pavlov and skinner experiments

Classical Conditioning: How It Works With Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is learning through association and was discovered by Pavlov , a Russian physiologist. In simple terms, two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response in a person or animal.

John B. Watson proposed that the process of classical conditioning (based on Pavlov’s observations) was able to explain all aspects of human psychology.

If you pair a neutral stimulus (NS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that already triggers an unconditioned response (UR) that neutral stimulus will become a conditioned stimulus (CS), triggering a conditioned response (CR) similar to the original unconditioned response.

Everything from speech to emotional responses was simply patterns of stimulus and response. Watson completely denied the existence of the mind or consciousness. Watson believed that all individual differences in behavior were due to different learning experiences.

Watson (1924, p. 104) famously said:

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors.

How Classical Conditioning Works

There are three stages of classical conditioning. At each stage, the stimuli and responses are given special scientific terms:

Stage 1: Before Conditioning:

In this stage, the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) produces an unconditioned response (UCR) in an organism.

In basic terms, this means that a stimulus in the environment has produced a behavior/response that is unlearned (i.e., unconditioned) and, therefore, is a natural response that has not been taught. In this respect, no new behavior has been learned yet.

For example, a stomach virus (UCS) would produce a response of nausea (UCR). In another example, a perfume (UCS) could create a response of happiness or desire (UCR).

This stage also involves another stimulus that has no effect on a person and is called the neutral stimulus (NS). The NS could be a person, object, place, etc.

The neutral stimulus in classical conditioning does not produce a response until it is paired with the unconditioned stimulus.

Stage 2: During Conditioning:

During this stage, a stimulus which produces no response (i.e., neutral) is associated with the unconditioned stimulus, at which point it now becomes known as the conditioned stimulus (CS).

For example, a stomach virus (UCS) might be associated with eating a certain food such as chocolate (CS). Also, perfume (UCS) might be associated with a specific person (CS).

For classical conditioning to be effective, the conditioned stimulus should occur before the unconditioned stimulus, rather than after it, or during the same time. Thus, the conditioned stimulus acts as a type of signal or cue for the unconditioned stimulus.

In some cases, conditioning may take place if the NS occurs after the UCS (backward conditioning), but this normally disappears quite quickly. The most important aspect of the conditioning stimulus is the it helps the organism predict the coming of the unconditional stimulus.

Often during this stage, the UCS must be associated with the CS on a number of occasions, or trials, for learning to take place.

However, one trial learning can happen on certain occasions when it is not necessary for an association to be strengthened over time (such as being sick after food poisoning or drinking too much alcohol).

Stage 3: After Conditioning:

The conditioned stimulus (CS) has been associated with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) to create a new conditioned response (CR).

For example, a person (CS) who has been associated with nice perfume (UCS) is now found attractive (CR). Also, chocolate (CS) which was eaten before a person was sick with a virus (UCS) now produces a response of nausea (CR).

Classical Conditioning Examples

Pavlov’s dogs.

The most famous example of classical conditioning was Ivan Pavlov’s experiment with dogs , who salivated in response to a bell tone. Pavlov showed that when a bell was sounded each time the dog was fed, the dog learned to associate the sound with the presentation of the food.

He first presented the dogs with the sound of a bell; they did not salivate so this was a neutral stimulus. Then he presented them with food, they salivated. The food was an unconditioned stimulus, and salivation was an unconditioned (innate) response.

He then repeatedly presented the dogs with the sound of the bell first and then the food (pairing) after a few repetitions, the dogs salivated when they heard the sound of the bell. The bell had become the conditioned stimulus and salivation had become the conditioned response.

Fear Response

Watson & Rayner (1920) were the first psychologists to apply the principles of classical conditioning to human behavior by looking at how this learning process may explain the development of phobias.

They did this in what is now considered to be one of the most ethically dubious experiments ever conducted – the case of Little Albert . Albert B.’s mother was a wet nurse in a children’s hospital. Albert was described as ‘healthy from birth’ and ‘on the whole stolid and unemotional’.

When he was about nine months old, his reactions to various stimuli (including a white rat, burning newspapers, and a hammer striking a four-foot steel bar just behind his head) were tested.

Only the last of these frightened him, so this was designated the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and fear the unconditioned response (UCR). The other stimuli were neutral because they did not produce fear.

When Albert was just over eleven months old, the rat and the UCS were presented together: as Albert reached out to stroke the animal, Watson struck the bar behind his head.

