Classical conditioning and Operant Conditioning are learning methods that have been introduced to us to help us understand how we learn and have emotional responses to certain subjects. Classical conditioning and operant conditioning both explain why we react to many things throughout life. Though both are different, they both prove the same point: ways in which we learn. In comparing the two theories I will thoroughly explain the two different learning methods and introduce you to their inventors.
Classical Conditioning is a type of learning in which an organism learns to transfer a natural response from one stimulus to another, previously a neutral stimulus. In order to do so, reflexes must be manipulated. The term "unconditioned" simply means that the stimulus and the response are naturally connected and that the connection was already present before changes have been made. "Stimulus" means the thing that stimulates the subject, or starts it while "response" is the way it is ended or responded to. For example, if we have a test group which consists of a bell, a dog, and food, the dog seeing the food would naturally make him salivate. Now if we present the food to the dog right before he starts to salivate and ring a bell then the dog will start to associate the bell with the food. After several times of ringing the bell when the dog sees the food we would not even need the food anymore to make the dog salivate. He would do so just by hearing the bell because that is what he was used to. This example was the one used to prove to Ian Pavlov and the rest of the country that their in fact was such a learning method called classical conditioning. In the experiment, Pavlov sat behind a one-way mirror and controlled the presentation of the bell. The bell was the conditioned stimulus. Directly after ringing the bell, Pavlov gave the dog food. The food was the unconditioned stimulus and the salivating of the dog was the response.