At 10:21 AM -0600 11/17/99, Jim Dougan wrote:>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.
...which illustrates the fact that 'classical (respondent)' and 'operant'
are descriptions of _functions_; not labels for mutually exclusive
categories of behavior.
In the real world, most behaviors have more than one function.
* 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 *
