforcement .

Key Terms and Definitions

The following are a few of the key terms that you should know and understand related to classical conditioning and operant conditioning:

• Conditioned Response
• Conditioned Stimulus
• Discrimination
• Fixed-Interval Schedule
• Fixed Ratio Schedule
• Habituation
• Negative Punishment
• Negative Reinforcement
• Positive Punishment
• Positive Reinforcement
• Stimulus Generalization
• Unconditioned Response
• Unconditioned Stimulus
• Variable-Interval Schedule
• Variable-Ratio Schedule

Classical vs. Operant Conditioning: Study Questions

As you study classical conditioning and operant conditioning, be sure that you are able to answer the following questions.

• What effect do schedules of reinforcement have on acquiring a new behavior?
• What are reinforcement and punishment? How do they differ?
• What are positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement?
• What are positive punishment and negative punishment?
• People often confuse punishment with negative reinforcement. How are they different?
• What are the differences between classical and operant conditioning?

Classical and operant conditioning can be powerful learning tools and have many real-world applications. Pavlov’s discovery may have occurred by accident, but it has influenced our understanding of how behaviors are learned.

Classical and Operant Conditioning Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Classical conditioning example

Analysis of the conditioning, operant conditioning.

Classical and operant conditioning are behavioral learning theory, applicable and used in modern societies; according to behavioral learning theories, interactions with the environment have an effect on internal mental states like thoughts which in turn reinforces or discourages a certain behavior (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2009). This paper discusses classical and operant conditioning, it will use real-life examples to elaborate on the theories.

On September 11, 2001, I was 100 meters away from the World trade center; I heard the plane bang the building and the explosion thereafter. I also got a chance to see casualties and was among the rescue team. What resulted thereafter is I feared plane; every time I heard a plane passing, I was filled with fear that there might be an explosion I feared planes passing.

Acquisition

When I got the experience and had a chance to see the effects of the explosion, I acquired conditioning.

Today over nine years after the explosion, I have been able to overcome the fear, I can now hold passing planes and not think that an explosion will occur, the conditioning has been extinct by time.

Spontaneous recovery

After visiting New York nowadays, and happen to be near the attacked building, a passing plane creates some fear in me. This happens despite the occurrence of having been erased from my memory.

Generalization

When the feeling and the conditioning was fresh, a bang and a strong engine sound could cause fear in me.

Discrimination

When the conditioning was fresh, I could well differentiate the sound of a passing plane (jumbo planes), war jets, and vehicles.

Unconditioned stimulate (US)

The sound of the passing plane was the unconditioned stimulus.

Conditioned stimulus (CR)

The fear that I got was the conditioned stimulus.

Conditioned response (CR)

The association of the sound of the plane with the terror attack was a conditioned response.

Unconditioned response (UR)

The sound of the plane is the unconditioned response (Ludwig, 2010).

In Michigan, I had an experience where a sniffer dog was used to detect narcotic drugs from a passenger. What the dog did, after smelling the drugs, sat next to the bag that contained them; and then a security officer gave the animal some dog food that the dog seemed to enjoy.

The food that the dog was given is used to reinforce a certain behavior in the dog (sitting down when it gets the smell of narcotics in passengers).

The unconditioned stimulus was the smell of narcotics that created a certain reaction in the animal. In the above example, it portrays an example of a positive reinforcement where the behavior conditioned in the animal is used to detect drug traffickers. In the dog’s minds, it is aware that after the detention of the smell, then it will be rewarded by food and that is why it is alert to have the smell detected.

When the dog was sniffing passengers’ luggage, the security officer was whistling; the dog waived its tail as a sign of recognition of the security officer. The more the officer whistled, the more aggressive the dog became. The reaction and the conditioning was fixed-ration conditioning; since the animal was made aware of the smell it was looking for and after getting the smell, it was expected to sit next to the luggage with the smell waiting for food reward from the security officer (Feud & Strachey, 1976).

Feud, S. and Strachey, J. (1976). The complete psychological work of Sigmund freud . New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Ludwig, E. (2010). Classical Conditioning . Web.

Olson, M. & Hergenhahn, B.R. (2009). An Introduction to Theories of Learning . New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

• Alcohol Abusers and Their Psychological Treatment
• Experiment on Obedience: Milligram's and Zimbardo's Study
• Operant Conditioning Theory by Burrhus Frederic Skinner
• Operant Conditioning
• Spontaneous Recovery in Classical Conditioning
• Learning Groups: Psychodynamics and Developmental Processes
• Understanding Relationship Between Motivation and Performance
• Health Behavior Change and Coaching
• Adolescent Interview for Behavior Change
• Personal Change: Scott and Jaffe's Model
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, February 28). Classical and Operant Conditioning. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-operant-conditioning/

"Classical and Operant Conditioning." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-operant-conditioning/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Classical and Operant Conditioning'. 28 February.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Classical and Operant Conditioning." February 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-operant-conditioning/.

1. IvyPanda . "Classical and Operant Conditioning." February 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-operant-conditioning/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Classical and Operant Conditioning." February 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-operant-conditioning/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Behaviorism

Explaining behaviorism: operant & classical conditioning, simple and easy to digest explanations of behaviorism, take 1..

Posted February 28, 2014 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

There are many explanations that can be used to help people understand the Behaviorist Point of View. Some are very factual, others argue towards practical concerns, and still others are highly philosophical.

This is the first in a series of posts trying to show these styles of explanation in a compact and easy-to-digest form. Feedback is welcome. Because of a guest lecture that I must give soon, the first post will focus on outlining operant and classical conditioning . The order is not meant to imply that this should be the first thing you tell someone about behaviorism, nor to imply that it is the most convincing line of explanation.

How to Explain Behaviorism, version 1: Operant and Classical Conditioning

Operant and classical conditioning are two different ways in which organisms come to reflect the order of the environment around them. They are not perfect processes and they certainly cannot explain facet of human and non-human behavior.

That said, they are surprisingly reliable processes, and they can explain much, much , more about human and non-human behavior than anyone would have thought before extensive study of those processes began.

It is probably best to think about operant and classical conditioning as offering two different types of developmental stories. They are not stories about what a behavior is , now, but rather stories about how that behavior got to be that way.

Classical conditioning stories are about things happening around the animal, no matter what the animal does. Operant conditioning stories involve consequences of the animal's action, i.e., what happens when the animal operates upon the world as an active agent.

There is some debate about whether we need two types of stories. There are good reasons to go either way, including some recent genetic evidence that they can be disentangled. None of that really matters here; all that matters is that you understand the two types of stories and their consequences for future behavior.

Note below that "stimulus" can refer to any object, event, or situation that an organism could potentially respond to. Note also that "response" can be anything the organism does . For now, a "response" could be an overt action (such as jumping up and down), a covert action (such as tensing your leg without moving it), or even thinking or feeling, so long as we conceiving of those as active, rather than passive.

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning stories involve an animal doing something that changes the world in a way that produces, crudely speaking, a good or a bad outcome. When an organism does something that is followed by a good outcome, that behavior will become more likely in the future. When an organism does something that is followed by a bad outcome, that behavior will become less likely in the future.

The action and outcome could coincide because of natural laws or social conventions, because someone purposely set it up that way, or it could be that the events followed due to random chance in this animal's life history.

For example, in pretty much any animal's experience, it is good to stop touching overly-hot objects (natural law); in some worlds telling a parent you love them results in good outcomes (social convention); and in some worlds tapping a baseball bat five times on the left corner of the mound is followed by a home run (random chance).

Operant conditioning stories require that the outcome be reinforcing or punitive to the particular animal in question. (There are ways to specify that so it does not involve circular reasoning, but we don't need to go that deep.)

For example, candy might reinforce one person, but not another; some might find a graphic kill-sequence in a violent video game punishing, while others find it reinforcing; etc.

Over time, the story goes, if a certain type of outcome consistently follows a particular behavior, this will affect the rate of future behaviors.

Example Traditional Story : A cat is put in a "puzzle box." It performs a wide range of behaviors because cats don't like to be in cages. Eventually one of its flailing limbs pulls a lever that opens the cage door. This happens many times, and each time the lever gets pulled a little bit quicker (there is no "aha!" moment).

Tradition vs. Necessity : Traditionally operant conditioning stories start with a relatively "random" behavior, but they could start with any behavior. Traditionally, the story then introduces an arbitrary consequence, but in real-life situations, we usually care about socially-mediated consequences. Traditionally it takes many cycles for the consequence to make big changes in the frequency of future behavior, but sometimes the changes can be quite quick and others it can take a very long time. In the traditional story, the consequence always follows the behavior, but there are many cool effects that we know about when it does not the consequence is intermittent (i.e., the "schedule of reinforcement"). Traditionally the consequence has to be immediately following the behavior, though there are some exceptions, you probably want to stick with the traditional version here.

Enhanced Traditional Story : Often operant conditioning stories are enhanced by adding a "discriminative stimuli," which indicates that a particular contingency (a particular connection between action and outcome) is in effect. For example, an experimenter working with rats might have a light that, when on, means that lever pressing will result in food. Similarly, a special education instructor might have a picture of a hat that, when held up, means that saying "hat" will result in an M&M.

Other Classical Conditioning Stuff : You can do amazing things with discriminative stimuli. You can train people to respond to very specific stimuli, or to very general "categories" of stimuli. For example, we can get pigeons to discriminate early Monet's paintings from Picasso's. Also, by drawing out the "schedule" of reinforcement, you can also train animals to respond for many, many times without getting reinforced. For example, we can get people to pull slot machine levers scores of times without a win.

After Conditioning : After the events of an Operant Conditioning story, a behavior either has an increased or decreased rate of occurrence. Often there is a big increase or decrease specifically when a particular stimulus is present. So, if you know the world that a person has lived in before, you know something about why they respond now in certain ways in the presence of certain objects, events, or situations.

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning stories involve (at least) two things that coincide "out there" in an animal's world. Those things could coincide because they are causally related due to natural laws or social conventions, or it could be that the events occur at random in relation to each other and this animal just happens to be the animal that experiences them together.

For example, in pretty much any animal's world, lightning is followed by thunder (natural law); in some worlds hearing "say cheese" might be followed by a camera flash (social convention); and in some worlds eating lamb dinners could coincide with hearing bad news from loved ones (random chance).

Classical conditioning stories also require that the organism already have a developed response to one of the two events. For example, thunder could make you flinch, a bright flash could make you wince, and bad news from loved ones could make you cry.

Over time, the story goes, if two things are repeatedly paired together out there in the world, the organism will come to respond to one as they already respond to the other.

Example Traditional Story : When Mary was a child her father liked to take many pictures of her. He always said, "Say cheese!" before he took the picture, and he always used a flash. Every time the flash hit Mary, she winced slightly. Now, whenever she hears "Say cheese!" she winces.

Tradition vs. Necessity : Traditionally classical conditioning stories start with a response that seems unlearned (an Unconditioned Response to an Unconditioned Stimulus), but they could start with any response the animal already has. Traditionally the story then introduces something the animal has no existing response to (a Neutral Stimulus), but it usually still works for stimuli that already elicit some response. Traditionally the neutral stimulus comes to evoke the response associated with unconditioned stimulus after several pairings (thus becoming a Conditioned Stimulus), but sometimes only a single pairing is required, and sometimes neutral stimuli fail to convert to conditioned stimuli even after many, many pairings. Traditionally the stimuli have to be very close together in time, but sometimes you can create conditioned stimuli when the pairings are far apart.

In many cases, where the traditional story does not hold, there has been a lot of research into the exceptions, and we have a very good understanding of why such exceptions should exist. For example, after a single event, many animals will learn to avoid novel tastes that were associated with becoming sick quite a bit later. This makes a lot of evolutionary sense; poisoned food presents a big risk, and one does not normally experience the full effects until quite a bit after ingestion. On the other hand, when dealing with fairly arbitrary pairings of stimuli, as we get all the time in our modern world, the structure of the traditional story holds. For example, why should anyone ever have become excited by hearing a computerized voice say "You've got mail!"? Because of several pairings, that's why.

Other Classical Conditioning Stuff : You can do amazing things here with generalization and discrimination training, and there are many other interesting phenomena that scientists have discovered.

After Conditioning : After the events of a Classical Conditioning story, the presence of a conditioned stimulus elicits a conditioned response. So, if you know the world that a person has lived in before, you know something about why they respond to certain things in certain ways now.

A Bit of Light Theory

Philosophical behaviorism can be very deep. In this context, all I will say is that most behaviorists believe we can explain a great deal about human behavior using the types of stories above. That is, the preferred style to a run of the mill "Why did he do that?!" question will begin with "Well, in the past history of that person, doing that behavior resulted in...."

Because these explanations are all about the way the world around the person works, and the person's past history in that world, you don't need to include traditional "mental" explanations. That doesn't mean that traditional "mental" stuff doesn't exist, but it does suggest that we can explain an awful lot about human behavior before we would need to start talking about them.

Eric Charles, Ph.D., runs the research lab at CTRL, the Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning, at American University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychol Belg
• v.58(1); 2018

Classical Conditioning: Classical Yet Modern

This manuscript is part of a special issue to commemorate professor Paul Eelen, who passed away on August 21, 2016. Paul was a clinically oriented scientist, for whom learning principles (Pavlovian or operant) were more than salivary responses and lever presses. His expertise in learning psychology and his enthusiasm to translate this knowledge to clinical practice inspired many inside and outside academia. Several of his original writings were in the Dutch language. Instead of editing a special issue with contributions of colleagues and friends, we decided to translate a selection of his manuscripts to English to allow wide access to his original insights and opinions. Even though the manuscripts were written more than two decades ago, their content is surprisingly contemporary. The present manuscript was originally published as part of a Liber Amicorum for Paul Eelen’s own supervisor, prof. Joseph Nuttin. In this chapter, Paul Eelen presents a modern view on Pavlovian learning. It appeared in 1980, at the heyday of cognitive psychology which initially dismissed conditioning. Paul Eelen’s perseverance in presenting learning principles as key to study human behaviour has proven correct and ahead of time.

First published as: Eelen, P. (1980). Klassieke conditionering: Klassiek en toch modern. In Liber Amicorum, Prof. J. R. Nuttin, Gedrag, dynamische relatie en betekeniswereld (pp. 321–343). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.

