Conditioning and Learning Noba.

pdf
Salvo no Dropbox • 1 de out de 2019 02=06

Browse Content / Conditioning and Learning

Conditioning and
Learning
By Mark E. Bouton
University of Vermont

Basic principles of learning are always

operating and always influencing human
behavior. This module discusses the two most
fundamental forms of learning -- classical
(Pavlovian) and instrumental (operant)
conditioning. Through them, we respectively
learn to associate 1) stimuli in the
environment, or 2) our own behaviors, with
significant events, such as rewards and
punishments. The two types of learning have
been intensively studied because they have
powerful effects on behavior, and because
they provide methods that allow scientists to
analyze learning processes rigorously. This
module describes some of the most
important things you need to know about
classical and instrumental conditioning, and it
illustrates some of the many ways they help
us understand normal and disordered
behavior in humans. The module concludes
by introducing the concept of observational
learning, which is a form of learning that is
largely distinct from classical and operant
conditioning.

# Share " Download

Tags:
Associative learning, Classical conditioning,
Instrumental learning, Learning theory,
Operant conditioning, Pavlovian learning

Learning Objectives

Distinguish between classical (Pavlovian)

conditioning and instrumental (operant)
conditioning.
 Understand some important facts about
each that tell us how they work.

Understand how they work separately and

together to influence human behavior in
the world outside the laboratory.

Students will be able to list the four aspects

of observational learning according to
Social Learning Theory.

Two Types of Conditioning

Although Ivan Pavlov won a Nobel Prize for

studying digestion, he is much more famous
for something else: working with a dog, a bell,
and a bowl of saliva. Many people are familiar
with the classic study of “Pavlov’s dog,” but
rarely do they understand the significance of
its discovery. In fact, Pavlov’s work helps
explain why some people get anxious just
looking at a crowded bus, why the sound of a
morning alarm is so hated, and even why we
swear off certain foods we’ve only tried once.
Classical (or Pavlovian) conditioning is one of
the fundamental ways we learn about the
world around us. But it is far more than just a
theory of learning; it is also arguably a theory
of identity. For, once you understand classical
conditioning, you’ll recognize that your
favorite music, clothes, even political
candidate, might all be a result of the same
process that makes a dog drool at the sound
of bell.

The Pavlov in All of Us: Does your dog learn to beg

for food because you reinforce her by feeding her
from the table? [Image: David Mease,
https://goo.gl/R9cQV7, CC BY-NC 2.0,
https://goo.gl/FIlc2e]

Around the turn of the 20th century, scientists

who were interested in understanding the
behavior of animals and humans began to
appreciate the importance of two very basic
forms of learning. One, which was first
studied by the Russian physiologist Ivan
Pavlov, is known as classical, or Pavlovian
conditioning. In his famous experiment,
Pavlov rang a bell and then gave a dog some
food. After repeating this pairing multiple
times, the dog eventually treated the bell as a
signal for food, and began salivating in
anticipation of the treat. This kind of result
has been reproduced in the lab using a wide
range of signals (e.g., tones, light, tastes,
settings) paired with many different events
besides food (e.g., drugs, shocks, illness; see
below).

We now believe that this same learning

process is engaged, for example, when
humans associate a drug they’ve taken with
the environment in which they’ve taken it;
when they associate a stimulus (e.g., a symbol
for vacation, like a big beach towel) with an
emotional event (like a burst of happiness);
and when they associate the flavor of a food
with getting food poisoning. Although classical
conditioning may seem “old” or “too simple” a
theory, it is still widely studied today for at
least two reasons: First, it is a straightforward
test of associative learning that can be used to
study other, more complex behaviors.
Second, because classical conditioning is
always occurring in our lives, its effects on
behavior have important implications for
understanding normal and disordered
behavior in humans.

In a general way, classical conditioning occurs

whenever neutral stimuli are associated with
psychologically significant events. With food
poisoning, for example, although having fish
for dinner may not normally be something to
be concerned about (i.e., a “neutral stimuli”), if
it causes you to get sick, you will now likely
associate that neutral stimuli (the fish) with
the psychologically significant event of getting
sick. These paired events are often described
using terms that can be applied to any
situation.

The dog food in Pavlov’s experiment is called

the unconditioned stimulus (US) because it
elicits an unconditioned response (UR). That
is, without any kind of “training” or “teaching,”
the stimulus produces a natural or instinctual
reaction. In Pavlov’s case, the food (US)
automatically makes the dog drool (UR). Other
examples of unconditioned stimuli include
loud noises (US) that startle us (UR), or a hot
shower (US) that produces pleasure (UR).

On the other hand, a conditioned stimulus

produces a conditioned response. A
conditioned stimulus (CS) is a signal that has
no importance to the organism until it is
paired with something that does have
importance. For example, in Pavlov’s
experiment, the bell is the conditioned
stimulus. Before the dog has learned to
associate the bell (CS) with the presence of
food (US), hearing the bell means nothing to
the dog. However, after multiple pairings of
the bell with the presentation of food, the dog
starts to drool at the sound of the bell. This
drooling in response to the bell is the
conditioned response (CR). Although it can
be confusing, the conditioned response is
almost always the same as the unconditioned
response. However, it is called the
conditioned response because it is conditional
on (or, depends on) being paired with the
conditioned stimulus (e.g., the bell). To help
make this clearer, consider becoming really
hungry when you see the logo for a fast food
restaurant. There’s a good chance you’ll start
salivating. Although it is the actual eating of
the food (US) that normally produces the
salivation (UR), simply seeing the restaurant’s
logo (CS) can trigger the same reaction (CR).