This occurred seven times in total over the next seven weeks. By this time, the rat, the conditioned stimulus (CS), on its own frightened Albert, and fear was now a conditioned response (CR).

The CR transferred spontaneously to the rabbit, the dog, and other stimuli that had been previously neutral. Five days after conditioning, the CR produced by the rat persisted. After ten days, it was ‘much less marked’, but it was still evident a month later.

Carter and Tiffany (1999) support the cue reactivity theory, they carried out a meta-analysis reviewing 41 cue-reactivity studies that compared responses of alcoholics, cigarette smokers, cocaine addicts and heroin addicts to drug-related versus neutral stimuli.

They found that dependent individuals reacted strongly to the cues presented and reported craving and physiological arousal.

Panic Disorder

Classical conditioning is thought to play an important role in the development of Pavlov (Bouton et al., 2002).

Panic disorder often begins after an initial “conditioning episode” involving an early panic attack. The panic attack serves as an unconditioned stimulus (US) that gets paired with neutral stimuli (conditioned stimuli or CS), allowing those stimuli to later trigger anxiety and panic reactions (conditioned responses or CRs).

The panic attack US can become associated with interoceptive cues (like increased heart rate) as well as external situational cues that are present during the attack. This allows those cues to later elicit anxiety and possibly panic (CRs).

Through this conditioning process, anxiety becomes focused on the possibility of having another panic attack. This anticipatory anxiety (a CR) is seen as a key step in the development of panic disorder, as it leads to heightened vigilance and sensitivity to bodily cues that can trigger future attacks.

The presence of conditioned anxiety can serve to potentiate or exacerbate future panic attacks. Anxiety cues essentially lower the threshold for panic. This helps explain how panic disorder can spiral after the initial conditioning episode.

Evidence suggests most patients with panic disorder recall an initial panic attack or conditioning event that preceded the disorder. Prospective studies also show conditioned anxiety and panic reactions can develop after an initial panic episode.

Classical conditioning processes are believed to often occur outside of conscious awareness in panic disorder, reflecting the operation of emotional neural systems separate from declarative knowledge systems.

Cue reactivity is the theory that people associate situations (e.g., meeting with friends)/ places (e.g., pub) with the rewarding effects of nicotine, and these cues can trigger a feeling of craving (Carter & Tiffany, 1999).

These factors become smoking-related cues. Prolonged use of nicotine creates an association between these factors and smoking based on classical conditioning.

Nicotine is the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and the pleasure caused by the sudden increase in dopamine levels is the unconditioned response (UCR). Following this increase, the brain tries to lower the dopamine back to a normal level.

The stimuli that have become associated with nicotine were neutral stimuli (NS) before “learning” took place but they became conditioned stimuli (CS), with repeated pairings. They can produce the conditioned response (CR).

However, if the brain has not received nicotine, the levels of dopamine drop, and the individual experiences withdrawal symptoms therefore is more likely to feel the need to smoke in the presence of the cues that have become associated with the use of nicotine.

Classroom Learning

The implications of classical conditioning in the classroom are less important than those of operant conditioning , but there is still a need for teachers to try to make sure that students associate positive emotional experiences with learning.

If a student associates negative emotional experiences with school, then this can obviously have bad results, such as creating a school phobia.

For example, if a student is bullied at school they may learn to associate the school with fear. It could also explain why some students show a particular dislike of certain subjects that continue throughout their academic career. This could happen if a student is humiliated or punished in class by a teacher.

Principles of Classical Conditioning

Neutral stimulus.

In classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus (NS) is a stimulus that initially does not evoke a response until it is paired with the unconditioned stimulus.

For example, in Pavlov’s experiment, the bell was the neutral stimulus, and only produced a response when paired with food.

Unconditioned Stimulus

Unconditioned response.

In classical conditioning, an unconditioned response is an innate response that occurs automatically when the unconditioned stimulus is presented.

Pavlov showed the existence of the unconditioned response by presenting a dog with a bowl of food and measuring its salivary secretions.

Conditioned Stimulus

Conditioned response.

In classical conditioning, the conditioned response (CR) is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus.

In Ivan Pavlov’s experiments in classical conditioning, the dog’s salivation was the conditioned response to the sound of a bell.

Acquisition

The process of pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to produce a conditioned response.