Even though ever more complex areas of research have found their way into psychology, “Pavlov’s dog” continues to fascinate many researchers. What causes the enduring fascination with conditioning research? Does such research even have psychological significance? Would it not be better if it remained a study field for physiologists, as it originally was? The answers to these questions are partly determined by one’s conceptualization of classical conditioning. Most people are by now sufficiently familiar with its schematic representation: a conditioned stimulus (CS) elicits a conditioned response (CR), provided this stimulus has repeatedly been presented together with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that “inherently” elicits an unconditioned response (UR). Several limiting conditions qualify this schematic depiction. The CS must be “neutral” vis-à-vis the US. In other words, it cannot spontaneously elicit a response that is identical to the UR. The US must “inherently” elicit a well-defined response, which is why stimuli that are biologically significant for the studied organism are typically used (for some theorists, this became a necessary condition for conditioning to take place). The resulting CR must be an autonomous response that is part of the reaction pattern that the US evokes. This schematic depiction also provides insight into the necessary (and sufficient) conditions for conditioning to occur: both stimuli have to occur simultaneously. Finally, this schematic representation already implies what is learned: learning is equated with the modified reaction pattern vis-à-vis the CS. To put it simply, the dog learns to salivate at the sound of the bell.

This schematic depiction and the limiting conditions it implies constitute a strong simplification of the original phenomenon. After all, Pavlov’s interest in conditioning originated from his observation that the dog started to salivate when it heard and saw the man who brought the food. This rather complex event – someone who brings food – was ultimately reduced to a little lamp or an auditory signal predicting food. The “food” event of seeing a meat chunk in a bowl was reduced to the injection of meat powder directly into the animal’s mouth. The dog’s overall reaction pattern upon hearing the man who brings the food – and anyone who has a dog will be familiar with this pattern – was ultimately reduced to droplets of saliva (the reductive nature of this response was already highlighted by Zener, 1937 ). Moreover, the autonomous reaction that held Pavlov’s primary interest as a physiologist was initially not viewed as a core index of learning the relation between two events, but was subsequently seen as an almost integral part of the definition of classical conditioning ( Gormezano & Kehoe, 1975 ). We can probably all concur with Rescorla and Holland’s related observation that “if conditioning were confined to what some have called “spit and twitches”, it would lose much of its psychological interest” ( Rescorla & Holland, 1976, p. 184 ).

This strong reduction of the original events is probably characteristic of every type of operationalisation. This is justified in and of itself: operationalisations that reduce a phenomenon to its essence are vital for obtaining fundamental knowledge about the necessary and sufficient conditions that determine the occurrence of that phenomenon. But the danger exists that the question behind a concrete operationalisation is simply forgotten after a while. Moreover, there is a real danger that general statements and laws are formulated that are strongly connected to the concrete operationalisation. Something along those lines certainly happened in the study and appreciation of classical conditioning. The aim of this contribution, then, is to shed light on a number of recent trends in classical conditioning studies that might justify the title of this contribution. First, I summarize the most important findings that call for a broader framing of classical conditioning research. This is followed by a comprehensive discussion of one particular form of learning, that is, taste aversion that results from relations between the taste of food or drink on the one hand, and artificially induced nausea on the other hand. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the Garcia effect. The topic of taste aversion is discussed not because it is an almost prototypical example of classical conditioning, but because it contributed substantially to the questioning of important assumptions about conditioning. A number of authors have even called this the beginning of a “paradigmatic revolution” ( Rozin, 1977 ; Bolles, 1975 ). The final part is somewhat speculative in nature: using the preceding observations as a starting point, it argues that a nontrivial similarity exists between recent theories in classical conditioning studies and those in a literature that at first glance appears to bear little relation to it, that is, attribution theories in social psychology.

Classical conditioning: learning associations between two events

Every existing organism must in some way or another be sensitive to both meaningful as well as more coincidental relations between events in the environment, especially when such relations concern biologically significant events. At the same time, it would be maladaptive for an organism if the mere coincident occurrence of two events would be a sufficient condition for the organism to establish a connection between the two. Nevertheless, a coincident occurrence has often been considered a sufficient condition for learning a relation. When doubts were expressed about this idea, they concerned the nature of either one of both events (does one of the events need to have reinforcement value) rather than the nature of the relation itself (i.e., co-occurrence). What follows will demonstrate that every organism can process a wider range of informational relations than the mere joint occurrence of events. In describing this broad range, we aim to list general facts rather than to go deep into possible explanations.

The role of contingency

Instead of using terms indicating co-occurrence, relations can also be expressed in terms of correlation or contingency. What is emphasised in this case is not the temporal relation between two events but their logical relation. Applied to the situation of Pavlov’s dog, this means that a perfect positive correlation is introduced between the CS and the US in the experimental context. In other words, the conditional probability that the US is presented, given that the CS has been presented, equals 1; the probability that the US is presented in the absence of the CS equals 0. This is symbolically expressed as ρ(US/CS) = 1.0 and ρ(US/°CS) = 0. This can probably be further illustrated using what Seligman, Maier and Solomon called “The Pavlovian contingency space” (cf. Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

Pavlovian contingency space . The x-axis represents the conditional probability that the unconditioned stimulus (US) occurs together with the conditioned stimulus (CS). The y-axis represents the probability that the US occurs without the CS. There is no contingency between both stimuli on the diagonal line where both probabilities are equal (after Seligman, Maier and Solomon, 1971 ).

Given that the essence of the classical conditioning procedure lies in the experimenter’s full control over the two stimuli that are presented, this paradigm lends itself superbly to a study of the effects of variations in the correlational strength of CS-US relations.

Rescorla ( 1968 ) was one of the first to study this issue systematically. Over several experiments ( Rescorla, 1975 ), he demonstrated that animals are sensitive to variations in contingency, ranging from a perfect positive correlation to a perfect negative correlation (respectively below and above the diagonal in Figure ​ Figure1.) 1 .) In this way, he succeeded in translating Pavlov’s two most important findings – excitatory and inhibitory conditioning – into contingency terms. Excitatory conditioning occurs whenever the animal learns that the CS and US tend to go together, in other words when ρ(US/CS) > ρ(US/°CS). A large number of behavioural indices then allow one to determine that the animal is behaving as if it “expects” the US when the CS is presented. Inhibitory conditioning occurs when the animal learns that the US and the CS tend not to go together, ρ(US/CS) < ρ(US/°CS). In this case, when the CS is presented, the animal will behave in a manner that is opposite to how it would behave in excitatory conditioning. When the CS and US are “randomly” presented, with no relation between both stimuli in other words, or ρ(US/CS) = ρ(US/°CS), it is observed that the CS does not acquire a new significance for the animal; in other words, the CS does not elicit a differential reaction. This nonetheless represents a form of active learning: learning that there is no relation is not synonymous to not learning ( Mackintosh, 1973 ; Seligman, 1969 ). Let us illustrate this rather abstract formulation for what is known as “fear conditioning”, which is usually operationalised through the administration of an electrical shock as a US and an external stimulus (e.g., a visual signal) as a CS.

When, within the context of the experiment, the probability of a shock increases after the presentation of a given visual signal, this stimulus acquires a signalling function for the shock: the animal will behave “anxiously” when the CS is presented. If, however, the chance that a shock is administered is lower after the visual stimulus than in the absence of that stimulus, the animal will behave in a fairly “relaxed” fashion when the CS is administered. When the visual signal and the shock are “randomly” presented, the visual signal does not acquire a special meaning. Instead, the context as a whole becomes “fear-inducing” to the animal ( Seligman, 1968 ).

The need for a contingent relation already indicates that mere co-occurrence is not a sufficient condition for an organism to learn the relation between two events. Some way or another, the organism is sensitive to the predictive value of stimuli and the covariance of events in its environment. What follows will illustrate that even a perfect contingency does not constitute a sufficient condition.

Latent inhibition

Lubov (1973) coined the term “latent inhibition” to describe the following observation: when a stimulus is repeatedly presented by itself (i.e., without a US) in a particular context and when it is subsequently always followed by a US, it is difficult to obtain conditioning. It is not all too clear whether one should invoke non-associative or associative principles to explain this phenomenon. On the one hand, it could be argued that the organism no longer is attentive to the stimulus and, as it were, no longer even notices the stimulus because it has repeatedly been presented in the past. On the other hand, it could be argued that the organism has learned that the stimulus is irrelevant because the stimulus has repeatedly been presented on its own and that it afterwards struggles to realise that it is precisely this stimulus that should be considered the signal for an important event ( Mackintosh, 1975 ). There is a certain similarity between latent inhibition and what occurs when a US is administered repeatedly before it is preceded by a CS. Here too, the results show that it is difficult to make this CS acquire the function of a signal for the US. For instance, when a series of shocks are administered in a non-contingent fashion and every shock is afterwards preceded by a tone in that same context, it takes a long time for the organism to learn this tone-shock relation. Again, the explanation for such data can be sought in non-associative or associative principles ( Randich & Lolordo, 1979 ).

Overshadowing

When two stimuli are presented together and consistently followed by a US, often only one of those stimuli will acquire the function of a signal for the US. Pavlov ( 1927 ) already discussed this phenomenon extensively and related it to the difference in “saliency” of the stimuli (as determined by the modality and intensity of the stimuli). Formal classical conditioning models have built in this “saliency” as a parameter – either as a fixed value ( Rescorla & Wagner, 1972 ) or as a fluctuating value in accordance with the relation to the US ( Mackintosh, 1975 ).

Relative information value

Suppose that stimulus A and B are presented together and followed by an electric shock. In group I, stimulus B is also presented separately but not followed by a shock in between the A+B presentations. In group II, B is also presented separately every now and then, but here it is followed by a shock. In group III, only A+B trials are presented. The question is what happens to the signal value of stimulus A. A and a shock are after all paired an equal number of times in all groups. The relative information value of A, however, varies between groups because B is presented separately in groups I and II. In group I, A becomes the best predictor for a shock. B is a better predictor in group II, while the information value of both stimuli is equal in group III. When A is now separately tested in the three groups, conditioned responding varies in accordance with the manipulated information value ( Wagner, 1969 ).

No phenomenon has probably made a larger contribution to clarifying the complexity of conditioning than blocking. It would be impossible to comprehensively list the relevant literature. We will therefore limit ourselves to a description of the basic phenomenon. Kamin ( 1969 ) was the first to bring this phenomenon to light in his “overshadowing” studies. Stimulus A (e.g., a visual signal) is frequently followed by an electric shock. When the conditioning is complete, stimulus B (e.g., an auditory signal) is presented together with stimulus A, and both are followed by a shock. B does not acquire a signal value even though there is a perfect correlation between B and a shock from this moment onward. This is evident from the fact that when B is presented on its own, it does not elicit a response. It is as if the previous conditioning of A is blocking the conditioning of B, hence the term. There are indications that the animal does notice stimulus B, but that it learns as it were that B presents irrelevant or at least redundant information about the US ( Mackintosh, 1978 ).

The above information clearly indicates that mere stimulus co-occurrence is not a sufficient condition for an organism to relate two events. The discussion below will demonstrate that it is also not a necessary condition, which again offers a different perspective on classical conditioning. Instead of an automatic process that plays out in a passive organism, the organism emerges as an active information-processing system.

It is probably possible to relate all the phenomena that were discussed above to the role of contingency. But the question remains what mechanism can be invoked for explaining the role of contingency. Some do not hesitate to postulate that the animal has a cognitive representation of the contingency space ( Alloy & Seligman, 1979 ). Others have drawn more cautious conclusions. As Rescorla notes:

“Most of us are not comfortable with the notion that organisms take in large blocks of time, count up numbers of US events, and somehow arrive at probability estimates … It is tempting to think of simple “tricks” that the organism could use to perform in this apparently rational fashion” ( Rescorla, 1969, p. 84–85 ) .

In other words, being influenced by a correlational relation does not ipso facto imply that the organism concerned has any understanding of this correlation. It is therefore remarkable that Rescorla, who perhaps highlighted the role of contingency more than anyone else, succeeded in developing a theory in which the learning of relations can be traced back to the co-occurrence of two events after all ( Rescorla & Wagner, 1972 ). At the level of formalisation, this theory remains purely descriptive. We would like to note, however, the psychological intuition on which it was built ( Rescorla, 1969 ). The notion of “expectation discrepancy” is central here. As soon as something (important) happens unexpectedly – in other words, it was not predicted – it is as if the animal starts searching for a predictor for this event. Expectation discrepancy appears to be a necessary condition for a stimulus to be interpreted as the signal for this unexpected event. No new learning occurs when either the context (see latent inhibition) or other signals (see blocking) had already predicted the event. This “expectation discrepancy” also explains inhibitory conditioning: when an event that an organism expects to occur in a particular context does not occur, a stimulus that is correlated with this expectation discrepancy may acquire an inhibitory function. Note that this theory emphasizes the role of the environment and the organism’s prior history. We deliberately use metaphors like “to start searching for a predictor”, “to interpret an event” etc. It is as if the facts can only be described in such terms. Such language becomes even more imperative when describing taste aversion.

Taste aversion: The Garcia effect

A short article by Garcia and Koelling published in Psychonomic Science in 1966 was the starting point of the literature on what is now known as the Garcia effect. At the time, there was nothing to suggest that the article would become a classic. Quite the contrary, the article had been rejected by a more renowned journal, which the then editor would later express his regrets about. As is often the case with “classics”, the article was indeed rather weak at the methodological level, but it contained fairly far-reaching theoretical implications. Today, these are referred to as the “Garcia effect”, “the message of Garcia” and “the paradigmatic revolution”. At least 600 articles that were more or less inspired by the Garcia effect have been published since then. This exceptional level of attention does not guarantee scientific relevance in itself. Garcia’s findings may have originally been called into question due to their methodological shortcomings, but the extensive attention has at the least ensured sufficient subsequent independent replications of Garcia’s experiments. The phenomenon is real. The debate about its reach and interpretation, however, remains active today. We first discuss the meaning of “the message of Garcia” by describing a couple of typical experiments. We subsequently reflect on the varying attempts that have been made to interpret this phenomenon.

“The message of Garcia”

What the message of Garcia essentially revolves around is probably best illustrated with an anecdote recounted by Seligman ( Seligman & Hager, 1972 ). After he was served “filet mignon with béarnaise sauce” during a dinner, he became unwell at night. This nausea later proved to be a harbinger of a flu attack. But Seligman had already ascribed it to the béarnaise sauce, and since then he cannot suffer the look, let alone the taste of this sauce. This anecdote raises several questions. Why did he “ascribe” his becoming sick to the béarnaise sauce? Why not to the filet, the dessert or the drinks? Why not to the restaurant or the other guests? Why did his aversion to béarnaise sauce not disappear when it later turned out that the flu was a far more likely cause? Why did béarnaise sauce taste so bad since then? It turns out that answering these questions becomes difficult when this event is translated into a conditioning paradigm, with flavour as the CS and becoming sick as the US (or UR). The most noticeable departures from the normal rules are the extended time period between the CS and US and the difficulty of the extinction, even after the adjusted interpretation. The nature of the US moreover appeared to determine the selection of the CS and, finally, a process that is qualitatively different appears to be at stake here: the béarnaise sauce is avoided not because it is seen as a predictor of nausea, but because it acquires an intrinsically bad flavour.

