Mike Scoles writes on 17 Nov 99,:
> 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?"
nonreflexive and elicited as opposed to reflexive and evoked.
> > 2) Classical conditioning involves the training of visceral (nausea),
> > glandular (salivation) and reflexive skeletomuscular (eyeblink)
> > responses.
>
> Autoshaping?
Skeletomuscular if classically conditioned although there does seem to
be something exceptional about autoshaping in that the response
seems to be largely mediated by innate biological predispositions
(pecking associated with food) that would not generalize to another US
(the CR is a food-specific response).
> > 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. --
I would say if it includes an "omission contingency", it is clearly operant.
One thing I have learned from this discussion (I think courtesy of Paul
Brandon) is that the distinction between the two is not necessarily
found in the behavior of the organism but in how the behavior was
trained. If it involves contingency, it is operant. If the stimulus is
delivered without regard to the animal's response, it is classical.
If the animal's response has an impact on the delivery of the US, it is an
operant response. An operant response is one that has an effect on
the environment in such a way that it modifies the environment.
Bechterev originally thought he was studying classical conditioning with
his finger withdrawal paradigm (sound tone, deliver shock and
eventually the person lifts his finger before the shock). However, by
doing this the shock was avoided. Therefore, if this was a Pavlovian
response, it should have extinguished quickly because the CS (tone)
was being presented without the US (shock). Instead, people and
animals in such situations continue to make the response. (Which is
where the two-factor theory comes in.) Since the consequence is
contingent on the response, it is operant conditioning (the response is
operating on the environment to alter the consequences).
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."
