Rick Froman wrote:
> There are some
> fairly straightforward distinctions between operant and classical
> conditioning that can be used to decide which is which.
>
> 1) Operant conditioning involves learning to make a voluntary response
> while classical is the training of a nonvoluntary response.
What do you mean by "voluntary" and "nonvoluntary?"
> 2) Classical conditioning involves the training of visceral (nausea),
> glandular (salivation) and reflexive skeletomuscular (eyeblink)
> responses.
Autoshaping?
> 3) In classical conditioning, the actions of the animal do not have any
> impact on the delivery of the US. The reflexive CR may ameliorate the
> effect of the US but the US will be delivered.
In fact, classical conditioning procedures can be arranged so that the CR does
have an impact on delivery of the US, further illustrating that the
voluntary/involuntary or visceral-reflexive/other-skeletal distinction does not
work. The classic "long-box" study and other autoshaping studies that include an
omission contingency demonstrate that Pavlovian control of the "voluntary"
skeletal response may sometimes be more important than operant contingencies.
--
*****************************************************************
* Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
********* http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html ********
