Final answer:
In classical conditioning theory, there is an existing natural relationship between an unconditioned stimulus and an unconditioned response, contrary to the statement in the question. Through conditioning, a neutral stimulus can become a conditioned stimulus, eliciting a conditioned response similar to the unconditioned response. If the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus, the response weakens—a process called extinction.
Step-by-step explanation:
The core of your question lies in the relationship between stimuli and responses as explained in classical conditioning theory. According to this theory, an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) naturally triggers an unconditioned response (UCR) without prior training or conditioning. For example, when dogs see or smell food (unconditioned stimulus), they salivate (unconditioned response). There is an inherent relationship between the two.
However, through classical conditioning, an animal or organism can learn to associate a neutral stimulus, which initially does not evoke any particular response, with the unconditioned stimulus. Over time, this neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), which then elicits a conditioned response (CR) similar to the unconditioned response. If the conditioned stimulus is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus, the response weakens, a process known as extinction.
An example of this is Pavlov's experiment, where a bell (conditioned stimulus) was rung every time the dogs were presented with food (unconditioned stimulus). Eventually, the dogs learned to salivate (conditioned response) at the sound of the bell, even when no food was presented.