Interactions and Biological Constraints

Interactions and Biological Constraints

Though the distinction between classical and operant conditioning is very
clear in principle, it is not always so clear in practice. This makes sense if one
considers real-life learning situations. In many circumstances, events in the
environment are associated (occur together) in a predictable fashion, and
behavior will have consequences. This can be true in the laboratory as well,
but carefully designed experiments can be conducted to separate out the
impact of classical and operant conditioning on behavior.

In addition, the effectiveness of both classical and operant conditioning
is influenced by biological factors. This can be seen both in the speed with
which classically conditioned taste aversions (as compared with other CRs)
are learned and in the stimulation of natural food-related behaviors in operant
superstition experiments. Related findings have demonstrated that the
effects of rewarding behavior can be influenced by biology in other ways
that may disrupt the conditioning process. In an article published in 1961,
Keller and Marian Breland described their difficulties in applying the principles
of operant conditioning to their work as animal trainers in the entertainment
industry. They found that when trained with food reinforcement,
natural behaviors would often interfere with the trained operant response—a
phenomenon they called instinctive drift. From a practical point of view,
their research suggested that to be successful in animal training, one must
select operant responses that do not compete with natural food-related behaviors.
From a scientific point of view, their research suggested that biological
tendencies must be taken into account in any complete description of
conditioning processes.