Garcia’s studies evoke similar questions. The discussion of a typical study will illustrate this further. Garcia and Koelling ( 1966 ) deprived caged rats of water for the duration of the experiment. Every day, the rats were placed in individual test cages that contained a drink tube. After an adjustment period in which clean water was offered, the learning phase began. The water was replaced by a saline solution. Every time the drink tube opening was touched, a visual and auditory stimulus were presented so that every drinking attempt was paired with a “bright-noisy-tasty” constellation of stimuli. In the first group, drinking coincided with a period of radiation (X-rays). 1 In the second group, lithium chloride was used as the saline solution; this has a poisonous effect but the rats cannot distinguish it from a non-poisonous saline solution ( Nachman, 1963 ). In a third group, an electric shock was administered two seconds after drinking. This learning phase was spread over several days in all the groups. On non-conditioning days, the test cage contained only normal water, the drinking of which was not paired with the abovementioned constellation of stimuli. This was followed by a test phase in which either the audiovisual stimulus or the flavour (saline solution) without the audiovisual stimulus was presented during the drinking of clean water. In the X-ray and lithium groups, there was a clear suppression of drinking with the flavour test but not with the audiovisual test, while precisely the opposite occurred in the shock group. In other words, there appears to be an interaction between the nature of the discriminative stimulus and the drinking consequences.

At first glance, several findings regarding conditioned taste aversion indeed contradicted the basic rules of conditioning. First and foremost, there was a clear parametric difference with more typical conditioning preparations: the time interval between the taste CS and administration of the aversive US (induced sickness) was typically much larger. “Records” of 24 hours of difference were set ( Etscorn & Stephens, 1973 )! In the experiment described above, an interaction moreover exists between the nature of the CS and the nature of the US, which is probably the finding that has prompted the most discussion: It is not possible to learn an association between whichever two things. Finally, we already noted that we are seemingly dealing with a qualitatively different phenomenon.

Theoretical reflections

The different attempts to explain flavour aversion can be separated into two main orientations. A first orientation refers to the biological nature of every organism. Through the course of natural selection, every organism has come to be equipped with specific learning mechanisms that, depending on the organism’s adaptation, show specific characteristics as a function of the different challenges the animal faces in its environment. For instance, it is indeed vitally important for an animal to learn the association between certain food attributes and certain metabolic effects. A second orientation attempts to reconcile the properties of flavour aversion with the more general fundamental rules that govern the learning of relations between two events. It does not deny that parametric and perhaps qualitative differences clearly exist between learned taste aversion and the more conventional conditioning findings. But these differences supposedly originate from the particular characteristics of the used stimuli. Insofar that these characteristics can be described, their influence can be assessed through experiments – independent of the flavour aversion phenomenon.

It is indeed remarkable that all the factors that influence learning of an association between two events (cf. below) also have an influence on learned flavour aversion. First, there is the impact of contingency. Inducing a flavour aversion requires a positive correlation: “random” administration of a flavour and US does not have an effect, and a negative correlation between a flavour and the US results in a preference for this flavour ( Best, 1975 ). Latent inhibition is also possible: flavour aversion is slow to develop when the animal is made to taste a certain flavour repeatedly before it is paired with an aversive substance ( Domjan, 1972 ; Elkins, 1973 ). It is equally clear that when the animal is first repeatedly made ill in a way that is non-contingent to ingestion of a particular food, the animal subsequently no longer ascribes this becoming sick to the flavour of the food ( Braveman, 1977 ). “Blocking” finally has also been demonstrated; a learned aversion to a particular flavour can “block” learning of aversion to a different flavour ( Revusky, 1971 ). It is important to note a study by Rudy, Iwens and Best ( 1977 ) in this regard. They first induced a contingency between an external stimulus (black cage) and nausea. When the flavour of saccharine was subsequently involved in this contingency, the animal no longer ascribed the nausea to the flavour. This study is important in two regards. First, it demonstrates that associations between external stimuli and “nausea” can indeed be learned as long as an external stimulus is used that is fairly salient and that can compete with a flavour stimulus in terms of “novelty”. In addition, the results of this experiment certainly do not appear to correspond to what one would expect from a “preparedness” view. If learning of a flavour-nausea contingency is truly “prepared”, it does not seem very plausible that learning of this contingency can be fairly easily “blocked” by a pre-induced artificial or at least unprepared contingency.

These findings indicate that the Garcia effect is not as extraordinary as it appears to be at first glance and that it can in fact be integrated into the more general findings about association learning ( Logue, 1979 ). The particular characteristics of the Garcia effect, however, have urged reflection on the more conventional procedures from a different perspective.

Consider, for instance, the parametric difference between flavour aversion and set-ups that are more conventional in terms of the time lapse between the CS and US (or between the discriminative stimulus and reinforcement). The hypothesis of an after-flavour during nausea was of course the most simple one, but it was emphatically rejected empirically ( Revusky & Garcia, 1970 ). It is therefore almost certain that the Garcia effect is due to a memory phenomenon. When the rat becomes sick, he “remembers” the type of food that may have caused this. Revusky ( 1971 , 1977 ) integrates these findings into what he describes as a more general associative interference theory. This theory inspired Lett ( 1973 , 1974 , 1975 , 1977 ) to demonstrate that a rat is capable of bridging a fairly large time interval between a discriminative stimulus and reinforcement – and this with more conventional procedures. For this to happen, however, the situation must be designed so that the animal is urged to again “call to mind” the discriminative stimulus during reinforcement. It is remarkable that the Garcia effect, which is so deeply rooted in the biological singularity of the organism, is an illustration of the animal’s cognitive capabilities and that it has helped integrate recent findings in the psychology of memory into conditioning studies ( Best & Gemberling, 1977 ; Wagner, 1978 ).

In addition, there is the interaction between the nature of the CS and the US. This interaction is in fact only exceptional when one merely considers the external characteristics of a relationship between two events (contiguity, contingency). It becomes more comprehensible when one assumes that other factors also exist that influence the learning of relations, such as similarity, spatial factors, etc. This insight was probably best articulated by Testa ( 1975 , 1976); he related learned flavour aversion to the more general question of how the animal perceives causal relations in its natural environment. He argues for factors to be integrated into the study of conditioning that had already been previously underlined by gestalt psychologists in relation to perception. We find a similar plea in Revusky ( 1977 ) and Rescorla and Cunningham ( 1979 ).

Conditioning and attribution

After demonstrating how an organism can process complex relations, we have presented a discussion of learned flavour aversion because the latter highlights a central problem: what pushes the animal to selectively attribute certain effects to the ingestion of food or drink when both events are so far removed in time? Rather than viewing this simply as an innate mechanism, it was argued that this phenomenon should be integrated as much as possible into what we know about the learning of associations between events. What then is the meaning of all of this? It seems that there is a fundamental similarity between these findings in the conditioning literature and attribution theory as it was developed in the social psychological literature. This observation suggests that common principles exist that cause both humans and animals to discover causal relations in their environment. Such a speculative observation probably requires a number of prior explanations. Attribution theory is the study of the manner in which certain events are explained in terms of their potential causes. Born from the field of social psychology – a historic coincidence in Kelley’s view ( 1967 ) – the main topic of attribution research was people’s causal analysis of the behaviour of others and one’s self. In other words, on the basis of which rules do I infer the “why” behind my own or other people’s actions? But in essence, a much broader question is at stake in attribution theory: how does one make causal inferences between all sorts of events? The question even arises whether a clear distinction ought to be made between a causal interpretation of events and a causal interpretation of actions. The distinction between “cause” and “reason” is key here, and it was also the focus of a recent discussion ( Buss, 1978 ; Harvey & Tucker, 1979 ; Kruglanski, 1979 ; Buss, 1979 ). Only causal interpretations of events will be discussed below. To put it in more trivial terms, when a rat is administered a shock by the experimenter, it might ask itself: What is this shock due to (asks after the cause)? It does not ask: why did this experimenter give me a shock (asks after the reason)? Both are “why” questions, but they are logically different from each other. Second, a distinction should be made between the attribution process and the content of the attributions ( Nisbett & Wilson, 1977 ; Kruglanski, 1979 ). At the level of contents, it is obvious that any animal-human comparison would be a tenuous one. But this is also true for a comparison between mutual humans, if only because of cultural differences ( Kruglanski, 1979 ). As regards attribution as process, it is probably possible to arrive at more general statements about the heuristics that apply to both humans and animals. A third introductory remark concerns the status of the concept of attribution. Attribution is intended as a “mediating” concept that can either be assigned a reality value or an “as if” nature. This is true for most “cognitive” concepts that were designed to mediate between input and output (consider, for instance, the concept of “expectancy”). In our view, there is a trend towards increasing emphasis on the “as if” nature of attributions in social psychology. The most common descriptions – somewhat schematically – present this sequence as follows: 1. something occurs (S) – 2. the organism asks itself “why” – 3. following deliberation, it arrives or does not arrive at a judgement – 4. it acts in a manner that is consistent with this (R). If assigned a reality value, it is possible to render the typically non-observable links 2. and 3. observable in humans by simply inquiring after them. It would not be exaggerated to state that this is the focus of most attribution research. And any study of attributions in animals is of course impossible in this respect. But it has been asked more and more whether the “links” do not acquire a different status precisely because they are made observable. Let us again briefly go back to Seligman’s anecdote about the béarnaise sauce. If Seligman is asked: “Why did you become sick?”, he will answer: “Because I had a flu attack.” In other words, does a “conscious” reflection on the occurrence of an event not respond to different rules than the total original experience of this occurrence? Is this not where the truth lies of Pascal’s statement that “le cœur a ces raisons que la raison ne connaît pas”? In a rather extensive article, Nisbett and Wilson ( 1977 ) defended the proposition that these cognitive mediating processes circumvent every form of introspection. To support their argument, they cited a number of statements by cognitive psychologists, including Neisser and Mandler, that we would like to cite here. For instance, Neisser writes that “the constructive processes (of encoding perceptual sensations) themselves never appear in consciousness, their products do” (Neisser, 1967, p. 301). And Mandler considers that “there are many systems that cannot be brought into consciousness, and probably most systems that analyze the environment in the first place have that characteristic. In most of these cases, only the products of cognitive and mental activities are available to consciousness” ( Mandler, 1975, p. 245 ). Although Nisbett and Wilson’s proposition is debatable ( Smith & Miller, 1978 ), Langer ( 1978 ) does not hesitate to go one step further: she simply denies the mediating role of conscious cognitions in most of our day-to-day actions: “Much psychological research relies on a theoretical model that depicts the individual as one who is cognitively aware most of the time, and who consciously, constantly, and systematically applies “rules” to incoming information about the environment in order to formulate interpretations and courses of actions. Attribution theorists rely on this model in attempting to uncover the sources of regularities in human behaviour. But if in fact it can be demonstrated that much complex human behaviour can and does occur without these assumed cognitive assessments, then we must question both pervasiveness of attribution making as a cognitive process and the assumptions made by most social psychologists” ( Langer, 1978, p. 35 ). We find a similar plea to look for very simple heuristics to explain the notion of attribution in Kahneman and Tversky ( 1973 ), Pryor and Kriss ( 1977 ) and especially Taylor and Fiske ( 1978 ) who concluded that most attribution processes “seem to occur automatically and substantially without awareness, and as such, they differ qualitatively from the intentional, conscious, controlled kind of search which we like to think characterises all our behaviour” ( Taylor & Fiske, 1978, p. 283 ).

These introductory explanations probably create more room for the proposition that there is something common about the way that humans and animals infer causal relations. We rely on a recent overview article by Kelley and Michela ( 1980 ) on attribution theory to buttress this claim in a more direct way. They first offer the general scheme that is implicitly contained in the study field of attribution (Figure ​ (Figure2 2 ).

Schematic model of attribution research (after Kelley & Michela, 1980 ).

As indicated above, any type of direct research into (2) is evidently impossible with animals. One has to limit oneself to manipulations of (1) and inferring what happens in (2) from a change in (3). But as also noted above, this limitation probably also applies to studies of attribution in humans. On the antecedent side (1) then, there is a clear similarity between the factors influencing the nature of attributions and conditioning. Let us illustrate this using the principles that Kelley and Michela distilled from attribution literature. These principles hold that certain aspects of the information that the organism is confronted with lead to attributions. Almost every one of these is a principle that we already mentioned in our discussion of the factors that influence conditioning.

• Covariance : The ANOVA model. This principle was primarily emphasised by Kelley himself ( Kelley, 1967 , 1973 ). “The effect is attributed to that condition which is present when the effect is present and which is absent when the effect is absent” ( Kelley, 1967, p. 194 ). This covariance principle is of course heavily analogous, if not identical, to the role of contingency in classical conditioning. This raises a twofold observation: first, there is no reason to suppose, as Kelley does, that the influence of this covariance principle must revert to a model of the human as a “naïve” scientist who thinks according to an ANOVA model (he probably only does so in the context of attribution experiments!). As noted above, the influence of contingency does not necessarily imply that the organism has any notion of contingency. In addition, there is the dilemma of moving from a correlation judgement to a causal judgement. A causal relation after all implies a correlation, but the reverse does not hold. Is a causal judgement only possible when one implicitly also has knowledge of the mechanisms that connect cause and effect? Or are other conditions necessary in addition to perfect correlation for two events to be perceived in a cause-effect relation? This dilemma brings us to the question posed by Michotte ( 1954 ): Is causality a phenomenal experience or a “post hoc” reflection? It is interesting to note in this regard that Testa ( 1974 ) relied on Michotte’s findings to explain flavour aversion.
• Saliency : “The notion here is that an effect is attributed to the cause that is most salient in the perceptual field at the time the effect is observed.” ( Kelley & Michela, 1980, p. 466 ). This “saliency” is again a factor that plays a role in conditioning (see below).
• Similarity and Contiguity : The principle of contiguity does not require much explanation to be related to conditioning. Rescorla and Furrow ( 1977 ) convincingly demonstrated the role of “similarity”, which has always been seen as an associative principle, within a conditioning paradigm.
• Primacy : “The general notion here is that a person scans and interprets a sequence of information until he attains an attribution from it and then disregard later information or assimilates it to his earlier impression” ( Kelley & Michela, 1980, p. 467 ). Conditioning literature analogies also exist for this. It for instance takes a long time for the animal to recognise a “random” relationship such as when a tone and a shock are “randomly” presented but this random series begun with a contingency between both events. The reverse is also true: a contingency is also learned with difficulty in the case of a random start and subsequent contingency ( Alloy & Seligman, 1979 ).

Conditioning literature parallels also exist for the interaction between the nature of the information on the one hand and the existing “beliefs” or causal models and the motivational component (Figure ​ (Figure2) 2 ) on the other. The “blocking” phenomenon can be considered a causal model that interferes with the learning of other causal relations: both humans and animals do not look for every possible cause but instead suffice themselves with one sufficient cause. In addition, the motivational component has always been central to conditioning. To explain this using anthropomorphic terms, the animal only asks itself a why-question when something important occurs.

We here touch on a point that made us relate the notion of attribution to findings on conditioning. We prefer the term attribution over the term association to denote what happens during conditioning. Not only because “association” is a historically heavily charged concept, but because the term does not permit a distinction between the propositions “event X reminds me of event Y” and “I ascribe event X to event Y”. To again illustrate this using Seligman’s example: when he becomes nauseous, he can perfectly remember the full dinner event, but only one relation, one “attribution” is made with the béarnaise sauce. Remembrance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relation between two events. Winograd ( 1971 ) described this as follows: “Let us imagine that I emerge from my house in the morning and find a flat tire on my car. It occurs to me immediately that around nine o’clock the previous evening, while driving home, I heard a disturbingly loud noise as I drove over something in the road. Now, 12 hours later, I “associate” the flat tire with the impact. This is not an association in the usual S-R contiguity sense; rather, I have related two events which were separated by a long period of time. I can do this only if I have a record of the earlier event, or memory. In fact, I have many memories of previous events, and that is the problem. The question to be dealt with is one of trace selection or contact, of how I have related these two particular events” ( Winograd, 1971, p. 272–273 ). This, precisely, is the dilemma posed by the Garcia effect, looked at from a different perspective. It is why use of the term “attribution” rather than the term “association” becomes even more imperative when we keep the phenomenon of flavour aversion in mind. As Revusky and Garcia write, “Probably, the rat can really associate these events, but will not attribute the production of shock to the flavored water. In other words, a rat can learn that consumption of flavored water precedes shock, but will not readily learn that consumption of flavoured water produces shock” ( Revusky & Garcia, 1970, p. 41 ). A bit further, both authors write: “This paper would probably be more precise if, whenever the term “association” is used, “attribution” were to be substituted” (p. 43). Does, after this discussion, it still seems absurd that an animal responds “as if” it were making an attribution?

Of course, a change in terminology is only a pseudo-solution to a dilemma that has been key since Pavlov’s dog: How is a relation between two events learned? This contribution offers only limited insight into this question, and it is quite fortunate that the effective learning of such relations does not depend on its explanation. But the search for such an explanation becomes imperative the moment it is established that the learning of relations fails. Because this probably constitutes a true breeding ground for human and animal suffering: the inability to explain an important event.

Finally, this contribution might foster the impression that contemporary conditioning psychology tries to anthropomorphise the rat too much, when in the past humans were seen too much as rats. But a rat is a rat and a human a human. Nevertheless, it does not seem very fruitful to me to hermetically seal off both study domains. Whereas Estes notes that “the thought arises that the processes and mechanisms of human cognition represent specializations and elaborations of processes and mechanisms which can advantageously be studied in animals that learn as well as in machines that think” ( Estes, 1975, p. 6 ), this contribution was written from the conviction that Estes’ first alternative continues to be valuable. For as long as a computer does not salivate upon seeing a chunk of meat, “Pavlov’s dog” continues to be a fascinating phenomenon.

The use of X-rays in this experiment probably calls for some explanation about the prior history of the Garcia effect. Commissioned by the ministry of defence, Garcia and his collaborators completed a series of investigations into the influence of ionising radiation on animal behaviour during the fifties. Their most important finding was that such radiation – even when administered in small doses – had an aversive nature to the animal, and the behavioural component that this could most clearly be inferred from was the strongly reduced drink and food intake. It proved much more difficult, however, to use these radiation effects to teach spatial avoidance behaviour ( Garcia, Kimeldorf & Hunt, 1961 ).

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

• Essay Topic Generator
• Essay Grader
• Reference Finder
• AI Outline Generator
• Paragraph Expander
• Essay Expander
• Literature Review Generator
• Thesis Generator
• Text Editing Tools
• AI Rewording Tool
• AI Sentence Rewriter
• AI Article Spinner
• AI Grammar Checker
• Spell Checker
• PDF Spell Check
• Paragraph Checker
• Free AI Essay Writer
• Paraphraser
• Grammar Checker
• Citation Generator
• Plagiarism Checker
• AI Detector
• AI Essay Checker
• Proofreading Service
• Editing Service
• AI Writing Guides
• AI Detection Guides
• Citation Guides
• Grammar Guides
• Paraphrasing Guides
• Plagiarism Guides
• Summary Writing Guides
• STEM Guides
• Humanities Guides
• Language Learning Guides
• Coding Guides
• Top Lists and Recommendations
• AI Detectors
• AI Writing Services
• Coding Homework Help
• Citation Generators
• Editing Websites
• Essay Writing Websites
• Language Learning Websites
• Math Solvers
• Paraphrasers
• Plagiarism Checkers
• Reference Finders
• Spell Checkers
• Summarizers
• Tutoring Websites
• Essay Checkers
• Essay Topic Finders

Most Popular

Spooktacular halloween writing prompts that will blow your gourd clean off.

13 days ago

New Program Drives More Latina Students to Colleges! What Problems Do They Face Daily?

12 days ago

How to Write a Profile Essay

Essay topics on black friday history for students, how to quote a poem in an essay, classical vs operant conditioning.

The following review example can serve as a guide for students trying to find inspiration when writing an assignment on “Classical and operant conditioning”.

Classical and operant conditioning are two core concepts in behavioral psychology, each playing a crucial role in understanding how humans and animals adapt to their environments. Despite some similarities, these forms of conditioning have distinct differences. Understanding these differences is key to utilizing them effectively in various settings, including education, parenting, and animal training.

Behavioral psychology has significantly advanced our understanding of learning and behavior. Central to this field are the concepts of classical and operant conditioning, each offering a unique perspective on how behavior is learned and modified. While they share the common goal of facilitating learning and adaptation, their approaches and mechanisms differ significantly. This article delves into these differences, providing definitions, explanations, and examples to illustrate their distinct roles in behavior modification.

Operant vs Classical conditioning

Ever wonder if our actions are more like an echo or a choice? This question opens the door to understanding operant and classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is like an echo – an automatic response to a familiar sound. It’s a natural reaction, not chosen but developed through repeated experiences, like jumping at the sound of thunder. Operant conditioning, however, is about choices, like navigating a maze. It’s learning through trial and error, guided by the rewards and consequences of our actions, akin to choosing a path based on the signs of success or warning.

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning, first described by Ivan Pavlov, focuses on involuntary, automatic behaviors. It involves creating an association between a naturally occurring stimulus and a previously neutral one. In Pavlov’s famous experiment, dogs were conditioned to salivate in response to a bell, a neutral stimulus, after it was repeatedly paired with food, an unconditioned stimulus. This form of conditioning underlines how an involuntary response (salivation) can be elicited by a previously neutral stimulus (bell sound).

Examples of classical conditioning in everyday life

Classical conditioning occurs in everyday scenarios, often without our conscious awareness. For instance, if a person feels anxious every time they enter a doctor’s office due to past painful experiences, the doctor’s office (neutral stimulus) has become associated with discomfort (unconditioned stimulus), eliciting anxiety (conditioned response).

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning, introduced by B. F. Skinner, is centered around voluntary behaviors and their consequences. It involves the use of reinforcement or punishment to either increase or decrease a behavior. Unlike classical conditioning, operant conditioning requires active participation from the learner. For example, a dog is rewarded for fetching a ball, thereby increasing the likelihood of the behavior being repeated.

Examples of operant conditioning in everyday life 

Operant conditioning is widely used in educational settings, such as teachers rewarding students for good behavior to encourage its repetition. Similarly, parents might use time-outs (a form of punishment) to reduce undesirable behaviors in children.

Comparing Classical and Operant Conditioning

While both classical and operant conditioning are forms of associative learning, they differ in key aspects:

• Nature of Behavior: Classical conditioning deals with involuntary responses (e.g., salivating), while operant conditioning involves voluntary behaviors (e.g., fetching a ball).
• Role of the Learner: In classical conditioning, the learner is passive, responding to the association between stimuli. In contrast, operant conditioning requires active participation from the learner.
• Stimulus-Response Relationship: Classical conditioning links an involuntary response with a stimulus. Operant conditioning, however, associates a voluntary behavior with a consequence (reinforcement or punishment).

Final Thoughts

Understanding the nuances between classical and operant conditioning is essential for effectively applying these principles in various fields, from education to behavioral therapy. While they share similarities in their associative learning processes, their differences in addressing involuntary versus voluntary behaviors, the learner’s role, and the nature of stimulus-response relationships set them apart. This knowledge not only aids in practical applications but also enriches our understanding of the complex nature of learning and behavior modification.

What is an example of classical and operant conditioning?

An example of classical conditioning is Pavlov’s dogs, where dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, which initially had no relevance to salivation. This was achieved by repeatedly pairing the bell sound with the presentation of food. An example of operant conditioning is training a dog to sit. When the dog sits on command, it receives a treat (positive reinforcement), increasing the likelihood of the dog sitting on command in the future.

What is the difference between classical and operant conditioning extinction?

Extinction in classical conditioning occurs when the conditioned stimulus (e.g., a bell in Pavlov’s experiment) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (e.g., food), leading to a decrease in the conditioned response (e.g., salivation). In operant conditioning, extinction happens when a behavior (e.g., pressing a lever) is no longer reinforced (e.g., by removing a food reward), which gradually reduces the frequency of that behavior. Essentially, classical conditioning extinction is the breaking of an association between two stimuli, while operant conditioning extinction involves the ceasing of reinforcement or punishment.

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from 3 Page Essay Examples & Samples

Psychological Effects of Remote Work on Employees

< 1 min read

The Psychological and Social Effects of Virtual Reality in Therapy and Rehabilitation

Internet addiction among university students. essay examples.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

• Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning

Operant Conditioning is the type of learning in which the organism learns by way of modification in behaviour or pattern through reinforcement or punishment. Take a read of this article to get the understanding of the differences between Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning.

Content: Classical Conditioning Vs Operant Conditioning

Comparison chart.

Definition of Classical Conditioning

Classical Conditioning or say respondent conditioning is a learning technique in which the experimenter learns the relation between two stimuli, that precedes the natural response. It indicates that the occurrence of one stimulus signals the possible occurrence of another.

Classical conditioning was coined by Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, who was a Russian Physiologist. It assumes that an organism learns something, through his/her interaction with the environment, that tends to mould the behaviour and the state of mind. The components of classical conditioning are:

• US or Unconditioned Stimulus : The stimulus that causes the organism to react unconditionally or naturally.
• UR or Unconditioned Response : Occurs naturally when the unconditioned stimulus is offered or displayed.
• CS or Conditioned Stimulus : The stimulus that causes one to react to something as it is associated with something else.
• CR or Conditioned Response : It is a learned response, to a neutral stimulus.

Classical conditioning is based on certain factors which are:

• Time relations between stimuli.
• Type of unconditioned stimuli, i.e. aversive or appetitive.
• Intensity of conditioned stimuli.

Definition of Operant Conditioning

Operant refers to the controlled, voluntary response or behaviour of the living organism. Learning through operant is called operant conditioning. Here, the response of an individual relies on the consequence that occurs subsequently. In other words, it is a simple process of learning in which the likelihood of response is increased by manipulating the outcome. It is commonly used the theory of workforce motivation.

Otherwise called as instrumental conditioning, it was propounded in the year 1938 by B.F. Skinner, (an American Psychologist). It posits that the frequency of the response increases, if it has a favourable consequence, whereas the frequency will decrease if it has an undesirable consequence. In this, the experimenter learns to understand the behaviour of the organism and effects of such behaviour.

The determinants of operant conditioning are as under:

• Reinforcer, i.e. the consequence
• Nature of response or behaviour
• Time interval between the occurrence of response and reinforcement.

Key Differences Between Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning

The differences between classical conditioning and operant conditioning are explained in the points hereunder:

• Classical Conditioning is a type of learning, that generalizes association between two stimuli, i.e. one signifies the occurrence of another. Conversely, Operant Conditioning states that living organisms learn to behave in a particular manner, due to the consequences that followed their past behaviour.
• In classical conditioning, the conditioning process in which the experimenter, learns to associate two stimuli, on the basis of involuntary responses that occurs before it. As against, In operant conditioning, the behaviour of the organism will be modified as per the consequences that arise afterwards.
• Classical conditioning relies on involuntary or reflexive behaviour, in essence, physiological and emotional responses of the organism such as thoughts, emotions and feelings. On the other extreme, operant conditioning is one that is based on voluntary behaviour, i.e. active responses of the organism.
• In classical conditioning, the responses of the organism, are under the control of the stimulus, whereas in operant conditioning, the responses are controlled by the organism.
• Classical Conditioning, defines the conditioned and unconditioned stimulus, but, operant conditioning, does not defines conditioned stimulus, i.e. it can only be generalised.
• When it comes to the occurrence of the unconditioned stimulus, it is controlled by the experimenter, and so the organism plays a passive role. Contrary to this, the occurrence of the reinforcer is under the control of organism and thus, the organism acts actively.

To sum up, classical conditioning is one in which you associate two stimuli, but there is no involvement of behaviour. On the contrary, operant conditioning is a type of conditioning in which the behaviour is learned, maintained or modified, as per the consequences, it produces.

You Might Also Like:

February 26, 2022 at 12:01 pm

perfectly explained ever

Mmesoma Favour says

August 11, 2023 at 1:48 am

I love the explanation. Thanks

October 9, 2023 at 2:36 am

I love the explanation, thanks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Operant Conditioning: What It Is, How It Works, and Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Operant conditioning, or instrumental conditioning, is a theory of learning where behavior is influenced by its consequences. Behavior that is reinforced (rewarded) will likely be repeated, and behavior that is punished will occur less frequently.