In the initial learning period, acquisition describes when an organism learns to connect a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus.

In psychology, extinction refers to the gradual weakening of a conditioned response by breaking the association between the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli.

The weakening of a conditioned response occurs when the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus.

For example, when the bell repeatedly rang, and no food was presented, Pavlov’s dog gradually stopped salivating at the sound of the bell.

Spontaneous Recovery

Spontaneous recovery is a phenomenon of Pavlovian conditioning that refers to the return of a conditioned response (in a weaker form) after a period of time following extinction.

It is the reappearance of an extinguished conditioned response after a rest period when the conditioned stimulus is presented alone.

For example, when Pavlov waited a few days after extinguishing the conditioned response, and then rang the bell once more, the dog salivated again.

Generalization

In psychology, generalization is the tendency to respond in the same way to stimuli similar (but not identical) to the original conditioned stimulus.

For example, in Pavlov’s experiment, if a dog is conditioned to salivate to the sound of a bell, it may later salivate to a higher-pitched bell.

Discrimination

In classical conditioning, discrimination is a process through which individuals learn to differentiate among similar stimuli and respond appropriately to each one.

For example, eventually, Pavlov’s dog learns the difference between the sound of the 2 bells and no longer salivates at the sound of the non-food bell.

Higher-Order Conditioning

Higher-order conditioning is when a conditioned stimulus is paired with a new neutral stimulus to create a second conditioned stimulus. For example, a bell (CS1) is paired with food (UCS) so that the bell elicits salivation (CR). Then, a light (NS) is paired with the bell.

Eventually, the light alone will elicit salivation, even without the presence of food. This demonstrates higher-order conditioning, where the conditioned stimulus (bell) serves as an unconditioned stimulus to condition a new stimulus (light).

Critical Evaluation

Practical applications.

The principles of classical conditioning have been widely and effectively applied in fields like behavioral therapy, education, and advertising. Therapies like systematic desensitization use classical conditioning to help eliminate phobias and anxiety.

The behaviorist approach has been used in the treatment of phobias, and systematic desensitization . The individual with the phobia is taught relaxation techniques and then makes a hierarchy of fear from the least frightening to the most frightening features of the phobic object.

He then is presented with the stimuli in that order and learns to associate (classical conditioning) the stimuli with a relaxation response. This is counter-conditioning.

Explaining involuntary behaviors

Classical conditioning helps explain some reflexive or involuntary behaviors like phobias, emotional reactions, and physiological responses. The model shows how these can be acquired through experience.

The process of classical conditioning can probably account for aspects of certain other mental disorders. For example, in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sufferers tend to show classically conditioned responses to stimuli present at the time of the traumatizing event (Charney et al., 1993).

However, since not everyone exposed to the traumatic event develops PTSD, other factors must be involved, such as individual differences in people’s appraisal of events as stressors and the recovery environment, such as family and support groups.

Supported by substantial experimental evidence

There is a wealth of experimental support for basic phenomena like acquisition, extinction, generalization, and discrimination. Pavlov’s original experiments on dogs and subsequent studies have demonstrated classical conditioning in animals and humans.

There have been many laboratory demonstrations of human participants acquiring behavior through classical conditioning. It is relatively easy to classically condition and extinguish conditioned responses, such as the eye-blink and galvanic skin responses.

A strength of classical conditioning theory is that it is scientific . This is because it’s based on empirical evidence carried out by controlled experiments . For example, Pavlov (1902) showed how classical conditioning could be used to make a dog salivate to the sound of a bell.

Supporters of a reductionist approach say that it is scientific. Breaking complicated behaviors down into small parts means that they can be scientifically tested. However, some would argue that the reductionist view lacks validity . Thus, while reductionism is useful, it can lead to incomplete explanations.

Ignores biological predispositions

Organisms are biologically prepared to associate certain stimuli over others. However, classical conditioning does not sufficiently account for innate predispositions and biases.

Classical conditioning emphasizes the importance of learning from the environment, and supports nurture over nature.

However, it is limiting to describe behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture , and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behavior. It is more likely that behavior is due to an interaction between nature (biology) and nurture (environment).

Lacks explanatory power

Classical conditioning provides limited insight into the cognitive processes underlying the associations it describes.

However, applying classical conditioning to our understanding of higher mental functions, such as memory, thinking, reasoning, or problem-solving, has proved more problematic.

