Operant and Respondent Conditioning

Operant and Respondent Conditioning

After a review of Unit 3 within the Applied Behavior Analysis text, I learned that an individual could learn through two different ways, operant and respondent conditioning. Operant conditioning, introduced by B. F. Skinner, is a method that rewards behavior, whether it is negative or positive. Operant conditioning plays a unique role in our everyday activities and learning and is evoked by stimuli and maintained by consequences (Cooper et al., 2007). Respondent conditioning, also known as classical conditioning, was first described by Ivan Pavlov, and it involves behavior that is occasioned by antecedent stimuli. This paper will focus on the similarities and differences between respondent and operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning involves any behavior whose future frequency is usually determined by the history of consequences. The behavior can be shaped through reinforcements that strengthen future behavior or punishments which decrease or weaken future behavior. The behavior is usually shaped through the consequences that immediately follow it, thereby strengthening or weakening that behavior. Operant conditioning involves changing the consequences so as to change the behavior in the future, and it usually has a three-term contingency. Operant behavior is voluntary and involves the active participation of the organism.

Respondent conditioning occurs when an initially neutral stimulus is partnered with an unconditioned stimulus; consequently, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus and produces a conditioned response (Cherry, 2020). Respondent behaviors/reflexes are elicited by stimuli in the environment. Respondent behavior involves a two-term contingency with a stimulus and response relation. The respondent behavior is usually involuntary or reflexive, and the involuntary responses take place when the eliciting stimulus is present. Some examples of respondent behaviors include shivering, sneezing, and eye blinking (Miltenberger, 2016). For instance, the stimulus could be dust in the eye or hot food in the mouth, and the response to these is blinking of the eye and spitting the food out, respectively.

Whereas certain reinforcements or punishments bring about operant behavior, reflexive behavior in respondent behavior is brought out by the stimuli that immediately precede it. According to Miltenberger (2016), operant conditioning entails the manipulation of consequences, whereas respondent behaviors involve the manipulation of antecedent stimuli. Respondent conditioning involves linking an involuntary response with a stimulus, whereas operant conditioning involves linking voluntary behavior with a consequence. Furthermore, respondent behavior involves a two-term contingency (stimulus and response), whereas operant behavior involves a three-term contingency (antecedent, behavior, and consequence). The antecedent stimulus and response elicited in respondent conditioning form a functional unit called a reflex. These are usually involuntary responses, taking place whenever the eliciting stimulus is available. Despite these differences, operant and respondent conditioning are similar in that they both involve making an association between events and behavior in the organism’s environment. Both of them can be used to explain behavior, and both take place following a certain stimulus that elicits or evokes behavior in respondent and operant conditioning, respectively.

In operant conditioning, an example is asking a child to do the dishes, and the child actually cleans the dishes, after which he gets candy. It is expected that when the child is asked to do the dishes once again, he will do it with the expectation of a reward. On the other hand, if the child is asked to do the dishes but refuses to do so and is punished as a result of that behavior, then in the future, when he is asked to do the dishes, there is the likelihood that he will do it so as to avoid the punishment associated with disobedience. I have often utilized operant conditioning working with my students in a school setting. Throughout the day, each student knows that if they follow directions and complete assignments in a timely manner, they will be rewarded, and failure to complete the assignments on time results in punishment. Rewards consist of moving their clip up or down on the behavior chart or, in some cases earning points based on each individual’s educational plan. By offering rewards, the students work harder, try to complete their assignments on time, and work hard at success.

An example of respondent conditioning is when a mother comes home, slams the door because apparently she had a bad day at work, and comes home and screams at her children for no apparent reason. Because of her behavior, the children have learned to expect that when she comes home and displays this behavior, their actions consist of becoming nervous; they tremble every time they hear the sound of a door slamming. Another example of respondent conditioning is when one is in a public area and hears a familiar ringtone or notification chime. Once one hears the tone, they instinctively reach out for their smartphone, only to discover that it is coming from another person’s phone. The tone or chime is a neutral stimulus, and through respondent conditioning, one links it with the positive feeling associated with reading a message.

Both operant and respondent conditioning are very important in behaviorism. The main difference between these two is in the way in which behavior is conditioned. Whereas in respondent conditioning, a neutral stimulus is usually paired with the conditioned response, the desired behavior is partnered with a consequence in operant conditioning. Furthermore, respondent conditioning involves involuntary or reflex responses, whereas operant conditioning involves voluntary responses.

References

Cherry, K. (June 4, 2020). Classical vs. Operant Conditioning. VeryWellMind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-vs-operant-conditioning-2794861#:~:text=Classical%20conditioning%20involves%20associating%20an,conditioning%20involves%20no%20such%20enticements.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis. Pearson.

Miltenberger, R.G. (2016). Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures. Cengage Learning.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Operant and Respondent Conditioning