Psychology Report: Classical Conditioning Experiment and Results

This report presents a psychology experiment focused on classical conditioning, exploring the association between stimuli and responses. The introduction defines key concepts like conditioned and unconditioned stimuli and responses, and aversive conditioning. The method section details the participants, materials, and experimental procedure, involving a girl responding to the word 'can' and a boy bursting balloons. Results indicate that the girl anticipated the balloon burst, but the boy's response was inconsistent, challenging the hypothesis. The discussion analyzes the findings in relation to the Rescorla-Wagner model and previous research, highlighting the limitations of the experiment and suggesting areas for future study. The report concludes with real-world applications of classical conditioning, such as taste-aversion learning, and includes a comprehensive reference list and an appendix with the words used in the experiment.

Running Head: PSYCHOLOGY
psychology
[Document subtitle]

PSYCHOLOGY 1
Introduction
The classical learning is a procedure which occurs through an affiliation between the stimulus of
an environment and a stimulus which occurs naturally. The conditional stimulus is a stimulus
which is neutral, ultimately comes to actuate a conditioned response. The unconditional stimulus
is which actuates a response naturally and unconditionally. The unconditioned response is the
one which reacts naturally to the stimulus of the unconditioned. The conditioned response is an
unconditional and natural response created by practicing to a neutral stimulus. An aversive
conditioning is like making use of punishment or unpleasant activities in order to stop and
control the behavior which is unwanted. For example, Pavlov identified classical conditioning
without any intention while doing research on the gastric systems of the animals. While he
measured the rate of salivation of dogs, he identified that they produce saliva when they smelt
and heard food in contemplation of feeding. According to the Pavlov experiment, when the bell
stopped to ring, the dogs had conditioned stimulus. The factors like generalization and extinction
impacts the classical conditioning. In generalization, the stimulus is related to the conditioned
stimulus also evokes the conditioned response (salivation) even if it is not connected with UCS.
In extinction, there is a decline in the conditioned response (Salivation) which occurs
continuously because of the UCS’s absence. Further, there is a model i.e. R-Wwhich stated that
the classical conditioning is not successful all the time during the experiments as the behavior of
humans cannot be predicted in every situation. Therefore, that was a reflex response which was
normal. The stimulus generalization is the aptness for the conditioned stimulus to elicit parallel
responses after the conditioned response. Another example of aversive conditioned is that a
person is having therapy in order to quit smoking and he might get electric shocks every time
they see the picture of cigarette. The main motive behind this is to make the person as comrade

PSYCHOLOGY 2
the stimulus with the unpleasant sensations and vibes. Further, the experiment of classical
conditioning is conducted in the field of psychology. The hypothesis is whenever the word can is
said out loud the girl with closed eyes expects the burst of the balloon.
Method
 Participants
There were three participants in our group, two girls, and a boy. The one girl was reading from
the paper of words. The boy had various balloons and a pin in order to burst them. The other girl
was sitting with her eyes closed. The experiment was conducted in the classroom and the
materials which were used for the experiments are good number of balloons, a pin to burst them,
a paper containing the words.
 Procedure
The experiment was conducted in the class, and the class was filled with the balloons. The girl
who was sitting with the eyes closed was supposed to respond as classical conditioned. As the
other girl was supposed to respond to conditioned stimulus as she was reading a paper with
words. There were series of words which contained the word ‘can’. The first part was in yellow
color. Then there was a green part which contained no ‘can’ word but was having the sequence
of other words. Similarly, the next part which is grey in color was also not having any word
‘can’. Then the blue, yellow and green part were having the word ‘can’ respectively. The boy
was supposed to burst the balloon at every word ‘can, ' but the balloon was not burst in the green
area. Further, in the other part, there was no word ‘can.' Then, again in the yellow sequence the
balloon was burst at the word ‘can.' In the end, the balloon was not burst at the green sequence.
The boy was supposed to respond as classical conditioned.

