Classical conditioning was developed by Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, a Russian physiologist. Classical conditioning means the study of learning which involves reflex responses, in which a neutral stimulus comes to elicit and existing reflex response (Glassman & Hadad, 2009, p.116).
So as to understand the classical conditioning we have to examine its process more closely. The principles of classical conditioning, including: unconditioned stimulus and response, and conditioned stimulus and response. In the first stage, when giving a dog some food it will salivates in response to the food. Here, salivating at the presence of food (stimulus) is a basic neural reflex that requires no learning. An automatic response to a stimulus is called reflex, and reflex responses like these refer to unconditioned responses (UCR) (Miell et al., 2002, pp.170-171). For any reflex, there is some stimulus which will trigger the response, and thus the stimulus which elicits an UCR is called an unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In the second stage, when ringing a bell (a conditioned stimulus) without giving any food, the dog will not salivate; it might pick up its ears or moving its head. Thus, the conditioned stimulus (CS) alone cannot make the dog response; ringing the bell initially had no effect on salivation; it is a neutral stimulus (NS). In the third stage, when ringing the bell and giving some food together the dog will salivate. The response is not because of the sound of the bell but because of the food. Hence, the CS plus the UCS results in UCR. After ringing the bell together with the food several times, in the fourth stage, if ringing the bell alone, the dog will salivate without having to provide any food; the sound of the bell alone is adequate enough to make the dog salivate. Thus, it is called conditioned response (CR). Performing the US and UCS repeatedly will finally result in CR. The more the stage 3 is repeated, the stronger the stage 4 (Kvan, 2008, p. 33). Essentially the CS has become associated with the occurrence of food (Pavlov, 1927). This process is the basic foundation of the classical conditioning.
Based on the basic classical conditioning process, Pavlov (and later, others) began to explore some variations of the original situation. In this respect, the phenomena of classical conditioning, including: stimulus generalization and discrimination, extinction and spontaneous recovery, and higher order conditioning.
Whereas stimulus generalization means “the tendency to produce a CR to both the original CS and to stimuli which are similar to it in some way”, stimulus discrimination refers to “selective responding to CS, but not to stimuli which are similar in some way as a result of training”. In the dog case, if ringing another bell similar to the former bell the dog will salivate; a stimulus similar to the original CS tend to elicit the same CR; this is stimulus generalization. On the other hand, the dog will not salivate if flashing a light (a different stimulus); a stimulus different from the previous CS will not elicit a CR; this is stimulus discrimination. It is notable that stimulus discrimination always requires training—in the absence of such training, organisms tend to generalize. In classical conditioning, the cessation of responding when the CS is presented repeatedly without being paired with the UCS is termed as extinction and the reoccurrence of the CR when the CS is presented after some time is called spontaneous recovery. Here, if, repeatedly, ringing the bell without providing any food to the dog, the conditioned response (salivating) will become weaker and weaker, and eventually will cease altogether; this is extinction. However, if waiting several hours after extinguishing salivation to the bell, ringing the bell tends to elicit the conditioned response again. While the response was weaker than when originally learned, and could in turn be re-extinguished. This is spontaneous recovery. Higher order conditioning is a form of classical conditioning in which a previously established conditioned stimulus is used as if it were an unconditioned stimulus to create conditioning to a new stimulus. Regarding this, if, several times, flashing a light (CS2) before ringing the bell (CS1), finally the dog will response to the light alone. In this stage, no UCS is required; based on the CS1, later on the CS2 alone is sufficient for the CR to occur. This is higher order conditioning. (Glassman & Hadad, 2009, pp.119-124)
On all accounts, the principles of classical conditioning can be applied in a wide variety of learning areas of our lives, although they seem to have limitations. In terms of applying this theory Pavlov conducted some experiments. One experiment involved a small boy and a rabbit. Firstly, the rabbit was put next to him and he was reaching out to it. Then, when the experimenters struck a gong behind him he started to cry. Next day, he began to cry when the rabbit was placed close to him and no long gave attempt to touch it again. Thus, a fear reaction had been classically conditioned to the rabbit.
Furthermore, there many ways in which people apply classical conditioning in their lives. For example, pet trainers today mostly use classical conditioning to train animals. They use a small clicking device that they click while giving an animal a treat. That animal then associates the clicking sound with the treat, much like Pavlov’s dogs. In addition, one special and very powerful example of classical conditioning is taste aversion. Taste aversion is a case where an organism learns to have an aversion to the taste or smell or other characteristics of some food or drink (Magill & Northen, 1998, p. 654). For example, after consuming too much alcohol, it’s not unusual for someone to associate the smell or even sight of the alcohol with the sickness that resulted from consuming the alcohol. Another application of classical conditioning works with advertising. For example, many beer ads prominently feature attractive young women wearing bikinis. The young women naturally elicit a favorable, mildly aroused feeling in most men. The beer is simply associated with this effect.
In classical conditioning, the limitations are that all responses must involve a reflex; therefore what can be learnt is limited; so how do animals and humans learn things which are not associated with reflexes?. Besides, it is difficult to condition infants on their emotions, but there would be no point in using an adult because they will have already learnt which responses match which stimuli. In addition, Learning in humans may involve conditioning (good evidence comes from phobia acquisition) but it may not be valid to generalize the behaviour of non-human animals to humans.
In short, learning is a relatively permanent change in the probability of demonstrating a certain behavior resulting from some prior experiences and practices. Classical Conditioning is a type of learning in which a stimulus acquires the capacity to evoke a reflexive response that was originally evoked by a different stimulus. The phenomena of classical conditioning consist of: stimulus generalization and discrimination, extinction and spontaneous recovery, and higher order conditioning. While psychologists put classical conditioning into practical practice when conducting studies of human behaviour, we try to apply this theory in our daily lives such as training, advertising and taste aversion. Regardless of its creditable principles, there are limits in applying classical conditioning theory due to having difficulties in must-have reflexes, testing human beings, and generalizing the animal behaviour to human behaviour. Off all concerns, although classical conditioning is not a perfect theory, to some extent, it plays constructive role in observing human behaviour, (or perhaps, mind).
References:
D.C.Philips. (1998). Perspectives on Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Glassman, W. E., & Hadad, M. (2009). Approaches to Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Kvan, E. (2008). SS 101. Hong Kong: The Open University of Hong Kong.
Magill, & Northen, F. (1998). Psychology Basics. California: Salem Press.
Miell, P., & Thomas. (2002). Mappign Psychology 1. London: The Bath Press.
Mower, R. R., & B.Klein, S. (2000). The Transitive Nature of Contemporary Learning Theory. Chicago: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pierce, W., & D.Cheney, C. (2004). Behavior Analysis and Learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
R.Mowrer, B. (2000). Handbook of Contemporary Learning Theories. Chicago: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Robert, R., & B.Klein, S. (2000). The Transitive Nature of Contemporary Learning Theory. Chicago: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Psychology Learning Perspective (2010). Retrieved September 3, 2010, from
Behaviorism as a Theory of Personality (2001). Retrieved September 3, 2010 from