Operant Conditioning vs Classical Conditioning

Key Takeaways

Operant Conditioning: A learning method focused on how consequences shape voluntary behaviour, developed by Skinner, where behaviours followed by positive outcomes increase in frequency while those followed by negative outcomes decrease.

Classical Conditioning: A learning process where neutral stimuli become associated with natural responses, exemplified by Pavlov’s experiments where dogs learned to salivate at the sound of a bell paired with food.

Key Differences between theories: The theories differ in several critical areas: focus (stimulus associations vs behaviour-consequence relationships), learner role (passive vs active), type of behaviour (involuntary vs voluntary), reinforcement mechanisms (stimulus pairing vs consequence application), and primary applications (emotional responses vs skill development).

Key Similarities between theories: Both conditioning types are forms of associative learning, both explain how experience shapes behaviour, both demonstrate extinction and spontaneous recovery, both exhibit stimulus generalisation and discrimination, both involve similar neural mechanisms, and both have significant practical applications in educational settings.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction

The Foundations of Behavioural Learning

Behavioural learning theories represent some of the most influential frameworks in educational psychology, offering systematic approaches to understanding how individuals acquire and modify behaviours through experiences with their environment. At their core, these theories examine the relationship between stimuli and responses, providing educators with practical insights into the mechanisms of learning (O’Donohue & Ferguson, 2001).

Classical and operant conditioning stand as the two primary pillars of behavioural psychology, each offering distinct yet complementary perspectives on how learning occurs. These theories, developed in the early to mid-20th century, continue to inform educational practices across all levels of instruction, but hold particular relevance in Early Years settings where foundational behaviours and learning patterns are established.

Understanding conditioning principles enables educators to:

• Design effective learning environments that promote desired behaviours
• Implement evidence-based strategies for managing challenging behaviours
• Recognise the environmental factors that influence children’s responses
• Structure learning experiences that enhance retention and transfer

The application of behavioural principles in education has evolved significantly since their inception, moving beyond simplistic stimulus-response models to incorporate cognitive and social dimensions of learning. Contemporary Early Years practice draws upon these theories while acknowledging the complexity of child development and the importance of contextual factors (Pritchard, 2017).

The Significance of Conditioning in Educational Practice

Early Years educators frequently employ conditioning principles—often without explicitly identifying them as such—in their daily interactions with children. From establishing classroom routines to supporting the development of social skills, the mechanisms of classical and operant conditioning underpin many effective teaching strategies.

Research consistently demonstrates the efficacy of behavioural approaches when appropriately applied. A meta-analysis by Hattie (2009) identified behavioural objectives and reinforcement as having significant positive effects on learning outcomes. For Early Years practitioners specifically, understanding the nuances of conditioning can enhance their ability to create environments that promote positive development across cognitive, social, and emotional domains.

The practical value of these theories extends beyond behaviour management to encompass fundamental aspects of teaching and learning:

• Supporting the acquisition of new skills through carefully structured experiences
• Fostering intrinsic motivation while judiciously applying extrinsic reinforcers
• Creating consistent environments that promote security and predictability
• Addressing individual differences in learning patterns and responses

Contemporary Early Years frameworks, including the Early Years Foundation Stage in the United Kingdom, incorporate behavioural principles within broader developmental approaches. This integration acknowledges that while conditioning offers valuable tools, it must be situated within child-centred, play-based pedagogies that recognise children as active participants in their learning journey (Whitebread & Basilio, 2012).

Scope and Purpose

This article examines classical and operant conditioning through an educational lens, with particular attention to their application in Early Years settings. While acknowledging the historical and theoretical foundations of these approaches, the primary focus remains on their practical implications for those working with young children.

The analysis encompasses:

• The theoretical frameworks and key principles of both conditioning types
• Comparative examination of their mechanisms and applications
• Critical evaluation of their strengths and limitations in educational contexts
• Practical strategies for implementation that respect children’s agency and development
• Contemporary perspectives that integrate behavioural approaches with other theoretical frameworks

By examining these theories in depth, this article aims to provide Early Years practitioners, students, and educators with a comprehensive understanding of conditioning principles and their appropriate application in supporting young children’s learning and development.

Key Pioneers in Behavioural Learning

The development of conditioning theories stems from the work of several influential researchers. Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), a Russian physiologist, identified the principles of classical conditioning through his experiments with dogs, demonstrating how neutral stimuli could be associated with unconditioned responses to elicit conditioned behaviours (Pavlov, 1927). His work established fundamental concepts regarding associative learning that continue to inform educational practice.

B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) expanded upon these foundations through his extensive research on operant conditioning, introducing the concept of reinforcement and developing the understanding of how consequences shape behaviour. His experimental work with what became known as the “Skinner box” provided empirical evidence for the principles that would significantly influence educational approaches throughout the latter half of the 20th century (Skinner, 1953).

Other notable contributors include John Watson, who applied conditioning principles to emotional responses, and Edward Thorndike, whose “Law of Effect” preceded and influenced Skinner’s work on reinforcement. Together, these researchers established the scientific foundations upon which contemporary applications of behavioural learning theory are built.

Historical Context

The Emergence of Behavioural Psychology

Behavioural psychology emerged in the early 20th century as a reaction against the introspective methods that dominated psychological inquiry at the time. This approach, championed initially by John B. Watson, shifted focus from internal mental processes to observable behaviours, establishing a more empirical foundation for psychological research (Watson, 1913). Watson’s influential paper “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” articulated a vision for psychology as an objective experimental science, emphasising the study of behaviour rather than consciousness.

The philosophical underpinnings of behaviourism can be traced to earlier empiricist thinkers, including John Locke and David Hume, who emphasised the role of experience in shaping human knowledge and behaviour. These empiricist foundations provided the intellectual context for a psychology that would prioritise observable phenomena over intangible mental constructs.

The development of behavioural psychology represented a significant methodological shift with far-reaching implications for education:

• It established the scientific study of learning based on empirical observation
• It focused attention on the role of environment in shaping behaviour
• It provided a framework for understanding how behaviours are acquired and modified
• It offered practical applications for teaching and behaviour management

This scientific approach to studying learning processes would eventually yield two distinct but related conditioning paradigms: classical and operant conditioning, each making unique contributions to our understanding of how learning occurs.

Classical Conditioning: Pavlov’s Breakthrough

The formal study of classical conditioning began with Ivan Pavlov’s research in the 1890s and early 1900s. While investigating the digestive processes of dogs, Pavlov noticed that his subjects would salivate not only when food was presented but also in response to stimuli associated with feeding, such as the footsteps of the laboratory assistant who regularly brought their meals (Pavlov, 1927).

This observation led to a series of carefully designed experiments in which Pavlov demonstrated that a previously neutral stimulus (such as a bell or metronome) could, through repeated pairing with an unconditioned stimulus (food), come to elicit a conditioned response (salivation) similar to the unconditioned response. This process, which Pavlov termed “conditional reflexes,” established the fundamental principles of associative learning.

Pavlov’s experimental methodology was notable for its rigour, including:

• Precise measurement of physiological responses
• Careful control of experimental conditions
• Systematic investigation of variables affecting conditioning
• Documentation of phenomena such as extinction, spontaneous recovery, and stimulus generalisation

Though Pavlov himself was a physiologist rather than a psychologist, his work became foundational to behavioural psychology and provided a scientific model for understanding how environmental stimuli influence learning. His research demonstrated that complex behaviours could be understood through the study of simple stimulus-response associations, a principle that would significantly influence educational theory throughout the 20th century.

Operant Conditioning: From Thorndike to Skinner

While Pavlov’s work focused on reflex responses, Edward Thorndike examined how voluntary behaviours are affected by their consequences. In his puzzle-box experiments with cats in the late 1890s, Thorndike documented how animals learned to escape from confinement through trial and error, gradually eliminating ineffective responses and retaining successful ones (Thorndike, 1898).

From these observations, Thorndike formulated his “Law of Effect,” stating that responses followed by satisfaction are strengthened, whilst those followed by discomfort are weakened. This principle laid the groundwork for what would later be developed as operant conditioning theory:

• It established the importance of consequences in learning
• It highlighted the role of reinforcement in strengthening behaviours
• It demonstrated that learning occurs through active interaction with the environment
• It suggested practical applications for shaping behaviour through arranged consequences

Building upon Thorndike’s foundations, B.F. Skinner developed a comprehensive experimental analysis of behaviour starting in the 1930s. Using apparatus like the operant conditioning chamber (the “Skinner box”), he systematically investigated how consequences shape voluntary behaviour (Skinner, 1938).

Skinner expanded Thorndike’s work by:

• Developing precise experimental methods for studying operant behaviour
• Identifying different types of reinforcement and punishment
• Discovering various schedules of reinforcement and their effects on response patterns
• Demonstrating techniques for shaping complex behaviours through successive approximation

Skinner’s research had profound implications for education, suggesting that learning could be engineered through the careful arrangement of environmental contingencies. His work provided a scientific basis for instructional techniques such as programmed learning, behaviour modification, and token economies—approaches that continue to influence educational practice in Early Years settings and beyond.

