Classical conditioning, also referred to as Pavlovian, is a fundamental form of associative learning in which an organism learns to connect or associate two stimuli that repeatedly occur together.
In this process, a previously neutral stimulus is paired with a stimulus that naturally elicits a specific response; eventually, the neutral stimulus comes to trigger that same response on its own.
Key Takeaways
- Three Stages: An unconditioned stimulus first triggers a reflex on its own. Pairing it repeatedly with a neutral stimulus lets that stimulus trigger the same response alone.
- Key Terms: UCS, UCR, CS and CR describe the unlearned and learned halves of the association. Extinction, generalisation and discrimination describe how a learned response can fade, spread or narrow.
- Pavlov’s Dogs: Ivan Pavlov’s original experiments paired a bell with food until the bell alone made dogs salivate.
- Real-World Reach: The same mechanism explains phobias, panic disorder, addiction cravings and even conditioned immune responses.
- Not Just Reflex: Later research shows conditioning depends on how well a stimulus predicts an outcome, not merely on how often the two are paired.
- Clinical Use: Systematic desensitisation and aversion therapy both apply conditioning principles to treat phobias and addictions.
- Modern Evidence: Anxiety disorders link less to fast fear learning and more to weak extinction of fear around safe cues.
John B. Watson proposed that the process of classical conditioning (based on Pavlov’s observations) was able to explain all aspects of human psychology.
Everything from speech to emotional responses was simply patterns of stimulus and response. Watson completely denied the existence of the mind or consciousness.
Watson believed that all individual differences in behavior were due to different learning experiences.
Watson (1924, p. 104) famously said:
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors.
How Classical Conditioning Works
There are three stages of classical conditioning. At each stage, the stimuli and responses are given special scientific terms:
Stage 1: Before Conditioning:
In this stage, the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) produces an unconditioned response (UCR) in an organism.
In basic terms, this means that a stimulus in the environment has produced a behavior/response that is unlearned (i.e., unconditioned) and, therefore, is a natural response that has not been taught.
In this respect, no new behavior has been learned yet.
For example, a stomach virus (UCS) would produce a response of nausea (UCR). In another example, a perfume (UCS) could create a response of happiness or desire (UCR).
This stage also involves another stimulus that has no effect on a person and is called the neutral stimulus (NS). The NS could be a person, object, place, etc.
The neutral stimulus in classical conditioning does not produce a response until it is paired with the unconditioned stimulus.
Stage 2: During Conditioning:
During this stage, a stimulus which produces no response (i.e., neutral) is associated with the unconditioned stimulus, at which point it now becomes known as the conditioned stimulus (CS).
For example, a stomach virus (UCS) might be associated with eating a certain food such as chocolate (CS). Also, perfume (UCS) might be associated with a specific person (CS).
For classical conditioning to be effective, the CS should occur before the UCS, not after it or at the same time.
Timing controls how strong the learning becomes.
In delayed, or forward, conditioning the CS begins before the UCS and stays on until the response appears. A half-second gap produces the strongest learning. Longer gaps make it weaker. This is the standard laboratory procedure.
Backward conditioning reverses this order. The CS follows the UCS instead of preceding it.
This produces very little learning in animals. It normally disappears quickly, although advertising still often uses it.
Simultaneous conditioning pairs the two stimuli together, as when a dentist’s drill sound accompanies contact with a tooth.
Trace conditioning presents the CS and removes it before the UCS begins, leaving only a memory trace. The resulting response is usually weaker.
Often, the UCS must be paired with the CS across several trials for learning to occur. One-trial learning can happen too, such as becoming sick after food poisoning or drinking too much alcohol.
Stage 3: After Conditioning:
The conditioned stimulus (CS) has been associated with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) to create a new conditioned response (CR).
For example, a person (CS) who has been associated with nice perfume (UCS) is now found attractive (CR). Also, chocolate (CS) which was eaten before a person was sick with a virus (UCS) now produces a response of nausea (CR).
Classical Conditioning Examples
Pavlov’s Dogs
The most famous demonstration of classical conditioning comes from Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with dogs.
