The perception of classical conditioning was fundamentally composed by a physiologist
from Russia named Ivan Pavlov. According to this physiologist, the notion of classical
conditioning is a kind of learning which is primarily based upon the alliance of a stimulus.
It is a learning procedure which generally takes place through alliances between a
naturally happening stimulus and an ecological stimulus. It has been apparently observed
that the chief constituent present in classical conditioning is association. It implies that if
in excess of one stimulus is constantly experienced together then they would become
associated. For instance, if a particular student periodically meets with unlikable stimuli
particularly in his/her Science class which includes unfriendly teachers, large number of
homework and hard questions, the student might learn to dislike the subject of Science.
The idea of classical conditioning is regarded to be one of the best-known facets of the
theory of behavioural learning relating to the field of psychology. The theory of classical
conditioning which is hypothesized by Ivan Pavlov focused upon the fact that an
unconditioned stimulus will generally produce an unconditioned response. He discovered
this theory by conducting an experiment upon the dogs in order to measure the saliva that
the dogs produce when the food i.e. meat is given to them. While conducting the
experiment, Ivan Pavlov identified that the dogs were salivating prior to the food i.e.
meat was given to them. This type of response or reaction can be illustrated as the stage
of classical conditioning (The Learning Domain, n.d.).
The conception of operant conditioning was coined by an American inventor, psychologist
as well as author named B. F. Skinner in the year 1938. According to Skinner, the aspect of
operant conditioning is such a learning form in which the behaviour of any individual is
altered by consequences. The theory represents that when certain behaviour takes place
in a particular circumstance, it will follow a few consequences. The various facets of
operant conditioning are positive as well as negative reinforcement, extinction and
punishment. In this similar context, the feature of positive and negative reinforcement
reinforces a certain behaviour, whereas, the facets such as extinction and punishment
simply do the reverse one i.e. weakens a certain behaviour. The idea of operant
conditioning is also acknowledged as instrumental conditioning which acts as a process for
altering a behaviour. Skinner noticed that there lie different kinds of operant or responses
which can pursue as well as modify behaviours. The responses include neutral operants,
punishers and reinforcers. In this regard, the neutral operants are considered to be those
responses that neither enlarge nor diminish the probability of a behaviour while being
repetitive. The reinforcers are regarded to be those responses that enlarge the possibility
of a behaviour being repetitive. Conversely, the punishers are viewed to be those
responses that diminish the prospect of a behaviour being repetitive. Thus, on the basis of
the above discussion, it can be stated that the behaviour of the individuals can be
modified or changed by consequences (McLeod, 2007).
The vital distinction between classical conditioning and operant conditioning is that the
former establishes an association between more than one stimulus and the latter forms an
alliance between a behaviour and a consequence. The notion of classical conditioning
normally transacts with instinctive or reflexive responses which include emotional or
physiological responses. Conversely, the idea of operant conditioning generally deals with
certain voluntary behaviours which comprise active behaviours that work on the
environment. In the case of operant conditioning, reinforcers perform as incentives for
learning, whereas, classical conditioning does not offer any sort of incentives. The
supposition of operant conditioning depends upon the learner in order to take part
actively in the learning procedure as it emphasizes upon consequences and behaviour. In
contrast, classical conditioning does not depend upon the learner for the purpose of
actively participating in the learning procedure as it focuses upon the alliance between
the stimuli. The reinforcement in classical conditioning theory neutrally makes stronger
the conditional response. In contrary, the reinforcement in operant conditioning positively
or negatively strengthens the conditional response (Nicholas, 2009).
Classical conditioning generally considers the important facets like discrimination,
generalization, spontaneous recovery and extinction. Conversely, operant conditioning
normally considers the vital aspects which include positive as well as negative
reinforcement along with punishment. In the case of classical conditioning, an involuntary
response is usually being preceded by a stimulus, whereas, in operant conditioning, a
voluntary response is being pursued by a reinforcing stimulus. It has been apparently
observed that the feature of extinction occurs in the field of classical conditioning
because the conditioned stimulus (CS) is no longer accompanied by unconditioned stimulus
(US). In contrast, the facet of extinction happens in operant conditioning because the
behaviour of an individual is not being reinforced. It has been observed that operant
conditioning was instigated quite well before classical conditioning. Moreover, operant
conditioning is exercised in order to train the organisms for performing any specific act. In
contrast, classical conditioning is utilized in order to make the organisms to stop carrying
out any particular activity (Nicholas, 2009).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Classical Conditioning
The greatest strength of classical conditioning is that it is much more effectual in
comparison with operant conditioning. The other strength of classical conditioning is that
it has a positive impact upon research methodology as it draws deliberate attention to
observation as well as the measurement of behaviours. Additionally, the other strength of
classical conditioning is that it enables to reveal the significance of association which is
quite logical or sensible by demonstrating an experiment relating with the saliva of the
dogs. Pavlov experimented with the dogs by employing different stimuli such as meat or
bell in order to trigger the salivation response of the dogs. It has been viewed that the
therapists use the guiding principles of classical conditioning in order to alter behaviour
and also to address the difficulties arising from any fear or panic. Apart from the
strengths, there also lie certain weaknesses of classical conditioning theory. In this regard,
one of the weaknesses of this theory is that it is considered as a reductionist approach.
This is due to the reason of not learning all behaviours and the theory disregards the
cognitive factors. Another weakness of classical conditioning theory is that it deeply
realizes upon animal research and was somewhat unethical to test upon the animals i.e.
dogs in order to measure their saliva production (Weseley & McEntarffer, 2010).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Operant Conditioning
The key strength of operant conditioning is that the theory offers the educators with
uncomplicated as well as effectual tactics in order to teach them new behaviours and
skills proficiently and rapidly. Moreover, the theory of operant conditioning is much
helpful for teaching any sort of action sequences like driving a car and cleaning teeth
among others. Additionally, the theory emphasizes upon valuable factors like behaviours
and consequences which ultimately help to manage as well as to organize any kind of
undesirable behaviours. Apart from the major strengths, the theory of operant
conditioning also possesses certain crucial weaknesses. One of the imperative weaknesses
of the theory is that it ignores the contribution which is made by the cognition as well as
the cognitive skills to learning. The other important weakness of operant conditioning
theory is that it is viewed to be inadequate for demonstrating composite behavioural
forms like problem solving. Furthermore, it has been apparently observed that certain
concerns of operant conditioning theory fail to impose a positive impact upon long-term
development of an individuals’ behaviour (Weseley & McEntarffer, 2010).