Psychology

Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist and a Nobel Prize winner who lived in the years between 1849 and 1946 made major contribution in the field of learning by association. He is known as the scientist who discovered and theorized classical conditioning. Over the years, despite the fact that the initiator of this concept was a physiologist and not a psychologist, the concept has developed to the point that it is now a necessity for almost every psychologist regardless of whether practicing or studying to be aware of. Proponents argue that it is a practical approach of studying human behavior. A point of note however is that, in order to make a conclusive deduction of the findings either in a positive or critique point of view, it is wise for to have clear understanding of its history and development, (Hurwitz 17).

In several years of his successful career, Ivan Pavlov made great use of dogs in his studies. However it was not until the late1880s that he made landmark discoveries from dogs which he was studying at that the moment (Freidan Thomas Isodero 25). During that particular study in which he aimed to establish the relationship between salivation and digestive system, he noticed a peculiar tendency from the dogs which had been familiarized with the feeding routine. A mere presence of the assistant who used to feed the dog caused them to salivate. This intrigued Pavlov because, apart from the fact that saliva is used in aiding digestion, salivating in the absence of a meal indicated that there were other conditioning factors that elicited the kind of reaction. A piece of meat and bell was all that was required to exhaustively confirm his observation. The first clear observation was that when a dog saw and sniffed a piece of meat, the immediate reaction was to salivate. In another kind of situation where a piece of meat is not involved but sound, through the ringing of a bell, is used to stimulate the dog, the reaction was nothing to write home about. The dog would just simply turn its head towards where the sounds come from. However, if a habit of ringing a bell was developed and immediately there after feeding the dog, a more tangible reaction was observed, the sound of bell would then instantly trigger salivation from the animal. This indicated that the subject associated the sound with an on coming meal and therefore setting the whole digestive system in a preparation mode. Pavlov concluded that sound, a stimulus that has little to do with food or smell, elicited a reflexive or involuntary modification in the digestive process, (Freidan Thomas Isodero 145).

This kind of results could not be achieved unless certain situations were created and applied in ways which depended on the level of conditioning the subject was at. Before starting the classical conditioning process, an unconditioned stimulus or UCS, which is a kind of stimulus eliciting reflexive or involuntary response, had to be present. The stimulus did not involve any learning process as the subject would automatically know its outcome. In this particular situation, the piece of meat was the UCS. Another important stipulation was the presence of a stimulus which did not elicit any specific response but only an orienting or neutral response, such as the mere turning of the dogs caused by the sound of the bell. During the conditioning process, it was essential for the neutral stimulus to be presented and right after that present the unconditional stimulus, such as in the of Ivan Pavlov dog experiment, first the bell had to be rung and immediately thereafter a meal was presented. Over time the subject learned or was conditioned to associate the two (Hurwitz 43).

Finally Pavlov concluded that, the Neutral stimulus stirred a response similar to that elicited by UCS. This he validated by citing the ringing bell caused a drooling effect on the dogs. He now referred the neutral stimulus as the conditioned stimulus because, after it is paired by UCS, it provoked the dogs to salivate. The new response created by the conditioning was also given the name conditioned response. Although the conditioned response and unconditioned response look similar, there stimuli were entirely different (Freidan Thomas Isodero 147).Pavlov quickly learned that, It was important to periodically positive reinforcement the impact caused by the conditioning. If neglected or negatively reinforced then it slowly wears out (Putney 45). An example is, when the dogs regularly heard the ringing bell and for prolong period of time no meal was presented, the drilling effect that had been created gradually disappeared.

To further expound on his study, Ivan Pavlov investigated the difference that could result from varying the time procedure used to present the stimuli to his subjects. He established that by doing so different result were derived. Delayed conditioning, was his first test directed towards that mission. It was a basic procedure involving presenting the conditioned stimulus, which was the ringing bell, before the unconditioned stimulus. On same test, he continued to investigate the different impact that could be created by varying the delay either to be short or long. In the short delay, a conditioned response was presented about five seconds earlier before the presentation of the unconditioned stimulus. It was only removed after the unconditioned stimulus was presented. Long delay on the other hand involved presenting the conditioned stimulus in a relatively longer time of about thirty second before presenting the unconditioned stimulus. Pavlov established that conditioning is effective when the delay is shorter, (John and Lavond, 145). However, according to Hubert, consequent studies have contested this rule citing that effects of conditioning vary depending on the state which the respondent under scrutiny is at. Trace conditioning was the other test he conducted with a procedure almost similar to that of delay conditioning. However, unlike in the delay conditioning, the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus do not overlap, instead are conditioned stimulus is presented briefly for about one second and withdrawn without presenting any other stimuli. A gap referred to as trace interval is created before an Unconditioned stimulus is presented. The conclusion was this kind of conditioning is less effective as compared to the delayed one.

