Classical_Conditioning

Classical Conditioning Valerie L. Austin PSY/390 February 13, 2012 Dorothy Rodwell, LMFT Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning can be defined as the response observed after placing a neutral signal before a naturally occurring reflex. To understand classical conditioning, it is important to know more about the principals of the process. Once the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus are paired a number of times, with the conditioned stimulus always preceding the unconditioned stimulus, the conditioned stimulus can be presented alone and the organism will still respond with the same unconditioned response (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2009). Who Made Classical Conditioning Famous' The phenomenon of classical conditioning was discovered independently in the United States and Russia around the turn of the nineteenth century (Clark, 2004). While Edwin Twitmyer was making the discovery of classical conditioning working on his dissertation work on the “knee-jerk” reflex; when the patellar tendon is lightly tapped with a doctor’s hammer, the well known “knee-jerk” reflex is elicited (Clark, 2004). During the experiment, Twitmyer stated to his subjects that a bell would be struck a half second before the tendon was tapped, and this was a signal to the subject to verbalize or clench his or her fists. Twitmyer observed there were subjects that would automatically kick both legs after the bell was rung; even with little to no tap to the tendon following the bell. While Twitmyer was busy in the United States, Ivan Pavlov was busy in Russia working on his experiment made famous with his dog. Pavlov's classic experiment with dogs, the neutral signal was the sound of a tone and the naturally occurring reflex was salivating in response to food (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2009). While many psychologists refer to Pavlov’s dog experiment (using a bell and food), classical conditioning can be used to reach a desirable affect in any area of one’s life. Using Classical Conditioning The performances of retarded and normal children were compared in a simple instrumental conditioning situation under conditions of continuous and alternating partial reward (Johnson, 1966). Speed of response was used as a measure of learning, and a significant difference between speeds on reinforced and non reinforced trials was demonstrated for both normal’s and retardates (Johnson, 1966). Although speeds of those deemed retarded were significantly slower, there was no difference noted in the rate of acquisition. Both groups learned quickly to anticipate the reward schedule, and there was no difference in their rates of extinction (Johnson, 1966). A scenario chosen to apply the classical conditioning theory to is training an individual to maintain good behavior four out of five days during his or her work. In this scenario, Joe is an individual diagnosed with mild mental retardation. Joe does have some behavioral concerns with following directions, and staying on task for more than five minutes, and property destruction. Using classical conditioning with Joe was found to work best when he is given three levels in which to show how good or how bad his behavior for the week was. When Joe’s behavior is good (green; no targeted behaviors noted all day) or mostly good (yellow; showed one of the three behaviors), Joe would be allowed to maintain all his favorite electronic items (television, Xbox, IPod, etc.) in his room. When Joe did not have a good week, and had more bad (yellow or red) days, Joe would lose two of the three items for 48 hours. Joe would use color coded cards; RED, YELLOW, GREEN that would be placed on his bedroom door along with a calendar to show how many days were good versus how many days were bad. At the end of the week the days would be tallied and this would determine if all, some or none of his electronic items would remain in his room through the weekend. Joe learns through this scenario that in order to keep the items he enjoys on the weekend he needs to maintain green or yellow four days out of the week. JOE’S WEEKLY BEHAVIOR DATA (work days) Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | | 1Yellow | 2Green | 3Green | 4Yellow | 5Red | Good week | | 8Green | 9Green | 10Red | 11Red | 12Red | Bad Week | | 15Red | 16Yellow | 17Yellow | 18Green | 19Green | Good week | | 22Yellow | 23Red | 24Yellow | 25Green | 26Green | Good week | | 29 | 30 | | | | | Key to colors: GREEN = no targeted behaviors noted YELLOW = 2 or less targeted behaviors noted RED = 3 or more targeted behaviors noted By the tracking for the month, minus the last week which flows into the next month; Joe appears to have had only one bad week. This shows Joe is learning the more good days he has throughout the week the better the chances are he will maintain the electronic items he likes in his room for the weekend. This type of conditioning with developmentally disabled children and adults appears to work as he or she can coordinate bad and good with colors (green and yellow being the rewarding colors). Conclusion Whether using classical conditioning for experiments to determine the number of times a dog will salivate at the ringing of a bell (without food present) or the jerking of a knee when a bell is rung and the tendon is not touched; animal or human can be trained to respond to certain stimuli. Using classical conditioning to train a dog, a behavior, or a response is all in the delivery and suggestion to the subject. For those who do not understand complex discussion of consequences, there are props put in place to show the difference between good and bad. With classical conditioning any bad habit is able to be turned around, and positive results can be observed. References Clark, R. E. (2004). The classical origins of Pavlov's conditioning. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 39(4), 279-294. Retrieved from EBSCOhost February 10, 2012. Johnson, B.A. (1966). Reward schedules and instrumental conditioning in normal and retarded children. Child Development, 37(3), 633. Retrieved from EBSCOhost February 11, 2012. Olson, M.H. & Hergenhahn, B.R. (2009). An introduction to theories of learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Retrieved from student materials January 16, 2012.