The "discovery" of social behaviorism and social learning theory, 1870–1980.

Divergent viewpoints regarding social behaviorism raise the more fundamental issue of just what social behaviorism is. One area of convergence is a functional feedback approach expressed in terms of "self-reinforcement." The core theme is the gradual process of operationally defining the laws of contiguity, effect, and observational learning. Three generations of social behaviorists have disputed whether 1, 2, or 3 factors are necessary to encompass social activity. The tacit agreement on functional feedback is historical evidence that the clinical and experimental traditions may have found their paradigm in an "evolutionary behaviorism" based on all 3 factors in the post-Darwinian psychologies of James, Freud, and Piaget. (117 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Funtionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women.

Examines the psychology of women as it was studied from the middle of the 19th century to the 1st 3rd of the 20th century. During that period 3 topics received the most attention: sex differences in brain size and complexity and their implications for cognitive and affective behavior; the hypothesis of greater male variability (a corollary of evolutionary theory) and its social implications; and the expression of maternal instinct. Each topic is examined in relation to evolutionary theory and its influence on the conduct of 19th century science. The antecedents of each topic are traced as is the subsequent redefinition of each within the paradigm of behaviorism. It is proposed that each of these topics functioned as "scientific myth" which justified and explained contemporary cultural values. (71 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing behaviorism.

This article describes theoretical developments that have guided the interpretation of findings in a large-scale longitudinal study of the development of aggression over 22 years. The original variables were selected on the basis of their relevance to Hull-Spence theory, and the data were collected in conformity with the positivistic criteria that theory dictated. However, these data, as they accumulate, have also been found to be relevant to operant formulations as well as to social learning theory and, most recently, cognitive behaviorism. Indeed, as theories of learning have become broader they have been progressively better able to account for the data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Not far enough.

Comments on R. J. Herrnstein's (see record 1978-11330-001) article on behaviorism and agrees on the need for developing a taxonomy of animal behavior in place of environmentalism. However, retaining methodological behaviorism and its central place for a theory of reinforcement represents a commitment to a language of overt acts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond "competing," beyond "compatible." Commentary on J. Archer.

Comments on J. Archer's 1996 article in which he considers whether observed patterns of sex differences in human social behavior are best explained by social role theory or by the evolutionary principles of Darwinian theory. The author believes that Archer's conclusion that the 2 theories are actually compatible is important and is concerned that such a valuable conclusion may be lost to discussions over the rest of the article. The author argues several points made in the original article and then concludes that Darwinian and cultural perspectives on human sex differences are not opposing theories, nor are they merely compatible but instead are necessarily interdependent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Consciousness, social heredity, and development: The evolutionary thought of James Mark Baldwin.

James Mark Baldwin is one of the most important and least known early American scientific psychologists. Drawing inspiration from Charles Darwin and other evolutionists of the period, Baldwin developed a biosocial theory of psychological development that influenced both Jean Piaget and Lev S. Vygotsky; and he proposed a mechanism relating learned adaptations in the individual to phylogenesis (frequently termed the "Baldwin effect") that is of considerable interest to those currently modeling processes of learning and evolution. After a brief introduction to Baldwin's career, this article describes the intellectual context within which his evolutionary thinking developed. Three of his most important contributions are then discussed: his theory of individual adaptation or learning, his concept of "social heredity," and his articulation of the "Baldwin effect." The article concludes with a brief evaluation of the contemporary importance of Baldwin's ideas. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

From allies to adversaries?

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. In the present article, E. Kleyman praises Eagly and Wood for clarifying her confusion as to the difference between the evolutionary theory and the social structural theory views on the origins of sex differences in behavior. She states that before the article by Eagly and Wood it was difficult to see the significant distinctions between the social structural theory's acceptance of evolutionary origins of the human species and evolutionary theory's acceptance of social input and context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is psychology relevant to new priorities?