Timeline of Key Developments

The evolution of conditioning theories represents a progressive refinement of understanding about how learning occurs, with each development building upon previous insights:

• 1890s: Thorndike conducts his puzzle-box experiments, leading to the formulation of the Law of Effect (Thorndike, 1898)
• 1897: Pavlov begins his systematic study of what would later be called classical conditioning
• 1902: Pavlov coins the term “conditional reflex” to describe his observations
• 1913: Watson publishes “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” establishing behaviourism as a dominant approach in psychology
• 1920: Watson and Raynor demonstrate conditional emotional responses in the controversial “Little Albert” experiment (Watson & Raynor, 1920)
• 1927: Pavlov publishes “Conditioned Reflexes,” synthesising his research on classical conditioning
• 1938: Skinner publishes “The Behavior of Organisms,” establishing the foundations of operant conditioning
• 1943: Clark Hull develops a mathematical theory of learning based on conditioning principles (Hull, 1943)
• 1950s: Skinner applies operant principles to education, developing teaching machines and programmed instruction
• 1953: Skinner publishes “Science and Human Behavior,” extending operant principles to complex human activities
• 1957: Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior” attempts to explain language acquisition through operant principles
• 1960s: Applied behaviour analysis emerges as a field applying conditioning principles to practical problems
• 1970s: Cognitive factors in conditioning gain recognition, leading to more integrated approaches
• 1980s-present: Neuroscientific research provides biological explanations for conditioning processes, enhancing understanding of learning mechanisms

This historical progression reveals how conditioning theories evolved from simple stimulus-response models to increasingly sophisticated frameworks for understanding learning. Throughout this development, the application of conditioning principles to education has remained a central concern, with particular relevance to Early Years practice where fundamental learning patterns are established.

Classical Conditioning: Core Principles

Defining Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning represents a fundamental form of associative learning in which a neutral stimulus acquires the capacity to elicit a response after being paired with a stimulus that naturally evokes that response. This process, first systematically studied by Ivan Pavlov, demonstrates how organisms learn to anticipate events and form associations between previously unrelated stimuli (Bouton, 2016).

At its essence, classical conditioning involves learning through association rather than through the consequences of one’s actions. It primarily concerns reflexive or involuntary responses such as emotional reactions, physiological processes, and simple motor reflexes. This distinguishes it from operant conditioning, which focuses on voluntary behaviours affected by their consequences.

The significance of classical conditioning extends beyond laboratory settings to everyday learning contexts, including Early Years environments, where it helps explain how children develop emotional associations, anticipatory responses, and certain automatic behaviours. Understanding these processes provides educators with insights into how learning environments shape children’s responses to various stimuli.

Key characteristics of classical conditioning include:

• It involves involuntary, reflexive responses rather than deliberate actions
• Learning occurs through temporal association between stimuli
• The learner is relatively passive in the process
• The conditioned response resembles the unconditioned response in form
• Timing and contiguity between stimuli are crucial factors affecting learning

The Conditioning Process: Elements and Mechanisms

Classical conditioning involves several essential components that interact in a specific sequence to produce learning. Understanding these elements is fundamental to applying conditioning principles effectively in educational contexts.

Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS)

The unconditioned stimulus is a stimulus that naturally and automatically triggers a response without any prior learning. In Pavlov’s original experiments, food served as the UCS, naturally eliciting salivation in his canine subjects. In Early Years settings, unconditioned stimuli might include loud noises (eliciting startle responses) or physical comfort (producing relaxation).

Unconditioned Response (UCR)

The unconditioned response is the natural, unlearned reaction to the unconditioned stimulus. It occurs automatically without requiring previous experience or conditioning. Salivation in response to food, withdrawal from pain, or emotional reactions to certain stimuli exemplify unconditioned responses. These responses form the foundation upon which conditioned responses are built.

Conditioned Stimulus (CS)

The conditioned stimulus begins as a neutral stimulus that initially produces no particular response of interest. Through repeated pairing with the unconditioned stimulus, this previously neutral stimulus acquires the ability to elicit a response similar to the unconditioned response. In educational contexts, conditioned stimuli might include classroom signals, teacher gestures, or environmental cues that come to indicate forthcoming activities or expectations.

Conditioned Response (CR)

The conditioned response is the learned reaction to the conditioned stimulus after association with the unconditioned stimulus has been established. While similar to the unconditioned response, the conditioned response may differ somewhat in intensity, duration, or precise form. For instance, a child’s anticipatory excitement upon seeing art supplies after repeatedly enjoying art activities represents a conditioned response in an educational setting.

The conditioning process progresses through several phases (Rescorla, 1988):

• Pre-conditioning: The CS produces no significant response, while the UCS reliably elicits the UCR
• Acquisition: The CS and UCS are repeatedly paired, with the CS gradually acquiring the ability to elicit a response
• Post-conditioning: The CS alone becomes capable of eliciting the CR, demonstrating that learning has occurred
• Maintenance or extinction: Depending on continued reinforcement or non-reinforcement, the CR is either maintained or gradually diminishes

Types of Classical Conditioning

Research has identified several variations of classical conditioning, distinguished primarily by the temporal relationship between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus.

Delay Conditioning

In delay conditioning, the conditioned stimulus is presented and remains present until the unconditioned stimulus occurs. There is an overlap between the CS and UCS, with the CS beginning before the UCS but continuing until the UCS is presented. This arrangement typically produces the strongest and most reliable conditioning, as the temporal contiguity between stimuli is clear (Gormezano & Kehoe, 1975).

In Early Years practice, delay conditioning might occur when a teacher consistently uses a specific signal that remains present until an activity begins, such as displaying a visual timetable symbol throughout the transition to the indicated activity.

Trace Conditioning

Trace conditioning involves a gap between the offset of the conditioned stimulus and the onset of the unconditioned stimulus. The CS is presented and terminated completely before the UCS appears, requiring the learner to maintain a “trace” or memory of the CS during the interval.

This form of conditioning is typically more difficult to establish and maintain than delay conditioning, as it demands more cognitive processing and an ability to bridge the temporal gap between stimuli. It has particular relevance to understanding how children learn to anticipate events that follow predictable signals after a delay.

Simultaneous Conditioning

In simultaneous conditioning, the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus begin and end together. While this arrangement might seem ideal for forming associations, research indicates it is actually less effective than delay conditioning, possibly because it provides fewer opportunities for the CS to serve as a predictor of the UCS (Rescorla, 1988).

Backward Conditioning

Backward conditioning represents an arrangement in which the unconditioned stimulus precedes the conditioned stimulus—the reverse of the typical conditioning procedure. This arrangement rarely produces conditioning, supporting the theory that classical conditioning involves learning predictive relationships rather than merely forming associations based on contiguity (Mackintosh, 1983).

Key Experiments and Evidence

Classical conditioning principles have been demonstrated through numerous experimental studies that extend and refine Pavlov’s original work.

Pavlov’s Original Investigations

Pavlov’s experiments with dogs established the fundamental principles of classical conditioning. By precisely controlling the presentation of stimuli and measuring salivary responses, he demonstrated how a previously neutral stimulus (bell) could come to elicit salivation after repeated pairing with food. His methodical approach enabled him to document phenomena such as acquisition, extinction, spontaneous recovery, and stimulus generalisation (Pavlov, 1927).

Little Albert Experiment

Watson and Raynor’s controversial 1920 study with an infant known as “Little Albert” demonstrated the conditioning of emotional responses in humans. By pairing a loud noise (UCS) with the presentation of a white rat (CS), they produced a fear response to the previously neutral rat. This study, despite its ethical shortcomings by modern standards, illustrated how emotional reactions could be conditioned and how such conditioning might explain the development of phobias and emotional associations (Watson & Raynor, 1920).

Eyeblink Conditioning

Modern research has extensively utilised eyeblink conditioning, in which a puff of air to the eye (UCS) is paired with a tone or light (CS). This paradigm has proven valuable for studying the neural mechanisms of classical conditioning, with research identifying specific brain structures, particularly the cerebellum, as critical for this form of learning (Thompson, 2005).

Taste Aversion Studies

Garcia and Koelling’s research on conditioned taste aversion demonstrated that rats could learn to avoid flavoured water (CS) after it was paired with radiation or toxins that induced nausea (UCS), even when the illness occurred hours after consumption. This “long-delay learning” challenged traditional views about temporal contiguity in conditioning and suggested that biological preparedness influences what associations are readily formed (Garcia & Koelling, 1966).

Secondary Phenomena in Classical Conditioning

Beyond the basic conditioning process, several important phenomena have been identified that help explain the complexity and dynamics of classically conditioned responses.

Extinction

Extinction occurs when the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus, leading to a gradual weakening and eventual disappearance of the conditioned response. This process demonstrates that classical conditioning is not permanent but responsive to changing contingencies in the environment (Bouton, 2004).