Even behavior therapy, one of the more successful applications of conditioning principles to human behavior, has given way to cognitive–behavior therapy (Mackintosh, 1995).

Questionable ecological validity

While lab studies support classical conditioning, some question how well it holds up in natural settings. There is debate about how automatic and inevitable classical conditioning is outside the lab.

In normal adults, the conditioning process can be overridden by instructions: simply telling participants that the unconditioned stimulus will not occur causes an instant loss of the conditioned response, which would otherwise extinguish only slowly (Davey, 1983).

Most participants in an experiment are aware of the experimenter’s contingencies (the relationship between stimuli and responses) and, in the absence of such awareness often fail to show evidence of conditioning (Brewer, 1974).

Evidence indicates that for humans to exhibit classical conditioning, they need to be consciously aware of the connection between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). This contradicts traditional theories that humans have two separate learning systems – one conscious and one unconscious – that allow conditioning to occur without conscious awareness (Lovibond & Shanks, 2002).

There are also important differences between very young children or those with severe learning difficulties and older children and adults regarding their behavior in a variety of operant conditioning and discrimination learning experiments.

These seem largely attributable to language development (Dugdale & Lowe, 1990). This suggests that people have rather more efficient, language-based forms of learning at their disposal than just the laborious formation of associations between a conditioned stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus.

Ethical concerns

The principles of classical conditioning raise ethical concerns about manipulating behavior without consent. This is especially true in advertising and politics.

• Manipulation of preferences – Classical conditioning can create positive associations with certain brands, products, or political candidates. This can manipulate preferences outside of a person’s rational thought process.
• Encouraging impulsive behaviors – Conditioning techniques may encourage behaviors like impulsive shopping, unhealthy eating, or risky financial choices by forging positive associations with these behaviors.
• Preying on vulnerabilities – Advertisers or political campaigns may exploit conditioning techniques to target and influence vulnerable demographic groups like youth, seniors, or those with mental health conditions.
• Reduction of human agency – At an extreme, the use of classical conditioning techniques reduces human beings to automata reacting predictably to stimuli. This is ethically problematic.

Deterministic theory

A final criticism of classical conditioning theory is that it is deterministic . This means it does not allow the individual any degree of free will. Accordingly, a person has no control over the reactions they have learned from classical conditioning, such as a phobia.

The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a science. Scientists are interested in discovering laws that can be used to predict events.

However, by creating general laws of behavior, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to choose their destiny.

The Role of Nature in Classical Conditioning

Behaviorists argue all learning is driven by experience, not nature. Classical conditioning exemplifies environmental influence. However, our evolutionary history predisposes us to learn some associations more readily than others. So nature also plays a role.

For example, PTSD develops in part due to strong conditioning during traumatic events. The emotions experienced during trauma lead to neural activity in the amygdala , creating strong associative learning between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (Milad et al., 2009).

Individuals with PTSD show enhanced fear conditioning, reflected in greater amygdala reactivity to conditioned threat cues compared to trauma-exposed controls. In addition to strong initial conditioning, PTSD patients exhibit slower extinction to conditioned fear stimuli.

During extinction recall tests, PTSD patients fail to show differential skin conductance responses to extinguished versus non-extinguished cues, indicating impaired retention of fear extinction. Deficient extinction retention corresponds to reduced activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus and heightened dorsal anterior cingulate cortex response during extinction recall in PTSD patients.

In influential research on food conditioning, John Garcia found that rats easily learned to associate a taste with nausea from drugs, even if illness occurred hours later.

However, conditioning nausea to a sight or sound was much harder. This showed that conditioning does not occur equally for any stimulus pairing. Rather, evolution prepares organisms to learn some associations that aid survival more easily, like linking smells to illness.

The evolutionary significance of taste and nutrition ensures robust and resilient classical conditioning of flavor preferences, making them difficult to reverse (Hall, 2002).

Forming strong and lasting associations between flavors and nutrition aids survival by promoting the consumption of calorie-rich foods. This makes flavor conditioning very robust.

Repeated flavor-nutrition pairings in these studies lead to overlearning of the association, making it more resistant to extinction.

The learning is overtrained, context-specific, and subject to recovery effects that maintain the conditioned behavior despite extinction training.

Classical vs. operant condioning

In summary, classical conditioning is about passive stimulus-response associations, while operant conditioning is about actively connecting behaviors to consequences. Classical works on reflexes and operant on voluntary actions.

