Neobehaviorsm and Conversational Response
Could you please do an “objective” conversational response toward this person discussion on neobehaviorsm.
This person will explain how Hull’s and Tolman’s views amended previous S-R theory resulting in neobehaviorsm. In their own words, they will summarize a research study that supports the neobehaviorism approach.
1) Do you agree that their research supports the principles of neobehaviorism? Why or why not?
2) What would you recommend adding to strengthen their argument? Why?
In behavior, Tolman was not interested in researching the relationship between S-R and simple activities. He focused on whole activities and organisms. Tolman received the main difference from other behaviorists and that is the system of Tolman’s chief idea which failed to capture purposive behaviorism. Tolman said the purpose in behavior is observed with objective behavioral concepts. His main idea is that all behavior has some purpose in it. Tolman believes that dealing objective responses of the organism and the measurements are stated in sections of changes in response that behavior as a function of learning. He understood that initial causes of behavior and final results of behavior must be capable of objective observation and operational definition. He formed five independent variables as a cause of behavior, environmental stimuli, physiological drives, heredity, previous training, and age. Observable independent variables and resulting response behavior, he inferred a set of unobservable factors, interveing variables are the actual determinists of behaviors. Tolman evidenced that S-R should real S-O-R. For example; hunger, we can not see the hunger but hunger can be observable with using time events, length of time since food was eaten, if the food was consumed fast or slow and many more. Tolman believes that behavior of animals and humans can be changed, developed and even modified with experiences. He believes that reinforcement and punishment was not effective to behavior and recalled learned relationships a sign that they are built up by the continued performance of a task.
Hull’s style of behaviorism is more complex and developed. His first studies designated his objective methods and functional laws. Hull studied a concept formation and what effects it had on behavioral efficiency. Hull believes that there is a relationship and interaction between subject and environment. Hull believes observational behavioral psychology deeply and ignored consciousness, purpose, and any mental concepts. He tries to explain all studies with using physical contexts. All functions would be objective, quantitative, and expressed in the language of mathematics. He describes three main methods, simple observation, systematic controlled observation, and the experimental testing of hypothesis. Hull supported two kinds of drive which are primary drives and secondary drives. Primary drives are like food, water, sleep, air, activity and pain relief. Secondary drives are related to situations or environmental stimuli associated with reaction of primary drives. Hull’s law of primary reinforcement states the S-R reaction and relationships are followed by a need. In his system; secondary or learned drives, also called secondary reinforcement are if the intensity of the stimuli is reduced.
One major research study that was conducted for neobehaviorism is the study of Ivan Pavlov and his dogs. Dogs normally display a salivation reflex at the sight of food. Pavlov’s experiment involved ringing a bell at the same moment that the dog was presented with food. After presenting both stimuli in this joint manner, Pavlov simply rang the bell without also presenting the food and found that the dog salivated. The normal reflex had been conditioned to appear in response to an unconventional stimulus. Neobehaviorists elieved that the study of learning and a focus on rigorously objective observational methods were the keys to a scientific psychology. Unlike their predecessors, however, the neobehaviorists were more self-consciously trying to formalize the laws of behavior.
Holland, P.. (2008). Cognitive versus stimulus-response theories of learning. Learning & Behavior (pre-2011), 36(3), 227-41. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1529873721).