In Early Years settings, extinction might be observed when a teacher stops using a particular signal that previously indicated a specific activity, resulting in children gradually ceasing to show anticipatory responses to that signal.

Spontaneous Recovery

Spontaneous recovery refers to the reappearance of an extinguished conditioned response after a period of rest, without additional conditioning. This phenomenon indicates that extinction does not erase the original learning but rather suppresses it temporarily, with the potential for recovery under certain conditions (Rescorla, 2004).

Understanding spontaneous recovery is particularly relevant for Early Years practitioners addressing challenging behaviours, as it explains why previously extinguished responses may unexpectedly reappear, necessitating consistent approaches to behaviour management.

Stimulus Generalisation

Stimulus generalisation occurs when stimuli similar to the original conditioned stimulus elicit the conditioned response, with the strength of the response typically proportional to the similarity between stimuli. This phenomenon explains how learning extends beyond the specific training conditions to novel but related situations (Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2003).

In educational contexts, generalisation enables children to apply learned responses to new but similar situations—for instance, responding appropriately to a substitute teacher’s hand signal that resembles their regular teacher’s signal for attention.

Stimulus Discrimination

Stimulus discrimination represents the complement to generalisation, involving the ability to respond differently to stimuli that differ from the conditioned stimulus. Through differential reinforcement, learners come to distinguish between similar stimuli, responding to those associated with the unconditioned stimulus while not responding to those that lack such association (Mackintosh, 1983).

This process is evident when children learn to distinguish between similar-looking materials or symbols in the classroom, responding appropriately to each based on their learned associations.

Higher-Order Conditioning

Higher-order conditioning occurs when a well-established conditioned stimulus functions as an unconditioned stimulus for conditioning another neutral stimulus. This process demonstrates how chains of associations can develop, extending the reach of conditioning beyond direct UCS-CS pairings (Rizley & Rescorla, 1972).

Through higher-order conditioning, Early Years environments develop complex networks of associations that influence children’s expectations, emotional responses, and behaviours across various situations and contexts.

These principles of classical conditioning provide a framework for understanding many aspects of learning in Early Years settings, particularly those involving emotional responses, anticipatory behaviours, and automatic reactions to environmental stimuli. By recognising how these processes operate, educators can create environments that foster positive associations with learning activities and effectively address challenges that arise from negative conditioning experiences.

Operant Conditioning: Core Principles

Understanding Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning represents a form of learning in which behaviour is modified through its consequences. Unlike classical conditioning, which focuses on the association between stimuli and reflexive responses, operant conditioning addresses how voluntary behaviours are strengthened or weakened by their outcomes. This approach, developed principally by B.F. Skinner, provides a powerful framework for understanding how individuals learn from interaction with their environment (Skinner, 1953).

The fundamental premise of operant conditioning is that behaviours followed by favourable consequences tend to increase in frequency, while those followed by unfavourable consequences tend to decrease. This principle, building upon Thorndike’s Law of Effect, suggests that learning is an active process in which the learner’s behaviour is shaped by its effects on the environment.

In Early Years education, operant conditioning principles underpin many common practices, from structured reward systems to the natural contingencies that shape children’s social interactions. Understanding these principles enables educators to create environments that effectively support desired behaviours and learning outcomes.

Essential characteristics of operant conditioning include:

• It involves voluntary, deliberate behaviours rather than reflexive responses
• Learning occurs through the consequences that follow behaviour
• The learner actively operates on the environment
• Behaviour is instrumental in obtaining rewards or avoiding aversive outcomes
• The relationship between behaviour and consequence is crucial for learning

Types of Reinforcement

Reinforcement refers to any consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated. This process plays a central role in operant conditioning, offering a mechanism through which educators can systematically strengthen desired behaviours. Reinforcement appears in two primary forms: positive and negative.

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement involves adding a desirable stimulus following a behaviour, thereby increasing the probability of that behaviour recurring. The term “positive” in this context refers to the addition of a stimulus, not its desirability (Cooper et al., 2019).

In Early Years settings, positive reinforcement might include:

• Verbal praise following appropriate sharing behaviour
• Awarding stickers or tokens for completing tasks
• Providing additional play time after successful group activities
• Offering specific feedback that acknowledges effort or accomplishment

Research consistently demonstrates the effectiveness of positive reinforcement in promoting learning and desired behaviours. A meta-analysis by Cameron et al. (2001) found that tangible rewards, when appropriately implemented, can enhance interest, performance, and persistence in educational tasks.

The effectiveness of positive reinforcement depends on several factors, including the timing of delivery (immediate reinforcement typically produces stronger effects), the value of the reinforcer to the individual, and the consistency with which reinforcement follows the target behaviour. Early Years practitioners must consider these variables when designing reinforcement strategies to support children’s learning and development.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement occurs when a behaviour increases in frequency because it results in the removal or avoidance of an aversive stimulus. The term “negative” refers to the removal of a stimulus rather than indicating punishment (Miltenberger, 2016).

Examples of negative reinforcement in Early Years contexts include:

• A child cleaning up toys to avoid losing playtime privileges
• Completing a challenging task to escape continuous prompting
• Following directions to avoid missing a preferred activity
• Participating in group activities to prevent feeling left out

Whilst negative reinforcement can effectively increase behaviour, it requires careful implementation to avoid creating anxiety or avoidance patterns. When used appropriately, however, it can help children develop self-regulation and responsibility by learning to engage in behaviours that prevent negative outcomes.

Types of Punishment

Punishment refers to consequences that decrease the likelihood of a behaviour recurring. Although reinforcement typically offers greater long-term effectiveness for promoting learning, understanding punishment principles remains important for Early Years practitioners addressing challenging behaviours.

Positive Punishment

Positive punishment involves adding an aversive stimulus following a behaviour, thereby decreasing the probability of that behaviour recurring. The addition of the stimulus defines this as “positive” punishment, regardless of its desirability (Cooper et al., 2019).

In educational contexts, examples might include:

• Verbal reprimands following disruptive behaviour
• Assigning additional tasks after incomplete work
• Requiring a child to clean up after making a deliberate mess
• Implementing a brief time-out after aggressive behaviour

Research indicates that positive punishment, while capable of producing rapid behaviour suppression, often yields unintended consequences including anxiety, avoidance of the punishing agent, and modelling of aversive strategies (Gershoff, 2002). Consequently, Early Years practitioners typically emphasise positive approaches while using punishment strategies sparingly and thoughtfully.

Negative Punishment

Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus following a behaviour, thereby decreasing the probability of that behaviour recurring. This approach focuses on the withdrawal of privileges or opportunities rather than the application of aversive stimuli (Miltenberger, 2016).

Examples in Early Years settings include:

• Temporarily removing a toy that has been misused
• Reducing free play time following failure to follow directions
• Withdrawing attention for attention-seeking misbehaviour
• Removing a child from a group activity after persistent disruption

Negative punishment typically produces fewer adverse emotional side effects than positive punishment, making it generally preferable when punishment strategies are deemed necessary. However, all punishment approaches should be implemented within a predominantly positive framework that emphasises teaching and reinforcing alternative appropriate behaviours.

Schedules of Reinforcement

The schedule of reinforcement—the pattern according to which reinforcement follows behaviour—significantly influences the rate, persistence, and pattern of responding. Skinner’s research identified several basic schedules, each producing characteristic response patterns with important implications for learning (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).

Continuous Reinforcement

Continuous reinforcement (CRF) occurs when every instance of a target behaviour receives reinforcement. This schedule typically produces rapid acquisition of new behaviours and is therefore particularly valuable during initial learning stages.

In Early Years practice, continuous reinforcement might involve acknowledging each instance of appropriate turn-taking during a structured activity or providing immediate feedback for each step completed in a multi-step task. While effective for establishing behaviours, continuous reinforcement requires gradual thinning to prevent dependency and rapid extinction when reinforcement ceases.

Intermittent Reinforcement

Intermittent reinforcement involves reinforcing a behaviour only some of the time, according to either a ratio schedule (based on number of responses) or an interval schedule (based on time elapsed). These schedules generally produce more persistent responding than continuous reinforcement, with greater resistance to extinction.

Fixed Ratio Schedules

Fixed ratio (FR) schedules deliver reinforcement after a predetermined number of correct responses. As the ratio increases, the response rate typically accelerates to obtain reinforcement more quickly, with a brief pause following reinforcement (the “post-reinforcement pause”).

In educational settings, fixed ratio schedules might involve providing a reward after a child completes a specified number of worksheets or participates in a certain number of group activities. These schedules can effectively motivate high rates of responding but may produce fatigue if the ratio becomes too demanding.

Variable Ratio Schedules

Variable ratio (VR) schedules deliver reinforcement after an unpredictable number of responses, fluctuating around an average value. This unpredictability generates high, steady response rates with minimal post-reinforcement pausing and exceptional resistance to extinction.