PSYCHOLOGY 3
Results
During the experiment, the girl who was reading from the paper was normally reading the paper
as she was responding to conditioned stimulus. The girl who was sitting with the eyes closed was
expecting that the balloon will burst whenever the word ‘can’ will be spoken. The boy who was
bursting the balloons was not conscious enough as he didn’t burst the balloon at the word ‘can’
in the last phase. The characteristics of the conditioning were observed at the girl’s end who was
sitting with the eyes closed and who was reading the paper of words. The number of balloons
burst was 21. The additional time allotted was 8 minutes in order to complete the experiment.
Discussion
 Hypothesis
The hypothesis for the experiment is whenever the word can is said out loud the girl with closed
eyes expects the burst of the balloon. Therefore, the result of the experiment doesn't support the
hypothesis as the boy failed to burst the balloon at the word ‘can' in the final sequence. Whereas,
the girl with the closed eyes was expecting the burst of the balloon at the word ‘can.' Hence, the
classical conditioning was not successful.
 Previous Research
According to the researchers (McSweeney et al., 2014), the RW model shows the most
significant phenomena, but it also fails in various ways. For example, the pair of juicy steak and
bell generates more saliva as compared to the pair of dry bread and a bell. The main reason
behind the model is that the CS predicts the US (Brush, F. R. Ed. 2014). According to the
previous research it has been understood that there were lack of results which showed the failure
of classical conditioning as most of the research is done on the successful classical conditioning
only. There are lack of results of failure because the behavior of humans varies in every
situation. So there are not much evidences in order to show the reasons for their behavior. And it

PSYCHOLOGY 4
is difficult to study the perception of humans in every situation in order to make the classical
conditioning successful. Therefore, the model failed just like our own experiment as the classical
conditioning was not successful.
 Limitations
We were expecting from the experiment that we would respond successfully to the classical
conditioning. Further, the demand for the attributes and the effects of the experimenter may
discriminate the results and thus became the variables of confounding, and this could have been
improved in order to get the better result.
 Future Research
According to the research (Ross, L. E. 2014), Pavlov identified that the method of conditioned
reflex is having a limitation i.e. it cannot be utilized in the human subject studies because of the
thinking differences with the results of the experiments.
 Impact of Research in the Real World
The experiment of classical conditioning can be utilized for the learning of taste-aversion as the
built-in biological part inside us tells the organism to evade food when it is associated to illness.
For example, the patients of cancer which undergoes the chemotherapy are provided with food
which has a strange flavor like licorice. The patients feel sick in order to avoid licorice instead of
healthy food which helps in building immune system (Rescorla, R. A. 2014).

PSYCHOLOGY 5
REFERENCES
Brush, F. R. (Ed.). (2014). Aversive conditioning and learning. Academic Press.
McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (2014). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and
classical conditioning. John Wiley & Sons.
Rescorla, R. A. (2014). Pavlovian Second-Order Conditioning (Psychology Revivals): Studies in
Associative Learning. Psychology Press.
Ross, L. E. (2014). Cognitive factors in classical conditioning. Handbook of Learning and
Cognitive Processes (Volume 3): Approaches to Human Learning and Motivation, 3, 103.

PSYCHOLOGY 6
APPENDIX
cup, can, lime, CAN, dish, girl, chalk, can, dish, CAN, key, screen, ran, CAN, desk, CAN, knob, bag, tape,
CAN, dish, clip, CAN, air, ban, cheese, CAN, door, can, wheel, fire, CAN, dish, hair, CAN, ring, nail, CAN,
boat, cap, dish, CAN, crane, wheel, fire, CAN, dish, king, cape, apple, CAN, dog, blue, can, dish, CAN,
take, call, brick, pair, CAN, spin, chair, CAN, camp, CAN, dish, CAN, bridge, scale, can, fan, board, CAN,
cool, three, horn, disk, CAN, can, cast, test, pen, dime, CAN, dish, van, can, card, stand, meat, pad, can,
dish, set, can, tree, ice, plum, can, cost, bird, glass, can, light, can, sword, juice, can, dish, rock, smoke,
grease, dish, keep, kid, tan, dice, hole, set, dish, eye, friend, wax, bill, bulb, dish, class, mine, mark, work,
can, dish, can, bus, dish, phone, can, smart, first, can, crack, feet, can, tub, bowl, can, van, day, can, rake,
dish, CAN, bluff, risk, CAN, salt, dish, CAN, ball, stack, CAN, rain, hat, food, can, van, disk, tree, can