• Stimuli vs consequences : Classical conditioning focuses on associating two stimuli together. For example, pairing a bell (neutral stimulus) with food (reflex-eliciting stimulus) creates a conditioned response of salivation to the bell. Operant conditioning is about connecting behaviors with the consequences that follow. If a behavior is reinforced, it will increase. If it’s punished, it will decrease.
• Passive vs. active : In classical conditioning, the organism is passive and automatically responds to the conditioned stimulus. Operant conditioning requires the organism to perform a behavior that then gets reinforced or punished actively. The organism operates on the environment.
• Involuntary vs. voluntary : Classical conditioning works with involuntary, reflexive responses like salivation, blinking, etc. Operant conditioning shapes voluntary behaviors that are controlled by the organism, like pressing a lever.
• Association vs. reinforcement : Classical conditioning relies on associating stimuli in order to create a conditioned response. Operant conditioning depends on using reinforcement and punishment to increase or decrease voluntary behaviors.

Learning Check

• In Ivan Pavlov’s famous experiment, he rang a bell before presenting food powder to dogs. Eventually, the dogs salivated at the mere sound of the bell. Identify the neutral stimulus, unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response in Pavlov’s experiment.
• A student loves going out for pizza and beer with friends on Fridays after class. Whenever one friend texts the group about Friday plans, the student immediately feels happy and excited. The friend starts texting the group on Thursdays when she wants the student to feel happier. Explain how this is an example of classical conditioning. Identify the UCS, UCR, CS, and CR.
• A college student is traumatized after a car accident. She now feels fear every time she gets into a car. How could extinction be used to eliminate this acquired fear?
• A professor always slams their book on the lectern right before giving a pop quiz. Students now feel anxiety whenever they hear the book slam. Is this classical conditioning? If so, identify the NS, UCS, UCR, CS, and CR.
• Contrast classical conditioning and operant conditioning. How are they similar and different? Provide an original example of each type of conditioning.
• How could the principles of classical conditioning be applied to help students overcome test anxiety?
• Explain how taste aversion learning is an adaptive form of classical conditioning. Provide an original example.
• What is second-order conditioning? Give an example and identify the stimuli and responses.
• What is the role of extinction in classical conditioning? How could extinction be used in cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders?

Bouton, M. E., Mineka, S., & Barlow, D. H. (2001). A modern learning theory perspective on the etiology of panic disorder .  Psychological Review ,  108 (1), 4.

Bremner, J. D., Southwick, S. M., Johnson, D. R., Yehuda, R., & Charney, D. S. (1993). Childhood physical abuse and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans.  The American journal of psychiatry .

Brewer, W. F. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult humans.

Carter, B. L., & Tiffany, S. T. (1999). Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research.  Addiction, 94 (3), 327-340.

Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension.  Journal of Reading, 27 (1), 44-47.

Dugdale, N., & Lowe, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence.

Garcia, J., Ervin, F. R., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Learning with prolonged delay of reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 5 (3), 121–122.

Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation.  Science, 122 , 157–158.

Hall, G. (2022). Extinction of conditioned flavor preferences.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition .

Logan, C. A. (2002). When scientific knowledge becomes scientific discovery: The disappearance of classical conditioning before Pavlov .  Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences ,  38 (4), 393-403.

Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes ,  28 (1), 3.

Milad, M. R., Pitman, R. K., Ellis, C. B., Gold, A. L., Shin, L. M., Lasko, N. B.,…Rauch, S. L. (2009). Neurobiological basis of failure to recall extinction memory in posttraumatic stress disorder.  Biological Psychiatry, 66 (12), 1075–82.

Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1902).  The work of the digestive glands . London: Griffin.

Thanellou, A., & Green, J. T. (2011). Spontaneous recovery but not reinstatement of the extinguished conditioned eyeblink response in the rat.  Behavioral Neuroscience ,  125 (4), 613.

Watson, J. B. (1913).  Psychology as the behaviorist views it .  Psychological Review, 20 , 158–177.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist Views It.  Psychological Review, 20 , 158-177.

Watson, J. B. (1924).  Behaviorism . New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920).  Conditioned emotional reactions .  Journal of experimental psychology, 3 (1), 1.

Skinner’s Box Experiment (Behaviorism Study)

We receive rewards and punishments for many behaviors. More importantly, once we experience that reward or punishment, we are likely to perform (or not perform) that behavior again in anticipation of the result. 

