Pavlov 's Stimulus Substitution Theory

He deciphered that dogs like humans salivate (reflex response) when they see food; it is a natural physiological reflex response. However he also demonstrated that a signal such as using a bell (stimulus) just before he gave the dog food would eventually lead the dog to salivate at the sound of the bell even if there was no food present. Pavlov verified by pairing or associating another stimulus (the bell) with food he could train the dogs to salivate. This theory could then be applied to people as well. According to Richard et al (2007) it was found that pairing one stimulus with another stimulus could also provoke a reflexive response in people. This is also called a stimulus – response theory of learning.

Pavlov would take a dog and give it food, before the dog would salivate. Then Pavlov would ring a bell, and then give the dog food. After a while the dog began to salivate at the sound of the bell as it knew food was coming and it associated the two things. If Pavlov rang the bell too often without giving the dog food the response would be extinguished and the dog would no longer salivate. If Pavlov stopped the experiment for 6 months and then returned to it the dog would rapidly salivate at the sound of the bell, this is spontaneous recovery. If Pavlov rang a bell that wasn’t similar to the original bell the dog wouldn’t salivate, this is called stimulus discrimination. A limitation of the experiment would be the unethicalness, is it right to treat a dog like this? Unfortunately, because it took place in lab the experiment will not equal the outside world. We are humans. We aren’t dogs, we have language. Therefore it can’t be said that humans would act in the same way as we aren’t the same. But in a laboratory you have high control, this would be the results he collected would have been correct. Despite how unethical his experiment was, I think it was justified as it was such a big breakthrough.

Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner both studied learning, in which they both did different experiments on different animals and with different conditioning. Classical conditioning is the process in which two stimuli become linked; once this association has been recognized, an originally neutral stimulus is conditioned to provoke an involuntary response. The dogs in Pavlov’s studies learned to associate countless stimuli with the expectation of food, which caused in them salivating when the stimuli were presented. Pavlov revealed how such associations are learned, and referred to this process as conditioning. While the

Classical Conditioning is a type of learning process of an individual when they come in contact with certain stimuli. According to Pavlov, a Russian psychologist, he developed several experiments on learning and he discovered that classical condition is the basic form of learning for an individual. However, according to Pavlov, behaviorism is the view that psychology should be the main objective science that studies behavior without including mental processes of an individual in the investigation. Behaviorism is more about the person’s behavior and how they were influenced to act a certain why, including their surroundings. Thus, from this learning process many behaviorist believes that the basic laws of learning are similar for all different species, including humans. Furthermore, the two major characteristics that distinguish classical conditioning from operant conditioning is that in classical conditioning, an unconditioned response is an event that happens naturally in response to some stimuli such as salivation. Another characteristic is an unconditioned stimuli, which is a process where an individual naturally discovers something without learning the process and reacts to the unlearned response, For instance, when someone put food in there mouth this causes salivation. A conditioned stimuli in classical

Classical conditioning is a type of associative learning which occurs when two stimuli are paired together repetitively and therefore become associated with each other eventually producing the same response. Classical conditioning was developed from the findings of Ivan Pavlov to account for associations between neutral stimuli and reflexive behavior such as salivation. Pavlov (1927) accidently discovered that dogs began to salivate before they had tasted their food. To support his theory, he carried out experiments using dogs which involved measuring the amount of saliva they produced. In his experiments, food started off as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which produced salivation, an unconditioned response (UCR). They are both unconditioned as they occur naturally without being learned. The dogs were presented with a bell (NS), this provided no salivation. The bell and food were presented together and after many trails an

8. Pavlov found that if he allowed his animals to rest for several hours following the extinction of a behavior, the conditioned response would spontaneously appear again upon re-presentation of the conditioned stimulus – although in a somewhat weaker form. This is called:

In 1903 a Russian physiologist by the name of Ivan Pavlov first developed an experiential model of learning called Classical Conditioning (Lautenheiser 1999). An example if Classical Conditioning would be ringing a bell when it is time for your pet to eat. The pet hears the bell and over time is conditioned that when the bell rings its dinner time thus begins to salivate, and eventually learns to be conditioned to responding to the bell in a specific manner. The bases was that neutral stimulus would be put together with an excitatory one and over time the neutral stimulus would, at some point down the line elicit the response that was associated with the original unlearned response. Pavlov later added an element known as the nonexcitatory, conditioned stimulus which is but together with an unconditioned stimulus (Lautenheiser 1999).

Ivan Pavlov developed a theory called classical conditioning which proposes that learning process occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus. Classical conditioning involves placing a neutral signal before a naturally occurring reflex like associating the food with the bell in Pavlov experiment. In classical conditioning, behavior is learnt by association where a stimulus that was originally neutral can become a trigger for substance use or cravings due to repeated associations between those stimuli and substance use (Pavlov, 1927).

