This content explains the foundational principles of associative learning, specifically classical and operant conditioning, as pioneered by Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner, highlighting their impact on the development of behaviorist psychology.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
So, the name Ivan Pavlov rings a bell it's because his experiments are among
the most famous in the history of psychology. His work contributed to the
foundation of the behaviorist school of thought that viewed psychology as an
empirically rigorous science, focused on observable behaviors and not
unobservable internal mental processes. Even though today we view psychology as
the science of both behavior and mental processes, Pavlov's influence was
tremendous. His research helped pave the path for
more experimental rigor and behavioral research right up to the present day.
Born in 1849 in Russia, Pavlov was never much for psychology. After giving up on
his original aspiration to become a Russian Orthodox priest like his father,
he instead earned a medical degree and spent nearly 20 years studying the
digestive system, earning Russia's first Nobel Prize in his mid-50s for his
research expanding our understanding of how stomachs worked. He didn't study
human stomachs, though, because the procedures were terrible and cruel.
He studied dog stomachs. And while researching those dogs, he noticed how
the animals would salivate at a mere whiff of their dinner. At first, he found
all that slobber annoying, but soon started to suspect that this behavior
was actually a simple but important form of learning. For us scholars of
psychology, we can define learning as the process of acquiring, through experience,
new and relatively enduring information or behaviors. Whether through association,
observation, or just plain thinking, learning is what allows us to adapt to
our environments and to survive. And as Pavlov began to discover, it wasn't only
humans who learned. Soon enough, he was turning out his famous series of
experiments in which he paired the presence of meat powder -- yummy -- which got
the dogs to drooling, with lots of different neutral stimuli. Things that
wouldn't normally make you drool, like a certain sound or shining a light or a
touch on the leg. Then Pavlov observed, after several of these pairings, a dog
would start to drool just at the sound or the light or the touch, even if there
wasn't any slobber-inducing meat powder around. Animals, he found, can exhibit
associative learning. That's when a subject links certain events, behaviors,
or stimuli together in the process of conditioning. This may be the most
elemental, basic form of learning a brain can do, but that doesn't mean that the
processes behind conditioning are, or ever were, obvious,
or, for that matter, simple.
In fact, the research that's gone into how we're conditioned by our environments has helped shape
the science of psychology from a still-kinda-subjective thought
exercise into the more rigorous discipline we know today.
And it starred some of psychology's most notable, and often controversial, figures
including Pavlov, BF Skinner, and that guy who trained kids to be terrified of furry animals.
[INTRO MUSIC]
Okay, I'm not a licensed dog trainer (do they license dog trainers?),
but I can break down for you the sequence of steps in Pavlov's famous experiment to help
you get a sense of how conditioning works. First, before conditioning, the dog
just drools when it smells food. That smell is the unconditioned stimulus and
the slobbering, the unconditioned or natural response. The ringing sound, which
at this point means nothing to the dog, is the neutral stimulus, and it produces
no drooling. During conditioning, the unconditioned stimulus -- the food smell --
is paired with the neutral stimulus -- the bell sound -- and results in drooling.
This is repeated many times until the association between the two stimuli is
made in a stage called acquisition. By the time you get to the after-conditioning
phase, that old neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus, because it now elicits
the conditioned response of drooling. Sounds super simple, right?
If you have a dog, you've probably seen it tap-dance at the sight of a leash, but in
Pavlov's day, this whole series of steps hadn't really been studied in a lab setting, or even
thought about in scientific terms. Pavlov's work suggested that classical conditioning,
as this kind of learning came to be known, could be an adaptive form of learning that
helps an animal survive by changing its behavior to better suit its environment. In this case,
a bell means food, and food means survival, so get ready! Not only, that but
methodologically, classical conditioning shows how a process like learning can
actually be studied through direct observation of behavior in real-time,
without all those messy feelings and emotions. This is something Pavlov
especially appreciated, given his disdain for "mentalistic concepts" like
consciousness and introspection, championed by Freud. Behaviorist
psychologists like Pavlov's younger American analogs, BF Skinner and John B
Watson, also embraced the notion that psychology was all about objective,
observable behavior. In his 1930 book, Behaviorism, he argued that given a dozen
healthy infants, he could train any one of them to be a doctor, artist, lawyer, or
even a thief, regardless of their talents, tendencies, or ancestry.
Woah there, Watson! Thankfully, no one gave him any infants.
In his most famous, and yes, controversial experiment,
Watson conditioned a young child dubbed
"Little Albert" to fear a white rat. Maybe that doesn't sound so bad, but he
accomplished this by pairing the rat with a loud scary noise over and over.
And then demonstrated that the terror could branch out and be generalized to include
other furry white objects, like bunnies, dogs, and even fur coats. So yeah, that
would not fly today, obviously. But Watson's research did make other psychologists wonder
whether adults, too, were just holding tanks of conditioned emotions. And if so, whether new
conditioning could be used to undo old conditioning. Like, if you're terrified of
rollercoasters, but you made yourself ride one ten times a day for two weeks,
would your fears fade? For the record, recent exploration has revealed that the boy
known as "Little Albert" sadly died a few years after these experiments, while
Watson eventually left academia and got into advertising, where he put all that
associative learning to lucrative use. So that's classical conditioning, but we've
also got another kind of associative learning: operant conditioning.