Psychologists in the late 1800s and early 1900s believed that rewards and punishments were crucial to shaping and encouraging voluntary behavior. But they needed a way to test it. And they needed a name for how rewards and punishments shaped voluntary behaviors. Along came Burrhus Frederic Skinner , the creator of Skinner's Box, and the rest is history.

What Is Skinner's Box?

The "Skinner box" is a setup used in animal experiments. An animal is isolated in a box equipped with levers or other devices in this environment. The animal learns that pressing a lever or displaying specific behaviors can lead to rewards or punishments.

This setup was crucial for behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner developed his theories on operant conditioning. It also aided in understanding the concept of reinforcement schedules.

Here, "schedules" refer to the timing and frequency of rewards or punishments, which play a key role in shaping behavior. Skinner's research showed how different schedules impact how animals learn and respond to stimuli.

Who is B.F. Skinner?

Burrhus Frederic Skinner, also known as B.F. Skinner is considered the “father of Operant Conditioning.” His experiments, conducted in what is known as “Skinner’s box,” are some of the most well-known experiments in psychology. They helped shape the ideas of operant conditioning in behaviorism.

Law of Effect (Thorndike vs. Skinner) 

At the time, classical conditioning was the top theory in behaviorism. However, Skinner knew that research showed that voluntary behaviors could be part of the conditioning process. In the late 1800s, a psychologist named Edward Thorndike wrote about “The Law of Effect.” He said, “Responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation, and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation.”

Thorndike tested out The Law of Effect with a box of his own. The box contained a maze and a lever. He placed a cat inside the box and a fish outside the box. He then recorded how the cats got out of the box and ate the fish. 

Thorndike noticed that the cats would explore the maze and eventually found the lever. The level would let them out of the box, leading them to the fish faster. Once discovering this, the cats were more likely to use the lever when they wanted to get fish. 

Skinner took this idea and ran with it. We call the box where animal experiments are performed "Skinner's box."

Why Do We Call This Box the "Skinner Box?"

Edward Thorndike used a box to train animals to perform behaviors for rewards. Later, psychologists like Martin Seligman used this apparatus to observe "learned helplessness." So why is this setup called a "Skinner Box?" Skinner not only used Skinner box experiments to show the existence of operant conditioning, but he also showed schedules in which operant conditioning was more or less effective, depending on your goals. And that is why he is called The Father of Operant Conditioning.

How Skinner's Box Worked

Inspired by Thorndike, Skinner created a box to test his theory of Operant Conditioning. (This box is also known as an “operant conditioning chamber.”)

The box was typically very simple. Skinner would place the rats in a Skinner box with neutral stimulants (that produced neither reinforcement nor punishment) and a lever that would dispense food. As the rats started to explore the box, they would stumble upon the level, activate it, and get food. Skinner observed that they were likely to engage in this behavior again, anticipating food. In some boxes, punishments would also be administered. Martin Seligman's learned helplessness experiments are a great example of using punishments to observe or shape an animal's behavior. Skinner usually worked with animals like rats or pigeons. And he took his research beyond what Thorndike did. He looked at how reinforcements and schedules of reinforcement would influence behavior. 

About Reinforcements

Reinforcements are the rewards that satisfy your needs. The fish that cats received outside of Thorndike’s box was positive reinforcement. In Skinner box experiments, pigeons or rats also received food. But positive reinforcements can be anything added after a behavior is performed: money, praise, candy, you name it. Operant conditioning certainly becomes more complicated when it comes to human reinforcements.

Positive vs. Negative Reinforcements 

Skinner also looked at negative reinforcements. Whereas positive reinforcements are given to subjects, negative reinforcements are rewards in the form of things taken away from subjects. In some experiments in the Skinner box, he would send an electric current through the box that would shock the rats. If the rats pushed the lever, the shocks would stop. The removal of that terrible pain was a negative reinforcement. The rats still sought the reinforcement but were not gaining anything when the shocks ended. Skinner saw that the rats quickly learned to turn off the shocks by pushing the lever. 

About Punishments

Skinner's Box also experimented with positive or negative punishments, in which harmful or unsatisfying things were taken away or given due to "bad behavior." For now, let's focus on the schedules of reinforcement.

