Jim Dougan writes on 17 Nov 99,:
> Yes - this is the "strong" theory of classical/operant conditioning. But,
> it does not really hold up. For example, most learning theorists consider
> autoshaping to be an example of classical conditioning. However,
> keypecking in pigeons is a pretty clear example of a "voluntary" skeletal
> response. At the very least, Skinner certainly used keypecking as a
> classic example of an operant.
>
> Of course, autoshaping theory is itself complicated - and there is some
> reason to believe that there operant components to autoshaping.
Pecking at food is reflexive but pecking at other things like lighted disks
is not. What appears to be the same behavior can be mediated by
different systems. I can jerk my knee because you struck my patellar
tendon or because I am trying to kick a soccer ball. They will look
similar but one is voluntary and the other is reflexive.
So, Skinner's operant key peck may look like a classically conditioned
key peck but they can be distinguished by the training paradigm used.
Just because pecking (UR) is an unlearned reflexive response to food
(US) does not mean that pecking at a disk is a reflexive response. In
fact, the idea in autoshaping is that, as you say, the key peck is
classically conditioned. The key (CS) becomes associated with food
(US) and then the bird pecks (CR) at the key as they do (UR) at the food
(US).
Once again, the crucial element here is contingency, or the lack thereof.
In the autoshaping procedure, the light predicts food delivery and food
delivery is not contingent on pecking at the light. The food will be
delivered whether the bird pecks or not. Therefore, it is classical, not
operant. If the delivery of food is contingent on pecking, it is operant
and it is not autoshaping.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman
Psychology Department
Box 3055
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych
Office: (501)524-7295
Fax: (501)524-9548
"Happiness is not found by searching, but by researching."