Another example you are probably very

familiar with involves your alarm clock. If
you’re like most people, waking up early
usually makes you unhappy. In this case,
waking up early (US) produces a natural
sensation of grumpiness (UR). Rather than
waking up early on your own, though, you
likely have an alarm clock that plays a tone to
wake you. Before setting your alarm to that
particular tone, let’s imagine you had neutral
feelings about it (i.e., the tone had no prior
meaning for you). However, now that you use
it to wake up every morning, you
psychologically “pair” that tone (CS) with your
feelings of grumpiness in the morning (UR).
After enough pairings, this tone (CS) will
automatically produce your natural response
of grumpiness (CR). Thus, this linkage
between the unconditioned stimulus (US;
waking up early) and the conditioned stimulus
(CS; the tone) is so strong that the
unconditioned response (UR; being grumpy)
will become a conditioned response (CR; e.g.,
hearing the tone at any point in the day—
whether waking up or walking down the
street—will make you grumpy). Modern
studies of classical conditioning use a very
wide range of CSs and USs and measure a
wide range of conditioned responses.
Receiving a reward can condition you toward certain
behaviors. For example, when you were a child, your
mother may have offered you this deal: "Don't make
a fuss when we're in the supermarket and you'll get
a treat on the way out." [Image: Oliver Hammond,
https://goo.gl/xFKiZL, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0,
https://goo.gl/Toc0ZF]

Although classical conditioning is a powerful

explanation for how we learn many different
things, there is a second form of conditioning
that also helps explain how we learn. First
studied by Edward Thorndike, and later
extended by B. F. Skinner, this second type of
conditioning is known as instrumental or
operant conditioning. Operant conditioning
occurs when a behavior (as opposed to a
stimulus) is associated with the occurrence of
a significant event. In the best-known
example, a rat in a laboratory learns to press
a lever in a cage (called a “Skinner box”) to
receive food. Because the rat has no “natural”
association between pressing a lever and
getting food, the rat has to learn this
connection. At first, the rat may simply
explore its cage, climbing on top of things,
burrowing under things, in search of food.
Eventually while poking around its cage, the
rat accidentally presses the lever, and a food
pellet drops in. This voluntary behavior is
called an operant behavior, because it
“operates” on the environment (i.e., it is an
action that the animal itself makes).

Now, once the rat recognizes that it receives a

piece of food every time it presses the lever,
the behavior of lever-pressing becomes
reinforced. That is, the food pellets serve as
reinforcers because they strengthen the rat’s
desire to engage with the environment in this
particular manner. In a parallel example,
imagine that you’re playing a street-racing
video game. As you drive through one city
course multiple times, you try a number of
different streets to get to the finish line. On
one of these trials, you discover a shortcut
that dramatically improves your overall time.
You have learned this new path through
operant conditioning. That is, by engaging
with your environment (operant responses),
you performed a sequence of behaviors that
that was positively reinforced (i.e., you found
the shortest distance to the finish line). And
now that you’ve learned how to drive this
course, you will perform that same sequence
of driving behaviors (just as the rat presses on
the lever) to receive your reward of a faster
finish.

Operant conditioning research studies how

the effects of a behavior influence the
probability that it will occur again. For
example, the effects of the rat’s lever-pressing
behavior (i.e., receiving a food pellet)
influences the probability that it will keep
pressing the lever. For, according to
Thorndike’s law of effect, when a behavior
has a positive (satisfying) effect or
consequence, it is likely to be repeated in the
future. However, when a behavior has a
negative (painful/annoying) consequence, it is
less likely to be repeated in the future. Effects
that increase behaviors are referred to as
reinforcers, and effects that decrease them
are referred to as punishers.

An everyday example that helps to illustrate

operant conditioning is striving for a good
grade in class—which could be considered a
reward for students (i.e., it produces a
positive emotional response). In order to get
that reward (similar to the rat learning to
press the lever), the student needs to modify
his/her behavior. For example, the student
may learn that speaking up in class gets
him/her participation points (a reinforcer), so
the student speaks up repeatedly. However,
the student also learns that s/he shouldn’t
speak up about just anything; talking about
topics unrelated to school actually costs
points. Therefore, through the student’s freely
chosen behaviors, s/he learns which
behaviors are reinforced and which are
punished.
An important distinction of operant
conditioning is that it provides a method for
studying how consequences influence
“voluntary” behavior. The rat’s decision to
press the lever is voluntary, in the sense that
the rat is free to make and repeat that
response whenever it wants. Classical
conditioning, on the other hand, is just the
opposite—depending instead on “involuntary”
behavior (e.g., the dog doesn’t choose to
drool; it just does). So, whereas the rat must
actively participate and perform some kind of
behavior to attain its reward, the dog in
Pavlov’s experiment is a passive participant.
One of the lessons of operant conditioning
research, then, is that voluntary behavior is
strongly influenced by its consequences.

[Image courtesy of Bernard W. Balleine]

The illustration above summarizes the basic
elements of classical and instrumental
conditioning. The two types of learning differ
in many ways. However, modern thinkers
often emphasize the fact that they differ—as
illustrated here—in what is learned. In
classical conditioning, the animal behaves as
if it has learned to associate a stimulus with a
significant event. In operant conditioning, the
animal behaves as if it has learned to
associate a behavior with a significant event.
Another difference is that the response in the
classical situation (e.g., salivation) is elicited by
a stimulus that comes before it, whereas the
response in the operant case is not elicited by
any particular stimulus. Instead, operant
responses are said to be emitted. The word
“emitted” further conveys the idea that
operant behaviors are essentially voluntary in
nature.

Understanding classical and operant

conditioning provides psychologists with
many tools for understanding learning and
behavior in the world outside the lab. This is
in part because the two types of learning
occur continuously throughout our lives. It
has been said that “much like the laws of
gravity, the laws of learning are always in
effect” (Spreat & Spreat, 1982).

Useful Things to Know about

Classical Conditioning

Classical Conditioning Has

Many Effects on Behavior

A classical CS (e.g., the bell) does not merely

elicit a simple, unitary reflex. Pavlov
emphasized salivation because that was the
only response he measured. But his bell
almost certainly elicited a whole system of
responses that functioned to get the
organism ready for the upcoming US (food)
(see Timberlake, 2001). For example, in
addition to salivation, CSs (such as the bell)
that signal that food is near also elicit the
secretion of gastric acid, pancreatic enzymes,
and insulin (which gets blood glucose into
cells). All of these responses prepare the body
for digestion. Additionally, the CS elicits
approach behavior and a state of excitement.
And presenting a CS for food can also cause
animals whose stomachs are full to eat more
food if it is available. In fact, food CSs are so
prevalent in modern society, humans are
likewise inclined to eat or feel hungry in
response to cues associated with food, such
as the sound of a bag of potato chips opening,
the sight of a well-known logo (e.g., Coca-
Cola), or the feel of the couch in front of the
television.