Schedules of Reinforcement 

We know that not every behavior has the same reinforcement every single time. Think about tipping as a rideshare driver or a barista at a coffee shop. You may have a string of customers who tip you generously after conversing with them. At this point, you’re likely to converse with your next customer. But what happens if they don’t tip you after you have a conversation with them? What happens if you stay silent for one ride and get a big tip? 

Psychologists like Skinner wanted to know how quickly someone makes a behavior a habit after receiving reinforcement. Aka, how many trips will it take for you to converse with passengers every time? They also wanted to know how fast a subject would stop conversing with passengers if you stopped getting tips. If the rat pulls the lever and doesn't get food, will they stop pulling the lever altogether?

Skinner attempted to answer these questions by looking at different schedules of reinforcement. He would offer positive reinforcements on different schedules, like offering it every time the behavior was performed (continuous reinforcement) or at random (variable ratio reinforcement.) Based on his experiments, he would measure the following:

• Response rate (how quickly the behavior was performed)
• Extinction rate (how quickly the behavior would stop) 

He found that there are multiple schedules of reinforcement, and they all yield different results. These schedules explain why your dog may not be responding to the treats you sometimes give him or why gambling can be so addictive. Not all of these schedules are possible, and that's okay, too.

Continuous Reinforcement

If you reinforce a behavior repeatedly, the response rate is medium, and the extinction rate is fast. The behavior will be performed only when reinforcement is needed. As soon as you stop reinforcing a behavior on this schedule, the behavior will not be performed.

Fixed-Ratio Reinforcement

Let’s say you reinforce the behavior every fourth or fifth time. The response rate is fast, and the extinction rate is medium. The behavior will be performed quickly to reach the reinforcement. 

Fixed-Interval Reinforcement

In the above cases, the reinforcement was given immediately after the behavior was performed. But what if the reinforcement was given at a fixed interval, provided that the behavior was performed at some point? Skinner found that the response rate is medium, and the extinction rate is medium. 

Variable-Ratio Reinforcement

Here's how gambling becomes so unpredictable and addictive. In gambling, you experience occasional wins, but you often face losses. This uncertainty keeps you hooked, not knowing when the next big win, or dopamine hit, will come. The behavior gets reinforced randomly. When gambling, your response is quick, but it takes a long time to stop wanting to gamble. This randomness is a key reason why gambling is highly addictive.

Variable-Interval Reinforcement

Last, the reinforcement is given out at random intervals, provided that the behavior is performed. Health inspectors or secret shoppers are commonly used examples of variable-interval reinforcement. The reinforcement could be administered five minutes after the behavior is performed or seven hours after the behavior is performed. Skinner found that the response rate for this schedule is fast, and the extinction rate is slow. 

Skinner's Box and Pigeon Pilots in World War II

Yes, you read that right. Skinner's work with pigeons and other animals in Skinner's box had real-life effects. After some time training pigeons in his boxes, B.F. Skinner got an idea. Pigeons were easy to train. They can see very well as they fly through the sky. They're also quite calm creatures and don't panic in intense situations. Their skills could be applied to the war that was raging on around him.

B.F. Skinner decided to create a missile that pigeons would operate. That's right. The U.S. military was having trouble accurately targeting missiles, and B.F. Skinner believed pigeons could help. He believed he could train the pigeons to recognize a target and peck when they saw it. As the pigeons pecked, Skinner's specially designed cockpit would navigate appropriately. Pigeons could be pilots in World War II missions, fighting Nazi Germany.

When Skinner proposed this idea to the military, he was met with skepticism. Yet, he received $25,000 to start his work on "Project Pigeon." The device worked! Operant conditioning trained pigeons to navigate missiles appropriately and hit their targets. Unfortunately, there was one problem. The mission killed the pigeons once the missiles were dropped. It would require a lot of pigeons! The military eventually passed on the project, but cockpit prototypes are on display at the American History Museum. Pretty cool, huh?

Examples of Operant Conditioning in Everyday Life

Not every example of operant conditioning has to end in dropping missiles. Nor does it have to happen in a box in a laboratory! You might find that you have used operant conditioning on yourself, a pet, or a child whose behavior changes with rewards and punishments. These operant conditioning examples will look into what this process can do for behavior and personality.

Hot Stove: If you put your hand on a hot stove, you will get burned. More importantly, you are very unlikely to put your hand on that hot stove again. Even though no one has made that stove hot as a punishment, the process still works.

