Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Although many theorists in the 1940s believed that there were two types of learning, Orval Hobart Mowrer was the first to combine these two types of learning into what he called the two-factor theory. The theory combines both classical conditioning, as described by Ivan Pavlov, and operant conditioning, as described by Edward Thorndike and later by B. F. Skinner. Mowrer's theory has become an important tool in understanding and treating trauma and phobias. Mowrer's theory provides a framework for understanding both the acquisition and the maintenance of traumatic stress and a variety of other disorders. This entry briefly describes both classical and operant conditioning, and how they come together in two-factor theory. Finally, the application of two-factor theory to trauma will be discussed.

Understanding the Two Factors

Mowrer's two-factor theory initially used two different theories of learning to account for complex behaviors. The two theories were described by Mowrer as “sign learning” or conditioning and “solution learning,” or problem solving. These are what are typically referred to as classical and operant conditioning, respectively. Mowrer eventually revised his theory, recognizing the similarities between his descriptions of sign and solution learning. Mowrer's revised conceptualization included the idea that sign learning was also a form of conditioning. Thus, thought and emotions could also be conditioned responses.

Classical Conditioning

Mowrer stated that fears are learned when a punishment and a signal come together. Classical conditioning posits that an unconditioned stimulus is one that elicits a response without learning. The sound of a gunshot, for example, can cause a startle response, an unconditioned response. If that noise is paired with another stimulus, that other stimulus can also then cause a startle response. For example, if the gunshot occurs in a particular place, returning to that place may cause a startle response. This learned reaction should decrease over time if it is no longer paired with the gunshot. But, as Mowrer and others noted, this does not always happen and the startle response remains to previously neutral stimulus. The second part of the two-factor theory helps explain why these responses last.

Operant Conditioning

In operant conditioning, or what Mowrer calls “solution learning,” behavior is modified by consequences. Thorndike initially described this as the Law of Effect. Some consequences strengthen behavior, making it more likely to occur again, whereas other consequences weaken the behavior. B. F. Skinner developed a more detailed description of operant conditioning and how responses are reinforced, punished, or extinguished. In operant conditioning, a behavior is maintained by consequences. Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is followed by some event or stimulus that increases the frequency of the behavior. Negative reinforcement occurs when the behavior is followed by the removal of a noxious stimulus, which also increases the frequency of the behavior. Note that in this instance positive and negative are not used in the traditional sense, but in the sense that positive means the addition of something and negative means the removal. For example, providing a treat to a dog after it performs some action is a positive reinforcement and increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again. If a child has been restricted from watching TV until his room is clean, removing the restriction after the room is clean is an example of negative reinforcement and increases the probability of the desired behavior (room cleaning).

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading