Reinforcement and Behavior PDF
Preview Reinforcement and Behavior
Uontribntors D. Ε. BERLYNE CARL PFAFFMANN PETER L. CARLTON HAROLD PINSKER KEITH N. CLAYTON DAVID PREMACK VERNE C. COX LARRY STEIN W. K. ESTES JACK T. TAPP JAN W. KAKOLEWSKI ELLIOT S. VALENSTEIN IRVING KUPFERMANN EDWARD L. WALKER HARDY C. WILCOXON REimCENENT AM) BEHAVIOR EDITED BY J A CK T. T A PP DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE ACADEMIC PRESS New York San Francisco London 1969 A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers COPYRIGHT © 1969, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NO PART OF THIS BOOK MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, BY PHOTOSTAT, MICROFILM, RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER MEANS, WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHERS. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. Ill Fifth Avenue, New York. New York 10003 United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD. 24/28 Oval Road, London NWl LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 68-59166 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA List of Contribotors Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin. D. E. BERLYNE*^ (178), University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada PETER L. CARLTON (286), Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers Medical School, New Brunsvs^ick, New^ Jersey KEITH N. CLAYTON (95), Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee VERNE C. COX (242), Department of Psychophysiology-Neurophys- iology, Fels Research Institute, Yellow^ Springs, Ohio W. K. ESTESf (63), Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California JAN W. KAKOLEWSKI (242), Department of Psychophysiology- Neurophysiology, Fels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio IRVING KUPFERMANN (356), Department of Psychiatry and Neurology and Department of Physiology and Biophysics, New^ York University Medical School, New York, New York CARL PFAFFMANN (215), The Rockefeller University, New York, New York ^Present address: Institut d'Estetique et des Sciences de I'Art, Paris, France f Present address: The Rockefeller University, New York, New York vi vi List of Contributors HAROLD PINSKER (356), Department of Physiology and Bio physics, New York University Medical School, New York, New York DAVID PREMACK (120), University of California, Santa Barbara, California LARRY STEIN (328), Wyeth Institute for Medical Research, Radnor, Pennsylvania JACK T. TAPP (146, 387), Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee ELLIOT S. VALENSTEIN (242), Department of Psychophysiology- Neurophysiology, Fels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio EDWARD L. WALKER (47), Psychological Laboratories, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan HARDY C. WILCOXON (1), Department of Psychology, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee Preface Over half a century of research on the principles of learning and reinforcement has resulted in the development of a technology w^hich is having considerable impact on the control of behavior. The person nel of numerous schools and hospitals are being trained in the ef fective use of rew^ards to reinforce and, consequently, modify behavior. Such programs are the hope of the future and will, perhaps, markedly change the management of undesirable behavior patterns. The series of papers in this volume brings together the research findings and view^s of a number of investigators w^hose work has chal lenged the more traditional interpretations of the nature of the rein forcement process. Within the book, the chapters are organized from a molar level of analysis to a molecular one, not only to reflect the di versity of strategies that are being brought to bear on the problem, but also to show^ that the research on the nature of reinforcement tran scends lines of scientific disciplines and that many different levels of analysis contribute to our understanding of the phenomenon. The first and last chapters give historical perspective to the re mainder of the book by review^ing the contributions of a number of individuals who have dealt with the problem in their own work and by pointing out some of the major issues on the molar level that are still unresolved. The remaining chapters can be roughly divided into two categories, both of which reflect reconceptualizations of the prob lem but which employ somewhat different strategies. One examines the consequences of rewards on behavior in order to specify the limits of their operations and the variables which predispose organisms to be responsive to the consequences of rewards. The other deals with the viii viii Preface neural mechanisms which underlie reinforcement and learning. This volume presents a more extensive analysis of the process by which re wards influence behavior than has previously been published else where and new experimental data are presented in support of the views of the various authors. The ideas and experimental findings contained in these papers will serve as a challenge for further in vestigations of the nature of the reinforcement process. The work developed from a series of colloquium addresses, by the contributors, to the Departments of Psychology at Vanderbilt Uni versity and George Peabody College for Teachers; The historical chapter by Hardy Wilcoxon and the chapter by Irving Kupfermann and Harold Pinsker are exceptions. Dr. Wilcoxon agreed to write an introduction when the book was conceived in order to place the con tributions of the other authors in historical perspective. The chapter by Dr. Kupfermann and Dr. Pinsker was conceived after the collo quium series was planned, as