Classical conditioning is also involved in other

aspects of eating. Flavors associated with
certain nutrients (such as sugar or fat) can
become preferred without arousing any
awareness of the pairing. For example,
protein is a US that your body automatically
craves more of once you start to consume it
(UR): since proteins are highly concentrated in
meat, the flavor of meat becomes a CS (or
cue, that proteins are on the way), which
perpetuates the cycle of craving for yet more
meat (this automatic bodily reaction now a
CR).
In a similar way, flavors associated with
stomach pain or illness become avoided and
disliked. For example, a person who gets sick
after drinking too much tequila may acquire a
profound dislike of the taste and odor of
tequila—a phenomenon called taste aversion
conditioning. The fact that flavors are often
associated with so many consequences of
eating is important for animals (including rats
and humans) that are frequently exposed to
new foods. And it is clinically relevant. For
example, drugs used in chemotherapy often
make cancer patients sick. As a consequence,
patients often acquire aversions to foods
eaten just before treatment, or even
aversions to such things as the waiting room
of the chemotherapy clinic itself (see
Bernstein, 1991; Scalera & Bavieri, 2009).

Classical conditioning occurs with a variety of

significant events. If an experimenter sounds
a tone just before applying a mild shock to a
rat’s feet, the tone will elicit fear or anxiety
after one or two pairings. Similar fear
conditioning plays a role in creating many
anxiety disorders in humans, such as phobias
and panic disorders, where people associate
cues (such as closed spaces, or a shopping
mall) with panic or other emotional trauma
(see Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006). Here, rather
than a physical response (like drooling), the
CS triggers an emotion.

Another interesting effect of classical

conditioning can occur when we ingest drugs.
That is, when a drug is taken, it can be
associated with the cues that are present at
the same time (e.g., rooms, odors, drug
paraphernalia). In this regard, if someone
associates a particular smell with the
sensation induced by the drug, whenever that
person smells the same odor afterward, it
may cue responses (physical and/or
emotional) related to taking the drug itself.
But drug cues have an even more interesting
property: They elicit responses that often
“compensate” for the upcoming effect of the
drug (see Siegel, 1989). For example,
morphine itself suppresses pain; however, if
someone is used to taking morphine, a cue
that signals the “drug is coming soon” can
actually make the person more sensitive to
pain. Because the person knows a pain
suppressant will soon be administered, the
body becomes more sensitive, anticipating
that “the drug will soon take care of it.”
Remarkably, such conditioned compensatory
responses in turn decrease the impact of the
drug on the body—because the body has
become more sensitive to pain.

This conditioned compensatory response has

many implications. For instance, a drug user
will be most “tolerant” to the drug in the
presence of cues that have been associated
with it (because such cues elicit compensatory
responses). As a result, overdose is usually
not due to an increase in dosage, but to
taking the drug in a new place without the
familiar cues—which would have otherwise
allowed the user to tolerate the drug
(see Siegel, Hinson, Krank, & McCully, 1982).
Conditioned compensatory responses (which
include heightened pain sensitivity and
decreased body temperature, among others)
might also cause discomfort, thus motivating
the drug user to continue usage of the drug to
reduce them. This is one of several ways
classical conditioning might be a factor in
drug addiction and dependence.
A final effect of classical cues is that they
motivate ongoing operant behavior (see
Balleine, 2005). For example, if a rat has
learned via operant conditioning that pressing
a lever will give it a drug, in the presence of
cues that signal the “drug is coming soon” (like
the sound of the lever squeaking), the rat will
work harder to press the lever than if those
cues weren’t present (i.e., there is no
squeaking lever sound). Similarly, in the
presence of food-associated cues (e.g.,
smells), a rat (or an overeater) will work
harder for food. And finally, even in the
presence of negative cues (like something
that signals fear), a rat, a human, or any other
organism will work harder to avoid those
situations that might lead to trauma. Classical
CSs thus have many effects that can
contribute to significant behavioral
phenomena.

[Image courtesy of Bernard W. Balleine]

The Learning Process

As mentioned earlier, classical conditioning

provides a method for studying basic learning
processes. Somewhat counterintuitively,
though, studies show that pairing a CS and a
US together is not sufficient for an association
to be learned between them. Consider an
effect called blocking (see Kamin, 1969). In
this effect, an animal first learns to associate
one CS—call it stimulus A—with a US. In the
illustration above, the sound of a bell
(stimulus A) is paired with the presentation of
food. Once this association is learned, in a
second phase, a second stimulus—stimulus B
—is presented alongside stimulus A, such that
the two stimuli are paired with the US
together. In the illustration, a light is added
and turned on at the same time the bell is
rung. However, because the animal has
already learned the association between
stimulus A (the bell) and the food, the animal
doesn’t learn an association between stimulus
B (the light) and the food. That is, the
conditioned response only occurs during the
presentation of stimulus A, because the
earlier conditioning of A “blocks” the
conditioning of B when B is added to A. The
reason? Stimulus A already predicts the US, so
the US is not surprising when it occurs with
Stimulus B.

Learning depends on such a surprise, or a

discrepancy between what occurs on a
conditioning trial and what is already
predicted by cues that are present on the
trial. To learn something through classical
conditioning, there must first be some
prediction error, or the chance that a
conditioned stimulus won’t lead to the
expected outcome. With the example of the
bell and the light, because the bell always
leads to the reward of food, there’s no
“prediction error” that the addition of the light
helps to correct. However, if the researcher
suddenly requires that the bell and the light
both occur in order to receive the food, the
bell alone will produce a prediction error that
the animal has to learn.

Blocking and other related effects indicate

that the learning process tends to take in the
most valid predictors of significant events and
ignore the less useful ones. This is common in
the real world. For example, imagine that your
supermarket puts big star-shaped stickers on
products that are on sale. Quickly, you learn
that items with the big star-shaped stickers
are cheaper. However, imagine you go into a
similar supermarket that not only uses these
stickers, but also uses bright orange price tags
to denote a discount. Because of blocking (i.e.,
you already know that the star-shaped
stickers indicate a discount), you don’t have to
learn the color system, too. The star-shaped
stickers tell you everything you need to know
(i.e. there’s no prediction error for the
discount), and thus the color system is
irrelevant.

