Behaviorism

Behaviorism is a school of psychology proposed by the psychologists B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov in the
early 1900s. It suggests a body of systematic ideas that can be employed to achieve an understanding of
animal behavior. There are mainly two set of notions, i.e. two types of conditioning: Classical
Conditioning (henceforth as CC) and Operant Conditioning (OC). These ideas can be thought of as
different approaches to conduct a process known as conditioning.

Even for purposes of definition it is quite a difficult task to draw a strict distinction between the two
approaches without adding some complexity to understanding Behaviorism. However, we may rely on the
terminology of each approach since these use specific words to describe conditioning from a defined
standpoint. Let's consider the technical jargon used in each approach.

Classical Conditioning (B.F. Skinner)

In Classical Conditioning, there is what's known as an unconditioned stimulus, and its pair unconditioned
response, also conditioned stimulus/response. An unconditioned stimulus may be anything which will
naturally, without prior intervention, provoke an Unconditioned Response. When a dog perceives a piece
of juicy meat and salivates, the dog is producing an Unconditioned Response to an Unconditioned
Stimulus since nutrition is a basic requisite for maintaining survival to its natural extremity. In an
unconditioned setting neither the stimulus nor its response have undergone a behavioral alteration by a
scientist for example, in the sense of taming, domesticating animals, or conducting behavioral
experimentation. Animals' are known to have adaptive properties which enable them to adjust their bodily
processes in accord with the natural occurrences of their natural environment. On the other end, a
Conditioned Stimulus may be anything which has been made to replace an unconditioned stimulus
through voluntarily altering an unconditioned stimulus. When a dog has been exposed over a period of
time to the sound of a bell, followed by a piece of meat, the dog would begin tending to associating the
sound of the bell with being fed. If it does begin to salivate on the sound of the bell, then we'll have an
unconditioned response (salivating) to a conditioned stimulus (the sound of the bell). But CC would likely
fail in maintaining the desired responses because it fails to satisfy them. Obviously, a dog will begin to
unlearn trusting the association between the sound of the bell and food if all the conditioned stimulus
consisted of is solid metal and sound. There has to be a reward/punishment to encourage, or discourage
consistency, and this is where Operant Conditioning comes into the scheme of Behaviorism.

Operant Conditioning (Ivan Pavlov 1890)

Operant Conditioning may be defined as the application of satisfactory and dissatisfactory tools in
reinforcing or weakening a particular behavior. When a dog responds accordingly to a stimulus it is
granted a piece of its favorite food, or allowed to play outdoors. However, when it doesn't respond
accordingly it's denied the feat. In this way the main component of OC (rewarding/punishing) may be
applied, at least until there is evident acquisition of the desired behavior. I would like here to substitute
the terms rewarding/punishing with enhancing/diminishing because punishing may reflect a negative
connotation when it is meant quite in a different sense. Punishing an animal which disobeys an order does
not necessarily imply harassment, or being beaten as the term punishing may imply. It simply means
discouraging one behavior so that another one can replace it, which is in a way redirecting the animal's
behavior into the behavior that is to be acquired. Diminishing being quite away from meaning destruction,
or elimination, but more in the sense of overriding, such as drinking hot tea or water instead of coffee
during night times. In these senses would the terms suggested be said to be adequate. It is important to
understand that these conditionings produced in classical as well as operant setting are the fabric of men's
will and not of Nature.

A Difference between Classical & Operant Conditioning

We may draw a functional distinction between CC and OP in saying that in terms of long-term learning
CC may be prone to falling short after the behavior has been acquired, because it does not necessarily
offer sustainability to the acquired behavior. We've already explained how animals may unlearn the
acquired behavior by not having their expectations met. Operant Conditioning, however, does present
sustainability in the process through positive/negative reinforcements. When a student is granted a novel
and a pen after having presented a superb reading performance, they are being encouraged to carry on
their reading skill at a proximal, or favorably greater level of performing (enhancing excellent
performing). When they display poor performances, they may be given exercises and tasks to conduct and
present in class as a way to understand their skill weaknesses and adjust them (diminishing poor
performing). Notice that the dichotomy of enhancing/diminishing is mutual.

Q: is there one instance in which Classical Conditioning encourages or discourages a response?

If there is only one example of a CC setting in which enhancing/diminishing tool is being active, then we
could denounce the distinction being suggested, for it would no longer be justified in being used as a
such. We would have therefor to resort to finding a valid distinction in order to distinguish each of the
two approaches of conditioning.

Written by Ayoub Anajjar