Help with understanding classical and operant conditioning

[Mike2519]

Hello,

I was watching one of those dog training programs on TV the other day and began thinking about one of the training techniques in terms of classical and operant conditioning.

The problem I�m having though is that the more I�m thinking about it the more it�s making me question my understanding of conditioning. I�m also a little confused by some examples in Peter Gray�s Psychology (5th edition).

The dog training method was thus;

The dog was skittish around other dogs and would bark and lunge at them when being walked. The trainer said that the background of the dog meant this was likely a genetic predisposition (I don�t know whether that was true) so extinction shouldn�t come into it.

The method of stopping this behaviour involved taking the dog for a walk, continually giving it treats when it behaved in a calm manner when around other dogs. When the dog barked the trainer would pull the dog back and walk in the opposite direction for a few steps.

So would this be best described as shaped operant conditioning with calm behaviour being the desired response, the treat being a positive reinforcement and the walking away a negative punishment?

The training also involved following other dogs whilst maintaining this reinforcement. Assuming that the dog is genetically predisposed to exhibit this behaviour my understanding is that this would be considered habituation but if this was a previously conditioned reflex then it would be the same process but considered extinction, yes?

With regards to Peter Gray�s Psychology, in the chapter on classical conditioning one of the examples confused me.

In the book there is a photo of a billboard that shows a sexy woman standing in front of the Budweiser logo. The caption reads �Conditioning young humans to love beer. The unconditioned stimulus is the happy, sexually suggestive scene. The conditioned stimulus is the Budweiser label.�

The problem I have with this is that the Budweiser label is presented simultaneously with the sexy scene and is not a predictor for the unconditioned response elicited by said scene. That being the case how does the neutral stimulus of the label become conditioned?


Also, to what extent can general human behaviour be described in terms of classical or operant conditioning? Just to avoid me wracking my brain when I can�t fit someone�s behaviour into either subset.

Cheers

Mike

[Mike2519]

No one? 

[SWM]

hello,

this forum can be slow at times, you asked a number of questions in the opening post. they are great questions and would make for great discussion.

i cant help though, sorry, the theory of behavioural psychology is lost on me. i do understand bits of it but i think you already understand more than i could explain.

 

[Karaten]

The dog was skittish around other dogs and would bark and lunge at them when being walked. The trainer said that the background of the dog meant this was likely a genetic predisposition (I don�t know whether that was true) so extinction shouldn�t come into it.

Most likely used to violent dogs, perhaps a lot of canine predators.

The method of stopping this behaviour involved taking the dog for a walk, continually giving it treats when it behaved in a calm manner when around other dogs. When the dog barked the trainer would pull the dog back and walk in the opposite direction for a few steps.

Sounds ate quite.

So would this be best described as shaped operant conditioning with calm behaviour being the desired response, the treat being a positive reinforcement and the walking away a negative punishment?

Ideally.

The training also involved following other dogs whilst maintaining this reinforcement. Assuming that the dog is genetically predisposed to exhibit this behaviour my understanding is that this would be considered habituation but if this was a previously conditioned reflex then it would be the same process but considered extinction, yes?

With regards to Peter Gray�s Psychology, in the chapter on classical conditioning one of the examples confused me.

In the book there is a photo of a billboard that shows a sexy woman standing in front of the Budweiser logo. The caption reads �Conditioning young humans to love beer. The unconditioned stimulus is the happy, sexually suggestive scene. The conditioned stimulus is the Budweiser label.�

The problem I have with this is that the Budweiser label is presented simultaneously with the sexy scene and is not a predictor for the unconditioned response elicited by said scene. That being the case how does the neutral stimulus of the label become conditioned?

In nature, we would need to have warnings to understand what's going to happen next. Now, since we couldn't sit down and analyze the situation, we simply had to go on instinct. The way we developed to do this was to associate a feeling with something that is commonly associated with a natural feeling of something else. For example, if we had a predator, who we knew was dangerous, then perhaps eventually we would become conditioned to feel the fear when we hear the predator growl, that would allow us to respond quicker then we would previously. Now, we couldn't associate the difference between what's actually coming from the creature and what's simply present each time we see the creature, thus, we develop a conditioning to feel the same response of fear each time we have a stimulus that associates with the predator.

Now, lets use the example with something a little more on subject. Consider a bra, of women's underwear. Underwear is not natural, therefore, it's not natural to be attracted to it, however, we conditioned to feel sexual arousal when we see it because associate it with intimacy and nudity and the eventual and the much more relevant act of sex. This is brought about by classical conditioning. The are ideally trying to get the same response with their beer.

Of course, this most likely doesn't work well, as beer is associated with many other things.

Also, to what extent can general human behaviour be described in terms of classical or operant conditioning? Just to avoid me wracking my brain when I can�t fit someone�s behaviour into either subset.

To put it simply, Operant conditioning is a response you usually control, that you are aware of, such as rules, while Classical Conditioning is an instinctive response.  For example, Classical Conditioning can be admiinistered without the knowledge of the animal or object receiving treatment, with the example of the billboard, where the person isn't aware that they are being conditioned.

Operant conditioning relies entirely on the understanding of the animal that what it's doing is bad. It relies on the animal observing a condition and relizing "No, this will have a negative response", thus, allowing the animal to avoid the condition.

Let me give you one more example using a common example and what aspects of it apply to which form of Conditioning:

Touching a stove, and learning that it's hot.

Here are a few things relevant to the situation:

-The stove is hot
-The heat hurts you
-Touching it causes you to feel pain


Now, the Classical Conditioning is exhibited in several forms:

1.Relating heat to the stove
2.Relating pain to the touch

Thus,

Relating pain to the stove

And...

Relating pain to heat.


The Operant Conditioning is exhibited here:

Understanding that when I touch the stove, I am hurt.

Thus, I should not touch the stove.

This is an active process of thought, in which the person identifies that it has learned not to touch the stove by feeling the pain of touching it.

This is really the best I can explain it without going too deeply into it.

[Mike2519]

Thanks for the reply,

I�m fine with operant conditioning I think, but when it comes to classical conditioning I understand the examples you give but my confusion comes from the degree to which the CS must precede the US and the UR/CR must be predicted by the CS. I know how conditioning occurs, the general hows and whys but I just can�t see how this Budweiser ad could constitute classical conditioning.

Peter Gray�s Psychology states that;

�The conditioned stimulus must precede the unconditioned stimulus.�

�The conditioned stimulus must signal heightened probability of occurrence of the unconditioned stimulus.�

�Conditioning is ineffective when the animal already has a good predictor.�

And that if these conditions are not met then conditioning will not take place.

I�m fine with that concept but then there are examples of classical conditioning where the US and CS do occur simultaneously or where the CS does not predict the US.

The Budweiser ad being one such example which seems to completely go against these three conditions.

Your examples fit with my current understanding, the CS of the growl precedes and predicts the US of the presence of the actual predator. Same with the bra, the bra is the CS which predicts the UC stimulus of the breasts which elicits the UR of sexual arousal.

BUT in the Bud example the presence of the word �Budweiser� doesn�t predict the US. Surely the word �Budweiser� is a redundant stimulus in this case. So how can it become a conditioned stimulus?

If it was the case that the eye was drawn to the word �Budweiser� first and then to the sexy woman, then I can see how it could become conditioned but in the example the text is behind the woman and the woman is the most prominent feature (in fact there are three women in the picture).

Or is it the case that simultaneous pairing of a neutral stimulus with US can make the NS a CS but this conditioning is weak and not guaranteed?