Classical conditioning is strongest if the CS

and US are intense or salient. It is also best if
the CS and US are relatively new and the
organism hasn’t been frequently exposed to
them before. And it is especially strong if the
organism’s biology has prepared it to
associate a particular CS and US. For example,
rats and humans are naturally inclined to
associate an illness with a flavor, rather than
with a light or tone. Because foods are most
commonly experienced by taste, if there is a
particular food that makes us ill, associating
the flavor (rather than the appearance—
which may be similar to other foods) with the
illness will more greatly ensure we avoid that
food in the future, and thus avoid getting sick.
This sorting tendency, which is set up by
evolution, is called preparedness.

There are many factors that affect the

strength of classical conditioning, and these
have been the subject of much research and
theory (see Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Pearce
& Bouton, 2001). Behavioral neuroscientists
have also used classical conditioning to
investigate many of the basic brain processes
that are involved in learning (see Fanselow &
Poulos, 2005; Thompson & Steinmetz, 2009).

Erasing Classical Learning

After conditioning, the response to the CS can

be eliminated if the CS is presented
repeatedly without the US. This effect is called
extinction, and the response is said to
become “extinguished.” For example, if Pavlov
kept ringing the bell but never gave the dog
any food afterward, eventually the dog’s CR
(drooling) would no longer happen when it
heard the CS (the bell), because the bell would
no longer be a predictor of food. Extinction is
important for many reasons. For one thing, it
is the basis for many therapies that clinical
psychologists use to eliminate maladaptive
and unwanted behaviors. Take the example of
a person who has a debilitating fear of
spiders: one approach might include
systematic exposure to spiders. Whereas,
initially the person has a CR (e.g., extreme
fear) every time s/he sees the CS (e.g., the
spider), after repeatedly being shown pictures
of spiders in neutral conditions, pretty soon
the CS no longer predicts the CR (i.e., the
person doesn’t have the fear reaction when
seeing spiders, having learned that spiders no
longer serve as a “cue” for that fear). Here,
repeated exposure to spiders without an
aversive consequence causes extinction.

Psychologists must accept one important fact

about extinction, however: it does not
necessarily destroy the original learning (see
Bouton, 2004). For example, imagine you
strongly associate the smell of chalkboards
with the agony of middle school detention.
Now imagine that, after years of encountering
chalkboards, the smell of them no longer
recalls the agony of detention (an example of
extinction). However, one day, after entering a
new building for the first time, you suddenly
catch a whiff of a chalkboard and WHAM!, the
agony of detention returns. This is called
spontaneous recovery: following a lapse in
exposure to the CS after extinction has
occurred, sometimes re-exposure to the CS
(e.g., the smell of chalkboards) can evoke the
CR again (e.g., the agony of detention).

Another related phenomenon is the renewal

effect: After extinction, if the CS is tested in a
new context, such as a different room or
location, the CR can also return. In the
chalkboard example, the action of entering a
new building—where you don’t expect to
smell chalkboards—suddenly renews the
sensations associated with detention. These
effects have been interpreted to suggest that
extinction inhibits rather than erases the
learned behavior, and this inhibition is mainly
expressed in the context in which it is learned
(see “context” in the Key Vocabulary section
below).

This does not mean that extinction is a bad

treatment for behavior disorders. Instead,
clinicians can increase its effectiveness by
using basic research on learning to help
defeat these relapse effects (see Craske et al.,
2008). For example, conducting extinction
therapies in contexts where patients might be
most vulnerable to relapsing (e.g., at work),
might be a good strategy for enhancing the
therapy’s success.

Useful Things to Know about

Instrumental Conditioning

Most of the things that affect the strength of

classical conditioning also affect the strength
of instrumental learning—whereby we learn
to associate our actions with their outcomes.
As noted earlier, the “bigger” the reinforcer (or
punisher), the stronger the learning. And, if an
instrumental behavior is no longer reinforced,
it will also be extinguished. Most of the rules
of associative learning that apply to classical
conditioning also apply to instrumental
learning, but other facts about instrumental
learning are also worth knowing.

Instrumental Responses
Come Under Stimulus Control

As you know, the classic operant response in

the laboratory is lever-pressing in rats,
reinforced by food. However, things can be
arranged so that lever-pressing only produces
pellets when a particular stimulus is present.
For example, lever-pressing can be reinforced
only when a light in the Skinner box is turned
on; when the light is off, no food is released
from lever-pressing. The rat soon learns to
discriminate between the light-on and light-
off conditions, and presses the lever only in
the presence of the light (responses in light-
off are extinguished). In everyday life, think
about waiting in the turn lane at a traffic light.
Although you know that green means go, only
when you have the green arrow do you turn.
In this regard, the operant behavior is now
said to be under stimulus control. And, as is
the case with the traffic light, in the real world,
stimulus control is probably the rule.

The stimulus controlling the operant response

is called a discriminative stimulus. It can be
associated directly with the response, or the
reinforcer (see below). However, it usually
does not elicit the response the way a
classical CS does. Instead, it is said to “set the
occasion for” the operant response. For
example, a canvas put in front of an artist
does not elicit painting behavior or compel
her to paint. It allows, or sets the occasion for,
painting to occur.

Stimulus-control techniques are widely used

in the laboratory to study perception and
other psychological processes in animals. For
example, the rat would not be able to
respond appropriately to light-on and light-off
conditions if it could not see the light.
Following this logic, experiments using
stimulus-control methods have tested how
well animals see colors, hear ultrasounds, and
detect magnetic fields. That is, researchers
pair these discriminative stimuli with those
they know the animals already understand
(such as pressing the lever). In this way, the
researchers can test if the animals can learn
to press the lever only when an ultrasound is
played, for example.

