In behavioural psychology there are two key concepts to learning behaviour; classical and operant conditioning. In order to understand how these techniques can be used, the differences need to be distinguished between them, therefore giving a better understanding of how learning can be developed and modified.
Classical conditioning is a two stimuli learning process that involves one stimuli being influenced by the second. Throughout time the second stimuli is able to work alone without the presence of the first incentive needed. This definition has been proved through the research evidence produce by Pavlov on his investigation into digestive psychology involving the secretion of saliva in dogs. Before experimenting Pavlov knew that saliva …show more content…
Firstly, when looking at both studies it is easy to determine a key difference between them. This key difference involves whether the behaviour performed is due to voluntary actions or involuntary actions. Hebb (1956) also agreed with this view as he stated that it may be the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions within the autonomous and skeletal feedback. In reference to this, the classical conditioning experiment proves that the association is between the stimulus and an involuntary response, as there is no critical consequences involved within this experiment. However, within the operant conditioning investigation Skinner clearly demonstrates the link between a voluntary behaviour and a consequence. Secondly, another difference is if the behaviour being learned is dependent on the presence of a reward following the correct action by the researcher. In classical conditioning there is no requirement for a reward enforcer to be present. However, in operant conditioning Skinner who was actively involved in the experiment presents the rat with food when it presses the lever and delivers a consequence when this action is not repeated. This form of learning is positive reinforcement and requires the researcher to be actively present within the investigation. Thirdly, in relation to the researcher being actively involved within the experiment, this could lead to a biased outcome within the results. This view has been discovered by the fact that Skinner could be biased on whether the action performed by the rat was preformed to his standard. In the classical conditioning there was not a biased outcome as the action delivered by the dog was not a learned response, it was a response of unconditioned learning (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg, 2011: 264). However, in Skinners investigation into operant conditioning he was a major benefactor
Classical conditioning is a two stimuli learning process that involves one stimuli being influenced by the second. Throughout time the second stimuli is able to work alone without the presence of the first incentive needed. This definition has been proved through the research evidence produce by Pavlov on his investigation into digestive psychology involving the secretion of saliva in dogs. Before experimenting Pavlov knew that saliva …show more content…
Firstly, when looking at both studies it is easy to determine a key difference between them. This key difference involves whether the behaviour performed is due to voluntary actions or involuntary actions. Hebb (1956) also agreed with this view as he stated that it may be the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions within the autonomous and skeletal feedback. In reference to this, the classical conditioning experiment proves that the association is between the stimulus and an involuntary response, as there is no critical consequences involved within this experiment. However, within the operant conditioning investigation Skinner clearly demonstrates the link between a voluntary behaviour and a consequence. Secondly, another difference is if the behaviour being learned is dependent on the presence of a reward following the correct action by the researcher. In classical conditioning there is no requirement for a reward enforcer to be present. However, in operant conditioning Skinner who was actively involved in the experiment presents the rat with food when it presses the lever and delivers a consequence when this action is not repeated. This form of learning is positive reinforcement and requires the researcher to be actively present within the investigation. Thirdly, in relation to the researcher being actively involved within the experiment, this could lead to a biased outcome within the results. This view has been discovered by the fact that Skinner could be biased on whether the action performed by the rat was preformed to his standard. In the classical conditioning there was not a biased outcome as the action delivered by the dog was not a learned response, it was a response of unconditioned learning (Gleitman, Gross and Reisberg, 2011: 264). However, in Skinners investigation into operant conditioning he was a major benefactor