Discusses ways in which psychology participates in establishing and in implementing new social priorities through theory, methods, applied research, and professional skills. The social import of the "metapsychological" assumptions about human nature purveyed by psychologists is stressed. The assumptions of Skinnerian behaviorism and of "humanistic psychology" are both challenged in terms of their scientific base and social consequences. A humanized scientific psychology is advocated. (37 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The quest for primary motives: Biography and autobiography of an idea.

Suggests that behaviorism, psychoanalysis, and cognitive theory each relegate affect to the status of a dependent variable. The "cognitive revolution" emancipated the study of cognition from its cooption and distortion by behaviorism and by psychoanalytic theory. An "affect revolution" is now required to emancipate this radical new development from an overly imperialistic cognitive theory. The present author's theory is presented as a critique and as a remedy for this situation. (44 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition": Reprise.

Responds in detail to the critiques of the author's original article (see record 1976-12046-001) relating social behavior and evolutionary theory and agrees that the critiques raise important complexities that have not yet been thought through. The author points out that his efforts in trying to make psychological research more scientific provide an important premise to his overall argument. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behaviorism and neuroscience.

The influence of the methods and theories of behaviorism on theory and research in the neurosciences is examined, partly in light of J. B. Watson's (1913; see also PA, Vol 81:27851) original call-to-arms. Behaviorist approaches to animal behavior, particularly in the study of processes of learning and memory, have had a profound and continual influence in the area of neuroscience concerned with animal studies of brain substrates of behavior. Similarly, contemporary behaviorists have not been opposed to the study of neurobiological substrates of behavior. On the other hand, classical behaviorist views of thinking (i.e., as reflex chains) have been largely discounted by developments in neuroscience. Classical behaviorism is viewed by many as being most at odds with the modern fields of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience, particularly regarding "mind" and "consciousness." A modest attempt at reconciliation is offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The future and the past in the behaviorism–humanism dialogue.

The continuing behaviorism–humanism "dialog" is approached by a simultaneous look at the past and the future. The roots of the current ongoing controversy between adherents of these 2 positions can be traced to developments in science, psychology, and American society in the post-World War II period. A systematic study of that era points up the affinities between the 2 approaches in terms of philosophical influences and social objectives. An argument is presented for commonality of roots. The future of the behaviorism–humanism dialog resides in the emergence of new models and approaches to conceptualizing and changing human behavior, which are currently being developed. It is predicted that greater agreement on basic issues and cooperation between the "behaviorist" and the "humanist" will occur in the near future. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Darwin is in the details.

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. The present authors suggest that evolutionary models of sex differences are based on a much broader foundation that Eagly and Wood imply. They note that Eagly and Wood misconstrued previous age preference findings as supporting the "common knowledge" that men prefer younger women. Eagly and Wood also showed that as societies approach gender equality in resource access, some sex differences in mate preferences decrease; however, as the current authors note, evolved mechanisms are not environmentally insensitive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evolution and psychology.

Comments on the article by D. M. Buss et al (see record 1998-01669-001). The present author states his preference for the term previously used to cover the topic, "preadaptation," but concedes that the term "exaptation" and the exegesis on its utility presented by Buss et al are clearly sensible and understandable. The commenter states his purpose in writing as mainly being on the importance of evolutionary theory for psychology, on the evidence for various aspects of the theory as presented in publications for psychologists, and on how these affect the way the publications have to be documented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing.

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. The present article discusses conceptual problems which render Eagly and Wood's theory implausible. The authors see the social structuralists' dualistic interpretation of the origin of human traits as untenable and note that it results from a misunderstanding of what drives the evolution of adaptations. It is also noted that social structuralists' contention that humans do not have evolved psychological sex differences is implausible, because their implicit assumption that the sexes have not faced different adaptive problems over evolutionary history is not true. The authors point out that social structuralists neglect empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that behavioral sex differences are mediated by hormonal influences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Where the 'Stars' are: The 25 most cited psychologists in Canada": Corrections.