Pavlov observed that dogs began salivating not just at the sight of food, but at stimuli that reliably preceded it, such as the sound of a bell.
In his procedure, he first presented a bell tone alone.
The dogs showed no salivation, making it a neutral stimulus.
When food was then presented, salivation occurred naturally: the food was the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and salivation the unconditioned response (UCR).
After repeatedly pairing the bell with food, the bell alone was sufficient to trigger salivation.
The bell had become a conditioned stimulus (CS) and salivation a conditioned response (CR), a learned reaction to a previously neutral cue.
Fear Response
Watson and Rayner (1920) were the first researchers to apply classical conditioning principles to human emotional responses, investigating how the process might explain the development of phobias.
Their subject, known as Little Albert, was an infant described as healthy and generally unemotional.
At nine months old, his reactions to various stimuli were assessed, including a white rat, burning newspapers, and a loud noise produced by striking a steel bar.
Only the noise provoked fear, making it the UCS, with fear as the UCR. The other stimuli, including the rat, were neutral.
At eleven months, the rat was paired with the loud noise on seven occasions over seven weeks.
By the end of this period, the rat alone elicited fear: it had become the CS and fear the CR.
Notably, the conditioned fear transferred spontaneously to similar stimuli, including a rabbit and a dog, demonstrating stimulus generalisation.
The conditioned response persisted five days after conditioning ended, remained detectable after ten days, and was still present a month later, illustrating the durability of conditioned fear responses.
Panic Disorder
Classical conditioning is thought to play a central role in the development of panic disorder (Bouton et al., 2001).
The disorder often begins with an initial panic attack, which functions as a UCS, producing intense fear and physiological arousal as unconditioned responses.
During this first attack, neutral stimuli in the environment become associated with the panic response. These include external cues, such as a particular location, and interoceptive cues, such as a racing heart.
These become conditioned stimuli capable of triggering anxiety and panic in their own right.
Through this conditioning process, anxiety becomes focused on the prospect of future attacks.
This anticipatory anxiety, itself a conditioned response, leads to heightened vigilance toward bodily sensations, which in turn lowers the threshold for panic.
The result is a self-reinforcing cycle that can entrench the disorder after a single conditioning episode.
Consistent with this account, most patients with panic disorder report a distinct early episode that preceded the onset of the condition. Prospective research confirms that conditioned anxiety can develop in the aftermath of an initial panic attack (Bouton et al., 2001).
Importantly, these conditioning processes are thought to operate largely outside conscious awareness, driven by emotional learning systems that function independently of declarative memory.
Addiction
Classical conditioning also underpins cue reactivity theory, which holds that people learn to associate environments and situations (such as a particular pub, social group, or time of day) with the rewarding effects of a substance.
Once established, these cues alone can trigger craving.
In the case of nicotine, the drug itself is the UCS, and the dopamine-mediated pleasure it produces is the UCR. Stimuli consistently present during smoking, initially neutral, become conditioned stimuli through repeated pairings.
They then elicit a conditioned response: craving and physiological arousal, even before the substance is consumed.
When nicotine is absent, dopamine levels drop and withdrawal symptoms emerge, increasing the likelihood of smoking in the presence of those conditioned cues.
This cycle helps explain both the persistence of addiction and the difficulty of quitting in familiar environments.
Supporting evidence comes from Carter and Tiffany (1999), who conducted a meta-analysis of 41 cue-reactivity studies across alcohol, cigarette, cocaine, and heroin dependence.
Dependent individuals consistently showed stronger physiological arousal and reported higher craving in response to drug-related cues compared to neutral stimuli.
Classroom Learning
Classical conditioning has implications for the classroom, particularly in shaping students’ emotional associations with learning.
While operant conditioning tends to have more direct instructional applications, teachers should be mindful that repeated negative experiences can condition aversive responses to school itself.
A student who is bullied may learn to associate the school environment with fear and anxiety.
Similarly, a student humiliated in front of the class during a particular subject may develop a lasting aversion to it. That aversion can persist long after the original incident.
In this way, what appears to be a fixed personal dislike may in fact reflect a conditioned emotional response established early in a student’s academic career.
The practical implication is straightforward: creating positive, low-anxiety learning environments is not merely good pastoral practice; it is a prerequisite for effective learning.
Principles of Classical Conditioning
Neutral Stimulus (NS)
A neutral stimulus is one that initially produces no conditioned response. It only begins to elicit a reaction after being repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus.
In Pavlov’s experiment, the bell was the neutral stimulus: before conditioning, it produced no salivation. It acquired significance only through its association with food.
Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS)
An unconditioned stimulus is any feature of the environment that automatically and reliably produces a response without prior learning.
No conditioning is required; the response is innate.
In Pavlov’s study, food served as the unconditioned stimulus, reliably triggering salivation the moment it was presented.
Unconditioned Response (UCR)
An unconditioned response is the natural, automatic reaction produced by an unconditioned stimulus. Like the stimulus that triggers it, the response requires no prior learning.
Pavlov demonstrated this by presenting a dog with food and measuring salivation, a reflexive biological response that occurred without any training.
Conditioned Stimulus (CS)
A conditioned stimulus is a previously neutral stimulus that, after repeated pairing with an unconditioned stimulus, comes to elicit a response on its own.
In Pavlov’s experiment, the bell became the conditioned stimulus: through its association with food, it eventually triggered salivation independently.
In essence, the organism has learned to treat one stimulus as a reliable signal for another.
Acquisition
Acquisition is the initial phase of classical conditioning during which the association between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus is established.
With each pairing, the neutral stimulus becomes increasingly effective at eliciting a response.
Acquisition is considered complete when the conditioned stimulus reliably produces the conditioned response.
Extinction
Extinction is the gradual weakening and eventual disappearance of a conditioned response when the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus.
Once the predictive relationship between the two stimuli is broken, the conditioned response loses its functional basis.
In Pavlov’s experiments, when the bell was sounded repeatedly without food following, the dog’s salivation progressively diminished until it ceased altogether.
Importantly, extinction does not erase the original learning; it reflects new learning that overrides it.
Spontaneous Recovery
Spontaneous recovery is the reappearance of an extinguished conditioned response after a period of rest, when the conditioned stimulus is presented again.
The recovered response is typically weaker than the original conditioned response and will extinguish again more rapidly if the unconditioned stimulus is not reintroduced.
Pavlov observed this when, after allowing time to pass following extinction, he rang the bell again and found that his dogs resumed salivating, albeit less strongly than before.
Spontaneous recovery demonstrates that extinction suppresses rather than permanently eliminates conditioned associations.
Generalization
Generalisation occurs when an organism responds to stimuli that are similar, but not identical, to the original conditioned stimulus.
The greater the similarity, the stronger the generalised response tends to be.
In Pavlov’s experiments, a dog conditioned to salivate at one bell tone might also salivate in response to a bell of a different pitch.
This reflects the organism applying its learned association broadly across related stimuli.
Discrimination
Discrimination is the complementary process to generalisation: the organism learns to distinguish between similar stimuli and responds only to those specifically associated with the unconditioned stimulus.
Through repeated exposure, Pavlov’s dogs learned to differentiate between two bells, salivating only at the one that had been paired with food and ignoring the other.
Discrimination training produces more precise, selective conditioned responses.
Higher-Order Conditioning
Higher-order conditioning occurs when an established conditioned stimulus is used to condition a new neutral stimulus, without any further involvement of the original unconditioned stimulus.
For example, once a bell (CS1) has been conditioned to elicit salivation through pairing with food, a light (NS) can then be paired with the bell alone.
In time, the light elicits salivation by itself, even though it was never directly paired with food.
Here, the original conditioned stimulus effectively functions as an unconditioned stimulus in the second stage of learning.
Higher-order conditioning demonstrates how conditioned associations can extend beyond direct experience, creating chains of learned responding.
Blocking
Merely pairing two stimuli is not always sufficient for learning.
Suppose an animal has already learned that a bell predicts a shock. Adding a light alongside the bell will not make the animal fear the light too. Presenting the light alone produces no conditioned response.
The light’s conditioning is “blocked” because the bell already predicts the shock in full, so the light carries no extra information (Kamin, 1969).