Early Years applications might include providing intermittent praise for sustained engagement with learning materials or occasionally recognising instances of appropriate social interaction. The unpredictable nature of reinforcement under these schedules helps maintain behaviour even when reinforcement becomes infrequent.

Fixed Interval Schedules

Fixed interval (FI) schedules deliver reinforcement for the first appropriate response after a specified time period has elapsed. This arrangement typically produces a “scalloped” pattern of responding, with gradually increasing response rates as the reinforcement time approaches.

In classroom settings, fixed interval schedules might involve checking work at regular intervals and providing feedback or reviewing behaviour at consistent times throughout the day. These predictable patterns can help establish rhythms of activity but may produce uneven effort if children learn to anticipate reinforcement timing.

Variable Interval Schedules

Variable interval (VI) schedules deliver reinforcement for the first appropriate response after varying time periods, fluctuating around an average value. This arrangement typically produces moderate, steady response rates with good resistance to extinction.

Applications in Early Years practice might include periodic but unpredictable observation and acknowledgement of appropriate behaviour or occasional surprise recognition of ongoing learning engagement. The unpredictable timing of reinforcement helps maintain consistent behaviour patterns throughout educational activities.

Research indicates that variable schedules, particularly variable ratio schedules, produce the greatest persistence of behaviour—a finding with important implications for establishing lasting learning patterns (Nevin, 2012). Early Years practitioners can strategically employ these schedules to promote durable learning whilst gradually reducing dependency on external reinforcement.

Shaping and Chaining Behaviours

Many educational objectives involve complex behaviours that children cannot immediately perform in their entirety. Operant conditioning provides systematic approaches for developing such behaviours through shaping and chaining techniques.

Shaping Through Successive Approximation

Shaping involves reinforcing progressively closer approximations to a target behaviour, gradually refining performance until the complete behaviour emerges. This approach recognises that complex behaviours develop incrementally and require supportive guidance throughout the acquisition process (Cooper et al., 2019).

The shaping process typically follows several steps:

• Identifying the target terminal behaviour
• Determining the child’s current performance level
• Establishing an initial approximation that the child can succeed with
• Reinforcing successful performance at each level
• Gradually raising criteria for reinforcement as performance improves
• Continuing until the terminal behaviour is established

In Early Years settings, shaping might be applied to develop skills such as handwriting, where initial reinforcement for proper grip gradually shifts to reinforcing letter formation, spacing, and eventually fluid writing. Similarly, social skills like turn-taking might be shaped by initially reinforcing brief waiting periods and progressively extending the duration of appropriate waiting.

Effective shaping requires sensitivity to each child’s developing capabilities, with reinforcement criteria advancing neither too quickly (causing frustration) nor too slowly (delaying progress). When skillfully implemented, shaping enables children to acquire complex behaviours that would be difficult to establish through other methods.

Behaviour Chaining

Behaviour chaining involves breaking a complex behaviour into distinct components and teaching these components sequentially, linking them together to form a complete behavioural sequence. This approach can follow either a forward chaining pattern (teaching from beginning to end) or a backward chaining pattern (teaching from end to beginning) depending on the nature of the task (Miltenberger, 2016).

The chaining process typically includes:

• Task analysis to identify component behaviours
• Determining the chaining direction (forward or backward)
• Teaching each component with appropriate prompting and reinforcement
• Linking components by requiring completion of previously mastered steps
• Gradually removing prompts while maintaining the complete sequence
• Providing reinforcement for successful chain completion

Early Years applications include teaching self-care routines like handwashing (forward chain) or dressing (often taught as a backward chain, with the child completing the final steps first). Similarly, classroom routines such as preparing materials for activities can be effectively taught through chaining procedures.

Backward chaining often proves particularly effective for motivational purposes, as it enables the child to experience the natural reinforcement of task completion from the earliest learning stages. This approach aligns with Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding, providing support that gradually fades as competence develops (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

Through systematic application of shaping and chaining techniques, Early Years practitioners can support children’s acquisition of complex skill sequences that form the foundation for independence and academic success. These approaches exemplify the practical utility of operant conditioning principles in educational contexts, demonstrating how structured learning environments can systematically develop sophisticated behavioural repertoires.

The principles of operant conditioning—reinforcement, punishment, schedules, shaping, and chaining—provide Early Years practitioners with powerful tools for supporting children’s learning and development. When applied with sensitivity to individual differences and integrated within a developmentally appropriate framework, these principles enable educators to create environments that effectively promote positive behaviour and meaningful learning.

Comparative Analysis: Operant and Classical Conditioning

Fundamental Similarities

Classical and operant conditioning, whilst distinct in their mechanisms, share foundational principles as behavioural learning theories. Both approaches emerged from the empirical tradition in psychology, emphasising observable behaviour rather than internal mental processes, and both provide systematic frameworks for understanding how experience shapes learning (Domjan, 2014).

At their core, both conditioning types represent forms of associative learning—processes through which connections are established between events in the organism’s experience. These associations enable prediction and adaptation to environmental contingencies, allowing learners to adjust their behaviour based on patterns they encounter. This adaptive function underscores the evolutionary significance of both conditioning types as mechanisms that enhance survival and functioning (Bouton, 2016).

Additional similarities between the conditioning approaches include:

• Both demonstrate how learning results from interactions with the environment
• Both involve the temporal relationship between stimuli or between behaviour and consequences
• Both show extinction when reinforcing conditions cease
• Both exhibit spontaneous recovery of previously learned associations
• Both demonstrate stimulus generalisation and discrimination
• Both transfer readily across various contexts and species

The methodological approaches to studying these phenomena also share common elements. Both were initially investigated through carefully controlled laboratory experiments that isolated specific variables influencing learning. These experimental traditions established precise terminology and operational definitions that continue to guide research and application in educational contexts.

From a neurobiological perspective, both conditioning types involve similar underlying mechanisms of synaptic plasticity, with repeated patterns of activation strengthening neural connections associated with learning. Research by Kandel and colleagues has demonstrated that even simple forms of both classical and operant conditioning involve comparable cellular mechanisms across species (Kandel, 2001).

Key Differences in Principles and Applications

Despite these similarities, classical and operant conditioning differ fundamentally in their focus and mechanisms. Classical conditioning concerns the formation of associations between stimuli, whilst operant conditioning addresses the relationship between behaviour and its consequences (Bouton, 2016).

Learning Focus

Classical conditioning focuses on respondent behaviour—responses automatically elicited by specific stimuli. The learning occurs when a previously neutral stimulus acquires the capacity to elicit a response originally associated with another stimulus. This process primarily involves the transfer of response-eliciting properties from one stimulus to another.

In contrast, operant conditioning concerns instrumental behaviour—actions performed to achieve certain outcomes. Learning occurs when behaviour is modified by its consequences, with the probability of a behaviour increasing or decreasing based on what follows it. This process involves learning relationships between actions and outcomes rather than between stimuli.

Temporal Relationships

The temporal relationships central to each conditioning type also differ significantly. In classical conditioning, the critical relationship exists between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli, with conditioning strength typically maximised when the CS slightly precedes the UCS (trace and delay conditioning).

For operant conditioning, the crucial temporal relationship exists between the behaviour and its consequence, with reinforcement effectiveness typically decreasing as the delay between action and consequence increases. This immediacy principle has important implications for educational practice, suggesting that feedback and consequences should closely follow target behaviours (Cooper et al., 2019).

Role of the Learner

The learner’s role differs substantially between conditioning types. In classical conditioning, the learner is relatively passive, with associations formed automatically through stimulus pairings that occur regardless of the learner’s actions. The conditioned response develops through exposure to stimulus contingencies rather than through deliberate effort.

Operant conditioning, conversely, positions the learner as an active agent who operates on the environment. Behaviours are emitted rather than elicited, and learning occurs as these voluntary actions encounter differential consequences. This active role aligns operant conditioning more closely with constructivist approaches to education that emphasise learner agency (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Stimulus-Response Relationships

The configuration of stimulus-response relationships represents another significant distinction between conditioning types, with important implications for educational application.

Classical Conditioning Relationships

In classical conditioning, the fundamental relationship involves a stimulus eliciting a response, with learning occurring when a previously neutral stimulus acquires the capacity to elicit a response similar to that triggered by the unconditioned stimulus. The process follows a stimulus-stimulus-response pattern:

1. The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) naturally elicits the unconditioned response (UCR)
2. The conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with the UCS
3. The CS eventually elicits the conditioned response (CR), similar to the UCR

This arrangement indicates that classical conditioning primarily concerns how stimuli become signals for forthcoming events, enabling anticipatory responses. In educational settings, this explains how environmental cues acquire the capacity to elicit emotional and physiological responses that influence learning readiness (Watson & Rayner, 1920).