Siegel, Hinson, Krank and McCully (1982) did a study to determine if environmental cues was a factor in heroin overdose in rats. They argued that conditioning may occur between environmental cues surrounding an organism and the time of drug administration, which in turn affects tolerance and overdose. In this study, they believed that the effect of heroin would be the unconditioned and the conditioned stimulus is the environmental cues associated with using heroin (was once the neutral stimulus before being paired with the effects of heroin). If a drug is administered frequently with the same environmental cues, an association is made between the NS and the CS. Once this association is made, a conditioned response of anticipatory physiological

Rescorla advances original theory by acknowledging a previous flaw of Pavlovian Conditioning and attempts to express a more ‘modern’ view by illustrating the circumstances producing learning in animals, the context of learning and the manner it effects behaviour. Thus suggesting that Pavlovian Conditioning is a form of associative learning, rather than reflex tradition as previously suggested. Furthermore, Rescorla emphasised how Pavlovian Conditioning still plays a fundamental role in modern psychology. However, it must be considered that this research is era dependent; being modern at the time of writing of 1988. Resultantly, one must consider if these arguments are still valid in 21st Century psychology, and if so, how. To further demonstrate

This is known as the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). Meat is the unconditioned stimulus because at the sight of the meat the dogs begin to salivate (Feldman, 2010).   The dog’s response to the meat educes salivation and is known as the unconditioned response (UCR). An unconditioned response is defined as a reflexive and natural response that is not connected to prior learning. Unconditioned responses always occur in the presence of the unconditioned stimulus (Feldman, 2010).   While conditioning the dogs, Pavlov would ring a bell right before the presentation of meat. Eventually, the dogs would associate the ringing of the bell with the meat. Therefore, the dogs would begin to salivate at the sound of the bell. At this point, Pavlov could state that he had classically conditioned his dogs. The bell which was a prior neutral stimulus had now become the conditioned stimulus (CS) that brought forth the conditioned response (CR) of salivation (Feldman, 2010). Moreover, we have to ask what would happen if these poor dogs were never again received food upon the ringing of the bell. This would lead to extinction. Extinction occurs when a prior conditioned response decreases in frequency and eventually disappears (Feldman, 2010).   In order for Pavlov to unconditioned his dogs he would have to break their association with the sound of the ringing bell and the presentation of food. To do so he

To distill his work to it 's essence, Pavlov fed a dog whilst he rang a bell. He noted that over time if he rang the bell, the dog would salivate, even if no food were present. It seemed that the cue (the bell) led directly to

The New York Times published an article on the modern day Pavlov’s experiment. This article tried Pavlov’s dog experiment on humans. Their experiment hoped to find what triggers the brain with classical conditioning. In their study they had thirteen subjects all humans. They tried to have all the subjects associate abstract images with either the smell of peanut butter or vanilla. The subjects where presented with the smells through tubes. In their research they discovered that the group that thought they were in experiment to learn about computer tasks would associate the smell to the pictures better. The subjects were also noted to work better at associations when the pictures were presented with a pleasant smell, than those that were not

Pavlov’s theory is to show that there are some things that a dog does not need to learn. When food is shown to the dog, the dog starts to salivate which shows we have got a response, this is an unconditioned response because when he salivates he cannot control it. He then set up an experiment to find out if the dog could be trained to salivate at other stimuli such as ringing a bell when it is time for the dog to eat. When ringing the bell there was no conditioned response from the dog which then led him to ring the bell with the food to see if the dog would still salivate. When ringing the bell with the food the dog then had an unconditioned response and started salivating again. The fourth time he rang the bell and took the food away, which

The process of classical conditioning follows the procedure from Pavlov’s salivation experiment. Before conditioning, when a bowl of dog food is presented the dog would “naturally” salivate at the mouth “in response to food”. Because this response occurs “automatically” and “prior training” isn’t required for hunger, this reaction is called an unconditioned response (UCR) which “is the response that is naturally elicited by the [UCS]” (Powell et al., 2013, pp. 112-115). When referring to a natural response--one is referring to an elicited reaction that is characterized as “an unlearned or innate reaction to [a] stimulus” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). Furthermore, the dog food is considered an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), which “is a stimulus that naturally elicits a response” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). According to Pavlov’s experiment, when a bell chimes without the presentation of dog food, the dog will not instinctually salivate (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). Since the bell didn’t initially “elicit salivation” naturally, it’s called a neutral stimulus (NS) (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). However, through conditioning, as the bell tone pairs with dog food continuously, the dog begins to salivate. Finally, after the conditioning process is completed, the pairing of “food” and the bell “now elicits salivation” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 112). Since the dog’s salivation required some type of continual prompting or, “prior training”, it’s reaction is considered a conditioned response (CR) “and the [bell]” is the conditioned stimulus (CS). By definition, a conditioned stimulus “is any stimulus that, although initially neutral, comes to elicit a response because it has been associated with an unconditioned stimulus” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 115). Responses triggered by a