Type I Conditioning
Type S Conditioning
FocusAffecting reflexes and other involuntary behaviors by manipulating environmental stimuli
- Knowledge is … repertoire of behaviors
- Knowing is … behaving (triggered by stimuli)
- Learner is … an organism (individual-in-context)
- Learning is … changes in behavior (specifically: associating stimuli with reflexive responses)
- Teaching is … classical conditioning (training the subject to manifest a reflexive response when a stimulus is presented)
SynopsisClassical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning are two branches of Behaviorisms that are more properly understood as advice on teaching than as theories of learning. Both are concerned with manipulating and managing behaviors controlled by environmental stimuli, although they focus on different categories of behavior and employ different methods. Classical Conditioning is concerned with reflexive, nonvoluntary behaviors that are not under the learners’ control (e.g., salivation), and it deals with training learners to use neutral stimuli (e.g., a bell sound, versus the value-laden rewards and punishments within Operant Conditioning) to elicit those behaviors. The principal strategy is to present the stimulus when the target behavior occurs so that the learner forms an association between them. Such learned associations are instances of:
- S–S Learning (Stimulus–Stimulus Learning; Stimulus Substitution Theory) – when one stimulus comes to stand in for another (e.g., a bell standing in for food) in triggering a nonvoluntary behavior (e.g., salivation)
- Autonomic Learning – learning involving the modulation of nonconsious functions, such as heart rate. (Contrast with Visceral Learning, under Operant Conditioning.)
- Higher-Order Conditioning (Second-Order Conditioning) – when an already-conditioned stimulus (e.g., a bell triggering salivation) is used as the basis to condition a response from another stimulus (e.g., a hand motion with the bell)
- Irradiation Theory of Learning (Ivan Pavlov, 1890s) – a conjecture intended to serve as a neural basis for Classical Conditioning, positing that (i) a stimulus activates specific brain cells, (ii) such activation spreads among other cells (metaphorically, it irradiates), and (iii) an association happens when that spread overlaps with the spreading activation of another stimulus
CommentarySee Behavorisms for global critiques, especially as this theory relates to human learning. The main issue with Classical Conditioning, with regard to formal education, is that very few curriculum goals fall into the category of nonvoluntary responses. That said, Classical Conditioning has proven especially effective for treating post-traumatic stress disorder, various phobias, and other emotionally taxing conditions.
Authors and/or Prominent InfluencesIvan Pavlov; John B. Watson
Status as a Theory of LearningWithin the very limited scope of reflexive behaviors, Classical Conditioning is a theory of learning.
Status as a Theory of TeachingClassical Conditioning is a more appropriately regarded as a theory of teaching than a theory of learning. With its focus on manipulating behavior, Classical Conditioning falls among mechanistic conceptions of teaching associated with Correspondence Discourses of learning.
Status as a Scientific TheoryThe foci, processes, and interpretations of Classical Conditioning are clearly articulated and supported by a substantial body of uncontradicted evidence. However, Classical Conditioning falls well short of a theory that can inform activity in formal education, and so in our analysis is classified as limited theory.
- Autonomic Learning
- Higher-Order Conditioning (Second-Order Conditioning)
- Irradiation Theory of Learning
- S-S Learning (Stimulus–Stimulus Learning; Stimulus Substitution Theory)
Please cite this article as:
Davis, B., & Francis, K. (2021). “Classical Conditioning” in Discourses on Learning in Education. https://learningdiscourses.com.
⇦ Back to Map
⇦ Back to List