Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T19:49:35.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pavlov's Methodological Behaviorism as a Pre-Socratic Contribution of the Melding of the Differential and Experimental Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

John J. Furedy
John J. Furedy*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John J. Furedy, Dept. of Psychology, 100 George Street, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mail: furedy@psych.utoronto.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The differential/experimental distinction that Cronbach specified is important because any adequate account of psychological phenomena requires the recognition of the validity of both approaches, and a meaningful melding of the two. This paper suggests that Pavlov's work in psychology, based on earlier traditions of inquiry that can be traced back to the pre-Socratics, provides a potential way of achieving this melding, although such features as systematic rather than anecdotal methods of observation need to be added. Pavlov's methodological behaviorist approach is contrasted with metaphysical behaviorism (as exemplified explicitly in Watson and Skinner, and implicitly in the computer-metaphorical, information-processing explanations employed by current “cognitive” psychology). A common feature of the metaphysical approach is that individual-differences variables like sex are essentially ignored, or relegated to ideological categories such as the treatment of sex as merely a “social construction.” Examples of research both before and after the “cognitive revolution” are presented where experimental and differential methods are melded, and individual differences are treated as phenomena worthy of investigation rather than as nuisance factors that merely add to experimental error.

La distinción diferencial/experimental que especificó Cronbach es importante porque una explicación adecuada del fenómeno psicológico requiere que reconozcamos la validez de los dos enfoques, a la par que una combinación de los mismos. Este trabajo trata de mostrar que la obra de Pavlov en psicología, basada en las primeras tradiciones investigadoras que se remontan hasta los presocráticos, proporciona una posible forma de conseguir esta combinación, aunque se deban añadir métodos de observación sistemática frente a la meramente anecdótica. Se contrasta el enfoque conductual metodológico de Pavlov con el conductismo metafísico, ejemplificado explícitamente en Watson y Skinner e implícitamente en las explicaciones del procesamiento de la información o de la metáfora computacional, empleadas por la psicología “cognitiva” actual. Una característica del enfoque metafísico es que variables diferenciales individuales como el sexo son básicamente ignoradas o relegadas a categorías ideológicas, como ocurre cuando se considera el sexo como mera “construcción social”. Se presentan ejemplos de investigaciones, antes y después de la “revolución cognitiva”, en los que los métodos experimental y diferencial se combinan, apareciendo las diferencias individuales como fenómenos dignos de investigación más que como factores molestos que meramente acrecientan el error experimental.

