Skinner’s, Pavlov’s, and Bandura’s Experiments

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Behavioral Psychologists Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura
Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura Research
Limitations and Applications
Comparative Analysis
Conclusion
Works Cited

Behavioral Psychologists Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura

Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura are among the most prominent behavioral psychologists who are perhaps better known for their experiments on operation conditioning, classical conditioning and observation learning respectively. As cited in literature, they all played an important role in exploring the process of learning. While they all focused their experiments on a specific behavior, they had several limitations despite having a few similarities and differences in their approaches to learning.

Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura Research

In his research, Skinner approached learning from an operant conditioning point of view. According to the psychologist, the “likelihood of future behavior is determined by the consequences of past behavior” (Skinner 134). He believed that for one to understand psychology, they only require environment and behavior. He further illustrated how consequences of actions tend to affect future habits. For instance, if the behavior has no impact, then the possibility of it being repeated in future remain the same. However, if the said character brings about a consequence that an individual find interesting or pleasant, then this can easily strength their actions (Skinner 136). Skinner also emphasized that actions tend to be reinforced either negatively or positive. On one hand, positive reinforcement encourages behavior to be repeated. On the other hand, negative reinforcement aims at removing the unpleasant experience from repeating itself. For example, a child may clean their room to prevent being yield at. The last type of reinforcement proposed by Skinner is punishment, an unpleasant experience that decreases the likelihood of engaging in the same behavior.

Unlike Skinner, Pavlov focused his research on understanding how classical conditioning impact behavior. Pavlov’s narrowed his experiment on exploring how digestive process in dogs could be conditioned to achieve the desired results. His studies involved redirecting “the animal’s digestive fluids outside the body, where they could be measured” (Traxler 67). From this, the findings indicated that his dog would immediately salivate in the presence of a specific technician – one who feeds them, as opposed to simply salivating in the presence of food. Pavlov later described the dog’s timely salivation as “psychic secretion” (Traxler 67). These informal findings were used in performing experimental tests which involved a stimulus such as the sound of metronome, followed by giving the dog some food. After several repetitions, the dog started salivated as a response to the stimulus. This led Pavlov to conclude that if a specific stimulus within the dog’s environment is used as a condition before giving the dog some food, then the stimulus could become associated with food.

In line with the above, Albert Bandura’s research was aimed at testing his social learning theory. Bandura carried out several Bobo dolls experiments between 1961 and 1963 (Bond and Blevins 229). His aim was to observe children’s behavior after having watched an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. According to Bond and Blevins (230), “the most notable variation of the experiment measured the children’s behavior after seeing the adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically abusing the Bobo doll”. Social learning theory holds that people, specifically children, tend to learn through observation, imitation and modeling (Blevins 233). Bandura’s experiment demonstrated that people can also learn from watching others being rewarded or punished.

Limitations and Applications

Skinner’s operation conditioning can be used to decrease disruptive behavior by either eliminating a desirable outcome by applying a negative outcome. For example, a teacher can use operation conditioning by informing the learners that they risk losing recess privileges if they continue talking out of turn in class. The learners may abandon the disruptive behavior because they fear being punished. However, Skinner’s approach, as argued by (Skinner 248), may fail to yield the desired outcome because it was limited to a single response. According to the authors, “Skinner-box method encourages the study of just one or two already-learned responses” (Skinner 249). Another limitation is that the approach cannot be used in teaching complex concepts and may not work for everyone. In other words, punishment cannot always prevent behavior from being repeated.

Similarly, Pavlov’s classical condition could be used in understanding smoking as a behavior. Classical conditioning suggests that “when smoking repeatedly follows a neutral stimulus, conditioned responses tend to develop to this stimulus” (De Houwer 103). A neutral stimulus in this case refers to the smoking cues which often trigger cravings for smoking, thus making quitting difficult. For instance, when smokers encounter the environment cues that are paired to smoking, they end up developing a greater urge to smoke – their pulse rates tend to increase. The main limitation of classical conditioning, as noted by De Houwer (105), is that it is deterministic. This means that it does not allow for any degree of free in the individual.

Finally, Bandura’s observation learning could be applied to aggressive behavior. This happens because children often model their behavior after an adult they have seen. From Bandura perspective, children and teens will learn aggressive behavior through the actions the people they see in their environment or on screen. The main limitation observed in Bandura’s experiment is that the model will not always be an adult for the child. Another limitation revolves around the lack of interaction between the observer and the model.

Comparative Analysis

In the Pavlovian conditioning, an individual smoking behavior develops from their ability to associate learning with events of stimuli that repeatedly happen together. For example, smokers tend to associate certain smell to their behavior – the urge to smoke is elevated whenever they find themselves in an environment with this type of smell. Similarly, in operant conditioning, individuals also learn to associate events with a particular behavior, in this case aggression, with its consequences – punishment or reinforcement. In the case of children in classroom, a pleasant consequence will encourage them to be more aggressive in future (Meulders 130). Punishment, on the other hand, deters or reduces the possibility of this habit from repeating itself. On the contrary, Bandura’s observation learning aims at extending the effective range of both classical and operation conditioning – this is achieved through watching and imitation. This means that if other people are engaging in aggressive behavior, the observant will model the same habits.

Conclusion

Skinner, Pavlov and Bandura’s experiments have been used severally by different scholars and psychologists to understand how and why people develop certain behaviors. For instance, Skinner believed that for one to understand psychology, they only require environment and behavior. Bandura on his part was interested in showing how people develop certain behavior such as aggression through learning. His experiment demonstrated that people can also learn from watching others being rewarded or punished. However, the psychologists’ experiments have also received criticisms from different scholars. For example, Skinner’s approach is limited in the sense that it cannot be used to teach complex topics and may not work for everyone.

Works Cited

Bond, M. Aaron, and Samantha J. Blevins. “Using Faculty Professional Development to Foster Organizational Change: A Social Learning Framework.” TechTrends, vol. 64, no. 2, 2020, pp. 229-237. Web.

De Houwer, Jan. “Revisiting Classical Conditioning as a Model for Anxiety Disorders: A Conceptual Analysis and Brief Review.” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 12, no. 7, 2020, pp. 103-400. Web.

Meulders, Ann. “From Fear of Movement-Related Pain and Avoidance to Chronic Pain Disability: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 26, no. 1, 2019, pp. 130-136. Web.

Skinner, Burrhus Frederic. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. BF Skinner Foundation, 2019.

Traxler, J., Madden, V. J., Moseley, G. L., & Vlaeyen, J. W. (2019). Modulating Pain Thresholds through Classical Conditioning. PeerJ, vol. 7, no. 6, 2019, pp. 64-86. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!