By the 1920s, John B. Watson had left academic psychology, and other behaviorists were becoming influential, proposing new forms of learning other than classical conditioning . Perhaps the most important of these was Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Although, for obvious reasons, he is more commonly known as B.F. Skinner.

Skinner’s views were slightly less extreme than Watson’s (1913). Skinner believed that we do have such a thing as a mind, but that it is simply more productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events.

Skinner’s work was rooted in the view that classical conditioning was far too simplistic to fully explain complex human behavior. He believed that the best way to understand behavior is to examine its causes and consequences. He called this approach operant conditioning.

How It Works

Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based on Thorndike’s (1898) Law of Effect . According to this principle, behavior that is followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, and behavior followed by unpleasant consequences is less likely to be repeated.

Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect – Reinforcement. Behavior that is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e., strengthened); behavior that is not reinforced tends to die out or be extinguished (i.e., weakened).

Skinner (1948) studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using animals, which he placed in a “ Skinner Box, ” which was similar to Thorndike’s puzzle box.

A Skinner box, also known as an operant conditioning chamber, is a device used to objectively record an animal’s behavior in a compressed time frame. An animal can be rewarded or punished for engaging in certain behaviors, such as lever pressing (for rats) or key pecking (for pigeons).

Skinner identified three types of responses, or operant, that can follow behavior.

• Neutral operants : Responses from the environment that neither increase nor decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.
• Reinforcers : Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.
• Punishers : Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.

We can all think of examples of how reinforcers and punishers have affected our behavior. As a child, you probably tried out a number of behaviors and learned from their consequences.

For example, when you were younger, if you tried smoking at school, and the chief consequence was that you got in with the crowd you always wanted to hang out with, you would have been positively reinforced (i.e., rewarded) and would be likely to repeat the behavior.

If, however, the main consequence was that you were caught, caned, suspended from school, and your parents became involved, you would most certainly have been punished, and you would consequently be much less likely to smoke now.

Positive Reinforcement

B. F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning describes positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement, a response or behavior is strengthened by rewards, leading to the repetition of the desired behavior. The reward is a reinforcing stimulus.

Primary reinforcers are stimuli that are naturally reinforcing because they are not learned and directly satisfy a need, such as food or water.

Secondary reinforcers are stimuli that are reinforced through their association with a primary reinforcer, such as money, school grades. They do not directly satisfy an innate need but may be the means.  So a secondary reinforcer can be just as powerful a motivator as a primary reinforcer.

Skinner showed how positive reinforcement worked by placing a hungry rat in his Skinner box. The box contained a lever on the side, and as the rat moved about the box, it would accidentally knock the lever. Immediately, it did so that a food pellet would drop into a container next to the lever.

After being put in the box a few times, the rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever. The consequence of receiving food if they pressed the lever ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.

Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. For example, if your teacher gives you £5 each time you complete your homework (i.e., a reward), you will be more likely to repeat this behavior in the future, thus strengthening the behavior of completing your homework.

The Premack principle is a form of positive reinforcement in operant conditioning. It suggests using a preferred activity (high-probability behavior) as a reward for completing a less preferred one (low-probability behavior).

This method incentivizes the less desirable behavior by associating it with a desirable outcome, thus strengthening the less favored behavior.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is the termination of an unpleasant state following a response.

This is known as negative reinforcement because it is the removal of an adverse stimulus which is ‘rewarding’ to the animal or person. Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior because it stops or removes an unpleasant experience.

For example, if you do not complete your homework, you give your teacher £5. You will complete your homework to avoid paying £5, thus strengthening the behavior of completing your homework.

Skinner showed how negative reinforcement worked by placing a rat in his Skinner box and then subjecting it to an unpleasant electric current which caused it some discomfort. As the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock the lever.

Immediately, it did so the electric current would be switched off. The rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after being put in the box a few times. The consequence of escaping the electric current ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.

In fact, Skinner even taught the rats to avoid the electric current by turning on a light just before the electric current came on. The rats soon learned to press the lever when the light came on because they knew that this would stop the electric current from being switched on.

These two learned responses are known as Escape Learning and Avoidance Learning .

Punishment is the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. It is an aversive event that decreases the behavior that it follows.

Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish undesirable behavior.

Note : It is not always easy to distinguish between punishment and negative reinforcement.

They are two distinct methods of punishment used to decrease the likelihood of a specific behavior occurring again, but they involve different types of consequences:

Positive Punishment :

• Positive punishment involves adding an aversive stimulus or something unpleasant immediately following a behavior to decrease the likelihood of that behavior happening in the future.
• It aims to weaken the target behavior by associating it with an undesirable consequence.
• Example : A child receives a scolding (an aversive stimulus) from their parent immediately after hitting their sibling. This is intended to decrease the likelihood of the child hitting their sibling again.

Negative Punishment :

• Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus or something rewarding immediately following a behavior to decrease the likelihood of that behavior happening in the future.
• It aims to weaken the target behavior by taking away something the individual values or enjoys.
• Example : A teenager loses their video game privileges (a desirable stimulus) for not completing their chores. This is intended to decrease the likelihood of the teenager neglecting their chores in the future.

There are many problems with using punishment, such as:

• Punished behavior is not forgotten, it’s suppressed – behavior returns when punishment is no longer present.
• Causes increased aggression – shows that aggression is a way to cope with problems.
• Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of school.
• Does not necessarily guide you toward desired behavior – reinforcement tells you what to do, and punishment only tells you what not to do.

Examples of Operant Conditioning

Positive Reinforcement : Suppose you are a coach and want your team to improve their passing accuracy in soccer. When the players execute accurate passes during training, you praise their technique. This positive feedback encourages them to repeat the correct passing behavior.

Negative Reinforcement : If you notice your team working together effectively and exhibiting excellent team spirit during a tough training session, you might end the training session earlier than planned, which the team perceives as a relief. They understand that teamwork leads to positive outcomes, reinforcing team behavior.

Negative Punishment : If an office worker continually arrives late, their manager might revoke the privilege of flexible working hours. This removal of a positive stimulus encourages the employee to be punctual.

Positive Reinforcement : Training a cat to use a litter box can be achieved by giving it a treat each time it uses it correctly. The cat will associate the behavior with the reward and will likely repeat it.

Negative Punishment : If teenagers stay out past their curfew, their parents might take away their gaming console for a week. This makes the teenager more likely to respect their curfew in the future to avoid losing something they value.

Ineffective Punishment : Your child refuses to finish their vegetables at dinner. You punish them by not allowing dessert, but the child still refuses to eat vegetables next time. The punishment seems ineffective.

Premack Principle Application : You could motivate your child to eat vegetables by offering an activity they love after they finish their meal. For instance, for every vegetable eaten, they get an extra five minutes of video game time. They value video game time, which might encourage them to eat vegetables.

Other Premack Principle Examples :

• A student who dislikes history but loves art might earn extra time in the art studio for each history chapter reviewed.
• For every 10 minutes a person spends on household chores, they can spend 5 minutes on a favorite hobby.
• For each successful day of healthy eating, an individual allows themselves a small piece of dark chocolate at the end of the day.
• A child can choose between taking out the trash or washing the dishes. Giving them the choice makes them more likely to complete the chore willingly.

Skinner’s Pigeon Experiment

B.F. Skinner conducted several experiments with pigeons to demonstrate the principles of operant conditioning.

One of the most famous of these experiments is often colloquially referred to as “ Superstition in the Pigeon .”

This experiment was conducted to explore the effects of non-contingent reinforcement on pigeons, leading to some fascinating observations that can be likened to human superstitions.

Non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) refers to a method in which rewards (or reinforcements) are delivered independently of the individual’s behavior. In other words, the reinforcement is given at set times or intervals, regardless of what the individual is doing.

The Experiment:

• Pigeons were brought to a state of hunger, reduced to 75% of their well-fed weight.
• They were placed in a cage with a food hopper that could be presented for five seconds at a time.
• Instead of the food being given as a result of any specific action by the pigeon, it was presented at regular intervals, regardless of the pigeon’s behavior.

Observation:

• Over time, Skinner observed that the pigeons began to associate whatever random action they were doing when food was delivered with the delivery of the food itself.
• This led the pigeons to repeat these actions, believing (in anthropomorphic terms) that their behavior was causing the food to appear.
• In most cases, pigeons developed different “superstitious” behaviors or rituals. For instance, one pigeon would turn counter-clockwise between food presentations, while another would thrust its head into a cage corner.
• These behaviors did not appear until the food hopper was introduced and presented periodically.
• These behaviors were not initially related to the food delivery but became linked in the pigeon’s mind due to the coincidental timing of the food dispensing.
• The behaviors seemed to be associated with the environment, suggesting the pigeons were responding to certain aspects of their surroundings.
• The rate of reinforcement (how often the food was presented) played a significant role. Shorter intervals between food presentations led to more rapid and defined conditioning.
• Once a behavior was established, the interval between reinforcements could be increased without diminishing the behavior.

Superstitious Behavior:

The pigeons began to act as if their behaviors had a direct effect on the presentation of food, even though there was no such connection. This is likened to human superstitions, where rituals are believed to change outcomes, even if they have no real effect.

For example, a card player might have rituals to change their luck, or a bowler might make gestures believing they can influence a ball already in motion.

Conclusion:

This experiment demonstrates that behaviors can be conditioned even without a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Just like humans, pigeons can develop “superstitious” behaviors based on coincidental occurrences.

This study not only illuminates the intricacies of operant conditioning but also draws parallels between animal and human behaviors in the face of random reinforcements.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Imagine a rat in a “Skinner box.” In operant conditioning, if no food pellet is delivered immediately after the lever is pressed, then after several attempts, the rat stops pressing the lever (how long would someone continue to go to work if their employer stopped paying them?). The behavior has been extinguished.

Behaviorists discovered that different patterns (or schedules) of reinforcement had different effects on the speed of learning and extinction. Ferster and Skinner (1957) devised different ways of delivering reinforcement and found that this had effects on

1. The Response Rate – The rate at which the rat pressed the lever (i.e., how hard the rat worked).

2. The Extinction Rate – The rate at which lever pressing dies out (i.e., how soon the rat gave up).

Skinner found that variable-ratio reinforcement produces the slowest rate of extinction (i.e., people will continue repeating the behavior for the longest time without reinforcement). The type of reinforcement with the quickest rate of extinction is continuous reinforcement.

(A) Continuous Reinforcement

An animal or human is positively reinforced every time a specific behavior occurs, e.g., every time a lever is pressed, a pellet is delivered, and then food delivery is shut off.

• Response rate is SLOW
• Extinction rate is FAST

(B) Fixed Ratio Reinforcement

Behavior is reinforced only after the behavior occurs a specified number of times. e.g., one reinforcement is given after every so many correct responses, e.g., after every 5th response. For example, a child receives a star for every five words spelled correctly.

• Response rate is FAST
• Extinction rate is MEDIUM

(C) Fixed Interval Reinforcement

One reinforcement is given after a fixed time interval providing at least one correct response has been made. An example is being paid by the hour. Another example would be every 15 minutes (half hour, hour, etc.) a pellet is delivered (providing at least one lever press has been made) then food delivery is shut off.

• Response rate is MEDIUM

(D) Variable Ratio Reinforcement

behavior is reinforced after an unpredictable number of times. For example, gambling or fishing.

• Extinction rate is SLOW (very hard to extinguish because of unpredictability)

(E) Variable Interval Reinforcement

Providing one correct response has been made, reinforcement is given after an unpredictable amount of time has passed, e.g., on average every 5 minutes. An example is a self-employed person being paid at unpredictable times.

• Extinction rate is SLOW

Applications In Psychology

1. behavior modification therapy.

Behavior modification is a set of therapeutic techniques based on operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938, 1953). The main principle comprises changing environmental events that are related to a person’s behavior. For example, the reinforcement of desired behaviors and ignoring or punishing undesired ones.

This is not as simple as it sounds — always reinforcing desired behavior, for example, is basically bribery.

There are different types of positive reinforcements. Primary reinforcement is when a reward strengths a behavior by itself. Secondary reinforcement is when something strengthens a behavior because it leads to a primary reinforcer.

Examples of behavior modification therapy include token economy and behavior shaping.

Token Economy

Token economy is a system in which targeted behaviors are reinforced with tokens (secondary reinforcers) and later exchanged for rewards (primary reinforcers).

Tokens can be in the form of fake money, buttons, poker chips, stickers, etc. While the rewards can range anywhere from snacks to privileges or activities. For example, teachers use token economy at primary school by giving young children stickers to reward good behavior.

Token economy has been found to be very effective in managing psychiatric patients . However, the patients can become over-reliant on the tokens, making it difficult for them to adjust to society once they leave prison, hospital, etc.

Staff implementing a token economy program have a lot of power. It is important that staff do not favor or ignore certain individuals if the program is to work. Therefore, staff need to be trained to give tokens fairly and consistently even when there are shift changes such as in prisons or in a psychiatric hospital.

Behavior Shaping

A further important contribution made by Skinner (1951) is the notion of behavior shaping through successive approximation.

Skinner argues that the principles of operant conditioning can be used to produce extremely complex behavior if rewards and punishments are delivered in such a way as to encourage move an organism closer and closer to the desired behavior each time.

In shaping, the form of an existing response is gradually changed across successive trials towards a desired target behavior by rewarding exact segments of behavior.

To do this, the conditions (or contingencies) required to receive the reward should shift each time the organism moves a step closer to the desired behavior.

According to Skinner, most animal and human behavior (including language) can be explained as a product of this type of successive approximation.

2. Educational Applications

In the conventional learning situation, operant conditioning applies largely to issues of class and student management, rather than to learning content. It is very relevant to shaping skill performance.

A simple way to shape behavior is to provide feedback on learner performance, e.g., compliments, approval, encouragement, and affirmation.

A variable-ratio produces the highest response rate for students learning a new task, whereby initial reinforcement (e.g., praise) occurs at frequent intervals, and as the performance improves reinforcement occurs less frequently, until eventually only exceptional outcomes are reinforced.

For example, if a teacher wanted to encourage students to answer questions in class they should praise them for every attempt (regardless of whether their answer is correct). Gradually the teacher will only praise the students when their answer is correct, and over time only exceptional answers will be praised.

Unwanted behaviors, such as tardiness and dominating class discussion can be extinguished through being ignored by the teacher (rather than being reinforced by having attention drawn to them). This is not an easy task, as the teacher may appear insincere if he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.