These methods can also be used to study

“higher” cognitive processes. For example,
pigeons can learn to peck at different buttons
in a Skinner box when pictures of flowers,
cars, chairs, or people are shown on a
miniature TV screen (see Wasserman, 1995).
Pecking button 1 (and no other) is reinforced
in the presence of a flower image, button 2 in
the presence of a chair image, and so on.
Pigeons can learn the discrimination readily,
and, under the right conditions, will even peck
the correct buttons associated with pictures
of new flowers, cars, chairs, and people they
have never seen before. The birds have
learned to categorize the sets of stimuli.
Stimulus-control methods can be used to
study how such categorization is learned.
Operant Conditioning
Involves Choice

Another thing to know about operant

conditioning is that the response always
requires choosing one behavior over others.
The student who goes to the bar on Thursday
night chooses to drink instead of staying at
home and studying. The rat chooses to press
the lever instead of sleeping or scratching its
ear in the back of the box. The alternative
behaviors are each associated with their own
reinforcers. And the tendency to perform a
particular action depends on both the
reinforcers earned for it and the reinforcers
earned for its alternatives.

To investigate this idea, choice has been

studied in the Skinner box by making two
levers available for the rat (or two buttons
available for the pigeon), each of which has its
own reinforcement or payoff rate. A thorough
study of choice in situations like this has led
to a rule called the quantitative law of effect
(see Herrnstein, 1970), which can be
understood without going into quantitative
detail: The law acknowledges the fact that the
effects of reinforcing one behavior depend
crucially on how much reinforcement is
earned for the behavior’s alternatives. For
example, if a pigeon learns that pecking one
light will reward two food pellets, whereas the
other light only rewards one, the pigeon will
only peck the first light. However, what
happens if the first light is more strenuous to
reach than the second one? Will the cost of
energy outweigh the bonus of food? Or will
the extra food be worth the work? In general,
a given reinforcer will be less reinforcing if
there are many alternative reinforcers in the
environment. For this reason, alcohol, sex, or
drugs may be less powerful reinforcers if the
person’s environment is full of other sources
of reinforcement, such as achievement at
work or love from family members.

Cognition in Instrumental
Learning

Modern research also indicates that

reinforcers do more than merely strengthen
or “stamp in” the behaviors they are a
consequence of, as was Thorndike’s original
view. Instead, animals learn about the specific
consequences of each behavior, and will
perform a behavior depending on how much
they currently want—or “value”—its
consequence.
[Image courtesy of Bernard W. Balleine]

This idea is best illustrated by a phenomenon

called the reinforcer devaluation effect (see
Colwill & Rescorla, 1986). A rat is first trained
to perform two instrumental actions (e.g.,
pressing a lever on the left, and on the right),
each paired with a different reinforcer (e.g., a
sweet sucrose solution, and a food pellet). At
the end of this training, the rat tends to press
both levers, alternating between the sucrose
solution and the food pellet. In a second
phase, one of the reinforcers (e.g., the
sucrose) is then separately paired with illness.
This conditions a taste aversion to the
sucrose. In a final test, the rat is returned to
the Skinner box and allowed to press either
lever freely. No reinforcers are presented
during this test (i.e., no sucrose or food comes
from pressing the levers), so behavior during
testing can only result from the rat’s memory
of what it has learned earlier. Importantly
here, the rat chooses not to perform the
response that once produced the reinforcer
that it now has an aversion to (e.g., it won’t
press the sucrose lever). This means that the
rat has learned and remembered the
reinforcer associated with each response, and
can combine that knowledge with the
knowledge that the reinforcer is now “bad.”
Reinforcers do not merely stamp in
responses; the animal learns much more than
that. The behavior is said to be “goal-
directed” (see Dickinson & Balleine, 1994),
because it is influenced by the current value
of its associated goal (i.e., how much the rat
wants/doesn’t want the reinforcer).

Things can get more complicated, however, if

the rat performs the instrumental actions
frequently and repeatedly. That is, if the rat
has spent many months learning the value of
pressing each of the levers, the act of pressing
them becomes automatic and routine. And
here, this once goal-directed action (i.e., the
rat pressing the lever for the goal of getting
sucrose/food) can become a habit. Thus, if a
rat spends many months performing the
lever-pressing behavior (turning such
behavior into a habit), even when sucrose is
again paired with illness, the rat will continue
to press that lever (see Holland, 2004). After
all the practice, the instrumental response
(pressing the lever) is no longer sensitive to
reinforcer devaluation. The rat continues to
respond automatically, regardless of the fact
that the sucrose from this lever makes it sick.

Habits are very common in human

experience, and can be useful. You do not
need to relearn each day how to make your
coffee in the morning or how to brush your
teeth. Instrumental behaviors can eventually
become habitual, letting us get the job done
while being free to think about other things.

Putting Classical and

Instrumental Conditioning
Together

Classical and operant conditioning are usually

studied separately. But outside of the
laboratory they almost always occur at the
same time. For example, a person who is
reinforced for drinking alcohol or eating
excessively learns these behaviors in the
presence of certain stimuli—a pub, a set of
friends, a restaurant, or possibly the couch in
front of the TV. These stimuli are also
available for association with the reinforcer. In
this way, classical and operant conditioning
are always intertwined.

The figure below summarizes this idea, and

helps review what we have discussed in this
module. Generally speaking, any reinforced or
punished operant response (R) is paired with
an outcome (O) in the presence of some
stimulus or set of stimuli (S).

The figure illustrates the types of associations

that can be learned in this very general
scenario. For one thing, the organism will
learn to associate the response and the
outcome (R – O). This is instrumental
conditioning. The learning process here is
probably similar to classical conditioning, with
all its emphasis on surprise and prediction
error. And, as we discussed while considering
the reinforcer devaluation effect, once R – O is
learned, the organism will be ready to
perform the response if the outcome is
desired or valued. The value of the reinforcer
can also be influenced by other reinforcers
earned for other behaviors in the situation.
These factors are at the heart of instrumental
learning.