Another analysis on the impact of varying stimulus presentation time was referred to as simultaneous conditioning. In the test he presented both the conditioned and unconditioned stimulus at the same time. The main challenge faced was determining whether drooling was caused by the ringing bell or presence of food. Later however, when he opted to present the conditioned stimulus alone, he established that the kind of conditioning is ineffective. He explain this ineffective, by describe that, for the center of response or the dog to generate a conditioned response it had first to be excited by the anticipation of a unconditioned stimulus which for this particular test was missing. In Backward conditioning, another type of time variation test, the reverse happens. In this experiment the Unconditioned stimulus is the one which is presented about 5 second earlier than the conditioned stimulus. Ivan quickly established that this procedure, just like simultaneous conditioning, is weak and ineffective, (John and Lavond 148). He explain the weakness of this procedure by outlining that unlike in an ordinary forward conditioning, where the conditioned stimulus precede the unconditioned stimulus, the arrangement serve as warning to the subject that the unconditioned stimulus, the food, is about to be withdrawn and therefore leading to the absence of  conditioned response or the salivation.

The effect created by timing in stimulus presentation made Pavlov query whether time should be considered as stimulus on its own. He observed that if a response centre is familiar with the routine of presenting the unconditioned stimulus, without a doubt, a conditioned response occur even without there being a presence of any type of stimulus. For example the dogs, having gotten used to the feeding routine, when the time of feeding approached, they begun to salivate regardless of whether the bell was rung or not, (Freidan Thomas Isodero 155). This he described as temporal conditioning, which is a procedure requiring no formal conditioned stimulus but instead unconditioned stimulus is supplied at regular interval such as 30 seconds causing the respondent to adapt the routine. This is according to Hubert and Putney is evident in our day to day life, Take for instance, if an athlete get used to drinking water every thirty minutes, then automatically after half an hour failure to repeat the routine will render him or her restless.

Other than studies involving examining the impact stimulus timing has on the conditioning result, there other set of studies examined by Pavlov. One of a kind included him trying to establish the events that would lead to the disappearing of a successful conditioning. A good case in point is the one describe earlier, whereby the conditioned dog regularly induced to the ringing bell without being presented thereafter with there used to meal, resulted in the conditioned response slowly diminishing and eventually altogether disappearing. This procedure he referred to it as extinction, (John and Lavond 155). As he continued to test this effect, he noticed that persistence application of conditioned stimulus in the absence of Unconditioned stimulus might at a point provoke the initial conditioned response however at smaller magnitude and if not reinforced quickly disappears. Again he observed that when a complete extinction has occurred, conditioned response can be regain at faster rate as compared to when the conditioning was first being initiated. This is what he referred to as spontaneous recovery.

In a test which Pavlov referred to as Generalization conditioning, it was brought to his attention that, the relationship between conditioned stimuli and condition response is very essential. This he concluded after noticing his dog did not only salivate to the particular noise created by his ringing bell but also to other familiar noise. However, it was vital for the second conditioning stimuli or the familiar noise to resemble the original one. The degree of likeness determines the effectiveness of conditioning, with higher similarity producing more positive result (John and Lavond 159). An example of the application of this principle in our day to day experiance is observed in the case of a child whom, previously having been attacked by neighbors dog, from there on likely be terrified by the sight of any other dog.

Discrimination conditioning is the opposite of generalization. This is whereby the organism responds differently or does not respond at all to conditioned stimulus that has no resemblance to the original one which created the conditioning effect. An example is when Pavlov dog respond only to the ringing bell and those similar to it but not to a whistling sound (Putney 30-34).

Ivan Pavlov did not stop by presenting his conclusive study, instead he opted to dig deeper and establish how this new school of thought could be applied in the daily life outside the laboratory walls. He aimed to prove that problems associated and caused by conditioned response exist and therefore to address them principles describe in the classical conditioning could be very appropriate. Subsequent studies later on develop even a more practical application of the principles he had elaborated. The works of John .B. Watson, who lived between 1878 and 1958, is a good example. To show empirical evidence of classical conditioning, Watson used Albert who was eleven year old at the time, as the subject of the study. He presented white rats, the conditioned stimuli, paired with loud noise, the unconditioned stimulus, to the subject. From thereon Albert was not only afraid of the white rats but also showed sign of fear towards resembling white objects such as cotton wool. At the end of the study, not only was Watson successful in elaborating the process involved in behavior formation but also backed the principle of generalization conditioning. Armed with this knowledge, Watson went on to become a respected figure in the American advertising world. With his understanding he could easily pair the right set of stimulus to appeal to consumer attitudes. In modern times, businesses have found there way in the application of the works of Pavlov and the significant contribution of Watson. An example is when Toyota uses supermodels to pose on there latest luxury car hence creating a desired appeal (John and Lavond 120-130).