Blocking shows that pairing alone cannot explain learning: what matters is whether a stimulus is surprising, or unexpected, given what the organism already predicts.
The Rescorla-Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) formalises this idea. Each trial changes an association only in proportion to how far the outcome departs from what all the cues present already predict together.
As learning approaches its limit, this prediction error shrinks and each new pairing adds less, which is why acquisition curves level off. The same logic derives blocking directly, since a redundant cue added to one that already predicts the outcome in full produces zero prediction error.
Critical Evaluation
Strengths
Scientific credibility and experimental rigour
A foundational strength of classical conditioning is its scientific basis.
Pavlov rejected subjective introspection in favour of controlled experimentation and the direct measurement of behaviour. This helped transition psychology from a philosophical discipline into an empirical science.
The classical conditioning framework breaks behaviour down into discrete stimulus-response units, providing the experimental control necessary to establish causal relationships with precision.
This reductionist approach, while not without its critics, has the practical advantage of making complex behaviours testable and reproducible.
Phenomena such as acquisition, extinction, generalisation, and discrimination have all been demonstrated repeatedly across a wide range of species and laboratory settings. Human participants show the same effects in conditioned responses such as the eye-blink and galvanic skin response.
Supporters of reductionism argue that simplifying behaviour in this way is a prerequisite for rigorous science.
Critics, however, note that it can produce incomplete explanations when the full complexity of human behaviour is at stake.
Clinical Applications
One of the most significant strengths of classical conditioning is its translation into effective clinical therapies for mental health conditions.
Treating Phobias and Anxiety
Phobias and anxiety disorders are treated using the principle of extinction, extended into the technique of systematic desensitisation.
The patient is first taught deep relaxation, then constructs a hierarchy of feared stimuli from least to most threatening.
Working progressively through this hierarchy, the patient learns to associate each stimulus with relaxation rather than fear, a process known as counter-conditioning.
Because a person cannot be simultaneously relaxed and terrified (the principle of reciprocal inhibition), the conditioned fear response is effectively replaced.
Treating Addictions and Impulse Control Disorders
Addiction and impulse control disorders are addressed through aversion therapy, which pairs an addictive substance or behaviour with an unpleasant unconditioned stimulus, such as a drug that induces nausea or a mild electric shock.
Through repeated pairings, the previously rewarding stimulus becomes associated with discomfort, reducing the desire to engage with it.
A related technique, covert sensitisation, achieves a similar effect without physical intervention by asking patients to vividly imagine aversive imagery while thinking about the target behaviour.
Both approaches show increased effectiveness when combined with cognitive behavioural therapy or counselling.
Explaining involuntary behaviour
Classical conditioning offers a compelling account of reflexive, involuntary responses, including phobias, emotional reactions, and physiological changes. These are acquired through experience, not fixed as biological givens.
This explanatory reach extends to clinical disorders.
In post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) sufferers frequently exhibit strong conditioned responses to stimuli that were present during the traumatic event, such as sounds, smells, or locations (Bremner et al., 1993).
The conditioning framework accounts for why these responses are automatic and difficult to suppress voluntarily.
However, the model has limits here.
Since not everyone exposed to the same traumatic event develops PTSD, conditioning alone cannot be the full explanation.
Individual differences in how people appraise stressors, together with factors in the recovery environment such as social support and family stability, clearly moderate the outcome.
Broad explanatory power
Although classical conditioning was first identified through the study of animal digestion, its explanatory reach has proven remarkably wide.
It explains how complex human emotions form, including phobias, panic disorder, and everyday anxieties. These emotions can also generalise well beyond the original conditioned stimulus.
Its reach extends further still. Principles first found in the lab now inform language acquisition, moral and gender development, and interpersonal relationships, marking it as one of the foundational theories of human behaviour.
Psychoneuroimmunology
Perhaps the most striking finding to emerge from classical conditioning research is that immune responses themselves can be conditioned.
In these studies, a distinctively flavoured drink was repeatedly paired with an immunosuppressive drug. Animals eventually showed measurable immunosuppression to the flavoured drink alone, with no drug administered.