Second, the organism can also learn to

associate the stimulus with the reinforcing
outcome (S – O). This is the classical
conditioning component, and as we have
seen, it can have many consequences on
behavior. For one thing, the stimulus will
come to evoke a system of responses that
help the organism prepare for the reinforcer
(not shown in the figure): The drinker may
undergo changes in body temperature; the
eater may salivate and have an increase in
insulin secretion. In addition, the stimulus will
evoke approach (if the outcome is positive) or
retreat (if the outcome is negative). Presenting
the stimulus will also prompt the instrumental
response.
The third association in the diagram is the
one between the stimulus and the response
(S – R). As discussed earlier, after a lot of
practice, the stimulus may begin to elicit the
response directly. This is habit learning,
whereby the response occurs relatively
automatically, without much mental
processing of the relation between the action
and the outcome and the outcome’s current
value.

The final link in the figure is between the

stimulus and the response-outcome
association [S – (R – O)]. More than just
entering into a simple association with the R
or the O, the stimulus can signal that the R –
O relationship is now in effect. This is what we
mean when we say that the stimulus can “set
the occasion” for the operant response: It sets
the occasion for the response-reinforcer
relationship. Through this mechanism, the
painter might begin to paint when given the
right tools and the opportunity enabled by the
canvas. The canvas theoretically signals that
the behavior of painting will now be
reinforced by positive consequences.

The figure provides a framework that you can

use to understand almost any learned
behavior you observe in yourself, your family,
or your friends. If you would like to
understand it more deeply, consider taking a
course on learning in the future, which will
give you a fuller appreciation of how classical
learning, instrumental learning, habit
learning, and occasion setting actually work
and interact.

Observational Learning

Not all forms of learning are accounted for

entirely by classical and operant conditioning.
Imagine a child walking up to a group of
children playing a game on the playground.
The game looks fun, but it is new and
unfamiliar. Rather than joining the game
immediately, the child opts to sit back and
watch the other children play a round or two.
Observing the others, the child takes note of
the ways in which they behave while playing
the game. By watching the behavior of the
other kids, the child can figure out the rules of
the game and even some strategies for doing
well at the game. This is called observational
learning.
Children observing a social model (an experienced
chess player) to learn the rules and strategies of the
game of chess. [Image: David R. Tribble,
https://goo.gl/nWsgxI, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://goo.gl/uhHola]

Observational learning is a component of

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
(Bandura, 1977), which posits that individuals
can learn novel responses via observation of
key others’ behaviors. Observational learning
does not necessarily require reinforcement,
but instead hinges on the presence of others,
referred to as social models. Social models
are typically of higher status or authority
compared to the observer, examples of which
include parents, teachers, and police officers.
In the example above, the children who
already know how to play the game could be
thought of as being authorities—and are
therefore social models—even though they
are the same age as the observer. By
observing how the social models behave, an
individual is able to learn how to act in a
certain situation. Other examples of
observational learning might include a child
learning to place her napkin in her lap by
watching her parents at the dinner table, or a
customer learning where to find the ketchup
and mustard after observing other customers
at a hot dog stand.

Bandura theorizes that the observational

learning process consists of four parts. The
first is attention—as, quite simply, one must
pay attention to what s/he is observing in
order to learn. The second part is retention: to
learn one must be able to retain the behavior
s/he is observing in memory.The third part of
observational learning, initiation,
acknowledges that the learner must be able
to execute (or initiate) the learned behavior.
Lastly, the observer must possess the
motivation to engage in observational
learning. In our vignette, the child must want
to learn how to play the game in order to
properly engage in observational learning.

Researchers have conducted countless

experiments designed to explore
observational learning, the most famous of
which is Albert Bandura’s “Bobo doll
experiment.”
Bobo [Image: © Sémhur / Wikimedia Commons / CC-
BY-SA-3.0 (or Free Art License),
https://goo.gl/uhHola]
In this experiment (Bandura, Ross & Ross
1961), Bandura had children individually
observe an adult social model interact with a
clown doll (“Bobo”). For one group of children,
the adult interacted aggressively with Bobo:
punching it, kicking it, throwing it, and even
hitting it in the face with a toy mallet. Another
group of children watched the adult interact
with other toys, displaying no aggression
toward Bobo. In both instances the adult left
and the children were allowed to interact with
Bobo on their own. Bandura found that
children exposed to the aggressive social
model were significantly more likely to behave
aggressively toward Bobo, hitting and kicking
him, compared to those exposed to the non-
aggressive model. The researchers concluded
that the children in the aggressive group used
their observations of the adult social model’s
behavior to determine that aggressive
behavior toward Bobo was acceptable.

While reinforcement was not required to elicit

the children’s behavior in Bandura’s first
experiment, it is important to acknowledge
that consequences do play a role within
observational learning. A future adaptation of
this study (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963)
demonstrated that children in the aggression
group showed less aggressive behavior if they
witnessed the adult model receive
punishment for aggressing against Bobo.
Bandura referred to this process as vicarious
reinforcement, as the children did not
experience the reinforcement or punishment
directly, yet were still influenced by observing
it.

Conclusion

We have covered three primary explanations

for how we learn to behave and interact with
the world around us. Considering your own
experiences, how well do these theories apply
to you? Maybe when reflecting on your
personal sense of fashion, you realize that
you tend to select clothes others have
complimented you on (operant conditioning).
Or maybe, thinking back on a new restaurant
you tried recently, you realize you chose it
because its commercials play happy music
(classical conditioning). Or maybe you are
now always on time with your assignments,
because you saw how others were punished
when they were late (observational learning).
Regardless of the activity, behavior, or
response, there’s a good chance your
“decision” to do it can be explained based on
one of the theories presented in this module.

Take a Quiz

Testing yourself regularly is one of the most

effective ways to strengthen your learning.
Frequent testing helps you identify what you
know and don’t know so you can allocate your
study time wisely. It also helps you retain
information in memory for longer periods of
time.

Below you’ll find a 20-item quiz covering the

main concepts found in this module. We
suggest you start by learning 10 items. When
the first session is complete you can either
learn the final 10 items in a new session,
review items from the first session, or return
later.
To begin the quiz, click the "Start Learning"
button. You can return to this quiz anytime to
refresh your knowledge.
Outside Resources

Article: Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian

conditioning: It’s not what you think it is.
American Psychologist, 43, 151–160.