Knowledge of success is also important as it motivates future learning. However, it is important to vary the type of reinforcement given so that the behavior is maintained.

This is not an easy task, as the teacher may appear insincere if he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.

Operant Conditioning vs. Classical Conditioning

Learning type.

While both types of conditioning involve learning, classical conditioning is passive (automatic response to stimuli), while operant conditioning is active (behavior is influenced by consequences).

• Classical conditioning links an involuntary response with a stimulus. It happens passively on the part of the learner, without rewards or punishments. An example is a dog salivating at the sound of a bell associated with food.
• Operant conditioning connects voluntary behavior with a consequence. Operant conditioning requires the learner to actively participate and perform some type of action to be rewarded or punished. It’s active, with the learner’s behavior influenced by rewards or punishments. An example is a dog sitting on command to get a treat.

Learning Process

Classical conditioning involves learning through associating stimuli resulting in involuntary responses, while operant conditioning focuses on learning through consequences, shaping voluntary behaviors.

Over time, the person responds to the neutral stimulus as if it were the unconditioned stimulus, even when presented alone. The response is involuntary and automatic.

An example is a dog salivating (response) at the sound of a bell (neutral stimulus) after it has been repeatedly paired with food (unconditioned stimulus).

Behavior followed by pleasant consequences (rewards) is more likely to be repeated, while behavior followed by unpleasant consequences (punishments) is less likely to be repeated.

For instance, if a child gets praised (pleasant consequence) for cleaning their room (behavior), they’re more likely to clean their room in the future.

Conversely, if they get scolded (unpleasant consequence) for not doing their homework, they’re more likely to complete it next time to avoid the scolding.

Timing of Stimulus & Response

The timing of the response relative to the stimulus differs between classical and operant conditioning:

Classical Conditioning (response after the stimulus) : In this form of conditioning, the response occurs after the stimulus. The behavior (response) is determined by what precedes it (stimulus). 

For example, in Pavlov’s classic experiment, the dogs started to salivate (response) after they heard the bell (stimulus) because they associated it with food.

The anticipated consequence influences the behavior or what follows it. It is a more active form of learning, where behaviors are reinforced or punished, thus influencing their likelihood of repetition.

For example, a child might behave well (behavior) in anticipation of a reward (consequence), or avoid a certain behavior to prevent a potential punishment.

Looking at Skinner’s classic studies on pigeons’  and rats’ behavior, we can identify some of the major assumptions of the behaviorist approach .

• Psychology should be seen as a science , to be studied in a scientific manner. Skinner’s study of behavior in rats was conducted under carefully controlled laboratory conditions . • Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to internal events like thinking and emotion. Note that Skinner did not say that the rats learned to press a lever because they wanted food. He instead concentrated on describing the easily observed behavior that the rats acquired. • The major influence on human behavior is learning from our environment. In the Skinner study, because food followed a particular behavior the rats learned to repeat that behavior, e.g., operant conditioning. • There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that in other animals. Therefore research (e.g., operant conditioning) can be carried out on animals (Rats / Pigeons) as well as on humans. Skinner proposed that the way humans learn behavior is much the same as the way the rats learned to press a lever.

So, if your layperson’s idea of psychology has always been of people in laboratories wearing white coats and watching hapless rats try to negotiate mazes to get to their dinner, then you are probably thinking of behavioral psychology.

Behaviorism and its offshoots tend to be among the most scientific of the psychological perspectives . The emphasis of behavioral psychology is on how we learn to behave in certain ways.

We are all constantly learning new behaviors and how to modify our existing behavior. Behavioral psychology is the psychological approach that focuses on how this learning takes place.

Critical Evaluation

Operant conditioning can  explain a wide variety of behaviors, from the learning process to addiction and  language acquisition . It also has practical applications (such as token economy) that can be used in classrooms, prisons,  and psychiatric hospitals.

Researchers have found innovative ways to apply operant conditioning principles to promote health and habit change in humans.

In a recent study, operant conditioning using virtual reality (VR) helped stroke patients use their weakened limb more often during rehabilitation. Patients shifted their weight in VR games by maneuvering a virtual object. When they increased weight on their weakened side, they received rewards like stars. This positive reinforcement conditioned greater paretic limb use (Kumar et al., 2019).

Another study utilized operant conditioning to assist smoking cessation. Participants earned vouchers exchangeable for goods and services for reducing smoking. This reward system reinforced decreasing cigarette use. Many participants achieved long-term abstinence (Dallery et al., 2017).

Through repeated reinforcement, operant conditioning can facilitate forming exercise and eating habits. A person trying to exercise more might earn TV time for every 10 minutes spent working out. An individual aiming to eat healthier may allow themselves a daily dark chocolate square for sticking to nutritious meals. Providing consistent rewards for desired actions can instill new habits (Michie et al., 2009).

Apps like Habitica apply operant conditioning by gamifying habit tracking. Users earn points and collect rewards in a fantasy game for completing real-life habits. This virtual reinforcement helps ingrain positive behaviors (Eckerstorfer et al., 2019).

Operant conditioning also shows promise for managing ADHD and OCD. Rewarding concentration and focus in ADHD children, for example, can strengthen their attention skills (Rosén et al., 2018). Similarly, reinforcing OCD patients for resisting compulsions may diminish obsessive behaviors (Twohig et al., 2018).

However, operant conditioning fails to take into account the role of inherited and cognitive factors in learning, and thus is an incomplete explanation of the learning process in humans and animals.

For example, Kohler (1924) found that primates often seem to solve problems in a flash of insight rather than be trial and error learning. Also, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that humans can learn automatically through observation rather than through personal experience.

The use of animal research in operant conditioning studies also raises the issue of extrapolation. Some psychologists argue we cannot generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy and physiology are different from humans, and they cannot think about their experiences and invoke reason, patience, memory or self-comfort.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who discovered operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning was discovered by B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, in the mid-20th century. Skinner is often regarded as the father of operant conditioning, and his work extensively dealt with the mechanism of reward and punishment for behaviors, with the concept being that behaviors followed by positive outcomes are reinforced, while those followed by negative outcomes are discouraged.

How does operant conditioning differ from classical conditioning?

Operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning, focusing on how voluntary behavior is shaped and maintained by consequences, such as rewards and punishments.

In operant conditioning, a behavior is strengthened or weakened based on the consequences that follow it. In contrast, classical conditioning involves the association of a neutral stimulus with a natural response, creating a new learned response.

While both types of conditioning involve learning and behavior modification, operant conditioning emphasizes the role of reinforcement and punishment in shaping voluntary behavior.

How does operant conditioning relate to social learning theory?

Operant conditioning is a core component of social learning theory , which emphasizes the importance of observational learning and modeling in acquiring and modifying behavior.

Social learning theory suggests that individuals can learn new behaviors by observing others and the consequences of their actions, which is similar to the reinforcement and punishment processes in operant conditioning.

By observing and imitating models, individuals can acquire new skills and behaviors and modify their own behavior based on the outcomes they observe in others.

Overall, both operant conditioning and social learning theory highlight the importance of environmental factors in shaping behavior and learning.

What are the downsides of operant conditioning?

The downsides of using operant conditioning on individuals include the potential for unintended negative consequences, particularly with the use of punishment. Punishment may lead to increased aggression or avoidance behaviors.

Additionally, some behaviors may be difficult to shape or modify using operant conditioning techniques, particularly when they are highly ingrained or tied to complex internal states.

Furthermore, individuals may resist changing their behaviors to meet the expectations of others, particularly if they perceive the demands or consequences of the reinforcement or punishment to be undesirable or unjust.

What is an application of bf skinner’s operant conditioning theory?

An application of B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is seen in education and classroom management. Teachers use positive reinforcement (rewards) to encourage good behavior and academic achievement, and negative reinforcement or punishment to discourage disruptive behavior.

For example, a student may earn extra recess time (positive reinforcement) for completing homework on time, or lose the privilege to use class computers (negative punishment) for misbehavior.

Further Reading

• Ivan Pavlov Classical Conditioning Learning and behavior PowerPoint
• Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2(4), 323-334.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Dallery, J., Meredith, S., & Glenn, I. M. (2017). A deposit contract method to deliver abstinence reinforcement for cigarette smoking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50 (2), 234–248.
• Eckerstorfer, L., Tanzer, N. K., Vogrincic-Haselbacher, C., Kedia, G., Brohmer, H., Dinslaken, I., & Corbasson, R. (2019). Key elements of mHealth interventions to successfully increase physical activity: Meta-regression. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7 (11), e12100.
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Kohler, W. (1924). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Kumar, D., Sinha, N., Dutta, A., & Lahiri, U. (2019). Virtual reality-based balance training system augmented with operant conditioning paradigm.  Biomedical Engineering Online ,  18 (1), 1-23.
• Michie, S., Abraham, C., Whittington, C., McAteer, J., & Gupta, S. (2009). Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychology, 28 (6), 690–701.
• Rosén, E., Westerlund, J., Rolseth, V., Johnson R. M., Viken Fusen, A., Årmann, E., Ommundsen, R., Lunde, L.-K., Ulleberg, P., Daae Zachrisson, H., & Jahnsen, H. (2018). Effects of QbTest-guided ADHD treatment: A randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (4), 447–459.
• Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’in the pigeon.  Journal of experimental psychology ,  38 (2), 168.
• Schunk, D. (2016).  Learning theories: An educational perspective . Pearson.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century.
• Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition” in the pigeon . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 , 168-172.
• Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals . Freeman.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . Macmillan.
• Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.
• Twohig, M. P., Whittal, M. L., Cox, J. M., & Gunter, R. (2010). An initial investigation into the processes of change in ACT, CT, and ERP for OCD. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6 (2), 67–83.
• Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it . Psychological Review, 20 , 158–177.

Join our Newsletter

Get helpful tips and the latest information

Classical Vs. Operant Conditioning: What Is the Difference?

Author: Nicole Arzt, LMFT

Nicole Arzt LMFT

Nicole specializes in psychodynamic and humanistic therapy.  She’s  an expert in complex trauma, substance use disorder, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, imposter syndrome, narcissistic abuse, and relationships and intimacy.

Kristen Fuller MD

Kristen Fuller, MD is a physician with experience in adult, adolescent, and OB/GYN medicine. She has a focus on mood disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorder, and reducing the stigma associated with mental health.

Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are key terms in behavioral psychology. In classical conditioning, involuntary responses occur to a specific stimulus. For example, dogs salivate after a tone because food is being served. In operant conditioning, reinforcement or punishment shapes voluntary behavior. For example, someone praises their child for doing their homework, reinforcing them to continue doing it.

Find the Perfect Therapist for You, with BetterHelp.

If you don’t click with your first match, you can easily switch therapists. BetterHelp has over 30,000 licensed therapists who provide convenient and affordable online therapy. BetterHelp starts at $65 per week. Take a free online assessment  and get matched with the right therapist for you.

What Is Conditioning?

Conditioning refers to the associations formed between stimuli and responses. In psychology, conditioning can be classical or operant. Understanding conditioning helps understand why people might act in the ways they do and why patterns can exist even without someone’s awareness. Conditioning happens throughout daily life and applies to both humans and animals.

Generalization Vs. Discrimination

Generalization refers to the likelihood and tendency of responding to stimuli that closely resemble the original conditioned stimulus. For example, if you get sick after reading a book in the car, you might reconsider scrolling through your phone while in the car. Even though the situations aren’t identical, they are close enough for you to assess that you might get sick. 1

Discrimination refers to the tendency to respond differently to similar stimuli. In this case, you might get sick in the car after reading a book. But you decide to scroll through your phone the next time (because you know the stimuli are different), and you don’t get sick. At this point, you have made a clear distinction between the two.

Extinction is a response decrease when a conditioned stimulus is present without the unconditioned stimulus. For example, a child goes on a roller coaster and hates the experience. They stop going on all rides for a while. But after a few months, they decide to try again and fall back in love with roller coasters. 1

Spontaneous recovery can occur when there’s an increase in responding to the conditional stimuli following a pause after extinction.  A parent might give their potty-training child a small piece of candy every time they use the restroom. The child uses the bathroom to receive the reward. After the parents cease the rewards, the child might resist using the restroom. But after a few days pass, they resume using the toilet.

• Classical Conditioning

Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, accidentally discovered classical conditioning while studying digestive behaviors in dogs. He noticed that dogs salivated when placing food in front of them. But they shifted into salivating even before their food arrived. He then experimented with examining if they would salivate in response to a bell ringing before bringing food out, and they eventually salivated at the sound of the bell alone. 2

Classical conditioning refers to having an involuntary response to a stimulus. For example, the dogs salivated (involuntary response) to a stimulus (the bell ringing). This applies in many areas of everyday life. You build associations constantly, from instinctively checking your phone when you hear a notification to your heart racing when you stand on a podium.

Classical Conditioning Examples

Most dog owners recognize that their dog gets excited each time they pull out the leash. The dog has associated their dog leash with going out for a walk or outing. Therefore, the scene of their owner holding the leash triggers their excitement. The leash started as a neutral stimulus but evolved into a conditional one.

What Is Operant Conditioning?

B.F. Skinner studied operant conditioning while conducting scientific experiments on various animals. He placed animals in his “Skinner box,’ a chamber that contained a level or disk. Pressing that lever or disk dispensed food, and the animals quickly adjusted to pressing it to receive their edible rewards. 3

Operant conditioning is a type of learning in which the motivation to engage in a specific behavior occurs after the behavior is demonstrated. For example, a person claps and gives a treat when a dog sits. If this behavior is reinforced, the dog is more likely to sit when its owner asks.

Operant Conditioning Examples

Positive reinforcement entails adding an attractive stimulus to increase the likelihood of a positive behavior. An owner gives a dog a treat, a desirable stimulus. Negative reinforcement entails using an undesirable stimulus to increase a behavior. For example, your microwave keeps beeping (which can be annoying) until you take out the food.

Positive punishment entails adding an unwanted or maladaptive stimulus to decrease a behavior. For example, a parent requires the child to clean both their bathroom and bedroom after discovering they didn’t clean their room. Negative punishment entails removing an aversive stimulus to reduce or stop behavior. A parent takes a child’s phone away because they didn’t clean their room. Ideally, this motivates the child to clean their room in the future.

Classical Vs. Operant Conditioning

Both classical and operant conditioning focus on the associations between stimulus and behavior. Operant conditioning may be more obvious since the consequences and reinforcement are apparent. Classical conditioning can be more insidious or unknown, so if you want to change certain habits, you may need to be aware of your unconscious associations.

