Chapter 16 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 467conditioning (also called Skinnerian conditioning), a behavior is made more likely
to recur when it is immediately reinforced.
One distinction between classical and operant conditioning is that, in classi-
cal conditioning, behavior is elicited from the organism, whereas in operant con-
ditioning, behavior is emitted. An elicited response is drawn from the organism,
whereas an emitted response is one that simply appears. Because responses do not
exist inside the organism and thus cannot be drawn out, Skinner preferred the term
“emitted.” Emitted responses do not previously exist inside the organism; they
simply appear because of the organism’s individual history of reinforcement or the
species’ evolutionary history.
Classical Conditioning
In classical conditioning, a neutral (conditioned) stimulus is paired with—that is,
immediately precedes—an unconditioned stimulus a number of times until it is
capable of bringing about a previously unconditioned response, now called the
conditioned response. The simplest examples include reflexive behavior. Light
shined in the eye stimulates the pupil to contract; food placed on the tongue brings
about salivation; and pepper in the nostrils results in the sneezing reflex. With
reflexive behavior, responses are unlearned, involuntary, and common not only to
the species but across species as well. Classical conditioning, however, is not
limited to simple reflexes. It can also be responsible for more complex human
learning like phobias, fears, and anxieties.
An early example of classical conditioning with humans was described by John
Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920 and involved a young boy—Albert B., usually
referred to as Little Albert. Albert was a normal, healthy child who, at 9 months of
age, showed no fear of such objects as a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey with
masks, and so forth. When Albert was 11 months old, the experimenters presented
him with a white rat. Just as Albert was beginning to touch the rat, one of the
experimenters struck a bar behind Albert’s head. The little boy immediately showed
signs of fear, although he did not cry. Then, just as he touched the rat with his other
hand, an experimenter struck the bar again. Once more Albert showed fear and began
to whimper. A week later, Watson and Rayner repeated the procedure several times
and finally presented the white rat without the loud, sudden sound. By this time,
Albert had learned to fear the rat by itself and quickly began to crawl away from it.
A few days later, the experimenters presented Albert with some blocks. He showed
no fear. Next, they showed him the rat by itself. Albert showed fear. Then, they
offered him the blocks again. No fear. They followed this part of the experiment by
showing Albert a rabbit by itself. Albert immediately began to cry and crawl away
from the rabbit. Watson and Rayner then showed Albert the blocks again, then a
dog, then blocks again, then a fur coat, and then a package of wool. For all objects
except the blocks, Albert showed some fear. Finally, Watson brought in a Santa
Claus mask, to which Albert showed signs of fear. This experiment, which was never
completed because Albert’s mother intervened, demonstrated at least four points.
First, infants have few, if any, innate fears of animals; second, they can learn to fear
an animal if it is presented in association with an aversive stimulus; third, infants
can discriminate between a furry white rat and a hard wooden block, so that fear of