Learning refers to the relative change in behavior as a result of an experience. Learning is usually achieved in two significant ways; either when neutral stimuli leads to a response after being paired with stimuli that naturally produces the response or changes in behavior after a response, as a result of experiences that occur after that particular response. These two different schools of thoughts explaining behavior change are referred to as classical conditioning and operant conditioning respectively.
The classical conditioning occurs when someone or something learns to make a response to stimuli other than the natural incentives, which would have typically resulted in such a response. The breakthrough of this theory is indebted to the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov. In his experiment, he taught his dog to salivate at the sound of a bell. Initially, the noise of a bell was of no stimuli to the dog and did not therefore make the dog salivate, and then he began ringing the bell just before he gave the dog food; the food was the stimulus for salivating ( Dalla & Shors, 2009) . After a while, the dog learned to associate the bell sound with food and therefore salivated even before arrival of the food. Pavlov’s research was in three phases: Before conditioning, during conditioning and after conditioning, and it involved the elements of unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus and conditioned response. Before conditioning, the appearance of the unconditioned stimulus (food) leads to unconditioned response (salivation), an unconditioned stimulus (bell) is then closely associated with the unconditioned stimulus (food) ( Dalla & Shors, 2009) . Ultimately the dog learns that the conditioned stimuli (bell) predict the appearance of food, the unconditioned stimulus. After a while, the dog shows an unconditioned response (salivation) towards the conditioned stimulus (bell) ( Kirsch et al., 2004 ).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Operant conditioning theory applies punishment and reward to change behaviors; it explains most human phobias. For instance, say as a child you climb a tree and unfortunately fall, even though that was probably just a one-time action, you will always relate heights with falling, and you will not be too comfortable with heights. The breakthrough research was by Edward Thorndike B.F Skinner, an American psychologist. In his research, Thorndike confined a cat in a box; the cat was required to push a lever to get out of the box and get food, and this behavior was rewarded by awarding the cat food ( Kirsch et al., 2004 ). After getting out of the box, the cat was returned inside, and it was noted that the time taken to push the lever reduced. Skinner explains that a behavior followed by a pleasant consequence (reward) is more likely to be repeated ( Dalla & Shors, 2009) . Punishment, on the other hand, weakens response and decreases chances of a repeat of the behavior, for instance, the person who fell off a tree as a child is unlikely to repeat that action. For effectiveness, the rewards or punishments ought to immediately follow the behavior to be punished or awarded, else no association will be made between the behavior and the consequence.
Operant and classical conditioning are similar in that both are psychological processes that result in associative learning and are both governed by the general laws of association. Also, both conditioning theories involve extinction and spontaneous recovery. Finally, both conditioning includes the occurrence of stimulus generalization and discrimination ( Kirsch et al., 2004 ).
Classical conditioning and operant conditioning differ in a variety of ways, such as:
Classical conditioning is dependent on an association between stimuli and responses while operant conditioning is more about negative and positive consequences.
- Operant conditioning is subject to voluntary behavior, while classical conditioning involves involuntary reflexive action.
- In operant conditioning, the learner is also rewarded with incentives, whereas classical conditioning involves no such enticements.
References
Dalla, C., & Shors, T. J. (2009). Sex differences in learning processes of classical and operant conditioning. Physiology & behavior , 97 (2), 229-238.
Kirsch, I., Lynn, S. J., Vigorito, M., & Miller, R. R. (2004). The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. Journal of clinical psychology , 60 (4), 369-392.