Book: Bouton, M. E. (2007). Learning and

behavior: A contemporary synthesis.
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Book: Bouton, M. E. (2009). Learning theory. In

B. J. Sadock, V. A. Sadock, & P. Ruiz (Eds.),
Kaplan & Sadock’s comprehensive textbook of
psychiatry (9th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 647–658). New
York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Book: Domjan, M. (2010). The principles of

learning and behavior (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Video: Albert Bandura discusses the Bobo Doll

Experiment.
 Ocorreu um erro.

Tente assistir o vídeo em www.youtube.com, ou

ative o JavaScript caso ele esteja desativado em
seu navegador.

Discussion Questions

1. Describe three examples of Pavlovian

(classical) conditioning that you have seen
in your own behavior, or that of your
friends or family, in the past few days.

2. Describe three examples of instrumental

(operant) conditioning that you have seen
in your own behavior, or that of your
friends or family, in the past few days.

3. Drugs can be potent reinforcers. Discuss

how Pavlovian conditioning and
instrumental conditioning can work
together to influence drug taking.
4. In the modern world, processed foods are
highly available and have been engineered
to be highly palatable and reinforcing.
Discuss how Pavlovian and instrumental
conditioning can work together to explain
why people often eat too much.

5. How does blocking challenge the idea that

pairings of a CS and US are sufficient to
cause Pavlovian conditioning? What is
important in creating Pavlovian learning?

6. How does the reinforcer devaluation effect

challenge the idea that reinforcers merely
“stamp in” the operant response? What
does the effect tell us that animals actually
learn in operant conditioning?

7. With regards to social learning do you think

people learn violence from observing
violence in movies? Why or why not?

8. What do you think you have learned

through social learning? Who are your
social models?

Vocabulary
Blocking
In classical conditioning, the finding that no
conditioning occurs to a stimulus if it is
combined with a previously conditioned
stimulus during conditioning trials. Suggests
that information, surprise value, or prediction
error is important in conditioning.

Categorize
To sort or arrange different items into classes
or categories.

Classical conditioning
The procedure in which an initially neutral
stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, or CS) is
paired with an unconditioned stimulus (or
US). The result is that the conditioned
stimulus begins to elicit a conditioned
response (CR). Classical conditioning is
nowadays considered important as both a
behavioral phenomenon and as a method to
study simple associative learning. Same as
Pavlovian conditioning.

Conditioned compensatory response

In classical conditioning, a conditioned
response that opposes, rather than is the
same as, the unconditioned response. It
functions to reduce the strength of the
unconditioned response. Often seen in
conditioning when drugs are used as
unconditioned stimuli.

Conditioned response (CR)

The response that is elicited by the
conditioned stimulus after classical
conditioning has taken place.

Conditioned stimulus (CS)

An initially neutral stimulus (like a bell, light,
or tone) that elicits a conditioned response
after it has been associated with an
unconditioned stimulus.

Context
Stimuli that are in the background whenever
learning occurs. For instance, the Skinner box
or room in which learning takes place is the
classic example of a context. However,
“context” can also be provided by internal
stimuli, such as the sensory effects of drugs
(e.g., being under the influence of alcohol has
stimulus properties that provide a context)
and mood states (e.g., being happy or sad). It
can also be provided by a specific period in
time—the passage of time is sometimes said
to change the “temporal context.”

Discriminative stimulus
In operant conditioning, a stimulus that
signals whether the response will be
reinforced. It is said to “set the occasion” for
the operant response.

Extinction
Decrease in the strength of a learned
behavior that occurs when the conditioned
stimulus is presented without the
unconditioned stimulus (in classical
conditioning) or when the behavior is no
longer reinforced (in instrumental
conditioning). The term describes both the
procedure (the US or reinforcer is no longer
presented) as well as the result of the
procedure (the learned response declines).
Behaviors that have been reduced in strength
through extinction are said to be
“extinguished.”
Fear conditioning
A type of classical or Pavlovian conditioning in
which the conditioned stimulus (CS) is
associated with an aversive unconditioned
stimulus (US), such as a foot shock. As a
consequence of learning, the CS comes to
evoke fear. The phenomenon is thought to be
involved in the development of anxiety
disorders in humans.

Goal-directed behavior
Instrumental behavior that is influenced by
the animal’s knowledge of the association
between the behavior and its consequence
and the current value of the consequence.
Sensitive to the reinforcer devaluation effect.

Habit
Instrumental behavior that occurs
automatically in the presence of a stimulus
and is no longer influenced by the animal’s
knowledge of the value of the reinforcer.
Insensitive to the reinforcer devaluation
effect.

Instrumental conditioning
Process in which animals learn about the
relationship between their behaviors and
their consequences. Also known as operant
conditioning.

Law of effect
The idea that instrumental or operant
responses are influenced by their effects.
Responses that are followed by a pleasant
state of affairs will be strengthened and those
that are followed by discomfort will be
weakened. Nowadays, the term refers to the
idea that operant or instrumental behaviors
are lawfully controlled by their consequences.

Observational learning
Learning by observing the behavior of others.

Operant
A behavior that is controlled by its
consequences. The simplest example is the
rat’s lever-pressing, which is controlled by the
presentation of the reinforcer.

Operant conditioning
See instrumental conditioning.

Pavlovian conditioning
See classical conditioning.

Prediction error
When the outcome of a conditioning trial is
different from that which is predicted by the
conditioned stimuli that are present on the
trial (i.e., when the US is surprising).
Prediction error is necessary to create
Pavlovian conditioning (and associative
learning generally). As learning occurs over
repeated conditioning trials, the conditioned
stimulus increasingly predicts the
unconditioned stimulus, and prediction error
declines. Conditioning works to correct or
reduce prediction error.

Preparedness
The idea that an organism’s evolutionary
history can make it easy to learn a particular
association. Because of preparedness, you
are more likely to associate the taste of
tequila, and not the circumstances
surrounding drinking it, with getting sick.
Similarly, humans are more likely to associate
images of spiders and snakes than flowers
and mushrooms with aversive outcomes like
shocks.
Punisher
A stimulus that decreases the strength of an
operant behavior when it is made a
consequence of the behavior.