Reports an error in "Where the "stars" are: The 25 most cited psychologists in Canada (1972–1976)" by Norman S. Endler (Canadian Psychological Review, 1979[Jan], Vol 20[1], 12-21). Several corrections should be noted. The corrections are as follows: 1) in Table 1, the subheadings "1975 1974 1973 1972" were improperly aligned with the columns, and Kimura's 1976 citation rank should have been 3 instead of 2; 2) in Table 2, the number 1 calling attention to footnote 1 was omitted from the title; 3) in Table 3, an additional heading "Citations" should have appeared over the columns "1975 1974 1973 1972" on the same line as "Publications;" 4) in Table 3, the probability levels should have read '*p 1980-01842-001) and Endler et al's 1978 American Psychologist article (Vol. 33, pages 1064-1082). CPR also extends apologies to Professors Endler, Melzack and Tulving for typographical errors in the spelling of their names as follows: on the front cover, Professor Endler's middle initial should have been listed as S; on page 16, in the last paragraph, in the left hand column, Melzack's name was misspelled; on page 19, in the second paragraph in the right column, Tulving's name was misspelled. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1980-28686-001.) The Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for 1972-1976 was used as a data source for citation counts, which reflect scholarly impact, and publication counts reflecting productivity, for the 25 most cited psychologists ("stars") for 1972-1976. These 25 "stars" are located primarily at Ontario Universities and McGill and received their graduate training primarily at McGill, Yale, Harvard or the big 10 mid-western universities. Their major research areas appear to be cognitive processes, memory and verbal learning, personality theory and assessment, social processes and physiological psychology. Most of them are in their 40s or 50s, five of them are past presidents of CPA, three of them are currently departmental chairmen, and two are former departmental chairmen. Despite the limitations of the SSCI citation count, it appears to be the best single indicator of research quality and scholarly impact on the field of academic psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures.

Manipulative strategies of social conduct (Machiavellianism) have been studied by both psychologists and evolutionary biologists. The authors use the psychological literature as a database to test evolutionary hypotheses about the adaptive advantages of manipulative social behavior. Machiavellianism does not correlate with general intelligence and does not consistently lead to real-world success. It is best regarded as 1 of several social strategies, broadly similar to the "defect" strategy of evolutionary game theory, which is successful in some situations but not in others. In general, human evolutionary psychology and evolutionary game theory provide useful frameworks for thinking about behavioral strategies, such as Machiavellianism, and identify a large number of specific hypotheses that have not yet been tested by personality and social psychologists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Post hoc explanation is not prediction. Commentary on J. Archer.

Comments on J. Archer's 1996 article in which he considers whether observed patterns of sex differences in human social behavior are best explained by social role theory or by the evolutionary principles of Darwinian theory. The author believes that Archer framed many of his evolutionary claims as explanations despite the fact that they were generated post hoc. The author argues that a critical weakness of post hoc explanation is that various aspects of a theory may be used selectively to maximize the appearance of predictive validity and an example is used to illustrate the point. It is concluded that while evolutionary psychology is a promising and intriguing field its theories are not adequately tested by post hoc couched in predictive language. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Radical behaviorism and scientific frameworks: From mechanistic to relational accounts.

A substantial portion of Skinner's scholarship was devoted to developing methods and terms for a scientific study of behavior. Three concepts central to scientific accounts (cause, explanation, and theory) are examined to illustrate the distinction between mechanistic and relational frameworks and radical behaviorism's relationship to those frameworks. Informed by a scientific tradition that explicitly rejects mechanistic interpretations, radical behaviorism provides a distinctive stance in contemporary psychology. The present analysis suggests that radical behaviorism makes closer contact with the "new world view" advocated by physicists and philosophers of science than does much of contemporary psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Human behavior between instinct, feelings and responsibility

The paper deals with the fundamental problem: How does the brain (in the way it is and the way it functions) influence human experience, behaviour and social interaction? Deriving from this question, there's the matter of how all this influences people as road users. After some epistemological considerations the following subjects are dealt with the article: the human perception and human "reality", the limits of human imagination, the basis of human learning, the complexity of processes within the brain, the reaction to changes and the ability to concentrate as well as McLean's theory of the triune brain. The subjects are complemented by aspects of biological and socio-cultural evolution of man, starting from evolutionary ethics going right up to the problem of responsibility.