Operant Conditioning Relationships

Operant conditioning involves a distinctly different relationship pattern, following a response-stimulus sequence:

1. The organism emits a voluntary behaviour (response)
2. The behaviour produces a consequence (stimulus)
3. The probability of the behaviour recurring is affected by the consequence

This sequence emphasises how behaviour operates on the environment to produce outcomes that subsequently influence behavioural frequency. In educational contexts, this relationship helps explain how patterns of engagement, participation, and achievement develop through differential feedback and outcomes (Skinner, 1953).

Michael (1993) highlighted this distinction by characterising classical conditioning as “respondent” and operant conditioning as “operant,” emphasising the different directions of control in each process. This terminology captures the essential difference in causal direction: in classical conditioning, stimuli control responses; in operant conditioning, responses control subsequent stimuli.

Role of Reinforcement

Reinforcement functions differently within each conditioning paradigm, reflecting their distinct learning mechanisms.

Reinforcement in Classical Conditioning

In classical conditioning, reinforcement refers to the maintenance of the association between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. The UCS serves as the reinforcer, with conditioning strength dependent on factors such as UCS intensity, CS-UCS contiguity, and CS salience (Rescorla, 1988).

Critically, reinforcement in classical conditioning does not depend on the learner’s behaviour but on the continued pairing of stimuli. The process strengthens the association between stimuli rather than increasing the frequency of a voluntary response. This distinction explains why classically conditioned associations can develop without deliberate action from the learner.

Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning employs reinforcement as a consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour recurring. Unlike in classical conditioning, reinforcement directly targets the behaviour itself rather than associations between stimuli. The reinforcer derives its effectiveness from its capacity to strengthen preceding behaviour, whether through adding something desirable (positive reinforcement) or removing something aversive (negative reinforcement) (Skinner, 1953).

This behavioural focus makes reinforcement in operant conditioning particularly relevant to educational practices aimed at promoting specific learning behaviours, social skills, and academic performance. The systematic application of reinforcement contingencies provides educators with direct tools for shaping children’s behavioural repertoires.

Voluntary Versus Involuntary Behaviour

Perhaps the most fundamental distinction between classical and operant conditioning concerns the types of behaviour addressed by each approach.

Involuntary Behaviour in Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning primarily addresses respondent behaviours—involuntary, reflexive responses elicited by specific stimuli. These responses typically involve the autonomic nervous system and include physiological processes such as salivation, heart rate changes, emotional reactions, and simple reflexes. The involuntary nature of these responses means they occur automatically when elicited by appropriate stimuli, without requiring deliberate decision-making (Pavlov, 1927).

In Early Years contexts, classical conditioning helps explain how children develop emotional associations with learning environments, materials, and social situations. For instance, a child who repeatedly experiences anxiety during mathematical activities may develop a conditioned fear response to mathematical materials through classical conditioning processes.

Voluntary Behaviour in Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning addresses operant behaviours—voluntary, deliberate actions that operate on the environment to produce consequences. These behaviours involve skeletal musculature under conscious control and include most educational activities such as speaking, writing, participating in group work, and completing assignments. Their voluntary nature means they can be readily influenced by their consequences (Skinner, 1953).

This focus on voluntary behaviour makes operant conditioning particularly applicable to educational objectives involving skill acquisition, academic engagement, and social interaction. By arranging consequences to reinforce desired behaviours, Early Years practitioners can effectively promote learning-related behaviours that support educational goals.

Integration in Educational Practice

Despite their theoretical distinctions, classical and operant conditioning often function simultaneously in educational environments, with complete learning experiences involving elements of both processes (Domjan, 2014).

For example, a child learning to read experiences classical conditioning as certain visual symbols (letters) become associated with specific sounds, eliciting automatic recognition responses. Simultaneously, operant conditioning occurs as the child’s reading attempts produce consequences such as teacher feedback, comprehension experiences, and social recognition, shaping reading behaviour through reinforcement.

This integration appears particularly evident in Early Years settings, where emotional responses to learning contexts (classical conditioning) interact with the consequences of learning behaviours (operant conditioning) to shape educational trajectories. As Bandura’s social cognitive theory suggests, learning involves complex interactions between environmental stimuli, cognitive processes, and behavioural outcomes—incorporating elements of both conditioning types within broader learning mechanisms (Bandura, 1986).

Effective educational practice recognises this integration, addressing both the emotional-motivational aspects of learning influenced by classical conditioning and the behavioural-performance aspects shaped by operant conditioning. By understanding how these processes complement each other, Early Years practitioners can create comprehensive learning environments that support children’s development across multiple domains.

The complementary relationship between classical and operant conditioning provides a more complete account of learning than either theory alone. Classical conditioning helps explain how environmental stimuli acquire the capacity to elicit emotional and motivational responses that influence learning readiness, whilst operant conditioning demonstrates how specific learning behaviours develop through their consequences. Together, these theories offer powerful tools for understanding and supporting the complex learning processes that unfold in Early Years settings.

Applications in Early Childhood Education

Practical Classroom Implementations

Conditioning principles offer Early Years practitioners valuable tools for creating effective learning environments. Both classical and operant conditioning inform everyday classroom practices, often implemented intuitively by educators without explicit theoretical reference. When thoughtfully applied, these principles support children’s development across cognitive, social, and emotional domains (Woolfolk, 2019).

In Early Years settings, classical conditioning frequently appears in the establishment of classroom routines and transitions. Consistent pairing of specific signals (such as a particular song) with upcoming activities helps children develop anticipatory responses that facilitate smooth transitions between different parts of the day. This predictability creates a secure environment where children can confidently navigate their learning experiences (Kostelnik et al., 2015).

Operant conditioning principles manifest in numerous classroom practices, including:

• Token economies that provide tangible reinforcement for desired behaviours
• Visual progress charts that track and reinforce skill development
• Structured feedback systems that strengthen learning behaviours
• Activity-based rewards that motivate engagement with challenging tasks

Research by Filcheck et al. (2004) demonstrated that well-designed token systems can effectively promote positive behaviours in Early Years settings whilst minimising disruptive conduct. The effectiveness of such systems depends on consistent implementation, clear behavioural expectations, and reinforcers that hold genuine value for the children involved.

Behaviour Management Strategies

Conditioning approaches offer systematic frameworks for addressing behavioural challenges in Early Years settings. Effective management strategies typically combine preventive approaches based on classical conditioning with responsive techniques grounded in operant principles (Alberto & Troutman, 2013).

Classical conditioning contributes to behaviour management through the creation of positive associations with appropriate behaviour. By pairing prosocial expectations with pleasant experiences, practitioners help children develop positive emotional responses to behavioural guidelines. This approach focuses on establishing environmental conditions that naturally elicit desired behaviours rather than relying exclusively on consequences.

Operant-based strategies provide structured approaches for addressing specific behavioural challenges, including:

• Differential reinforcement that strengthens desired behaviours whilst minimising attention to challenging ones
• Response cost systems that impose proportionate consequences for inappropriate behaviour
• Timeout procedures that temporarily remove reinforcement opportunities following misconduct
• Behavioural contracts that establish clear expectations and consequences for older children

Research indicates that positive approaches emphasising reinforcement of appropriate behaviour typically yield more durable improvements than punishment-focused strategies. A meta-analysis by Maughan et al. (2005) found that interventions based on positive reinforcement produced larger and more sustained behavioural improvements than punishment-based approaches, with particularly strong effects in Early Years contexts.

Supporting Skill Acquisition

Conditioning principles provide systematic frameworks for helping children acquire foundational skills across developmental domains. The structured approach offered by these theories is particularly valuable for breaking complex skills into manageable components that children can progressively master (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

Shaping procedures based on operant conditioning support skill development by reinforcing successive approximations toward target behaviours. This approach proves especially valuable for physical skills like handwriting, where gradual refinement through consistent feedback helps children develop proper technique and control. Similarly, language skills develop through differential reinforcement as adults naturally respond more positively to increasingly accurate speech attempts.

Chaining procedures facilitate the acquisition of multi-step skills by breaking complex sequences into distinct components. This approach appears in teaching self-care routines like handwashing or dressing, where each step receives specific instruction and reinforcement before linking into complete behavioural chains. The Early Years Foundation Stage emphasises such independence skills as important developmental outcomes (Department for Education, 2021).

Key applications for skill development include:

• Phonics instruction that shapes increasingly accurate sound-symbol associations
• Fine motor activities with graduated difficulty levels and specific feedback
• Social skills development through modelling and reinforcement of positive interactions
• Progressive numeracy activities that build from concrete to abstract understanding

Creating Positive Learning Environments

Perhaps the most significant application of conditioning principles in Early Years education involves creating environments that foster positive associations with learning itself. By ensuring that educational experiences consistently pair with positive outcomes, practitioners help children develop intrinsic motivation and enthusiasm for learning (Kostelnik et al., 2015).

Classical conditioning contributes to positive environments through careful attention to the emotional associations children develop with learning activities. When educational experiences consistently pair with comfort, acceptance, and enjoyment, children develop approach rather than avoidance responses to learning challenges. This emotional foundation supports resilience and persistence when facing educational difficulties.

