Know The Differences Between Classical And Open

Know The Differences Between Classical And Ope

Know the differences between classical and operant conditioning. Understand positive and negative reinforcement, as well as positive and negative punishment. Understand primary and generalized/conditioned/secondary reinforcers (these are all the same thing). Understand Skinner’s biography. Know about reinforcement schedules and continuous, variable, fixed, and intermittent types. Know how Skinner views internal processes, and what he considers internal processes. Understand what Skinner believed shaped human behavior. Know what Skinner thought about punishment. Understand extinction. Know what Skinner’s approach is called. Know what Skinner thought about freedom. Be prepared for scenarios where you must identify terms and processes. Know what Bandura felt about depression and its causes. Understand collective efficacy and proxy agency. Understand what happens when the model is punished. Know what Bandura means by human agency. Know and understand the components of self-regulation. Understand what contributes to self-efficacy. Know the disengagement techniques well enough to identify them in scenarios. Understand the Triadic Reciprocal Causation Theory. Know how Bandura explains deviant behavior. Know about Bandura’s systematic desensitization. Understand efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Know about chance encounters and fortuitous events. Understand how vicarious learning is affected by the model. Know how Skinner’s theory and Bandura’s theory are similar and different.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Know The Differences Between Classical And Ope

The fundamental differences between classical and operant conditioning, two pivotal concepts in behavioral psychology, lie in their mechanisms of learning and the roles of stimuli and responses. Classical conditioning, pioneered by Ivan Pavlov, involves the association of a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to produce a conditioned response. This process primarily concerns involuntary, reflexive responses. For example, Pavlov’s dogs learned to salivate upon hearing a bell after the bell was repeatedly paired with food. The focus is on how stimuli can evoke automatic responses without active behavior on the part of the organism.

In contrast, operant conditioning, developed by B.F. Skinner, emphasizes voluntary behavior and the consequences that follow it. It involves reinforcement and punishment to increase or decrease the likelihood of a behavior. In operant conditioning, behaviors are strengthened through reinforcement—whether positive (adding a pleasant stimulus) or negative (removing an unpleasant stimulus)—or weakened through punishment—positive (adding an unpleasant stimulus) or negative (removing a pleasant stimulus). For instance, a student might study harder (behavior) to receive praise (positive reinforcement) or avoid a reprimand (negative reinforcement).

Understanding Reinforcement and Punishment

Reinforcements, both primary (biologically necessary like food or water) and secondary (conditioned or learned, like money or praise), serve to increase the likelihood of a behavior. Skinner expanded the understanding of reinforcement schedules, including continuous reinforcement (every response is reinforced), and intermittent schedules, such as fixed and variable ratio or interval reinforcement, which lead to different learning and extinction patterns.

Punishment aims to decrease undesirable behaviors. Positive punishment adds an unpleasant stimulus (e.g., a spanking for misbehavior), whereas negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus (e.g., taking away toys). Skinner believed punishment was less effective than reinforcement for shaping behavior, especially long-term behavior change.

Skinner’s Perspective on Internal Processes and Human Behavior

Skinner regarded internal processes such as thoughts and feelings as irrelevant to understanding human behavior. He believed that behavior is shaped by environmental contingencies, not internal mental states. His approach, radical behaviorism, advocates for studying observable behavior objectively and dismisses internal mental states as causes rather than simply correlates of behavior.

Reinforcement Schedules and the Concept of Extinction

Reinforcement schedules greatly influence behavior persistence. Fixed schedules provide reinforcement at predictable intervals, while variable schedules provide reinforcement unpredictably. Extinction occurs when reinforcement is withdrawn, and the behavior diminishes over time. Skinner argued that consistent reinforcement maintains behavior, and understanding schedules aids in designing effective behavioral interventions.

Skinner’s Views on Freedom and Human Agency

Skinner viewed human behavior as a product of environmental influences, with limited role for free will. He believed that behavior could be predicted and controlled through understanding reinforcements and punishments, challenging traditional notions of personal freedom. Nonetheless, Skinner emphasized the potential for shaping behavior through environmental modifications, supporting a form of behavioral determinism.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Its Key Concepts

Albert Bandura, contrasting Skinner’s approach, emphasized observational learning, or modeling, as a primary mechanism of acquiring new behaviors. He proposed that individuals can learn through vicarious experiences—observing others’ consequences—and foster a sense of collective efficacy, which reflects belief in a group’s ability to achieve goals. When models are punished, observers may refrain from similar behaviors; when reinforced, they are more likely to imitate.

Bandura’s concept of human agency underscores that individuals are proactive agents capable of influencing their environment and goals. Self-regulation involves components such as self-monitoring, goal setting, and self-evaluation, enabling individuals to control their behavior consciously.

Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation

Self-efficacy, a core element of Bandura’s theory, refers to an individual’s belief in their capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific outcomes. Various factors enhance self-efficacy, including mastery experiences, social modeling, and verbal persuasion. Disengagement techniques like moral justification and displacement of responsibility serve as mechanisms to reduce personal accountability for harmful behaviors.

Triadic Reciprocal Causation and Deviant Behavior

Bandura’s Triadic Reciprocal Causation emphasizes the dynamic interplay among personal factors, environmental influences, and behaviors. Deviant behavior, in this framework, results from complex interactions between these elements, highlighting the importance of self-efficacy and observational learning in understanding maladaptive behaviors.

Desensitization, Efficacy Expectations, and Vicarious Learning

Systematic desensitization, a therapeutic technique developed by Bandura, involves reducing fear responses through gradual exposure paired with relaxation. Efficacy expectations (belief in one’s ability) and outcome expectations (belief that certain behaviors will lead to specific outcomes) influence motivation and learning. Vicarious learning—learning through observing models—is affected by the model’s characteristics, including perceived similarity and credibility.

Comparison of Skinner and Bandura

While both theorists acknowledge environmental influences on behavior, Skinner focused on observable stimulus-response relationships, advocating a strictly behavioral perspective. Bandura incorporated cognitive processes, emphasizing internal thoughts and beliefs as integral to learning. Both recognize reinforcement’s role but differ in their views of internal causality, with Bandura asserting that cognition mediates between environment and behavior.

References

• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
• McLeod, J. (2018). Classical and operant conditioning. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
• Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Human Learning. Pearson Education.
• Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding Behaviorism. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Kazdin, A. E. (2017). Behavior Modification in Applied Settings. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Reeve, J. (2018). Self-efficacy. In K. R. Boucher & L. F. Black (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (pp. 2329–2331). Sage Publications.
• Miscevic, M. (2014). Learning theories: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism. https://educationaltechnology.net/learning-theories-behaviorism-cognitivism-constructivism/
• Latham, G. P. & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.