a result of a discussion in which the implications of their work for this problem became apparent. The senior authors of the remaining papers gave oral presentations to the Vanderbilt and Peabody Joint Colloquium Series in Psychology dur ing the academic year 1966-1967. The final manuscripts based on their research were submitted at a later date to keep material com mensurate with the most recent research findings. I am indebted to Professor Gilbert Meier, who was the colloquium coordinator for Peabody College, for his encouragement and coopera tion in pooling the resources of our respective institutions, and for his assistance in working out a mutually beneficial colloquium sched ule. I am also grateful for the support and encouragement of the members of the Department of Psychology at Vanderbilt, particularly Professors Donald L. Thistlethwaite and Jum C. Nunnally, who, respectively, served as Chairman of the Department during the in ception and conduct of the colloquium series. A special note of thanks is due to the various agencies of the federal government who have supported the research activities of the contributors and who provided funds which supported the colloquium series. These in clude the National Institutes of Mental Health, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Veterans Research Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Research Council of Canada. I would also like to express my gratitude to several individuals who assisted in various stages of this project. Most importantly, I thank the contributors for their willingness to participate in writing chapters for this volume and for their patience and cooperation. I PREFACE ίχ would also like to thank Mr. Michael Spiegler for his assistance in the conduct of the colloquium series, and Mrs. Vance Bradley for her assistance in the composition of the final product. I am particularly grateful to my wife. Dona, for the encouragement, assistance, and for bearance she has provided, not only on this project, but in all of my endeavors throughout the years. JACK T. TAPP Nashville, Tennessee February, 1969 C H A P T ER 1 Historical Introdoction to tiie Problem of Reinforcement HARDY C. WILCOXON . . . we must regard the processes of learning as wholly automatic. Clark L. Hull (1943, p. 69) I. Philosophical Antecedents 2 II. Early Evolutionism 2 A. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) 2 B. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) 4 III. TheLawofEfFect 10 A. Edward L.Thorndike (1874-1949) 10 B. Criticisms ofthe Law of Effect 18 IV. NoneflFect Theories 21 A. Ivan P. Pavlov (1849-1936) 21 B. John B.Watson (1878-1958) 23 C. Edwin R.Guthrie (1886-1959) 24 D. Edward C.Tolman (1886-1959) 27 V. The Empirical Law of Effect 28 B.F. Skinner (1904- ) 29 VI. Drive Reductionism 33 A. Clark L. Hull (1884-1952) 33 B. NealE.Miller(1909- ) 38 VII. Inadequacies of Drive Reductionism 40 A. Difficulties Arising outside the Theory 41 B. Difficulties within the Theory 42 References 44 The "problem of reinforcement'* is the admittedly vague and gen eral question of how certain behaviors get strengthened in relation to others as an organism learns. Historically, the term reinforcement has had many different meanings. A history of the problem, therefore, must reflect that diversity and some of the controversy surrounding the attempts to give the term more definite meaning. This introduc tory chapter is an attempt to provide a historical background for those 1 2 Hardy C. Wilcoxon that follow, each of which represents a new effort to achieve a better understanding of the problem of reinforcement. I. PHILOSOPHICAL ANTECEDENTS It is difficult to find a legitimate ancestor to the modem problem of reinforcement in the long philosophical prehistory of psychology. Although many of the problems dealt with by philosophers before the rise of modern science were similar to the modern one, their similarity is at best analogous, and not homologous. Hedonism, as developed in Greek philosophy, may be taken as an example to illustrate this differ ence. For Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) pleasure was an ultimate good and, in a sense, the determinant of behavior. In contrast with contemporary views, pleasure determined behavior in a teleological sense; that is, pleasure was the goal toward which rational men strived. Thus, man's reason was the determinant of his behavior, if we subscribe to the modern view that causes must be prior to their effects. But since no account was given of how prior events brought about changes in the choices made by reason, man's behavior was, in the last analysis, inde terminate. This kind of "determination" of man's behavior by some indeterminate entity such as reason or "free will" was characteristic of prescientific philosophy and is the basic reason that it contains little, if anything, of direct relevance to the modern problem of reinforcement. Π. EARLY EVOLUTIONISM Only when biological scientists began to view behavior in the con text of the natural sciences did the problem of reinforcement arise in acute form. So long as animals did what it was "in their natures" to do and man did what his reason dictated, there was little cause to worry over a problem such as reinforcement. Thus, the history that is rele vant to our purpose began around the time of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century, when the biological sciences were at last ushered into the realm of true natural science. A. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Two aspects of Darwin's achievement were especially critical in determining the course that behavioral science took and in shaping
The list of books you might like
