Journal

profilejosely27
HS-11-EvolutionofBehaviorism1week10.pptx

Contemporary Issues: Historical Framework of Contemporary Psychology

Unit 11

The Evolution of Behaviorism

Behaviorism

based on the studies of Ivan Pavlov

subject’s response to stimuli

external environment

Patterns

how subject relates training and conditioning to rewards and punishment

John Watson: unconscious and mind should not be included in Psychology

Behaviorism Post-Watsonian

“Neobehaviorism” 1930s-1960s

Edward Tolman; Clark Hull; B.F. Skinner

behavior should be the focus of Psychology

accept theoretical speculation of the human mind

Evolutionary continuum

Learning/conditioning

Events in the 1920s leading to “neobehaviorism”

Watson’s continued propagandizing

Translation of Pavlov’s lectures into English

Logical positivism:

the logical analysis of scientific knowledge

Scientific language should never refer to anything unobservable

only statements verifiable through direct observation are meaningful

the verification principle

Link unobservable constructs w/ measurable events

Logical Positivism & Verification

Operationism Provided the link

the definition of a scientific idea relies upon the processes utilized to mandate it

each idea can be explained by a sole viewable and measurable action.

defined in terms of the specific methodological operations from which they are or measured

Operational definitions: e.g., hunger  24 hours without food

Enables replication

Converging operations

Increased confidence when the same outcomes result from multiple operational definitions of the same construct

Began in Europe (Berlin & Vienna) in 1920, moved to US in 1930

Edwin R. Guthrie (1886-1959): Contiguity, Contiguity, Contiguity

1912: PhD – Penn; University of Washington

One Trial Learning

Psychology of Learning (1935)

One-trial learning; Central role: contiguity

Movements: minute responses made by the muscles that get associated with impinging stimuli - learn responses.

Acts: conglomerate of a number of learnt movements - learnt behaviors, like learning to press keys on a keyboard.

Guthrie & Horton study (1946): 1 trial learning

Each cat learned own peculiar stereotypical escape movement

No reinforcement needed to learn

Reinforcement prevented unlearning.

All forgetting involves new learning (1 trial forgetting)

Break bad habits – ID stimuli and substitute new responses

Eval: Vague; minimal empirical support

Edward C. Tolman (1886-1959): “Purposive Behaviorism”

Organism Produce Behavior For Some Adaptive Purpose

Individuals act on beliefs, attitudes, changing conditions, and strive toward goals

behavior is not a response to a stimulus but is cognitive coping with a pattern of stimuli.

MIT: physics, math, chem (read W. James)

1915  PhD, Harvard (Yerkes); retroactive inhibition

Gestalt influence (Koffka & Lewin)

Northwestern (dismissed 2nd anti-war), then Berkeley

Learning Theory

Molar rather than molecular: Rejected simple S-R

Purposive: Behavior goal directed

Intervening Cognitive Variables

Tolman’s Latent Learning

Learning not seen in behavior at the time of learning; manifests later when a suitable motivation and circumstances appear

i.e., Sub always learning, food just shows learning

Tolman: Theorizing At The Molar Level

Place vs. Response learning

rats learn the place where they have been rewarded rather than the particular movements required to get there

Rat starts @ A; Food is @ B

Response learning: run down hall & turn right

Place learning: Food always found in the same place

Start @ C; if turn rt (S-R) will not get food

Cognitive Map

Cognitive Maps

Rats learn top maze (4 days)

Start @ A; food @ G

No errors possible

Then given bottom maze

Can’t do ‘normal’ route (it doesn’t exist)

Tend to select arms 5 or 6

i.e., Know the general direction of the goal

Cognitive maps in rats and men (1948)

“…humans have cognitive maps that not only situate them in space, but within a broader network of causal, social and emotional relationships. A narrow map can lead one to discount outsiders; a broader map to understanding and empathy.”