This demonstrates that classical conditioning is powerful enough to alter biological immune function, providing compelling evidence of a direct connection between psychological processes and physiological immunity.
Beyond its theoretical significance, this finding suggests genuine future potential for using conditioning-based protocols to modulate immune responses in medical treatment.
Weaknesses
Ignores biological predispositions
Classical conditioning traditionally assumed that any neutral stimulus could be paired with any unconditioned stimulus with equal ease, a principle sometimes called equipotentiality.
Research has shown this assumption to be false.
Seligman’s (1971) concept of biological preparedness holds that organisms are evolutionarily primed to acquire certain associations far more readily than others.
Humans and animals develop taste aversions.
For example, a single pairing of a novel food with illness can create a lasting aversion, even hours apart. Comparable conditioning to a sight or sound is far weaker.
Similarly, humans acquire fears of evolutionarily relevant stimuli, such as snakes or heights, with far fewer pairings than fears of neutral objects.
Classical conditioning does not apply uniformly across all stimuli or all species. Conditioning is shaped and constrained by an organism’s evolutionary history, a dimension the original theory did not incorporate.
Ignorance of cognition
Critics accuse the behaviourist approach of being mechanistic and viewing humans merely as machines responding to stimuli.
Traditional conditioning posited that learning is an automatic, unthinking process resulting merely from the repeated pairing of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (UCS).
However, cognitive psychologists argue that learning actually involves detecting and understanding the relationships between events.
This is supported by the blocking effect, which demonstrates that simply pairing a CS and a UCS is not sufficient for learning to occur.
The blocking effect (see above) demonstrates this directly: a stimulus that adds no new predictive information fails to condition, even with repeated pairing.
Human Awareness and Rule-Based Learning
The limitations of classical conditioning become more pronounced when applied to human adults.
Research indicates that conscious awareness plays a decisive role in human conditioning.
Participants simply told that the unconditioned stimulus will no longer occur show an immediate loss of the conditioned response. This bypasses the slow, gradual extinction process that traditional theory predicts (Davey, 1983).
Conversely, participants who remain unaware of the relationship between stimuli frequently fail to show conditioning at all (Brewer, 1974).
This contradicts classical models that posit two separate learning systems, one conscious and one unconscious, with conditioning operating through the latter independently of awareness (Lovibond & Shanks, 2002).
Notable differences also appear between young children, or those with severe learning difficulties, and older children and adults on conditioning and discrimination tasks. These differences appear largely attributable to language development (Dugdale & Lowe, 1990).
This suggests humans rely on more efficient, language-mediated, rule-based learning. Slow, repetitive stimulus-response formation cannot fully account for it.
Ethical Concerns
The principles of classical conditioning raise ethical concerns about manipulating behavior without consent. This is especially true in advertising and politics.
- Manipulation of preferences – Classical conditioning can create positive associations with certain brands, products, or political candidates. This can manipulate preferences outside of a person’s rational thought process.
- Encouraging impulsive behaviors – Conditioning techniques may encourage behaviors like impulsive shopping, unhealthy eating, or risky financial choices by forging positive associations with these behaviors.
- Preying on vulnerabilities – Advertisers or political campaigns may exploit conditioning techniques to target and influence vulnerable demographic groups like youth, seniors, or those with mental health conditions.
- Reduction of human agency – At an extreme, the use of classical conditioning techniques reduces human beings to automata reacting predictably to stimuli. This is ethically problematic.
Deterministic theory
A final criticism of classical conditioning theory is that it is deterministic.
This means it does not allow the individual any degree of free will. Accordingly, a person has no control over the reactions they have learned from classical conditioning, such as a phobia.
The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a science. Scientists are interested in discovering laws that can be used to predict events.
However, by creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their destiny.
Limitations in explaining phobias
Although the Little Albert study demonstrated that fear responses can be classically conditioned, the model struggles to provide a complete account of clinical phobias.
Persistence is a particular problem.
If a person repeatedly encounters a feared stimulus without experiencing the original unconditioned stimulus, the conditioned fear should extinguish.
Yet real phobias often persist for years without any reinforcement.
