3 results
Methods and theories in the experimental analysis of behavior
- B. F. Skinner
-
- Journal:
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 7 / Issue 4 / December 1984
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 511-523
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
We owe most scientific knowledge to methods of inquiry that are never formally analyzed. The analysis of behavior does not call for hypothetico-deductive methods. Statistics, taught in lieu of scientific method, is incompatible with major features of much laboratory research. Squeezing significance out of ambiguous data discourages the more promising step of scrapping the experiment and starting again. As a consequence, psychologists have taken flight from the laboratory. They have fled to Real People and the human interest of “real life,” to Mathematical Models and the elegance of symbolic treatments, to the Inner Man and the explanatory preoccupation with inferred internal mechanisms, and to Laymanship and its appeal to “common sense.” An experimental analysis provides an alternative to these divertissements.
The “theories” to which objection is raised here are not the basic assumptions essential to any scientific activity or statements that are not yet facts, but rather explanations which appeal to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured, if at all, in different dimensions. Three types of learning theories satisfy this definition: physiological theories attempting to reduce behavior to events in the nervous system; mentalistic theories appealing to inferred inner events; and theories of the Conceptual Nervous System offered as explanatory models of behavior. It would be foolhardy to deny the achievements of such theories in the history of science. The question of whether they are necessary, however, has other implications.
Experimental material in three areas illustrates the function of theory more concretely. Alternatives to behavior ratios, excitatory potentials, and so on demonstrate the utility of rate or probability of response as the basic datum in learning. Functional relations between behavior and environmental variables provide an account of why learning occurs. Activities such as preferring, choosing, discriminating, and matching can be dealt with solely in terms of behavior, without referring to processes in another dimensional system. The experiments are not offered as demonstrating that theories are not necessary but to suggest an alternative. Theory is possible in another sense. Beyond the collection of uniform relationships lies the need for a formal representation of the data reduced to a minimal number of terms. A theoretical construction may yield greater generality than any assemblage of facts; such a construction will not refer to another dimensional system.
A general account of selection: Biology, immunology, and behavior
- David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman, Sigrid S. Glenn
-
- Journal:
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 24 / Issue 3 / June 2001
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 November 2001, pp. 511-528
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Authors frequently refer to gene-based selection in biological evolution, the reaction of the immune system to antigens, and operant learning as exemplifying selection processes in the same sense of this term. However, as obvious as this claim may seem on the surface, setting out an account of “selection” that is general enough to incorporate all three of these processes without becoming so general as to be vacuous is far from easy. In this target article, we set out such a general account of selection to see how well it accommodates these very different sorts of selection. The three fundamental elements of this account are replication, variation, and environmental interaction. For selection to occur, these three processes must be related in a very specific way. In particular, replication must alternate with environmental interaction so that any changes that occur in replication are passed on differentially because of environmental interaction.
One of the main differences among the three sorts of selection that we investigate concerns the role of organisms. In traditional biological evolution, organisms play a central role with respect to environmental interaction. Although environmental interaction can occur at other levels of the organizational hierarchy, organisms are the primary focus of environmental interaction. In the functioning of the immune system, organisms function as containers. The interactions that result in selection of antibodies during a lifetime are between entities (antibodies and antigens) contained within the organism. Resulting changes in the immune system of one organism are not passed on to later organisms. Nor are changes in operant behavior resulting from behavioral selection passed on to later organisms. But operant behavior is not contained in the organism because most of the interactions that lead to differential replication include parts of the world outside the organism. Changes in the organism's nervous system are the effects of those interactions. The role of genes also varies in these three systems. Biological evolution is gene-based (i.e., genes are the primary replicators). Genes play very different roles in operant behavior and the immune system. However, in all three systems, iteration is central. All three selection processes are also incredibly wasteful and inefficient. They can generate complexity and novelty primarily because they are so wasteful and inefficient.
Apomorphine-induced operant deficits: a neuroleptic-sensitive but drug- and dose-dependent animal model of behavior
- P. Carnoy, S. Ravard, D. Hervé, J.-P. Tassin, P. Soubrié
-
- Journal:
- Psychiatry and Psychobiology / Volume 2 / Issue 4 / 1987
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 April 2020, pp. 266-273
- Print publication:
- 1987
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In order to further assess the alterations which might underly behavioral deficits associated with a reduced dopaminergic transmission, the effects of apomorphine at doses thought to stimulate dopaminergic autoreceptors were studied on rat operant behavior.
Low doses of apomorphine caused a reward deficit when animais were shifted from continuons reinforcement to fixed ratio schedules of food delivery (fig. 1). This effect could be accounted for by a decreased ability of secondary reinforcers to sustain responding and/or by a disruption of cognitive processes (Table 1). The apomorphine-induced reward deficit in the fixed ratio 4 schedule was reversed by “disinhibitory” neuroleptics including amisulpride, pimozide, pipotiazine and sulpiride, at low to moderate doses. Conversely, “conventional” neuroleptics such as chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, haloperidol, metoclopramide and thioridazine were found inactive in reversing the deficit caused by apomorphine (fig. 2). Results obtained after lesion of dopaminergic neurons by 6-hydroxydopamine suggested that the behavioral deficit induced by apomorphine was related not so much to a reduction in dopaminergic activity in given restricted areas such as the VTA (fig. 3), the nucleus accumbens (fig. 4) or the prefrontal cortex (fig. 5), as to a functional imbalance between mesolimbic and mesocortical dopaminergic systems.