Quantitative law of effect

A mathematical rule that states that the
effectiveness of a reinforcer at strengthening
an operant response depends on the amount
of reinforcement earned for all alternative
behaviors. A reinforcer is less effective if there
is a lot of reinforcement in the environment
for other behaviors.

Reinforcer
Any consequence of a behavior that
strengthens the behavior or increases the
likelihood that it will be performed it again.

Reinforcer devaluation effect

The finding that an animal will stop
performing an instrumental response that
once led to a reinforcer if the reinforcer is
separately made aversive or undesirable.

Renewal effect
Recovery of an extinguished response that
occurs when the context is changed after
extinction. Especially strong when the change
of context involves return to the context in
which conditioning originally occurred. Can
occur after extinction in either classical or
instrumental conditioning.

Social Learning Theory

The theory that people can learn new
responses and behaviors by observing the
behavior of others.

Social models
Authorities that are the targets for
observation and who model behaviors.

Spontaneous recovery
Recovery of an extinguished response that
occurs with the passage of time after
extinction. Can occur after extinction in either
classical or instrumental conditioning.

Stimulus control
When an operant behavior is controlled by a
stimulus that precedes it.
Taste aversion learning
The phenomenon in which a taste is paired
with sickness, and this causes the organism to
reject—and dislike—that taste in the future.

Unconditioned response (UR)

In classical conditioning, an innate response
that is elicited by a stimulus before (or in the
absence of) conditioning.

Unconditioned stimulus (US)

In classical conditioning, the stimulus that
elicits the response before conditioning
occurs.

Vicarious reinforcement
Learning that occurs by observing the
reinforcement or punishment of another
person.

References

Balleine, B. W. (2005). Neural basis of

food-seeking: Affect, arousal, and
reward in corticostratolimbic circuits.
 Physiology & Behavior, 86, 717–730.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Bandura, A., Ross, D., Ross, S (1963).

Imitation of film-mediated aggressive
models. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 66(1), 3 - 11.

Bandura, A.; Ross, D.; Ross, S. A. (1961).

"Transmission of aggression through
the imitation of aggressive models".
Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 63(3), 575–582.

Bernstein, I. L. (1991). Aversion

conditioning in response to cancer
and cancer treatment. Clinical
Psychology Review, 11, 185–191.

Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and

behavioral processes in extinction.
Learning & Memory, 11, 485–494.

Colwill, R. M., & Rescorla, R. A. (1986).

Associative structures in instrumental
learning. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation,
(Vol. 20, pp. 55–104). New York, NY:
 Academic Press.

Craske, M. G., Kircanski, K., Zelikowsky, M.,

Mystkowski, J., Chowdhury, N., &
Baker, A. (2008). Optimizing inhibitory
learning during exposure therapy.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 5–
27.

Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. W. (1994).

Motivational control of goal-directed
behavior. Animal Learning & Behavior,
22, 1–18.

Fanselow, M. S., & Poulos, A. M. (2005).

The neuroscience of mammalian
associative learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 207–234.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of

effect. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.

Holland, P. C. (2004). Relations between

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer and
reinforcer devaluation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal
Behavior Processes, 30, 104–117.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise,
attention, and conditioning. In B. A.
Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),
Punishment and aversive behavior (pp.
279–296). New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.

Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A

contemporary learning theory
perspective on the etiology of anxiety
disorders: It’s not what you thought it
was. American Psychologist, 61, 10–26.

Pearce, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (2001).

Theories of associative learning in
animals. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 111–139.

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). New
York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Scalera, G., & Bavieri, M. (2009). Role of

conditioned taste aversion on the side
 effects of chemotherapy in cancer
patients. In S. Reilly & T. R.
Schachtman (Eds.), Conditioned taste
aversion: Behavioral and neural
processes (pp. 513–541). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Siegel, S. (1989). Pharmacological

conditioning and drug effects. In A. J.
Goudie & M. Emmett-Oglesby (Eds.),
Psychoactive drugs (pp. 115–180).
Clifton, NY: Humana Press.

Siegel, S., Hinson, R. E., Krank, M. D., &

McCully, J. (1982). Heroin “overdose”
death: Contribution of drug
associated environmental cues.
Science, 216, 436–437.

Spreat, S., & Spreat, S. R. (1982). Learning

principles. In V. Voith & P. L. Borchelt
(Eds.), Veterinary clinics of North
America: Small animal practice (pp.
593–606). Philadelphia, PA: W. B.
Saunders.

Thompson, R. F., & Steinmetz, J. E. (2009).

The role of the cerebellum in classical
conditioningof discrete behavioral
 responses. Neuroscience, 162, 732–
755.

Timberlake, W. L. (2001). Motivational

modes in behavior systems. In R. R.
Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook
of contemporary learning theories (pp.
155–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wasserman, E. A. (1995). The conceptual

abilities of pigeons. American Scientist,
83, 246–255.

Authors

Mark E. Bouton
Mark E. Bouton is the
Lawson Professor of
Psychology at the
University of
Vermont. His
research on learning
and extinction is
internationally
known. He is a Fellow
 of several scientific
organizations,
including APA, APS,
and the Society of
Experimental
Psychologists. He was
recently awarded the
Gantt Medal from the
Pavlovian Society.

Creative Commons License

Conditioning and Learning by Mark E. Bouton is

licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License. Permissions beyond the scope of this
license may be available in our Licensing Agreement.

How to cite this Noba module

using APA Style
Bouton, M. E. (2019). Conditioning and
learning. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds),
Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign,
IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from
http://noba.to/ajxhcqdr

SECTIONS

Abstract

Learning Objectives

Two Types of Conditioning

Useful Things to Know about Classical Co…

Classical Conditioning Has Many Effects on Be…

The Learning Process

Erasing Classical Learning

Useful Things to Know about Instrumenta…

Instrumental Responses Come Under Stimulu…

Operant Conditioning Involves Choice

Cognition in Instrumental Learning

 Putting Classical and Instrumental Conditi…

Observational Learning

Conclusion

Take a Quiz

Outside Resources

Discussion Questions

Vocabulary

References

Authors

Creative Commons License

How To Cite Using APA

About Privacy Terms Licensing Contact

© 2019 Diener Education Fund