Operant principles enhance learning environments through:

• Recognition systems that acknowledge effort and achievement
• Classroom arrangements that facilitate successful engagement with materials
• Feedback structures that reinforce learning processes rather than just outcomes
• Activity sequences that build confidence through progressive success experiences

Research by Hamre and Pianta (2005) demonstrates that supportive early learning environments characterised by positive reinforcement and emotional warmth predict improved academic and social outcomes through primary education. These findings highlight the lasting impact of positive conditioning experiences in Early Years settings.

While conditioning principles offer valuable tools for Early Years practice, contemporary approaches typically integrate these behavioural strategies within broader developmental frameworks. This balanced perspective recognises the importance of behavioural learning mechanisms while acknowledging children’s active role in constructing understanding through meaningful engagement with their environment (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Evaluation of Classical and Operant Conditioning

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning provides a robust framework for understanding how children develop emotional associations with learning environments and activities. This approach offers particular strengths in explaining the development of attitudes and emotional responses that significantly influence educational engagement (Ormrod, 2020).

The empirical foundation of classical conditioning represents one of its primary strengths, with extensive research validating its core principles across diverse contexts. This evidence base provides practitioners with confidence in applying these principles to support children’s emotional development and create positive learning associations.

Additional strengths of classical conditioning include:

• It helps explain unconscious emotional reactions that influence learning readiness
• It provides strategies for addressing anxiety and fear responses that may impede learning
• It offers techniques for creating positive associations with educational materials and contexts
• It explains how environmental cues come to trigger specific emotional and physiological states
• It illuminates the development of automatic responses that facilitate classroom routines

Limitations of Classical Conditioning

Despite these strengths, classical conditioning presents several limitations when applied as a comprehensive educational approach. Most significantly, it addresses a relatively narrow range of learning phenomena, focusing primarily on reflexive and emotional responses rather than complex cognitive skills central to educational objectives (Domjan, 2014).

The passive nature of learning in classical conditioning also contradicts contemporary understanding of children as active participants in their development. Modern Early Years practice emphasises children’s agency and meaning-making, aspects not adequately addressed through a purely classical conditioning perspective (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

Further limitations include:

• It provides limited guidance for developing higher-order thinking skills
• It fails to account for observational learning and social modelling processes
• It inadequately addresses creative and innovative aspects of learning
• It overlooks cognitive mediating processes between stimulus and response
• It provides insufficient explanation for language acquisition and symbolic understanding

Strengths of Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning offers several distinctive strengths for Early Years practice, particularly in its systematic approach to developing specific behaviours and skills. Its clear framework for arranging learning environments provides practitioners with practical strategies for supporting skill acquisition across developmental domains (Alberto & Troutman, 2013).

The principle of reinforcement provides a powerful tool for strengthening desired behaviours and weakening challenging ones, offering a structured approach to classroom management and skill development. This systematic quality enables precise targeting of specific behaviours through carefully arranged contingencies.

Additional strengths include:

• It provides clear strategies for developing complex behavioural sequences through shaping and chaining
• It offers practical approaches for managing challenging behaviours
• It emphasises measurable outcomes that facilitate evaluation of interventions
• It provides techniques for motivating engagement with educational activities
• It acknowledges the importance of consequences in learning processes

Limitations of Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning, like classical conditioning, presents significant limitations when considered as a comprehensive educational framework. Critics note its focus on external control rather than intrinsic motivation, potentially undermining children’s autonomy and self-regulation development (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The emphasis on observable behaviour has historically led to insufficient attention to cognitive and emotional aspects of learning. While contemporary behavioural approaches increasingly acknowledge these dimensions, traditional operant conditioning provides limited guidance for developing conceptual understanding and creative thinking.

Further limitations include:

• It may overemphasise extrinsic rewards at the expense of intrinsic motivation
• It provides insufficient attention to social and cultural contexts of learning
• It inadequately addresses how children construct meaning from experiences
• It offers limited guidance for supporting metacognitive development
• It may position children as passive recipients rather than active meaning-makers

Ethical Considerations

The application of conditioning principles in Early Years education raises several important ethical considerations that practitioners must thoughtfully address. At their core, these concerns involve balancing effective educational practices with respect for children’s dignity, autonomy, and holistic development.

The use of reinforcement and punishment strategies requires careful ethical reflection, particularly regarding the potential for manipulative or controlling practices. Critics such as Kohn (1999) argue that excessive reliance on reward systems may undermine intrinsic motivation and authentic engagement with learning. This concern highlights the importance of gradually transitioning from external reinforcement to more intrinsic motivational approaches as children develop.

Ethical implementation of conditioning principles requires:

• Transparency with children about expectations and consequences
• Respect for individual differences in responsiveness to various approaches
• Balanced use of reinforcement strategies within a supportive emotional climate
• Careful consideration of potential unintended consequences of behavioural interventions
• Recognition of children’s developing autonomy and need for meaningful choice

Cultural and Contextual Factors

The effectiveness and appropriateness of conditioning approaches vary significantly across cultural contexts, reflecting diverse values regarding child development, discipline, and educational goals. What constitutes reinforcing or punishing consequences differs markedly between cultural communities, necessitating culturally responsive implementation of behavioural strategies (Rogoff, 2003).

Cultural factors influence both the selection of target behaviours and the methods used to promote them. For instance, cultures emphasising collective harmony may prioritise different social behaviours than those emphasising individual achievement. Similarly, cultural norms regarding adult authority and child autonomy shape appropriate approaches to behaviour management.

Early Years practitioners must consider:

• How cultural backgrounds influence children’s responses to various reinforcers
• The alignment between behavioural strategies and family disciplinary approaches
• Cultural variations in the interpretation of behaviour and its significance
• How contextual factors affect the implementation of conditioning principles
• The importance of culturally relevant examples and applications

Contemporary Perspectives and Critiques

Contemporary educational perspectives have significantly modified traditional conditioning approaches, integrating behavioural principles within more comprehensive frameworks that acknowledge cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions of learning. This evolution reflects growing recognition of learning as a complex process involving active construction of meaning rather than simple stimulus-response associations (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Cognitive behavioural approaches represent one significant development, incorporating mental processes as mediating factors between stimuli and responses. These perspectives acknowledge that thoughts, expectations, and interpretations influence how individuals respond to environmental contingencies, addressing a key limitation of traditional behavioural theories.

Modern critiques of conditioning approaches emphasise:

• The limited capacity of behavioural theories to explain complex cognitive learning
• The potential for overly controlling educational environments that restrict creativity
• The incomplete account of intrinsic motivation and its development
• The inadequate treatment of individual differences in learning styles and preferences
• The insufficient attention to the social context of learning

Integration with Other Educational Theories

Contemporary Early Years practice typically integrates conditioning principles within broader theoretical frameworks rather than applying them in isolation. This integrated approach combines behavioural strategies with insights from constructivist, sociocultural, and cognitive theories to create comprehensive educational approaches.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory complements conditioning approaches by emphasising the social context of learning and the role of guided participation in skill development. Concepts such as the zone of proximal development align with behavioural shaping procedures, both emphasising gradual progression toward complex skills through structured support (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

Similarly, constructivist perspectives enhance conditioning approaches by acknowledging children’s active role in making meaning from experiences. While traditional conditioning theories position the learner as relatively passive, constructivist insights highlight how children actively interpret and respond to environmental contingencies based on their developing understanding.

Effective integration involves:

• Recognising conditioning principles as tools within a broader developmental approach
• Balancing external reinforcement with support for intrinsic motivation
• Acknowledging both observable behaviour and internal cognitive processes
• Combining structured behavioural strategies with opportunities for exploration and discovery
• Recognising the cultural and social contexts that shape learning processes

This integrated perspective characterises contemporary Early Years frameworks such as the Early Years Foundation Stage, which incorporates behavioural principles within a child-centred approach emphasising play-based learning, individual development, and supportive relationships (Department for Education, 2021). By thoughtfully combining insights from multiple theoretical traditions, practitioners create nuanced approaches that address the complexity of early development.

The critical evaluation of conditioning theories underscores their valuable contribution to Early Years practice whilst acknowledging their limitations when applied in isolation. By integrating behavioural principles within broader developmental frameworks, practitioners create balanced approaches that support children’s learning whilst respecting their agency, cultural contexts, and intrinsic motivation.

Modern Developments and Research

Recent Studies on Conditioning in Educational Contexts

Contemporary research has refined our understanding of conditioning principles in Early Years education, moving beyond simplistic behavioural models to more nuanced applications. A meta-analysis by Korpershoek et al. (2016) examined classroom management interventions across educational settings, finding that approaches incorporating positive reinforcement strategies showed significant positive effects on both academic and behavioural outcomes. These findings suggest that thoughtfully applied conditioning principles remain valuable components of effective practice.

