Pavlovian conditioning

(redirected from Respondent conditioning)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.

Pavlovian conditioning

n.
Classical conditioning.

[After Ivan Petrovich Pavlov.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

con•di•tion•ing

(kənˈdɪʃ ə nɪŋ)

n.
1. a process of changing behavior by rewarding or punishing a subject each time an action is performed.
2. Also called classical conditioning. a process in which a previously neutral stimulus comes to evoke a specific response by being repeatedly paired with another stimulus that evokes the response.
[1915–20]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
There is ample evidence (for instance, the extensive literature regarding "spontaneous recovery" in operant and respondent conditioning effects) that repetition, the passage of time, and altered contexts have behavior-modifying effects, as do the reinforcing effects of concept refreshment.
They describe the history of the field, the experimental analysis of behavior, reflexive behavior and respondent conditioning, reinforcement and extinction of operant behavior, reinforcement, aversive control of behavior, operant-respondent relationships, stimulus control, choice and preference, conditioned reinforcement, correspondence relations (updated for this edition), and three levels of selection: biology, behavior, and culture.
Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) is given credit for discovering how such stimulus-response relations get established through a process known today as respondent conditioning (also called classical or Pavlovian conditioning).
He covers reinforcement, extinction, punishment, stimulation control, respondent conditioning, shaping, prompting, transfer of stimulus control, chaining, functional assessment, and tailoring basic principles and procedures into combinations that meet specific, complex needs along with advice on self-management and habit reversal.
A recent meta-analytic article, looking a program impact for offender populations, found that Behavior Therapy (operant and respondent conditioning principles, antecedent control strategies, self-control training, etc.) and Cognitive Behavior Therapy were the only two treatments that produced an effect (Redondo-Illescas, Sanchez-Meca, & Garrido-Genovaes, 2001).
A path in this direction would be to verify if typical processes of respondent conditioning are found within the formation of equivalence classes (or other stimulus relations).
They cover levels of experience in emotion, behavior and cognition in the social context, stability and change in human development, stages and processes of development and intelligence, motions and emotions, emotional learning and respondent conditioning, regulating behavior and operant conditioning, modeling and social processes, discipline, problem solving, transfer, cognition and memory, nurturing, knowledge and intellect, expanding teaching repertoire and developing sound assessment and grading techniques.
Respondent conditioning is believed to have occurred with the pairing of a stimulus that evokes a fear response with stimulus by-products arising from strong bodily somatic sensations.
In respondent conditioning, salivation occurs in the presence of the bell, which is physically present; and in operant conditioning, lever pressing occurs in the presence of the food-eating functions that are now partially present in lever.
The current paper reports a demonstration of its use in a traditional respondent conditioning paradigm.
In summary, the only demarcation that justifies establishing a distinction is the procedure applied by the scientist: if CS--US contingencies are established, the scientist's focus would probably be in the respondent conditioning; if R--US contingencies are established, the scientist's focus would probably be in the operant conditioning.
Now suppose that we use a respondent conditioning procedure to establish an aversive response function for D.