At 10:58 AM -0400 7/30/01, Stephen Black wrote:
>> At 12:42 PM -0400 7/29/01, K. Kleissler wrote:
>
>> >I need some help in analyzing a situation as to operant vs. classical
>> >conditioning. The scenario is this: <snip>
>
>Paul Brandon replied:
>>
>> For this to be classically conditioned behavior, the conditioned response
>> would have to be similar to (but more stereotyped than) the original
>> response.
>
>I have to query this. There's no requirement that the response
>have any particular form to be considered a CR. But it is an
>interesting question to ask what that form is likely to be. I
>don't think similarity to the UR is the most promising choice.
>Instead, the CR usually (always?) has the form of a preparatory
>response. The CS says: "Here it comes!". The CR responds: "OK,
>I'm getting ready for it!".
I believe that _some_ varieties of learning theory treat it this way.
However, this makes it very difficult to discriminate between operant and
classical conditioning (I'm also aware that some theoretical approaches
downplay this distinction).
If we accept the assumption that classical (Pavlovian) conditioning begins
with an unconditioned reflex, then the process is one of shifting the
control of the response from the unconditional stimulus to the conditional
one. This is why classical conditioning is sometimes referred to as S-S
(stimulus-stimulus) conditioning, to distinguish it operant conditioning
which is an R-S (response-stimulus) relationship.
>An old demonstration of this is to place someone's hand, palm
>down on a shock pad, and condition a finger withdrawal response
>to a tone. After training, the subject is asked to turn his hand
>over. When the tone is sounded, the response is still a
>withdrawal, even though the actual finger movement is now a
>flexion rather than a contraction of the finger.
_Must_ be an old demo if it uses shock!
However, it is still an interesting case.
If the finger withdrawal terminates the shock then we have a case of
operant negative reinforcement (escape conditioning) superimposed on the
classical conditioning
This also demonstrates the difficulty of isolating a single conditioning
function in a realworld event. Usually _both_ operant and classical
conditioning are involved.
>Similarly, I
>believe that the conditioned response to an insulin injection is
>hyperglycemia, the opposite to the effect of the insulin itself,
>but certainly preparatory for it.
My physiology is a bit weak in this area, but again there is the
possibility that more than one internal reflex is occuring and being
conditioned.
>Kohn and Kalat (1992) have an amusing and instructive
>demonstration of this. They show that the CR to a threatened
>balloon-popping is not the flinch/jump evoked by the pop itself,
>but instead a preparatory tensing of the muscles.
>
>Kohn, A, & Kalat, J. (1992). Preparing for an important event:
> demonstrating the modern view of classical conditioning.
> Teaching of Psychology, 19, 100--
Again, a combination.
Did they rule out the possibility that the flinch/jump was also occuring,
but swamped by the negatively reinforced muscle tensing.
This would be an example of the therapeutic process of counterconditioning.
* 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 *