Operant conditioning, specifically the negative reinforcement provided by avoidance behaviour, is needed to explain why the phobia is maintained long after the original conditioning episode.
Cognitive factors present a further difficulty.
Classical conditioning offers a purely behavioural account and cannot explain the irrational beliefs, catastrophic thinking, and anticipatory anxiety that characterise anxiety disorders.
Fear is not simply a reflexive response to a conditioned stimulus; it is bound up with how the person interprets and evaluates the threat.
Contemporary Research
Aim. Duits et al. (2015) used meta-analysis to test whether anxiety patients differ from healthy controls in classical fear conditioning. They also asked whether this held across a fragmented research literature.
Method. The team pooled 44 differential fear-conditioning experiments, covering 963 anxious patients and 1,222 healthy controls. Each study paired one cue, the CS+, with shock, while a second cue, the CS−, signalled safety. The team compared both groups’ fear responses during acquisition and extinction.
The sample was unusually large for this field.
Results. Anxious patients did not simply acquire fear faster. Instead, they showed elevated fear to the safety cue during acquisition and slower, weaker extinction of fear to the danger cue afterwards.
Conclusion. Anxiety disorders are marked less by faster learning of danger. The bigger problem is a failure to restrain fear around safety signals, plus resistance to extinction. This locates the problem on conditioning’s inhibitory side, the same side behind the PTSD extinction-retention deficits described above.
That finding has since shaped how therapists design treatment.
Craske et al. (2014) turned this finding into a treatment principle. Exposure therapy works by building new inhibitory learning, not by erasing the original fear memory. It succeeds best when it maximises that learning: violating the patient’s fear expectancy, varying the extinction context, and removing safety behaviours.
A separate historical review complicates the discovery story itself. Logan (2002) shows that phenomena resembling classical conditioning were described before Pavlov. Pavlov’s real contribution, Logan argues, was a replicable experimental method for isolating the effect, not the discovery of the phenomenon itself.
The Role of Nature in Classical Conditioning
Behaviorists argue all learning is driven by experience, not nature. Classical conditioning exemplifies environmental influence.
However, our evolutionary history predisposes us to learn some associations more readily than others. So nature also plays a role.
Example 1
For example, PTSD develops in part due to strong conditioning during traumatic events.
The emotions experienced during trauma lead to neural activity in the amygdala, creating strong associative learning between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (Milad et al., 2009).
Individuals with PTSD show enhanced fear conditioning, reflected in greater amygdala reactivity to conditioned threat cues compared to trauma-exposed controls.
In addition to strong initial conditioning, PTSD patients exhibit slower extinction to conditioned fear stimuli.
During extinction recall tests, PTSD patients fail to show differential skin conductance responses to extinguished versus non-extinguished cues, indicating impaired retention of fear extinction.
Deficient extinction retention corresponds to reduced activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus and heightened dorsal anterior cingulate cortex response during extinction recall in PTSD patients.
Example 2
In influential research on food conditioning, John Garcia found that rats easily learned to associate a taste with nausea from drugs, even if illness occurred hours later.
However, conditioning nausea to a sight or sound was much harder (Garcia & Koelling, 1966).
This showed that conditioning does not occur equally for any stimulus pairing.
Rather, evolution prepares organisms to learn some associations that aid survival more easily, like linking smells to illness.
Example 3
The evolutionary significance of taste and nutrition ensures robust and resilient classical conditioning of flavor preferences, making them difficult to reverse (Hall, 2022).
Forming strong and lasting associations between flavors and nutrition aids survival by promoting the consumption of calorie-rich foods. This makes flavor conditioning very robust.
Repeated flavor-nutrition pairings in these studies lead to overlearning of the association, making it more resistant to extinction.
The learning is overtrained, context-specific, and subject to recovery effects that maintain the conditioned behavior despite extinction training.
Classical vs. Operant Conditioning
In summary, classical conditioning is about passive stimulus-response associations, while operant conditioning is about actively connecting behaviors to consequences. Classical works on reflexes and operant on voluntary actions.