Research has increasingly focused on naturalistic applications rather than artificial laboratory paradigms. Studies by Williford et al. (2017) demonstrate how teacher-child interactions incorporating immediate, specific positive feedback—a form of positive reinforcement—significantly enhance engagement and reduce challenging behaviours in Early Years settings. This work highlights how conditioning principles can be integrated within developmentally appropriate, relationship-based approaches rather than implemented as isolated techniques.

Key developments in recent research include:

• Greater emphasis on positive rather than aversive strategies
• Integration of conditioning principles within comprehensive developmental frameworks
• Focus on naturalistic applications in authentic educational contexts
• Recognition of how individualised reinforcement approaches support inclusive practice
• Increased attention to the role of educator-child relationships in mediating behavioural interventions

Neurological Understanding of Conditioning Processes

Advances in neuroscience have provided biological explanations for conditioning processes, offering insights into the neural mechanisms underpinning both classical and operant learning. Neuroimaging studies have identified specific brain structures involved in different aspects of conditioning, with the amygdala playing a crucial role in classical conditioning of emotional responses and the basal ganglia being central to operant learning (Tricomi et al., 2009).

This neurological perspective helps explain individual differences in responsiveness to conditioning approaches, as variations in neural development affect how children process environmental contingencies. Research by Blair and Raver (2015) demonstrates how early adversity affects stress response systems and executive functioning, influencing children’s capacity to benefit from traditional reward systems and behavioural interventions. These findings highlight the importance of adapting conditioning approaches to account for neurological diversity and developmental experiences.

Cognitive Elements and Modern Interpretations

Modern interpretations of conditioning have increasingly incorporated cognitive elements, acknowledging the role of attention, expectation, and information processing in learning. The cognitive-behavioural synthesis recognises that conditioning involves not just stimulus-response associations but complex cognitive processes that mediate between environmental events and behavioural outcomes (Bandura, 2001).

Expectancy theory represents one significant cognitive reinterpretation, suggesting that operant conditioning involves learning expectancies about behavioural consequences rather than simple mechanical strengthening of responses. Similarly, research on classical conditioning has demonstrated the importance of information value and contingency awareness, indicating that conditioning is more effective when learners cognitively process the relationship between stimuli (Lovibond & Shanks, 2002).

This cognitive turn has important implications for Early Years practice, suggesting that:

• Explanations and rationales enhance the effectiveness of behavioural strategies
• Children’s understanding of contingencies influences their responsiveness
• Attention to children’s interpretations of events is crucial for effective intervention
• Metacognitive development complements behavioural approaches
• Social understanding mediates the impact of reinforcement and punishment

Evidence-Based Best Practices

Contemporary evidence supports several best practices for applying conditioning principles in Early Years settings. Research consistently demonstrates the superiority of positive approaches over punitive strategies, with a meta-analysis by Maughan et al. (2005) finding that positive reinforcement produces larger and more sustained behavioural improvements than punishment-based interventions.

Evidence also suggests that conditioning approaches work best when embedded within warm, responsive relationships. A study by Hamre and Pianta (2005) found that the effectiveness of behavioural strategies depends significantly on the quality of teacher-child interactions, with positive emotional climates enhancing the impact of reinforcement approaches. This research aligns with attachment theory perspectives emphasising the importance of secure relationships for effective learning and development.

Best practices supported by current evidence include:

• Emphasising positive reinforcement over punishment
• Providing immediate, specific feedback on desired behaviours
• Embedding behavioural strategies within supportive relationships
• Individualising approaches based on children’s developmental needs
• Gradually transitioning from external reinforcement to intrinsic motivation
• Combining behavioural strategies with cognitive and social-emotional support

These evidence-based practices illustrate how conditioning principles, thoughtfully applied within comprehensive developmental frameworks, continue to make valuable contributions to effective Early Years education. Rather than representing competing alternatives to contemporary approaches, conditioning theories offer complementary insights that enhance understanding of how environment shapes learning and development.

Practical Guidance for Educators

Assessment of Appropriate Conditioning Techniques

Effective implementation of conditioning principles begins with thoughtful assessment to determine appropriate techniques for specific contexts and children. This process involves evaluating both the target behaviours and the individual children’s characteristics to select approaches most likely to support positive development (Alberto & Troutman, 2013).

Assessment should first establish whether the target behaviour is appropriate for behavioural intervention. Some educational objectives, particularly those involving creative expression or critical thinking, may benefit more from alternative approaches. Conditioning techniques typically prove most effective for concrete, observable behaviours such as following routines, developing specific skills, or reducing clearly defined challenging behaviours (Woolfolk, 2019).

The assessment process should also consider individual children’s developmental levels, existing behavioural patterns, and responsiveness to various reinforcers. What functions as reinforcement varies significantly between children, necessitating careful observation to identify effective motivators for each child. This individualised approach recognises that conditioning techniques require adaptation to each child’s unique characteristics rather than one-size-fits-all implementation.

Key assessment considerations include:

• Identifying the function of existing behaviours through functional behavioural assessment
• Determining developmentally appropriate target behaviours
• Evaluating the social and emotional context of current behavioural patterns
• Assessing individual children’s responsiveness to various reinforcers
• Considering how proposed interventions align with family and cultural contexts

Implementation Frameworks

Structured implementation frameworks help Early Years practitioners apply conditioning principles systematically and ethically. These frameworks typically follow a sequence that begins with clear definition of target behaviours and proceeds through careful arrangement of antecedents and consequences to shape desired outcomes (Cooper et al., 2019).

The ABC (Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequence) model provides a particularly useful framework for implementing conditioning approaches. This model emphasises the arrangement of conditions preceding behaviour (antecedents) to prompt desired responses, followed by appropriate consequences to strengthen those responses. By addressing both antecedents and consequences, this approach creates comprehensive support for behavioural development.

Implementation typically involves several key steps:

• Defining target behaviours in specific, observable terms
• Establishing baseline levels through systematic observation
• Arranging environmental conditions to promote desired behaviours
• Implementing consistent response strategies following behaviours
• Gradually fading external supports as behaviours become established

The Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) framework represents a contemporary approach that integrates conditioning principles within a comprehensive, values-based system. This framework emphasises proactive strategies, teaching of replacement behaviours, and modification of environmental conditions rather than simply responding to challenging behaviour after it occurs (Dunlap et al., 2009).

Monitoring and Evaluation Methods

Systematic monitoring and evaluation enable practitioners to assess intervention effectiveness and make necessary adjustments. Unlike more subjective educational approaches, conditioning techniques lend themselves to precise measurement, allowing for data-driven decision making regarding programme continuation or modification (Alberto & Troutman, 2013).

Direct observation provides the foundation for effective monitoring, with practitioners systematically recording instances of target behaviours before, during, and after intervention. Various recording methods suit different behavioural patterns, including frequency counts (how often a behaviour occurs), duration measures (how long a behaviour lasts), and interval recording (whether a behaviour occurs during specified time periods).

Visual analysis of behavioural data through simple graphs allows practitioners to identify trends and evaluate intervention effects. This approach helps distinguish between temporary fluctuations and meaningful changes, providing clear evidence regarding programme effectiveness. Such visual representation proves particularly valuable for communicating progress to colleagues and families.

Effective monitoring and evaluation strategies include:

• Establishing clear, measurable behavioural objectives
• Collecting baseline data before implementing interventions
• Using consistent recording procedures across observations
• Regularly reviewing progress data to guide decision making
• Involving multiple observers to ensure reliable measurement

Professional Development Considerations

Effective implementation of conditioning principles requires specific knowledge and skills that may extend beyond practitioners’ initial training. Professional development opportunities help educators develop competence in behavioural assessment, intervention design, and ethical application of conditioning techniques (O’Neill et al., 2015).

Training should address both theoretical foundations and practical applications, helping practitioners understand not only what to do but why particular approaches work. This comprehensive understanding enables thoughtful adaptation of techniques to specific contexts rather than rigid adherence to formulaic approaches. Additionally, training should address common implementation challenges and strategies for overcoming these difficulties.

Collaborative learning communities enhance professional development by providing opportunities to share experiences, discuss challenging cases, and receive feedback on implementation efforts. These communities help practitioners refine their skills through ongoing reflection and mutual support, developing nuanced understanding that extends beyond initial training experiences.

Professional development priorities include:

• Understanding the theoretical foundations of conditioning approaches
• Developing skills in behavioural assessment and intervention design
• Learning ethical guidelines for applying behavioural techniques
• Building competence in data collection and analysis
• Exploring methods for individualising approaches to meet diverse needs

Balancing Behavioural Approaches with Other Methods

Contemporary Early Years practice integrates conditioning principles within balanced educational approaches that address cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions of development. Rather than relying exclusively on behavioural techniques, effective practitioners strategically incorporate these methods within comprehensive frameworks that recognise children’s active role in constructing understanding (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

This balanced approach recognises that different learning objectives may benefit from different methodological approaches. Conditioning techniques may prove most appropriate for developing specific skills and behaviours, while constructivist approaches better support concept development and creative thinking. By selecting methods based on specific learning goals rather than ideological commitments, practitioners create flexible, responsive educational environments.