Another arena where the principles of classical conditioning have been broadly applied is in the development of therapy programs. By understanding the basic paradigm of classical conditioning, psychologists have been able to outline how addictions and phobia emerge (Putney 25). Desensitization, aversion and counter conditioning therapies, all based on the principles of classical conditioning are used in the modification of human behavior. Condition taste aversion is an application of Pavlov classical conditioning which is evident in our day to day life. John Garcia, through his experiment with rats brought this concept to light. In the specified study, a group of rats after drinking water were subjected to a beam of x-ray light, the conditioned stimulus, which produced a feeling of sickness, the unconditioned response. After a period of time the rats under observation refrained from drinking the water, the conditioned response, since the associated it the sickening feeling. (Putney 20-30)

One of the more profound outside the lab application of the Garcias concept is that of predator control. Tussle between environmentalist and sheep farmers over what to do with preying coyotes led to the exploring of this Pavlovian therapy as basis of solving the problem in an ethical manner. The farmers placed carcasses which were poisoned with thiamine, a tasteless but sickening drug, on the predators path. After the coyotes ate the carcass the effect of the drug took its tall on them. Even though the feedback of the farmers differed, some of them claiming that coyotes after the first attempt refrain from eating carcasses again but still continued to kill sheep while the other lot saying the prey avoided sheep meat all together, they indicated that taste aversion conditioning cause the animal to be choosy in its meal (Putney 28). The execution of aversion therapy involves pairing undesirable stimulus to the targeted habit with the intention of making the subject associate the unpleasant experience to the action. It has found common ground in both adult and children. In adult the therapy is used to combat drug addictions. For example conditioned stimuli such as are nausea producing drugs are accompanied with alcohol (UCS), with the hope the discomfort effect caused on the victim will create an aversion. In children it has been used to combat habit such as bed-wetting (Putney 30-34).

Systematic desensitization which was developed by Joseph Wolpe is another type of Pavlovian therapy that is used to counter anxiety or fear using the principle of extinction (John and Lavond 85). The process is widely applied in the treatment of phobias. Predominantly, it is used in treating the fear of open andor public places commonly referred to as agoraphobia that is associated with people suffering from anxiety disorder. An effective execution of systematic desensitization would involve replacing the phobia which is being wiped out with a positive stimulus through a classical conditioning process described as counter conditioning. By doing so, the respondent not only eliminates an unwanted response but also acquires a new response to the specific conditioned stimulus. In the deployment of systematic desensitization several successive stages are followed. First and foremost, the respondent is train to relax using a relaxation technique, progressive relaxation according to Putney being the most preferred. Secondly, the cause of fear is listed down. The idea here is to direct the respondent to face his fears in hierarchy, starting from the least fearful stimulus to the most feared one. For example, a respondent who is afraid of heights can start by merely imagining being on top of roof to climbing and eventually standing on top of a real cliff. Throughout the process the relaxation technique taught is used to elicit parasympathetic responses which are incompatible with fears. Pavlov conditioning have also proved handy in the process of improving the immune system. Various studies have shown that continuous pairing of unconditioned stimulus such as epinephrine with conditioned stimulus such as a placebo of a distinct taste and smell elicit an increase in immunity as the response conditioned (Putney 40).

The process of discovering and developing the concept of classical conditioning has however been a subject of controversies. Right from the start, the environmental situation that Pavlov subjected his dogs to was questionable. For example, claims of starving and inserting surgical tubes on the dogs for the purpose of measuring the saliva have raised issues. Watson experiment of inducing fear on baby Albert, a less than a year old infant, if applied in modern time will definitely raise eyebrows. Also hardliners environmentalist finds Garvin method of investigating the rats as infuriating. Another angle used by critiques is based on the claim that Pavlov therapy based programs such as taste aversion are short-lived and might have side effect. Perhaps the most significant and cited criticism is that, although classical conditioning claims a response is adapted from prior experience, certain respondent suffering from phobia cannot easily trace any historical event that might have triggered this. (Freidan Thomas Isodero 180-183).

The significance contribution in understanding how a behavior is formed played by Pavlov classical conditioning cannot be overemphasized. According to Putney, his studies and other ensuing studies which either aimed at validating or criticizing his works provides psychologist with bases of examining, developing and administering diagnosis to various challenges. His outstanding record in the field of physiology and psychology did not however go unnoticed as he was a warded A Nobel prize. Even with the ever changing environment, one certain thing is that the fundamentals that make us humans are highly unlikely to change and therefore studies such as this cannot be dismissed but only investigated further and improved upon.