Tips: If you converse with a passenger while driving for Uber, you might get an extra tip at the end of your ride. That's certainly a great reward! You will likely keep conversing with passengers as you drive for Uber. The same type of behavior applies to any service worker who gets tips!

Training a Dog: If your dog sits when you say “sit,” you might treat him. More importantly, they are likely to sit when you say, “sit.” (This is a form of variable-ratio reinforcement. Likely, you only treat your dog 50-90% of the time they sit. If you gave a dog a treat every time they sat, they probably wouldn't have room for breakfast or dinner!)

Operant Conditioning Is Everywhere!

We see operant conditioning training us everywhere, intentionally or unintentionally! Game makers and app developers design their products based on the "rewards" our brains feel when seeing notifications or checking into the app. Schoolteachers use rewards to control their unruly classes. Dog training doesn't always look different from training your child to do chores. We know why this happens, thanks to experiments like the ones performed in Skinner's box. 

Related posts:

• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Edward Thorndike (Psychologist Biography)
• Schedules of Reinforcement (Examples)
• B.F. Skinner (Psychologist Biography)
• Fixed Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Classical and Operant Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov; Burrhus Skinner

• First Online: 09 September 2020

Cite this chapter

• Ben Akpan 3  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

35k Accesses

6 Citations

Conditioning is a learning process in which one’s behaviour becomes dependent on the occurrence of a stimulus in that environment. Two types of conditioning will be considered. In classical conditioning, an unconditioned stimulus such as meat will make a dog to salivate. The salivation is an unconditioned response. A neutral stimulus such as a bell will not produce any salivation in a dog. However, if a previously neutral stimulus such as a bell is paired with meat (an unconditioned stimulus), the bell becomes a conditioned stimulus and at the sound of the bell alone, the dog elicits a conditioned response by salivating. In contrast, operant conditioning does not depend on a preceding stimulus. It rather depends on what follows as a consequence of behaviour. Operant conditioning involves a two-way process: action (or behaviour) operates on the environment while the environment at the same time shapes behaviour. Since behaviour is shaped efficiently through positive reinforcement, it follows that if behaviour results in a negative consequence, there is a decrease in that behaviour. The proponents of classical and operant conditioning are Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) and Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904–1990), respectively. This chapter explores the principles underlying classical and operant conditioning. Also discussed is how each theory may be applied in furtherance of science teaching and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The other shoe: an early operant conditioning chamber for pigeons.

Operant and classical learning principles underlying mind–body interaction in pain modulation: a pilot fMRI study

Spontaneous recovery from overexpectation in an insect

Cherry, K. (2017). What is classical conditioning?—A step-by-step guide to how classical conditioning really works. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from https://www.verywell.com/classical-conditioning-2794859 .

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Google Scholar  

Frieman, J. (2002). Learning and adaptive behavior . California: Wadsworth Group.

Gray, P. (2007). Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Kuppuswamy, B. (Ed.). (2013). Advanced educational psychology . New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited.

Lewickki, P. (1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563–574.

Article   Google Scholar  

Mangal, S. K. (2015). Advanced educational psychology . Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.

Morgan, C. T., King, R. A., Weisz, J. R., & Schopler, J. (1993). Introduction to psychology (7th ed.). New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

McLeod, S. (2015). Skinner—Operant conditioning. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html .

Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The education legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40 (2), 85–94.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour . New York: Macmillan.

Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Tiwari, N. M. (2016). Child Psychology . New Delhi: Saurabh Publishing House.

University of Minnesota. (n.d.). Learning by association: Classical conditioning. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/7-1-learning-by-association-classical-conditioning/ .

Woolfolk, A. (2014). Educational psychology . Noida, India: Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Akpan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA

Teresa J. Kennedy

Further Reading

McSweeney, F., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.). (2014). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning . New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/book?id=g9781118468180_9781118468180 .

Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1992). Skinner, B. K: Legacy to human infant behavior and development. American Psychologist, 47, 1411–1422.

Stricker, J. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Garlinghouse, M. A., Deaver, C. M., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Evaluation of an awareness enhancement device for the treatment of thump sucking children. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 34, 77–80.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Akpan, B. (2020). Classical and Operant Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov; Burrhus Skinner. In: Akpan, B., Kennedy, T.J. (eds) Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_6

Published : 09 September 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-43619-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-43620-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research