The Theory Of Classical Conditioning Theory Essay

We use the term "classical conditioning" to describe one type of associative learning in which there is no contingency between response and reinforcer. This situation resembles most closely the experiment from Pavlov in the 1920s, where he trained his dogs to associate a bell ring with a food-reward. In such experiments, the subject initially shows weak or no response to a conditioned stimulus (CS, e.g. the bell), but a measurable unconditioned response (UCR, e.g. saliva production) to an unconditioned stimulus (UCS, e.g. food). In the course of the training, the CS is repeatedly presented together with the UCS; eventually the subject forms an association between

Our understanding of classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning has allowed us to unlock many of the answers we sought to learn about human behavior. Classical conditioning is a technique of behavioral training, coined by Ivan Pavlov, which basically states that an organism learns through establishing associations between different events and stimuli. This helps us understand human behavior in an assortment of ways. It makes it clear that almost everything we do is based on patterns of stimulus and response. For example, if you were bitten aggressively by a dog as a child, you may be still scared of dogs today. That is because the dog caused you pain, which in turn caused you have anxiety towards dogs.

While learning to drive a car, I have experienced the elements of classical conditioning. Conditioned stimulus was a car that rapidly stopped in front of me.

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

While many people may believe that learning is just a natural response that all animals are capable of, there is actually a more complex explanation on how we learn the things we do in order to survive in the world. Classical conditioning and operant conditioning are both basic forms of learning, they have the word conditioning in common. Conditioning is the acquisition of specific patterns of behavior in the presence of well-defined stimuli.

Classical conditioning is a form of learning that is taught to us through experiences we encounter in our lives. It involves outside stimuli to trigger the condition we have learned to expect. For example, the sound of a lunch bell would trigger our stomach to start growling soon after hearing the bell ring. The expectation of food to come soon after hearing the bell and satisfy our hunger is what makes our stomach growl. This is something learned over time. Expectations can be both good and bad. Sometimes these negative experiences cause us to have certain behaviors when we are reminded of such an event.

Is it possible to rouse fear from a stimulus that at first caused no such response? Classical conditioning is a type of learning where a response is produced from combining a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to produce an unconditioned response. Ivan Pavlov did a famous study, pairing the sound of a bell with food to produce salivation. After a while, just the sound alone would produce salivation. “Little Albert”, an infant that belonged to a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home was experimented on by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner. Watson and Rayner claim that “Little Albert” was a healthy, unemotional, and stable child. The experiment began with the introduction of a white rat, which alone, produced no fear response. At 11 months and 3 days, the rat was paired with a loud noise. The loud noise frightened “Little Albert”. He began to associate the fear he experienced with the white rat since it was paired with the loud noise.

Another behavioural psychologist, Watson (1915) was influenced by Pavlov’s dogs’ (1902). Watson suggested that if reflexes can be conditioned in dogs, then they can be conditioned in human behaviour too (Gross 2010). Watson used Pavlov’s idea of classical conditioning to influence his experiment with Little Albert, where Watson successfully conditioned fear into an 8-month-old boy using a range of different stimuli.

Classical conditioning was discovered by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov 1902. Classical conditioning suggests that all behaviour is learnt through association. Pavlov discovered this through his works with dogs. It was also believed that classical conditioning can lead to the development of phobias. This was demonstrated by Watson and Rayner 1920 with the case of little Albert (gross p162).

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).

In contradiction to the behavioral theory that stated that a child’s attachment to his/her mother was a set of learned behaviors centered around who fed the child, J. Bowlby introduced the attachment theory (McLeod, 2009). According to Bowlby, an infant’s attachment to his/her primary caregiver will be the secure protective base from which s/he will explore his/her world (Lee, 2003). He believed that children are born biologically ready to form attachments in order to survive. Their behaviors elicit responses from caregivers, not to solely get food, but care. He observed that when separated from the mother,

Attachment theory focuses on the bond between a caregiver and a child and how these fragile bonds, if not made properly has effects on the child’s future. The attachment process itself responds to the developing identity of the child which is very dependent of the sensitivity and guidance of the caregiver. John Bowlby takes attachment theory in a more biological/ evolutionary perspective, in which he views these forming of bonds as a survival mechanism in which the infant insures its survival by attaching themselves to an adult (caregiver) who can meet their needs in order to survive. This take on the attachment theory suggests that parents and infants may be biologically programmed to form an attachment and that each behavior between the child and the caregiver helps facilitate this (Ashford 2013, 266). On a bio-social level children look for this attachment because they are biologically wired to be relate to others and be social. Regardless if the attachment theory is taken through a biological, social or even psychological approach what is certain is that the child views the caregiver as a source of protection, comfort, and emotional regulation (Howe 2009, 43). If a positive attachment is made with the caregiver the child will have confidence in themselves and others, they will be more likely to develop a good self-esteem, autonomy, and relationships with others (Kreutzer 1999, 9).

Classical conditioning was stumbled upon by a Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov. His unexpected discovery led him to win a rightfully earned Noble Prize. Classical conditioning is defined as “a form of learning in which reflex responses are associated with new stimuli (Coon & Mitterer, 2016, p. 201).” This form of learning is also called Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning. He found a connection between the stimuli for his dogs’ salivation during his experiment. To begin explaining classical conditioning, it is best to explain how Pavlov conducted his research. He began his experiment by ringing a bell, which was a neutral stimulus (NS) for his dogs. A neutral stimulus is defined as “a stimulus that does not evoke a response (Coon & Mitterer, 2016, p. 201).” Directly after, he put meat

Briefly, Pavlov`s classical conditioning theory explain learning new behavior. He used dogs in his experiment. He explained three stages of classical conditioning. The unconditioned stimulus means that a stimulus in the environment has created a behavior (meat salivate the dog), Neutral stimulus that itself will not create a reaction (bell is ruining no salivate dog), conditioned stimulus means that neutral stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus together (meat and bell together salivate dog) and after conditioning means that neutral stimulus creates a conditioned response and becomes a conditioned stimulus(rang bell salivate

Learning theory can be summarized as behaviour which shows us how animals and people respond to a stimulus. This is incredibly important due to the direct impact it has on many features of daily life and how we implement this into our practices, from the way education systems are structured to the way we train dogs. The concepts of Classical Conditioning (a concept first established by Ivan Pavlov in the 1980’s) and Operant conditioning (founded by B.F Skinner around the 1920’s) can provide psychologists