Passive Vs. Active Learning

The learning in classical conditioning is passive. The learner can’t “help” but learn the information via internalizing their natural environment. The learning in operant conditioning is active. The learner obtains the new information via reinforcement, punishment, or both. Over time, this results in them consciously changing their behavior. Research shows that active learning is associated with higher retention and memory recall rates. 4

Involuntary Changes Vs. Voluntary Behavior

Classical conditioning is associated with involuntary changes. For example, the dogs couldn’t choose to salivate when they heard the bell ring. It happened automatically. However, a child can choose whether he stops hitting his brother because he doesn’t want to get into trouble. In operant conditioning, the changes are voluntary.

Arbitrary Response Vs. Intentional Response

Classical conditioning entails the creation of an association of naturally occurring events. For example, after a car accident, you feel anxious when you drive again for several months. Even just the sight of a car may trigger panic. Operant conditioning entails reinforcement and/or punishment. A parent praises their newly-driving child for cautiously checking all their blind spots before merging. The child is then motivated to continue with this behavior.

Top Rated Online Therapy Services

BetterHelp  – Best Overall

“BetterHelp is an online therapy platform that quickly connects you with a licensed counselor or therapist and earned 4 out of 5 stars.”   Take a free assessment

Talkspace - Best For Insurance

Talkspace accepts many insurance plans including Optum, Cigna, and Aetna. Typical co-pay is $30, but often less. Visit Talkspace

How Classical & Operant Conditioning Are Used in Therapy

Therapy can entail both classical and operant conditioning. For example, a client might cry soon after arriving for their session. Over time, simply sitting on their therapist’s couch may trigger tears even if they aren’t thinking about something unfortunate. Operant conditioning can also occur. A therapist may tell their client they feel proud of them, encouraging them to continue engaging in that specific behavioral pattern.

Behavioral therapies are rooted in the premise of both types of conditioning.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) examines how thought patterns trigger unwanted behavioral responses. If a client wanted to stop smoking (unwanted behavior), they might commit to spending the money they would spend on cigarettes toward new clothes (desirable stimulus). This new pattern may encourage them to stop smoking.

Habit reversal training (HRT) helps people change or correct their habitual responses to stimuli, whether the habits came from classical or operant conditioning.

In My Experience

Conditioning is part of the human experience, and we have limitless associations that shape how we make decisions and live our lives. Conditioning isn’t inherently bad or good, but it’s helpful to be aware of its impact and consider how it could adversely affect your mental health. If you feel stuck in negative patterns, it could be due to rigid or intense negative associations, and therapy can help.

Classical Vs. Operant Conditioning Infographics

Additional resources.

To help our readers take the next step in their mental health journey, Choosing Therapy has partnered with leaders in mental health and wellness. Choosing Therapy is compensated for marketing by the companies included below.

Online Therapy 

BetterHelp – Get support and guidance from a licensed therapist. BetterHelp has over 30,000 therapists who provide convenient and affordable online therapy. Take a free online assessment and get matched with the right therapist for you. Free Assessment

Online Psychiatry

Hims / Hers If you’re living with anxiety or depression, finding the right medication match may make all the difference. Connect with a licensed healthcare provider in just 12 – 48 hours. Explore FDA-approved treatment options and get free shipping, if prescribed. No insurance required. Get Started

Medication + Therapy

Brightside Health – Together, medication and therapy can help you feel like yourself, faster. Brightside Health treatment plans start at $95 per month. United Healthcare, Anthem, Cigna, and Aetna accepted. Following a free online evaluation and receiving a prescription, you can get FDA approved medications delivered to your door. Free Assessment

Starting Therapy Newsletter

A free newsletter for those interested in learning about therapy and how to get the most benefits out of therapy. Get helpful tips and the latest information. Sign Up

Choosing Therapy Directory 

You can search for therapists by specialty,  experience, insurance, or price, and location. Find a therapist today .

For Further Reading

• Operant Conditioning
• Learning Theory of Conditioning

Best Online Therapy Services

There are a number of factors to consider when trying to determine which online therapy platform is going to be the best fit for you. It’s important to be mindful of what each platform costs, the services they provide you with, their providers’ training and level of expertise, and several other important criteria.

Best Online Psychiatry Services

Online psychiatry, sometimes called telepsychiatry, platforms offer medication management by phone, video, or secure messaging for a variety of mental health conditions. In some cases, online psychiatry may be more affordable than seeing an in-person provider. Mental health treatment has expanded to include many online psychiatry and therapy services. With so many choices, it can feel overwhelming to find the one that is right for you.

A free newsletter for those interested in starting therapy. Get helpful tips and the latest information.

Choosing Therapy strives to provide our readers with mental health content that is accurate and actionable. We have high standards for what can be cited within our articles. Acceptable sources include government agencies, universities and colleges, scholarly journals, industry and professional associations, and other high-integrity sources of mental health journalism. Learn more by reviewing our full editorial policy .

Learning by Association: Classical Conditioning. Introduction to Psychology- 1st Canadian Edition. Retrieved from: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/7-1-learning-by-association-classical-conditioning/ .

Classical Conditioning (2023). National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/ .

Operant Conditioning. OpenStax College. Retrieved from: https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/psychology/chapter/operant-conditioning/ .

Active Versus Passive Learning. John Hopkins University. Retrieved from: https://academicsupport.jhu.edu/resources/study-aids/active-versus-passive-learning/ .

Your Voice Matters

Can't find what you're looking for.

Request an article! Tell ChoosingTherapy.com’s editorial team what questions you have about mental health, emotional wellness, relationships, and parenting. The therapists who write for us love answering your questions!

Leave your feedback for our editors.

Share your feedback on this article with our editors. If there’s something we missed or something we could improve on, we’d love to hear it.

Our writers and editors love compliments, too. :)

FOR IMMEDIATE HELP CALL:

Medical Emergency: 911

Suicide Hotline: 988

© 2024 Choosing Therapy, Inc. All rights reserved.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Psychology

Essay On Compare And Contrast Classical And Operant Conditioning Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Psychology , Pets , Dog , Sound , Operant Conditioning , Behavior , Training , Food

Published: 01/30/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are two concepts of learning that are integral to behavioral psychology. Although the processes differ to quite an extent, they tend to complement one another, and the ultimate result of both concepts is learning. Although both conditioning practices were pioneered by different individuals, both believed in the general principle that investigating behaviors through experiments should be the basis of psychology. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian psychologist, was the one who unintentionally discovered the concept of classical conditioning while carrying out research on canine digestive patterns. According to his findings, His findings supported the idea that we may develop unnatural responses to some stimuli (Pavlov, 1927). B. F. Skinner, an American psychologist coined the term operant conditioning based on his belief that examining at the causes and consequences of an action reveal a lot about behavior (Skinner, 1953). Thus, in classical conditioning a neutral stimuli is placed before a reflex and it focuses on automatic, involuntary behaviors, while in operant conditioning punishment or reinforcement is applied after a behavior and it focuses on voluntary behaviors.

How Does Classical Conditioning Work?

In Pavlov’s famous experiment, Pavlov observed that repeatedly pairing the sound of bell while presenting his dogs with food caused them to salivate (Pavlov, 1927). In classical conditioning, a stimulus in the learning process that was previously neutral is paired with a stimulus that is unconditioned. The unconditioned stimulus triggers a natural response, for instance, the dog had always salivated whenever the food was presented to them. However, when the neutral and unconditioned response is paired, it triggers an unnatural response; for instance, eventually the dogs began salivating merely to the sound of the bell.

How Does Operant Conditioning Work?

In operant conditioning a behavior is encouraged or discouraged by using either punishment or reinforcement. This process ends up establishing a bond between the behavior and its consequences. For instance, a trainer who is trying to teach a dog how to fetch a ball praises the dog as a reward whenever it successfully chases and brings back the ball. The trainer does not praise the dog whenever it is unsuccessful in bringing back the ball. Ultimately, the dog understands that the praise it is receiving is somehow associated with its behavior of fetching the ball successfully.

How Are Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning Different From Each Other?

Whether the behavior is involuntary or voluntary is the major aspect that distinguishes classical and operant conditioning from each other. According to classical conditioning, we tend to pair certain stimuli (Pavlov, 1927), for instance, a song to a person or a situation, and listening to the song may trigger unintentional response, in the form of perhaps happiness or sadness, merely based on the person or situation it was associated with. According to operant conditioning, we learn from our consequences in our everyday life and they shape our voluntary behavior (Skinner, 1953). For instance, we often make mistakes in life, but we usually do not voluntarily make the same mistake again because of the consequence that had occurred as a result of that mistake. These days, classical and operant conditioning are employed for numerous purposes, such as animal training, parenting, psychology, teaching, etc. While training an animal, a trainer may make use of classical conditioning by pairing the taste of food with the sound of a clicker, almost like Pavlov did. Eventually, the dog will began responding to the clicker just as it would to the taste of food. In a classroom, a teacher may use operant conditioning reward students that behave well by giving them tokens. Students will learn that they can earn behavior by behaving properly and will be encouraged to do so. A recent breakthrough in classical conditioning include that animals, especially invertebrates such as fish, use classical conditioning for reproduction and survival ("Psychologist Karen Hollis"). A major breakthrough in operant conditioning is the discovery that affective disorders, such as borderline personality disorder and reactive attachment disorder, can be treated using operant conditioning (Othmer, 2002). Despite their differences, both classical conditioning and operant conditioning are psychological theories that are often used in behavioral therapy. In both theories, the focus is to learn associations to behaviors, whether involuntary or voluntary. Certain stimuli in the environment always control the responses. Reinforcement of both types of conditioning is necessary because neither is capable of lasting forever. Both classical and operant conditioning allows new behaviors to be built on ones that are previously established.

Othmer, S. (2002, Feb). On the use of EEG operant conditioning as a treatment for affective disorders, including reactive attachment disorder and borderline personality disorder. Retrieved from http://www.eeginfo.com/research/articles/general_12.htm Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. Mineola, New York: Courier Dover Publications. Psychologist Karen Hollis "goes fishing" and nets a research breakthrough. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/970221/hollis.html Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Free Press.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1764

This paper is created by writer with

ID 281364926

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Relationships creative writings, finance creative writings, investment creative writings, stock market creative writings, internet creative writings, medicine creative writings, children creative writings, marketing creative writings, shakespeare creative writings, company creative writings, security creative writings, athens creative writings, love story research papers, immersion literature reviews, love song literature reviews, hands personal statements, educator personal statements, internal medicine personal statements, the first two lines of frosts poem goes literature review, free essay on one art by elizabeth bishop, the advertising brief course work examples, course work on verbal and nonverbal communication, schizophrenia as a disorder of disconnectivity article review, 6 online economic microeconomics news articles article review sample, inaugural address research paper examples, case study on premarital education, harry truman and his impact on the cold war research paper examples, free research paper on what impact does teen pregnancy have on the family, essay on developing an implementation plan, free research paper on developing an implementation plan, example of essay on south africans, free essay on midterm, research paper on eigrp, armchair essays, sprinkles essays, sunbeam essays, mobster essays, data structure essays, leek essays, cofactor essays, gillman essays, omalley essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Operant Conditioning — The Connection Between Classical And Operant Conditioning

The Connection Between Classical and Operant Conditioning

• Categories: Operant Conditioning

About this sample

Words: 899 |

Published: Jun 9, 2021

Words: 899 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

• Last Updated November 30th, 2018 07:12 pm. (n.d.). Operant Conditioning (B.F. Skinner). Retrieved from https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/operant-conditioning/.
• Mcleod, S. (2018, August 21). Classical Conditioning. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html.
• Bouton, M. E. (2019). Conditioning and learning. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/ajxhcqdr
• King, L.A. (2016). The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View. McGraw-Hill Education.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 366 words

1 pages / 570 words

1 pages / 630 words

2 pages / 873 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning is based on the premise that behavior is shaped and learned through consequences. The three key elements of this concept include reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. Reinforcement refers to the process [...]

“Classical Conditioning” Lumen Boundless Psychology, the-difference-between-positive-and-negative-punishment/

In conclusion, vicarious conditioning and operant conditioning are two distinct forms of conditioning that involve the association of stimuli with behavior. Vicarious conditioning emphasizes the role of observation and imitation [...]

This essay will explore the possible application of operant conditioning strategies in the classroom to encourage students to be more participative during class and to be more proactive in completing their assignments and [...]

A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is meant to explain something. Learning Theories are conceptual frames that describe the manner in which the information is learned, processed and held during learning. Usually, the [...]

The theory that I chose to write about is B.F. Skinner’s Operant Conditioning because it intrigues me and is the one that I agree with the most. B.F. Skinner is an incredible American psychologist who developed one of the most [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Similarities and Differences Between Classical and Operant Conditioning

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Classical and operant conditioning are both similar because they involve making association between behaviour and events in an organism’s environment and are governed by several general laws of association - for example, it is easier to associate stimuli that are similar to each other and that occur at similar times. However there are several important differences.

These include:

• In CC, the response is a reflex and involuntary. In OC, the response is voluntary behaviour.
• In CC, the stimulus is new to the animal. In OC, the behaviour is new to the animal.
• In CC, the reflex (response) follows the stimulus. In OC, the behaviour (response) precedes the reward or punishment (stimulus).
• In CC, association occurs whether the stimulus is pleasurable or aversive. In OC pleasurable reward leads to repetition while aversion leads to extinction.
• In CC, strength of conditioning is measured by speed or amount of response. In OC, strength is measured by rate of production of behaviour.

Strengths of the Behaviourist Approach

Behaviourism provides simple, easily testable predictions about behaviour. For example, the effect of reinforcement on behaviour can be easily quantified.

Treatments based on classical or operant conditioning have been effective in treating some disorders. For example, systematic desensitisation can be used to treat Phobias (Wolpe, 1958).

Behaviourism played a key role in making psychology more scientific. For example, most researchers now accept that laboratory experiments with measurable variables are the best form of research.

Limitations of the Behaviourist Approach

Behaviourism’s assumption of a general process of learning does not account for biological predispositions. For example, it is easier to learn phobias of some objects than others (Seligman, 1971).

Behaviourism's assumption that learning takes place through gradual S-R association cannot explain how animals can learn without reinforcement. Tolman & Honzik (1930) showed that rats could learn maps of mazes without operant conditioning.

Behaviourism finds it difficult to explain how humans construct new solutions to problems. For example, children can generate the plural forms of nouns they have never encountered before and could not have learned (Berko, 1958).

