Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 15. Skinner: Behavioral
Analysis© The McGraw−Hill^455
Companies, 2009One distinction between classical and operant conditioning is that, in classical
conditioning, behavior is elicitedfrom the organism, whereas in operant condition-
ing, 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 in-
side the organism and thus cannot be drawn out, Skinner preferred the term “emit-
ted.” Emitted responses do not previously exist inside the organism; they simply ap-
pear 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 ca-
pable of bringing about a previously unconditioned response, now called the condi-
tioned response. The simplest examples include reflexive behavior. Light shined in
the eye stimulates the pupil to contract; food placed on the tongue brings about sali-
vation; and pepper in the nostrils results in the sneezing reflex. With reflexive be-
havior, responses are unlearned, involuntary, and common not only to the species but
across species as well. Classical conditioning, however, is not limited to simple re-
flexes. 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., usu-
ally 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 ex-
perimenters 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, Al-
bert 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 be-
cause 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 discrimi-
natebetween a furry white rat and a hard wooden block, so that fear of a rat does not
generalize to fear of a block; and fourth, fear of a furry white rat can generalizeto
other animals as well as to other white hairy or furry objects.
Chapter 15 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 449