- Stimuli vs consequences: Classical conditioning focuses on associating two stimuli together. For example, pairing a bell (neutral stimulus) with food (reflex-eliciting stimulus) creates a conditioned response of salivation to the bell. Operant conditioning is about connecting behaviors with the consequences that follow. If a behavior is reinforced, it will increase. If it’s punished, it will decrease.
- Passive vs. active: In classical conditioning, the organism is passive and automatically responds to the conditioned stimulus. Operant conditioning requires the organism to perform a behavior that then gets reinforced or punished actively. The organism operates on the environment.
- Involuntary vs. voluntary: Classical conditioning works with involuntary, reflexive responses like salivation, blinking, etc. Operant conditioning shapes voluntary behaviors that are controlled by the organism, like pressing a lever.
- Association vs. reinforcement: Classical conditioning relies on associating stimuli in order to create a conditioned response. Operant conditioning depends on using reinforcement and punishment to increase or decrease voluntary behaviors.
Learning Check
- In Ivan Pavlov’s famous experiment, he rang a bell before presenting food powder to dogs. Eventually, the dogs salivated at the mere sound of the bell. Identify the neutral stimulus, unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response in Pavlov’s experiment.
- A student loves going out for pizza and beer with friends on Fridays after class. Whenever one friend texts the group about Friday plans, the student immediately feels happy and excited. The friend starts texting the group on Thursdays when she wants the student to feel happier. Explain how this is an example of classical conditioning. Identify the UCS, UCR, CS, and CR.
- A college student is traumatized after a car accident. She now feels fear every time she gets into a car. How could extinction be used to eliminate this acquired fear?
- A professor always slams their book on the lectern right before giving a pop quiz. Students now feel anxiety whenever they hear the book slam. Is this classical conditioning? If so, identify the NS, UCS, UCR, CS, and CR.
- Contrast classical conditioning and operant conditioning. How are they similar and different? Provide an original example of each type of conditioning.
- How could the principles of classical conditioning be applied to help students overcome test anxiety?
- Explain how taste aversion learning is an adaptive form of classical conditioning. Provide an original example.
- What is second-order conditioning? Give an example and identify the stimuli and responses.
- What is the role of extinction in classical conditioning? How could extinction be used in cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders?
References
Bouton, M. E., Mineka, S., & Barlow, D. H. (2001). A modern learning theory perspective on the etiology of panic disorder. Psychological Review, 108(1), 4.
Bremner, J. D., Southwick, S. M., Johnson, D. R., Yehuda, R., & Charney, D. S. (1993). Childhood physical abuse and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans. The American journal of psychiatry.
Brewer, W. F. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult humans.
Carter, B. L., & Tiffany, S. T. (1999). Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research. Addiction, 94(3), 327-340.
Craske, M. G., Treanor, M., Conway, C. C., Zbozinek, T., & Vervliet, B. (2014). Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 58, 10-23.
Davey, G. C. L. (1983). An associative view of human classical conditioning. In G. C. L. Davey (Ed.), Animal models of human behaviour: Conceptual, evolutionary, and neurobiological perspectives. Wiley.
Dugdale, N., & Lowe, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence.
Duits, P., Cath, D. C., Lissek, S., Hox, J. J., Hamm, A. O., Engelhard, I. M., van den Hout, M. A., & Baas, J. M. P. (2015). Updated meta-analysis of classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders. Depression and Anxiety, 32(4), 239-253.
Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science, 122, 157–158.
Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4(1), 123–124.
Hall, G. (2022). Extinction of conditioned flavor preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behaviour (pp. 279-296). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Logan, C. A. (2002). When scientific knowledge becomes scientific discovery: The disappearance of classical conditioning before Pavlov. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 393-403.
Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28(1), 3.
Milad, M. R., Pitman, R. K., Ellis, C. B., Gold, A. L., Shin, L. M., Lasko, N. B.,…Rauch, S. L. (2009). Neurobiological basis of failure to recall extinction memory in posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 66(12), 1075–82.
Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1902). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2(3), 307-320.
Thanellou, A., & Green, J. T. (2011). Spontaneous recovery but not reinstatement of the extinguished conditioned eyeblink response in the rat. Behavioral Neuroscience, 125(4), 613.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist Views It. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.
Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company.
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 3(1), 1.