• Classical conditioning
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviourist Approach
• Reinforcement
• Systematic Desensitisation

You might also like

Laboratory experiments, teaching phobias at london zoo.

23rd June 2016

Example Answer for Question 3 Paper 2: AS Psychology, June 2017 (AQA)

Exam Support

Example Answer for Question 4 Paper 2: AS Psychology, June 2017 (AQA)

Free unit assessment: psychopathology.

22nd September 2017

Psychopathology "Revision Q&A" Flip

Quizzes & Activities

Psychopathology - take the Yes/No challenge

Introduction to phobias, depression and ocd (online lesson).

Online Lessons

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Classical Conditioning in Psychology?

How It Works, Terms to Know, and Examples

• Definitions
• How It Works

Key Principles of Classical Conditioning in Psychology

What is the difference between classical conditioning and operant conditioning, frequently asked questions.

Discovered by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov , classical conditioning is a type of unconscious or automatic learning. This learning process creates a conditioned response through associations between an unconditioned stimulus and a neutral stimulus. In simple terms, classical conditioning involves placing a neutral stimulus before a naturally occurring reflex.

One of the best-known examples of classical conditioning is Pavlov's classic experiments with dogs. In these experiments, the neutral signal was the sound of a tone and the naturally occurring reflex was salivating in response to food. By associating the neutral stimulus (sound) with the unconditioned stimulus (food), the sound of the tone alone could produce a salivation response.

Although classical conditioning was not discovered by a psychologist, it has had a tremendous influence over the school of thought in psychology known as behaviorism . Behaviorism assumes that all learning occurs through interactions with the environment and that environment shapes behavior.

Classical Conditioning Definitions

Classical conditioning—also sometimes referred to as Pavlovian conditioning—uses a few different terms to help explain the learning process. Knowing these basics will help you understand classical conditioning.

Unconditioned Stimulus

An unconditioned stimulus is a stimulus or trigger that leads to an automatic response. If a cold breeze makes you shiver, for instance, the cold breeze is an unconditioned stimulus; it produces an involuntary response (the shivering).

Neutral Stimulus

A neutral stimulus is a stimulus that doesn't initially trigger a response on its own. If you hear the sound of a fan but don't feel the breeze, for example, it wouldn't necessarily trigger a response. That would make it a neutral stimulus.

Conditioned Stimulus

A conditioned stimulus is a stimulus that was once neutral (didn't trigger a response) but now leads to a response. If you previously didn't pay attention to dogs, but then got bit by one, and now you feel fear every time you see a dog, the dog has become a conditioned stimulus.

Unconditioned Response

An unconditioned response is an automatic response or a response that occurs without thought when an unconditioned stimulus is present. If you smell your favorite food and your mouth starts watering, the watering is an unconditioned response.

Conditioned Response

A conditioned response is a learned response or a response that is created where no response existed before. Going back to the example of being bit by a dog, the fear you experience after the bite is a conditioned response.

Click Play to Learn More About Classical Conditioning

This video has been medically reviewed by Ann-Louise T. Lockhart, PsyD, ABPP .

How Classical Conditioning Works

Classical conditioning involves forming an association between two stimuli, resulting in a learned response. There are three basic phases of this process.

Phase 1: Before Conditioning

The first part of the classical conditioning process requires a naturally occurring stimulus that will automatically elicit a response. Salivating in response to the smell of food is a good example of a naturally occurring stimulus.

During this phase of the process, the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) results in an unconditioned response (UCR). Presenting food (the UCS) naturally and automatically triggers a salivation response (the UCR).

At this point, there is also a neutral stimulus that produces no effect—yet. It isn't until the neutral stimulus is paired with the UCS that it will come to evoke a response.

Let's take a closer look at the two critical components of this phase of classical conditioning:

• The unconditioned stimulus is one that unconditionally, naturally, and automatically triggers a response. For example, when you smell one of your favorite foods, you may immediately feel hungry. In this example, the smell of the food is the unconditioned stimulus.
• The unconditioned response is the unlearned response that occurs naturally in response to the unconditioned stimulus. In our example, the feeling of hunger in response to the smell of food is the unconditioned response.

In the before conditioning phase, an unconditioned stimulus is paired with an unconditioned response. A neutral stimulus is then introduced.

Phase 2: During Conditioning

During the second phase of the classical conditioning process, the previously neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with the unconditioned stimulus. As a result of this pairing, an association between the previously neutral stimulus and the UCS is formed.

At this point, the once neutral stimulus becomes known as the conditioned stimulus (CS). The subject has now been conditioned to respond to this stimulus. The conditioned stimulus is a previously neutral stimulus that, after becoming associated with the unconditioned stimulus, eventually comes to trigger a conditioned response.

In our earlier example, suppose that when you smelled your favorite food, you also heard the sound of a whistle. While the whistle is unrelated to the smell of the food, if the sound of the whistle was paired multiple times with the smell, the whistle sound would eventually trigger the conditioned response. In this case, the sound of the whistle is the conditioned stimulus.

The during conditioning phase involves repeatedly pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus. Eventually, the neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus.

Phase 3: After Conditioning

Once the association has been made between the UCS and the CS, presenting the conditioned stimulus alone will come to evoke a response—even without the unconditioned stimulus. The resulting response is known as the conditioned response (CR).

The conditioned response is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus. In our example, the conditioned response would be feeling hungry when you heard the sound of the whistle.

In the after conditioning phase, the conditioned stimulus alone triggers the conditioned response.

Behaviorists have described a number of different phenomena associated with classical conditioning. Some of these elements involve the initial establishment of the response while others describe the disappearance of a response. Here is a closer look at five key principles of classical conditioning.

Acquisition

Acquisition is the initial stage of learning, when a response is first established and gradually strengthened. During the acquisition phase of classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus.

As you may recall, an unconditioned stimulus is something that naturally and automatically triggers a response without any learning. After an association is made, the subject will begin to emit a behavior in response to the previously neutral stimulus, which is now known as a conditioned stimulus. It is at this point that we can say that the response has been acquired.

Once the response has been established, you can gradually reinforce the response to make sure the behavior is well learned.

Extinction is when the occurrences of a conditioned response decrease or disappear. In classical conditioning, this happens when a conditioned stimulus is no longer paired with an unconditioned stimulus.

For example, if the smell of food (the unconditioned stimulus) had been paired with the sound of a whistle (the conditioned stimulus), the sound of the whistle would eventually come to evoke the conditioned response of hunger.

However, if the smell of food were no longer paired with the whistle, eventually the conditioned response (hunger) would disappear.

Spontaneous Recovery

Sometimes a learned response can suddenly reemerge, even after a period of extinction. This is called spontaneous recovery.

For example, imagine that after training a dog to salivate to the sound of a bell, you stop reinforcing the behavior and the response becomes extinct. After a rest period during which the conditioned stimulus is not presented, you ring the bell and the animal spontaneously recovers the previously learned response.

If the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus are no longer associated, extinction will return very rapidly after a spontaneous recovery.

Generalization

Stimulus generalization is the tendency for a conditioned stimulus to evoke similar responses after the response has been conditioned. For example, if a dog has been conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, the animal may also exhibit the same response to a sound that's similar to the bell.

In John B. Watson's famous  Little Albert Experiment , for example, a small child was conditioned to fear a white rat. The child demonstrated stimulus generalization by also exhibiting fear in response to other fuzzy white objects, including stuffed toys and Watson's own hair.

Discrimination

Discrimination is the ability to differentiate between a conditioned stimulus and other stimuli that have not been paired with an unconditioned stimulus.  

For example, if a bell tone were the conditioned stimulus, discrimination would involve being able to tell the difference between the bell tone and other similar sounds. Because the subject is able to distinguish between these stimuli, they will only respond when the conditioned stimulus is presented.

What Are Examples of Classical Conditioning?

It can be helpful to look at a few examples of how the classical conditioning process operates both in experimental and real-world settings.

Fear Response

John B. Watson's experiment with Little Albert is an example of the fear response. The child initially showed no fear of a white rat, but after the rat was paired repeatedly with loud, scary sounds, the child began to cry when the rat was present.

Prior to the conditioning, the white rat was a neutral stimulus. The unconditioned stimulus was the loud, clanging sounds, and the unconditioned response was the fear response created by the noise.

By repeatedly pairing the rat with the unconditioned stimulus, the white rat (now the conditioned stimulus) came to evoke the fear response (now the conditioned response).

This experiment illustrates how phobias can form through classical conditioning. In many cases, a single pairing of a neutral stimulus (a dog, for example) and a frightening experience (being bitten by the dog) can lead to a lasting phobia (being afraid of dogs).

Taste Aversions

Another example of classical conditioning is the development of conditioned taste aversions . Researchers John Garcia and Bob Koelling first noticed this phenomenon when they observed how rats that had been exposed to nausea-causing radiation developed an aversion to flavored water after the radiation and water were presented together.

In this example, the radiation represents the unconditioned stimulus and nausea represents the unconditioned response. After the pairing of the two, the flavored water is the conditioned stimulus, while nausea that formed when exposed to the water alone is the conditioned response.

Later research demonstrated that such classically conditioned aversions could be produced through a single pairing of the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus.

Researchers also found that such aversions can even develop if the conditioned stimulus (the taste of the food) is presented several hours before the unconditioned stimulus (the nausea-causing stimulus).

Why do such associations develop so quickly? Forming such associations can have survival benefits. If an animal eats something that makes it ill, it needs to avoid eating the same food in the future to avoid sickness or even death.

This is an example of biological preparedness . Some associations form more readily because they aid in survival.

In one famous field study, researchers injected sheep carcasses with a poison that would make coyotes sick but not kill them. The goal was to help sheep ranchers reduce the number of sheep lost to coyote killings.

Not only did the experiment work by lowering the number of sheep killed, it also caused some of the coyotes to develop such a strong aversion to sheep that they would actually run away at the scent or sight of a sheep.

Organizational Behavior

Classical conditioning can also have applications in business and marketing. For example, it can be used to help people form favorable attitudes toward products, businesses, or brands.

While there may not be a direct link between the item and the consumer response, creating this association may help motivate people to purchase certain products because they have developed a favorable opinion of them due to classical conditioning.

Operant conditioning is a learning method in which a specific behavior is associated with either a positive or negative consequence. This form of learning links voluntary actions with receiving either a reward or punishment, often to strengthen or weaken those voluntary behaviors.

Classical conditioning is a learning process focused more on involuntary behaviors, using associations with neutral stimuli to evoke a specific involuntary response.

Criticisms of Classical Conditioning

Some psychologists maintain that classical conditioning represents a reductive, mechanical explanation for some behaviors. Some other criticisms of classical conditioning center on the fact that:

• Classical conditioning does not take human individuality and free will into account
• It generally does not predict human behavior; people can form associations but still not act upon them
• Many different factors can impact the associations and outcomes
• People can choose to not act on the associations they have made through classical conditioning

However, the approach still holds great fascination for researchers and relevance in modern psychology.

In reality, people do not respond exactly like Pavlov's dogs . There are, however, numerous real-world applications for classical conditioning. For example, many dog trainers use classical conditioning techniques to help people train their pets.

These techniques are also useful for helping people cope with phobias or anxiety problems . Therapists might, for example, repeatedly pair something that provokes anxiety with relaxation techniques in order to create an association.

Teachers can apply classical conditioning in the class by creating a positive classroom environment to help students overcome anxiety or fear. Pairing an anxiety-provoking situation, such as performing in front of a group, with pleasant surroundings helps the student learn new associations. Instead of feeling anxious and tense in these situations, the child will learn to stay relaxed and calm.

Ivan Pavlov discovered classical conditioning. Pavlov was passionate about physiology, even earning gold medals for his work in this field. It was in his position as director of a physiological laboratory that he began to connect physiological research with reflex response and regulation.

Implicit memory is a memory that you can recall effortlessly or without thought. Classical conditioning uses this automatic memory to create associations with a neutral stimulus. The association is learned without conscious awareness.

Behavioral therapies use the principles of classical conditioning to help people change negative behaviors. The thought behind these therapies is that we learn from our environment. Cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapy are two types of behavioral therapy.

Wolpe J, Plaud JJ. Pavlov's contributions to behavior therapy. The obvious and not so obvious. Am Psychol. 1997;52(9):966-72.

Windholz G. Pavlov on the conditioned reflex method and its limitations. Am J Psychol. 1995;108(4):575-88.

Holland JG. Behaviorism: Part of the problem or part of the solution . J Appl Behav Anal. 1978;11(1):163-74. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-163

Rouleau N, Karbowski LM, Persinger MA. Experimental evidence of classical conditioning and microscopic engrams in an electroconductive material . PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0165269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165269

Morè L, Jensen G. Acquisition of conditioned responding in a multiple schedule depends on the reinforcement's temporal contingency with each stimulus . Learn Mem. 2014;21(5):258-62. doi: 10.1101/lm.034231.113

Lattal KM, Lattal KA. Facets of Pavlovian and operant extinction . Behav Processes. 2012;90(1):1-8. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2012.03.009

Thanellou A, Green JT. Spontaneous recovery but not reinstatement of the extinguished conditioned eyeblink response in the rat . Behav Neurosci. 2011;125(4):613-25. doi:10.1037/a0023582

Dunsmoor JE, Mitroff SR, Labar KS. Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity . Learn Mem. 2009;16(7):460-9. doi:10.1101/lm.1431609

Murray JE, Li C, Palmatier MI, Bevins RA. The interoceptive Pavlovian stimulus effects of caffeine . Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007;86(4):838-46. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2007.03.013

Hofmann SG. Cognitive processes during fear acquisition and extinction in animals and humans: implications for exposure therapy of anxiety disorders . Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28(2):199-210. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.04.009

Lin JY, Arthurs J, Reilly S. Conditioned taste aversion, drugs of abuse and palatability . Neurosci Biobehav Rev . 2014;45:28-45. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.05.001

Åhs F, Rosén J, Kastrati G, Fredrikson M, Agren T, Lundström JN. Biological preparedness and resistance to extinction of skin conductance responses conditioned to fear relevant animal pictures: A systematic review . Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;95:430-437. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.10.017

Griffiths Jr R, Connolly G, Burns R, Sterner R. Coyotes, sheep and lithium chloride . Proceed 8th Vertebrate Pest Conf . 1978:23.

The Nobel Prize. Ivan Pavlov biographical .

Breedlove SM. Principles of Psychology . Oxford University Press.

Nevid JS. Psychology: Concepts and Applications . Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."