if anyone here can justify why a response would occur in operant conditioning without a stimulus (nothing to prompt it) but the response cannot occur in classical conditioning without something to prompt it... no one see a flaw in this?
technically the prompt is another stimulus haha, but they call that the antecedent
Yep that basically sums it up. Does that solve it?
Sorry I don't mean to be stubborn I'm just doing whatever I can to convince you.
Agreed.
Spread knows more than us .. well me anyhow , in many aspects of this course i believe.
However... not that im trying to convince you.
But considering my teacher is previous uni teacher/vce examier
and i have seen this in many exams and even in the "Notes" book at school.
I hope that you can understand this concept ... it might just come up on the exam . infact im pretty positive it will.
as sillysmile said earlier ... the STIMULUS you are referring to is the antecedent.
But we say , in Operant conditioning , the stimulus = THE REINFORCER.