It's better to look at the terms 'operant' and 'classical' as denoting functions -- that way there need be no "versus".
In this situation classical (respondent) conditioning is responsible for events acquiring their aversive function. Reprimands and disapproval are paired with withdrawal of affection and acts of punishment, and so become conditioned aversive stimuli.
This in turn enables them to function in a operant conditioning paradigm; more specifically negative reinforcement. Certain classes of responses have conditioned aversive consequences and thus occur less frequently.
Thus both operant and respondent functions are required to explain why most people don't become blatant criminals.
At 2:45 PM -0800 11/15/04, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
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...
-- * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department 507-389-6217 * * 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