Integration involves thoughtful consideration of how behavioural techniques complement other approaches rather than compete with them. For instance, positive reinforcement strategies may support children’s engagement with open-ended exploration activities, while constructivist approaches may help children develop meaningful understanding of behavioural expectations. This complementary relationship acknowledges the complexity of learning and development.

Strategies for balanced integration include:

• Using conditioning techniques primarily for skill development and behaviour management
• Embedding behavioural strategies within play-based, child-centred approaches
• Gradually transitioning from external reinforcement to intrinsic motivation
• Combining direct instruction with opportunities for discovery and exploration
• Adapting methodological approaches based on individual learning needs and contexts

The Early Years Foundation Stage exemplifies this balanced approach, incorporating behavioural principles within a framework that emphasises play-based learning, individual development, and supportive relationships (Department for Education, 2021). This integration acknowledges that conditioning principles, while valuable, represent just one component of comprehensive early childhood education rather than a complete educational philosophy.

By thoughtfully assessing, implementing, monitoring, and integrating conditioning approaches, Early Years practitioners develop balanced educational practices that support children’s learning while respecting their agency, cultural contexts, and intrinsic motivation. This nuanced application represents the contemporary consensus regarding the appropriate role of conditioning principles in Early Years education.

Conclusion

Key Points

Classical and operant conditioning theories provide complementary frameworks for understanding learning processes, each illuminating different aspects of how experience shapes behaviour. Classical conditioning explains how environmental stimuli acquire the capacity to elicit emotional and anticipatory responses, while operant conditioning demonstrates how consequences modify voluntary behaviour. Together, these theories offer valuable insights into the complex learning processes that unfold in Early Years settings (Domjan, 2014).

The historical development of these theories reflects progressive refinement in understanding learning mechanisms, from Pavlov’s early experiments through Skinner’s systematic analysis to contemporary cognitive-behavioural syntheses. This evolution continues today as neuroscientific research provides biological explanations for conditioning processes and educational research examines their application in authentic learning contexts.

The practical value of conditioning theories in Early Years education manifests in numerous applications, including:

• Creating predictable routines through consistent environmental cues
• Supporting skill acquisition through shaping and chaining procedures
• Developing positive learning associations through thoughtful environmental design
• Implementing systematic approaches to challenging behaviour
• Establishing foundations for self-regulation and independent learning

Contemporary practice typically integrates conditioning principles within broader developmental frameworks rather than applying them in isolation. This balanced approach recognises both the value of behavioural techniques for specific educational objectives and their limitations in addressing the full scope of early development (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Future Directions in Research and Application

Future research will likely continue integrating conditioning principles with insights from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and sociocultural theories to develop increasingly sophisticated understanding of learning processes. Neuroimaging studies examining how conditioning mechanisms operate at the brain level promise deeper insights into individual differences in learning patterns and more targeted interventions for diverse learners (Blair & Raver, 2015).

Applied research in Early Years settings will continue refining naturalistic applications of conditioning principles, examining how these approaches function within authentic educational contexts rather than laboratory settings. This work will likely emphasise positive approaches aligned with contemporary values regarding children’s agency and dignity, with particular attention to how conditioning techniques can support inclusive practice for children with diverse needs.

Important directions for future development include:

• Further exploration of how conditioning principles support executive function development
• Research examining culturally responsive applications across diverse communities
• Investigation of how technology-enhanced environments incorporate conditioning principles
• Studies examining the long-term impacts of early conditioning experiences
• Research on effectively transitioning from external reinforcement to intrinsic motivation

Final Thoughts on Contemporary Relevance

Conditioning theories, while no longer dominant as comprehensive explanations of learning, remain valuable components of effective Early Years practice. Their enduring relevance stems from their empirical foundation, practical applicability, and compatibility with key aspects of contemporary developmental understanding. Rather than representing outdated approaches superseded by newer theories, conditioning principles offer complementary insights that enhance comprehensive educational practice.

The integration of conditioning approaches within balanced educational frameworks exemplifies how theoretical traditions can complement rather than compete with one another. By selectively applying conditioning principles where appropriate while incorporating insights from other theoretical perspectives, Early Years practitioners create nuanced approaches that address the complexity of early development (Woolfolk, 2019).

Contemporary Early Years frameworks such as the Early Years Foundation Stage demonstrate this integration, incorporating behavioural principles within child-centred approaches that recognise children as active participants in their learning journey (Department for Education, 2021). This balanced perspective acknowledges both the environmental influences emphasised by conditioning theories and the internal processes highlighted by constructivist and sociocultural approaches.

The enduring value of conditioning theories lies not in their comprehensiveness but in their contribution to our understanding of specific aspects of learning and development. By appreciating both their strengths and limitations, Early Years practitioners can thoughtfully incorporate these principles within holistic approaches that support children’s development across cognitive, social, emotional, and physical domains.

References

• Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Pearson.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
• Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 711-731.
• Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory, 11, 485-494.
• Bouton, M. E. (2016). Learning and behavior: A contemporary synthesis (2nd ed.). Sinauer Associates.
• Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44.
• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Department for Education. (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. UK Government.
• Domjan, M. (2014). The principles of learning and behavior (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Dunlap, G., Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Zarcone, J. R., & Schwartz, I. (2009). Positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis: A familial alliance. Behavior Modification, 32, 682-698.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 43-71.
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Filcheck, H. A., McNeil, C. B., Greco, L. A., & Bernard, R. S. (2004). Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 351-361.
• Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123-124.
• Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.
• Ghirlanda, S., & Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour, 66, 15-36.
• Gormezano, I., & Kehoe, E. J. (1975). Classical conditioning: Some methodological-conceptual issues. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 143-179). Erlbaum.
• Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949-967.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
• Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Kandel, E. R. (2001). The molecular biology of memory storage: A dialogue between genes and synapses. Science, 294, 1030-1038.
• Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin.
• Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86, 643-680.
• Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., Whiren, A. P., & Rupiper, M. L. (2015). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Lovibond, P. F., & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 3-26.
• Mackintosh, N. J. (1983). Conditioning and associative learning. Oxford University Press.
• Maughan, D. R., Christiansen, E., Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D., & Clark, E. (2005). Behavioral parent training as a treatment for externalizing behaviors and disruptive behavior disorders: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 34, 267-286.
• Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191-206.
• Miltenberger, R. G. (2016). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Nevin, J. A. (2012). Resistance to extinction and behavioral momentum. Behavioural Processes, 90, 89-97.
• O’Donohue, W., & Ferguson, K. E. (2001). The psychology of B. F. Skinner. Sage.
• O’Neill, R. E., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. R. (2015). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Ormrod, J. E. (2020). Human learning (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
• Pritchard, A. (2017). Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151-160.
• Rescorla, R. A. (2004). Spontaneous recovery. Learning & Memory, 11, 501-509.
• Rizley, R. C., & Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 81, 1-11.
• Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
• Thompson, R. F. (2005). In search of memory traces. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 1-23.
• Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2, i-109.
• Tricomi, E., Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). A specific role for posterior dorsolateral striatum in human habit learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2225-2232.
• Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.
• Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14.
• Whitebread, D., & Basilio, M. (2012). The emergence and early development of self-regulation in young children. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 16, 15-33.
• Williford, A. P., Vick Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V. E., & Downer, J. T. (2017). Children’s engagement within the preschool classroom and their development of self-regulation. Early Education and Development, 28, 663-687.
• Woolfolk, A. (2019). Educational psychology (14th ed.). Pearson.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.
• Jones, S. M., & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development. The ASPEN Institute.
• Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351-380.

Suggested Books

• Kohn, A. (2018). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes (25th anniversary edition). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  • A thought-provoking critique of reward-based approaches in education that challenges traditional behavioural management strategies and offers alternative perspectives on motivation.
• Malott, R. W., & Shane, J. T. (2014). Principles of behavior (7th ed.). Psychology Press.
  • A comprehensive guide to behaviour analysis that explains conditioning principles in accessible language with practical examples for educational implementation.
• Nutbrown, C. (2020). Early childhood education: History, philosophy and experience (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  • An excellent overview of educational approaches in Early Years contexts that places behavioural theories within broader philosophical and historical frameworks.

Recommended Websites

• The Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI)
  • Provides research updates, professional resources, and evidence-based guidelines for applying behavioural principles in educational settings, with dedicated sections for teachers and early childhood practitioners.
• The Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (ECLKC)
  • Offers comprehensive resources for Early Years practitioners including practical guides on positive behaviour support, classroom management strategies, and developmentally appropriate applications of learning theories.
• The British Psychological Society – Division of Educational and Child Psychology
  • Features evidence-based resources specifically tailored to UK educational contexts, including position papers on behavioural approaches, professional development materials, and research briefings relevant to Early Years practice.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Operant Conditioning vs Classical Conditioning. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/operant-conditioning-vs-classical-conditioning (Accessed: 19 April 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile