At 11:49 AM -0500 4/23/02, Jim Dougan wrote: >Actually, Skinner uses "reflex" to describe both operant and classical >conditioning in "The Behavior of Organisms."
Of course that was in 1939, when he wqas still talking about Type I and Type II reflexes. >He generally abandoned this >later. I think "emitted" for operant and "elicited" for classical is the >better terminology. Right. Operants are emitted by organisms; respondents are elicited by stimuli. The shift in emphasis between stimulus and organism is important. >Of course, many people think that even the >emitted/elicited distinctions is artificial. If you're looking at it from a learning-theoretical point of view. >From the (radical behavioral) perspective of functional analysis, whether control is derived from antecedent events (respondents) or consequent events (operants) is a real and useful distinction. >Autoshaping really gets at the skeletal versus visceral distinction rather >than instrumental versus reflex distinction. Another point of view looks at autoshaping as a shift from respondent to operant control. In the definitional pigeon experiment, keypecking is initially elicited by a flashing key light. When it is followed (adventitiously) by grain delivery, keypecking becomes an operant. And yes I know that there are some data that question the adequecy of this analysis. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
