Using Neutral Sttimulu Evidence To Support Classical Conditioning

1179 Words5 Pages

Learning is a process by which we can acquire knowledge through study and sensory experience. Behaviourist methods such as classical conditioning (Pavlov, 1927) and instrumental conditioning (Thorndike, 1905) suggest how we learn, and do so with varying levels of effectiveness. It is important to establish which influential form of conditioning is more effective, when it comes to explaining learning. The theory of classical conditioning explains the principles of learning via association. Two opposing stimuli can be associated together, to produce a new learned response in both animals and in humans. Discovered by Pavlov (1927), classical conditioning starts with an association between an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) such as food, and a neutral stimulus (NS) such as a tone or light. A neutral stimulus does not bring about a response, in contrast with an unconditioned stimulus, which results in an unconditioned response (UCR). However, when paired together over time, the neutral …show more content…

The aim of his study was to see if it was possible for an animal (dog) to learn a conditioned response to a neutral stimulus (bowl of food). This study was carried out by associating a tone from a bell (Neutral stimulus), with a bowl of food (unconditioned stimulus), to induce salivation (unconditioned response). As a result, Pavlov managed to successfully produce a conditioned response of salivation in response to a neutral stimulus (bell). This study suggests that classical conditioning is effective at explaining learning as the dog could learn a conditioned response to a neutral stimulus. Although this study effectively demonstrates learning, it can also be criticised for extrapolation. It is hard to generalise findings from an animal to a human, who may have behaved differently in this circumstance. Thus, suggesting classical conditioning might not be as effective at explaining