Keywords

Pavlovmelding of experimental and differential psychologymethodological vs. metaphysical behaviorismindividual differencessex differencescomputer metaphor in current “cognitive” psychologyPavlovunión complementaria de psicología diferencial y experimentalconductismo metodológico frente a metafísicodiferencias individualesdiferencias según el sexola metáfora computacional en la actual psicología “cognitiva”
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 2: Special Issue: A Century of Pavlovian Theory: The Madrid Lecture (Pavlov, 1903) , November 2003 , pp. 133 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algan, O., Furedy, J.J., Demirgoren, S., Vincent, A., & Pogun, S. (1995). Effects of tobacco smoking on interhemispheric processing and psychophysiological responses during verbal and spatial tasks: Gender differences. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 21, 272.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1962). Studies in empirical philosophy. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
Badia, P., & Defran, R.H. (1970). Orienting responses and GSR conditioning: A dilemma. Psychological Review, 77, 171–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnet, J. (1930). Early Greek philosophy. London: Adam & Charles Black.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H.J. (1957). Sense and nonsense in psychology. Penguin: London.Google Scholar
Furedy, J.J. (1968). Human orienting reaction as a function of electrodermal versus plethysmographic response modes and single versus alternating stimulus series. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 70–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J. (1969). Electrodermal and plethysmographic OR components: Repetition of and change from UCS-CS trials with surrogate UCS. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 27, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J. (1988). On the relevance of philosophy for psychological research: A preliminary analysis of some influences of Andersonian realism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J. (1989). The state of psychological theory as illustrated by Melzack's new conceptual nervous system model/theory: Strong on imaginativeness but weak in inference. Canadian Psychology, 30, 711–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J. (1990, May). W(h)ither the discipline? An interactive symposium. Invited symposium of the Canadian Psychological Association Meetings, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Furedy, J.J. (1992). Reflections on human Pavlovian decelerative heart-rate conditioning with negative tilt as US: Alternative approaches. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 27, 347–355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J. (1994). Review of J. Searle's the rediscovery of the mind. Biological Psychology, 37, 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J. J. (2003). Pavlov Ivan (1849-1936). In Byrne, J. (Ed.), Learning & memory, The MacMillan psychology reference series (2nd ed., pp. 516–520). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Furedy, J. J., Heslegrave, R. J., & Scher, H. (1984). Psychophysiological and physiological aspects of T-wave amplitude in the objective study of behavior. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 19, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J., & Klajner, F. (1978). Imaginational Pavlovian conditioning of large-magnitude cardiac decelerations with tilt as US. Psychophysiology, 15, 538–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J., & Poulos, C.X. (1976). Heart-rate decelerative Pavlovian conditioning with tilt as UCS: Towards behavioral control of cardiac dysfunction. Biological Psychology, 4, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J., & Poulos, C.X. (1977). Short-interval classical SCR conditioning and the stimulus-sequence-change-elicited OR: The case of the empirical red herring. Psychophysiology, 14, 351–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furedy, J.J., & Poulos, C.X. (1978). A reply to Siddle and Remington on the OR/CR distinction in short-interval classical autonomic conditioning. Psychophysiology, 15, 610–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J. J. & Riley, D. M. (1984). Undifferentiated and “moat-beam” percepts in Watsonian-Skinnerian behaviorism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 625–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J., Church, R.M., Overmier, J.B., & Spence, J.T. (1991). Unification issues in academic psychology: Internal and external centrifugal forces: A symposium. International Newsletter of Uninomic Psychology, 10, 3–8.Google Scholar
Furedy, J.J., Algan, O., Vincent, A., Demirgoren, S., & Pogun, S. (1999). Sexually dimorphic effect of an acute smoking manipulation on skin resistance but not on heart-rate during a cognitive verbal task. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 34, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furedy, J.J., Morrison, J.W., & Flor-Henry, P. (2001). Skin conductance levels reveal unique deficits in allocation of attention to repetition and change in male schizophrenics. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 27, part 1, Program 1, Program #741.5, p. 585.Google Scholar
Gantt, W. H. (1991). Ideas are the golden coins of science. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 26, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginsberg, S., & Furedy, J.J. (1974). Stimulus repetition, change and assessments of sensitivities of the relationships among an electrodermal and two plethysmographic components of the orienting reaction. Psychophysiology, 11, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grigorian, N. A. (1974). Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich. In Dictionary of scientific biography (Vol. 10, pp. 431–5). New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Jones, J. E. (1962). Contiguity and reinforcement in relation to CS-US intervals in classical aversive conditioning. Psychological Review, 69, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanit, L., Taskiran, D., Furedy, J. J., Kulali, B., McDonald, R., & Pogun, S. (1998). Nicotine interacts with sex in affecting rat choice between “look-out” and “navigational” cognitive style in the Morris Water Maze place learning task. Brain Research Bulletin, 46, 441–445CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanit, L., Taskiran, D.Yilmaz, O., Balkan, B.Demirgoren, S., Furedy, J.J., & Pogun, S., (2000a). Sexually dimorphic cognitive style in rats emerges after puberty. Brain Research Bulletin, 52, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanit, L., Yilmaz, O., Taskiran, D., Kulali, B., Furedy, J.J., Demirgoren, S., & Pogun, S. (2000b). Sexually dimorphic cognitive style, female sex hormones and cortical nitric oxide. Physiology and Behavior, 71, 277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendler, H.H. (2002). Spence, Kenneth (1907–1967). In Byrne, J. (Ed.), Learning & memory, The MacMillan psychology reference series (2nd ed., pp. 836–639r). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougal, J.M., Dembroski, T.M., & Krantz, D.S. (1981). Effect of types of challenge on pressure and heart rate responses in Type A and B women. Psychophysiology, 18, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maze, J. R. (1983). The meaning of behavior. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P.E. (1951). Some methodological comments concerning expectancy theory. Psychological Review, 58, 230–33.Google Scholar
Moltz, H. (1957). Latent extinction and the fractional anticipatory goal response. Psychological Review, 64, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J.W., Furedy, J.J., & Flor-Henry, P. (1996). Fate of four Sokolovian deductions in the electrodermal and vasomotor components of the orienting reaction: The picture remains confused. Psychophysiology, 33, S63.Google Scholar
Morrison, J.W., Furedy, J.J., & Flor-Henry, P. (2001). Skin conductance responses, prestimulus levels, and prestimulus digital skin temperature levels in a cross-modal repetition-to-change orienting reaction paradigm. Psychophysiology, 38, S69.Google Scholar
Newhouse, P.A., Sunderland, T., Thompson, K., Tariot, P.N., Weingartner, H., Mueller, E.R., Cohen, R.M., & Murphy, D.L. (1986). Intravenous nicotine in a patient with Alzheimer's disease. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1494–1495.Google Scholar
Osgood, C.E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pogun, S. (2001). Sex differences in brain and behavior: Emphasis on nicotine, nitric oxide and place learning. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, K.R. (1960). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Prokasy, W.F., & Ebel, H.C. (1967). Three components of the classically conditioned GSR in human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It's not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A.H. & Prokasy, W.F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Sahakian, B., Jones, G., Levy, R., Gray, J., & Warburton, D. (1989). The effects of nicotine on attention, information processing, and short-term memory in patients with dementia of Alzheimer type. British Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 797–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scher, H., Hartman, L., Furedy, J.J., & Heslegrave, R.J. (1986). Electrocardiographic T-wave changes are more pronounced in Type A than Type B men during mental work. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 159–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sechenov, I. (1866). Refleksy golovnogo mozga. St. Petersburg: Tipographiia A. Golovachova.Google Scholar
Segal, E. M., & Lachman, R. (1972). Complex behavior or higher mental process: Is there a paradigm shift? American Psychologist, 27, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddle, D., & Remington, R. (1978). Is the methodological OR problem for short interval classical conditioning an “empirical red herring”? Psychophysiology, 15, 609–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, Y.N. (1960). Neuronal models and the orienting reflex. In Brazier, M.A.B. (Ed.), The central nervous system and behavior (pp. 187–276). New York: Josiah Macey Foundation.Google Scholar
Sokolov, Y.N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Spielberger, C.D. (1986). Psychological determinants of smoking behavior. In Tollison, R.D. (Ed.), Smoking and society: Toward a more balanced assessment (pp. 89–134) Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Spence, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, K.W., Haggard, D., & Ross, L.E. (1958). UCS intensity and the associative (habit) strength of the eyelid CR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 404–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staats, A. (1983). Psychology's crisis of disunity, philosophy and method for a unified science. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Stern, J.A., & Walrath, L.C. (1977). Orienting responses and conditioning of electrodermal responses. Psychophysiology, 14, 334–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M., Stern, J.A., Winokur, G., & Fredman, S. (1961). An analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychological Review, 68, 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar