Introduction
Two types of learning discussed in this work are respondent and operant conditioning. Respondent conditioning (RC) is elicited by specific stimuli and appears to occur automatically in their presence; specifically, it is triggered by antecedent or preceding stimuli and is often relatively insensitive to the consequences (Sturmey et al., 2020). Operant conditioning (OC) is defined by behaviors acting on the environment to generate an immediate consequence and, in turn, is controlled by or occurring again in the future because of this consequence (Sturmey et al., 2020). These two types may intersect in clinical practice and real life.
Differences and Similarities
There are several fundamental differences between respondent and operant behaviors. In contrast to RC, elicited by behavior-preceding stimuli, operant conditioning is shaped and maintained by its consequences: the response-following events (Bąbel, 2020). In RC, a neutral stimulus (NS) reliably associated with the unconditioned stimulus (US) of varying intensity can increase or decrease individual’s responses, even if the intensity of the latter remains the same (Bąbel, 2020). With OC, behaviors instantly and conditionally followed by reinforcement are more likely to happen again, whereas those followed by punishment are less likely to occur (Bąbel, 2020). Hence, the first significant difference between the two is the ‘proxy’ nature that ultimately defines subsequent behavior.
Another difference between the two types lies in the mechanism whereby the response is established. In respondent conditioning, the stimulus-response dynamic is unidirectional: the US, often not controlled by the organism, elicits a response, but the organism cannot produce a subsequent stimulus since responding does not affect the presentation of the US or CS (Sturmey et al., 2020). Hence, the RC is response-independent due to the unidirectional effects. In contrast to respondent conditioning, operant conditioning is response-dependent by nature. Operant behavior appears deliberate, unlike reflexive behavior, which exists outside the subject’s direct control (Sturmey et al., 2020). A prior stimulus does not induce OC; instead, OC relies on the consequence’s encouraging or punitive impact to reinforce or discourage future behavior (Sturmey et al., 2020). For instance, if a consequence previously provided on a condition is provided regardless of the behavior, its frequency will decline (Sturmey et al., 2020). Therefore, unlike respondent conditioning, operant conditioning entails a bidirectional interaction between a stimulus and the response.
Both learning strategies are similar in that they require a short time for the pairing to establish. RC is facilitated when a short time divides the neutral stimulus’s (NS) presentation and the unconditioned stimulus (US) (Sturmey et al., 2020). Although a single instance may occasionally suffice for establishment (in cases with very intense stimuli in particular), usually, more pairs result in stronger conditioning (Sturmey et al., 2020). Similarly, for OC to be most effective, a consequence should occur immediately and consistently (reliably) post-response: the more time passes, the weaker the link and the likelihood of conditioning (Sturmey et al., 2020). Hence, a response that is regularly followed by an immediate consequence is more likely to be acquired in both learning strategies.
Real-World Examples
The first example of respondent conditioning is the eye-blink reflex. At the core of this reaction lies a conditioned fear or anxiety response, which may prepare individuals for actions that contribute to their safety and survival (Sturmey et al., 2020). For instance, the eye-blink occurs when an object is placed near the eye, regardless of whether the individual knows that the object will not move to damage the eye directly (Sturmey et al., 2020). This conditioning helps to protect sensitive areas from injury and occurs involuntarily. Another example of real-life stimuli response may take the shape of a stimulus generalization. For instance, if a person is stung by a flying insect such as a bee or a wasp, all other flying critters that resemble bees, like mosquitoes or flies, may begin provoking fear and avoidance behavior (Sturmey et al., 2020). This case occurs with stimuli resembling those involved in the initial acquisition of respondent behavior and can occur across various physical parameters, like size, distance, or intensity (Sturmey et al., 2020). Hence, the examples of RC may be inherent or acquired later in life, but the response manifestations are always involuntary.
Two more examples illustrate the operant conditioning forms that may occur in real-life circumstances. The first one is a mechanism for individuals developing chronic pain after the initial physical source of pain is no longer present. According to Bąbel (2020), pain behaviors include complaints, body postures, rubbing a painful spot, limping, grimacing, taking pain medication, and others. As one of the most impactful reinforcers, pain relief drives many actions: as a consequence, any behavior leading to pain relief, like taking pain medication or limping, increases in frequency (Bąbel, 2020). A second example may be treating a skill deficit with negative reinforcement of undesirable behaviors which a patient does not control. For example, reducing and discouraging improper speech patterns, such as vulgarity, aggressive, self-harming, and overtly sexual language in brain trauma patients was a functional approach to establishing a behavior-consequence chain (Bąbel, 2020). Overall, the OC examples demonstrate its broad applicability across various medical and other settings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, operant and respondent conditioning, represent distinctly different yet occasionally overlapping types of learning. RC occurs ‘automatically’ or involuntarily in response to a stimulus, while OC is shaped by the consequences that one’s behavior yields. In RC, the stimulus-response interplay only ‘goes one way,’ with the response having no power over the stimulus – for instance, eye-blink or fear of bee stings. In OC, the behavior interacts dynamically with the stimuli and consequences, relying on consequence’s impacts shape subsequent behavioral patterns – for instance, pain management strategies or impaired speech treatments. Both strategies require a short and reliable connection in stimulus-reaction pairing to consolidate the conditioning.
References
Bąbel, P. (2020). Operant conditioning as a new mechanism of placebo effects. European Journal of Pain, 24(5), 902–908.
Sturmey, P., Ward-Horner, J., & Doran, E. (2020). Chapter 2 — Respondent and operant behavior. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), Functional Analysis in Clinical Treatment (2nd ed., pp. 25–56). Academic Press.