In 1950s Fired from Berkeley – Loyalty Oath

Rehired 2 years later

Eval: method of maze learning

no “Tolmanians”; Animal Cognition

Clark Hull (1884-1952) A Hypothetico-Deductive System

Polio @ 26; read W. James while recovering

had wanted to be an engineer

1918: PhD, Wisconsin (Jastrow, student of Hall)

Quantitative Aspects of the Evolution of Concepts (1920),

Dissertation on concept learning

Preview of learning model featuring gradual increase of habit strength

Wisconsin faculty (1918-1928)

Aptitude Testing (1928)

Hypnosis and Suggestibility: An Experimental Approach (1933)

Yale’s (1928-1952)

Interdisciplinary Institute of Human Relations

Pro-seminar on his work

Hypothetical-Deductive System

Currently in use

observation

systematic controlled observation

experimental testing of the hypothesis

H-D method:

Derive postulates

Deduce testable conclusions

Experimentally test

Postulate 4

Habit strength (SHR): S-R contiguity & reinforcement

Drive is a bio/tissue need

Stim – Drive

Reinforcement as drive reduction

Primary vs. secondary (learned) drives

i.e., Drive Reduction Theory

A Hypothetico-Deductive System (cont.)

S-R link = anything that might affect how an organism responds

learning, fatigue, disease, injury, motivation, etc.

Reaction potential (sEr) = D x sHr

Drive (D); e.g., hours without food

Habit Strength (sHr); Function of # of reinforced trials

EVAL: 1940-1950: leading exper. psych in U.S.

Important collaborator  Kenneth Spence

Rapid decline after 1960

Percentage of articles in JEP citing Hull (or Spence)

1940  4%; 1950  39%; 1960  24%; 1970  4%

Low Generalizability

Limited practical applications

Elaborate theory based on overly simple research situations (e.g., “straight” mazes)

Many predictions not supported

B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) A Radical Behaviorism

failed writer; went to Harvard for Psych

Harvard - introspection; BFS was bored – bio/physio/etc

PhD Harvard (1931), Univ Fellow until 1936, then Minn.

The Behavior of Organisms (1938)

Type S conditioning  Pavlovian

Two stimuli paired, producing same response

Type R conditioning  operant

Behavior produces predictable consequences

Minnesota 9 years, then a few in Indiana

In Minn – pigeons roosted outside his window, they became his subjects

1948  returns to Harvard to stay

No Interest in Psyché – “Black Box” approach

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning

(Remember Thorndike’s Cats)

Controlled environment (operant chamber)

Rate of response as prime DV (cumulative recorder)

Experimental analysis of behavior

Effects of positive or negative consequences

Stimulus control

Schedules of reinforcement

A Radical Behaviorism (continued)

Opposed formal theory

Preferred an inductive strategy

Create theory from database

The problem of explanatory fictions

Must distinguish clearly between what is known and what is not known and to draw the boundaries accurately (they don’t)

invent fictional constructs that purport to explain behavioral phenomena but are really just new names for the phenomena

Dangers of labels becoming explanations

The technological ideal

Goal: not just predict & understand behavior, but to control it

Project Pigeon

WWII guided missile system using pigeons

Applications to child rearing and teaching

Walden Two (1948)

Utopian community built on operant principles

Became widely read in the 1960s

Skinner – Project Pigeon

Target shown on screen, pigeon pecks on target.

Pigeon wired to control so its pecking guides bomb to target

Evaluating Skinner

“Radical” behaviorism outside mainstream experimental psychology

Devoted group of followers though

Applied Behavioral Analysis (Behavior Management)

Animal training

Management

Education

As with Watson

Vigorous promoter to the general public

In contrast with Tolman and Hull

Featured applicability of conditioning to improve everyday life

Also in contrast with Tolman and Hull

The IQ Zoo

Started by the Brelands

early students of Skinner @ U Minnesota

Worked on Project Pigeon

Trained animals for TV ads, fairs, etc.

IQ Zoo

Instinctive drift: biological limits of conditioning (Breland and Breland (1961)

animals can be trained to do

human-like behaviors, using operant

conditioning techniques

over time, species-typical behaviors

intrude on the performance

Chicken tic-tack-toe in NYC Chinatown