If classical conditioning is all about forming associations between stimuli,
operant conditioning involves associating our own behavior with
consequences. The kid who gets a cookie for saying "please," or the aquarium seal
that gets a sardine for balancing a ball on its nose -- they've both been trained
with operant conditioning. The basic premise here is that behaviors increase
when followed by reinforcement or reward, but they decrease when followed by
punishment. And the most well-known champion of operant conditioning is
American behaviorist, B.F. Skinner. He designed the famous operant chamber or
"Skinner Box" -- a confined space containing a lever or button than an animal can touch
to get some kind of reward (typically food), along with the device that keeps track of its
responses. Okay, time for a debunking break. Other than maybe Freud, no other figure in
psychology seems to be as shrouded in lore and misinformation as B.F. Skinner.
So I'm just gonna tell you straight that no, Skinner never put any kids in the box,
and no, he didn't raise his children without love or affection. And his daughter didn't
hate his guts until the day she committed suicide. Deborah Skinner is alive and well and she loved
her dad plenty. Skinner did, however, invent
something called an "Air Crib" -- a climate-controlled
box with a window on the front that was meant to keep babies warm and safe while their moms ran
around doing their 1950s lady thang. It's not exactly where I'd like to spend the night, but it
wasn't remotely the same as the Skinner Box. No one knows where all these myths came
from, but being a somewhat controversial guy, Skinner had a lot of haters. Some of whom
were probably happy to perpetuate misinformation. But back to the rat in the box. Basically, the box
provided an observable stage to demonstrate Skinner's concept of reinforcement, which is
anything that increases the behavior that it follows.
In other words, you push the lever, you get a snack,
and then you want to keep pushing the lever. But most rats aren't gonna push a lever for
no reason. I mean, there aren't food dispensing levers in the natural environment. So operant
conditioning behavior requires shaping. Maybe you give the rat a little nibble of food each time
it gets closer to the bar, then only when it touches
the bar, until little by little, in a series of
successive approximations to the desired behavior, you reward them only when they
do the thing you're trying to shape them to do. In everyday life, we're all continually
reinforcing, shaping, and refining each other's behaviors, both intentionally and accidentally.
We do this with both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement
obviously strengthens responses by giving rewards after a desired event, like the rat snack
after the lever push, or getting a cookie when you say please. Negative reinforcement is a little
trickier -- it's what increases a behavior by taking
away an aversive or upsetting stimulus, like, say,
you get in your car and it does that infernal beeping thing until you fasten your seat belt.
The car is reinforcing your seatbelt-wearing by getting rid of that horrible beeping. And it's
good. You should wear your seatbelt. It's important to recognize here that negative
reinforcement is not the same as punishment.
Punishment decreases a behavior, either positively,
by, say, getting a speeding ticket, or negatively, by taking away a driver's license. But negative
reinforcement removes the punishing event to increase the behavior. So pain killers negatively
reinforce the behavior of swallowing them by ending the headache. So by now, hopefully, you're
getting the picture. There are things that we want and things that we don't want, and we can be
taught by way of those impulses to behave certain ways. But it's worth pointing out that
the conditioning is way more complex than just the cookie in the beeping car. For one thing,
ending annoyance or getting a cookie are types
of primary reinforcers. You don't have to learn that;
they just make innate biological sense. Beeping is
annoying; cookies are delicious. So there are other
kinds of reinforcers that we only recognize after
we learn to associate them with primary reinforcers,
like a paycheck is a conditioned reinforcer. We want money because we need food and
shelter, which are still the primary drivers, plus just as there are different kinds of reinforcers,
so are there various reinforcement schedules.
Like, those box rats were getting continuous reinforcement when they got a treat every
single time they hit the lever, so they picked it up
pretty quickly. But if one day, the rat chow
doesn't come, that connection quickly dwindles and the rat stops hitting the lever. This is a
process called extinction, and it is important because that's how real life works. Outside
of a Skinner Box, you're not gonna get continuous reinforcement. All of life is a
series of partial or intermittent reinforcements that only occurs sometimes. Learning under these
conditions takes longer, but it holds up better in the long run, and is less
susceptible to that extinction. So, say a cafe gives out a free cup of coffee for
every 10 you buy, while another shop pours a free double shot every Tuesday
morning, and yet another has a free coffee lottery that customers win at
random. These are all different kinds of intermittent reinforcement techniques
that get customers coming back for more. Now, Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner's ideas
were definitely controversial, as well as the whole scary rat experiment, plenty of
folks disagreed with their insistence that only external influences and not
internal thoughts and feelings shaped behavior. It was clear to many of the
behaviorists' rivals that our cognitive processes -- our thoughts, perceptions,
feelings, memories -- also influence the way we learn. We're gonna talk about how
these other things factor into learning next week, when we look more at
conditioning, cognition, and observational learning. And yeah, also watch kids beat
the face off blowup dolls. Today, though, you learned how associative learning
works; the essentials of behaviorist theory; the basic components of classical
and operant conditioning, including positive and negative reinforcement; and
reinforcement scheduling. Thanks for watching this, especially to all of our
Subbable subscribers who make this whole channel possible. If you'd like to
sponsor an episode of Crash Course, or get a special laptop decal, or even be
animated into an upcoming episode, just go to subbable.com. This episode was
written by Kathleen Yale, edited by Blake de Pastino, and our consultant is Dr.
Ranjit Bhagwat. Our director and editor is Nicholas Jenkins, the script
supervisor is Michael Aranda, who is also our sound designer, and the graphics team
is Thought Café.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
