Final answer:
Humans have an advantage in learning conditioned reinforcers because they can use verbal communication to understand and describe the associations between conditioned stimuli and unconditioned responses, unlike nonverbal organisms which must learn through direct experience.
Step-by-step explanation:
When it comes to conditioned reinforcers, there is a significant difference in how verbally capable humans and nonverbal organisms learn. In classical conditioning, a conditioned stimulus (CS) leads to an unconditioned stimulus (US), forming a conditioned reinforcer → unconditioned reinforcer relationship. For example, in Pavlov's experiments, the dogs' salivation in response to the conditioned stimulus of a bell ringing, originally had no association with food, became a learned response because the bell ringing was paired with the presentation of food. This is known as an unconditioned response (UCR) to an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), a natural reflexive reaction. Conditioned behaviors are a part of associative learning, where a response becomes associated with a new stimulus through conditioning.
In operant conditioning, a behavior is associated with its consequences. B.F. Skinner, a famous psychologist, demonstrated this through his use of the Skinner box experiment where rats learned to press a lever for food. This type of learning revolves around modifying behaviors through reinforcement (positive or negative) over time, leading the animal to perform behaviors it would not naturally do.
Humans have the added benefit of being able to verbally understand and communicate the contingencies involved in learning which broadens the complexity and speed of human learning beyond what nonverbal organisms are capable of. This explains why humans are often able to learn through explanation and instruction whereas nonverbal organisms must learn through experience.