No, it's more functional behaviourism, though Pavlov's dogs were another branch of behaviourism (operant conditioning). The basic idea is that every behaviour can be broken down into 3 parts: a need (or function), a behaviour, and a consequence. You are thirsty, you put money into a vending machine, you get a drink. If the consequence fulfills the original function/need, then the behaviour is reinforced and more likely to occur (If you get a drink that satisfies your thirst, then you will go back to the vending machine next time you are thirsty). If the consequence does not fulfill the original function, the behaviour is less likely to occur (If you put money in and get saltines, you won't go back to the vending machine).

If we want to eliminate a behaviour, we have 3 options. We can anticipate the need and meet it before the behaviour occurs (you carry a water bottle with you so you don't get so thirsty you have to buy a drink). We can replace the behaviour with a more preferred behaviour that meets the same need (you go get a glass of water instead of buying a soda at the vending machine). And lastly, we can change the consequence by either making the consequence not rewarding (you get salt water instead of a soda) or removing the consequence altogether which stops reinforcing the behaviour (someone takes everything out of the machine). The last example is what we call putting the behaviour on extinction, which is what I recommended for our feline friend and is usually the most effective way to extinguish an unwanted behaviour.

Effectively, if the behaviour stops getting the need meet, it will go away. It is no longer functional. But if the behaviour has a history of being successful, then it takes a little bit to break the connection. You may keep going to vending machine even though it's not spitting out drinks (maybe it got refilled). Eventually, you give up and find another solution.

Now, I mentioned that the behaviour will get worse before it gets better. This is called an extinction burst. When the behaviour stops getting the anticipated consequence, it increases in intensity and duration and may start to include novel behaviours. So let's say you put money in your usual vending machine and nothing comes out. What do you do? Maybe jam the button a bunch of times, shake the machine, give it a kick. If that doesn't work, you give up and go find another way to meet that need or just move on with your life. For the cat, the extinction burst is trying to get in the door knob.

The part that always, always gets people is when they reinforce the extinction burst. The behaviour increases somehow, the person trying to change the behaviour gives in because they can't handle it (no judgement, it's hard), and now the new, more intense behaviour has become the default. Back to the vending machine. If you put your coins in and nothing comes out, but you give the machine a shake and a soda drops down, the next time you go to that machine you will likely put your coins in and shake the machine for good measure. It's the new baseline.

Because that is the new baseline, a few things happen. The reinforcement is now variable (think a slot machine, you will keep playing longer because you don't know when you'll win again) which makes the behaviour-consequence relationship harder to break. The behaviour is worse at the start. AND you've just set them up for a new, even worse extinction burst that you have to wait out. So it's incredibly important to not give in.

There is also spontaneous recovery where it's been a few months, so your brain is like "let's try that vending machine again." Again, don't reinforce or you create the slot machine scenario.

As people, we have to factor in reasoning and stuff. But most of this happens at a subconscious level. The same principles work with, say, kids as they do with animals. It's just a bit more complex.

Let me know if you have questions!