Eysenck seems to be referring to a conditioned emotional response here. CS = the internal representation of your engaging in or intending to engage in the bad behavior. UCS = your bad feelings (shame, guilt) when you got punished or reprimanded for that bad behavior.
With repeated reinforcement of the CS by the UCS, the mere act of starting to (or even thinking about starting to) engage in the bad behavior makes you feel bad. To turn off that bad feeling, you stop the act before it is emitted or learn to avoid even thinking about it. Cheers, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl L. Wuensch, Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville NC 27858-4353 Voice: 252-328-4102 Fax: 252-328-6283 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Marc Perreault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 5:45 PM Subject: Classical vs Operant Conditioning > Hi Tipsters, > I need some clarification on the distinction between > Classical and Operant conditioning (in light of what I am reading). > > I'm prepping a class with a text entitled, "Criminal Behavior: A > Psychosocial Approach", by Curt and Anne Bartol. On pp. 107-108, they > discuss Eysenck's theory of personality, and how it relates to criminal > behavior. There is a section on p. 109 where they mention that Eysenck > considered a certain type of learning as classical, but as far as I > know, the examples given fall uner Operant learning. > > Here's what I'm talking about: > > "To explain why more people do not become criminal, Eysenck contends > that classical conditioning has a stronger effect on most people than > instrumental learning. That is, most people behave themselves because > they have been classically conditioned during childhood about the rules > of society. That guiding light, superego, conscience, or whatever it is > that makes us feel uncomfortable before, during, and after a socially > and morally disapproved act is, according to Eysenck, a conditioned > reflex. He notes that in most families children are reprimanded or > punished for behavior that is against the social mores. Immediately > after engaging in a socially or morally frowned-on act, say, punching a > friend, a child finds that punishment quickly follows". > > In the last paragraph, the authors go on, after describing Pavlov's > experiment with dog: " Eysenck asserts that basically the same sequence > occurs in childhood - inappropriate behavior followed by reprimand. > [...] In essence, by punishing antisocial behavior numerous times, > parents, teachers, and others concerned with the upbringing of the > child, including his or her peers, perform the role of the Pavlovian > experimenter". > > Now, I have to admit I am confused by what appears to me to be a mixing > up of the two types of learning. > > Any comments on this one Dr. Black? Or Dr. McKelvie, whom if I remember > well,knows much about Hans Eysenck? > > Any enlighting thoughts welcome... > > Cheers! > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
