Работы студентов института психологии
Позвольте представить Вашему вниманию лучшие работы студентов института психологии, которые были выполнены в первом семестре второго курса на кафедре английского языка. Целью работ являлось проведение сравнительно анализа творчества выдающихся психологов-бихевиористов и необихевиористов.
Хотелось бы сказать несколько слов об истоках этого направления и ученых, предопределивших возникновение его основных идей. Корни бихевиористического течения уходят в прошлое и берут свое начало в работах по рефлексологии таких русских ученых, как Иван Петрович Павлов и Владимир Михайлович Бехтерев. Понятие условного рефлекса по Павлову было позднее заимствовано американским бихевиористом Джоном Уотсоном, который отрицал сознание как предмет научного исследования, но признавал важность эксперимента как метода изучения различных форм поведения. В развитие бихевиоризма внес огромный вклад Беррес Фредерик Скиннер. Он наиболее известен своей теорией оперантного научения, нацеленной на разработку техник модификации поведения.
Ведущим представителем необихевиоризма явился Кларк Леонард Халл. По мнению Халла, мотивами поведения выступают потребности организма, возникающие в результате отклонения от оптимальных биологических условий. Им был сформулирован закон о первичном подкреплении и, основанная на нем, теория научения. Идеи Халла оказали влияние на теории многих выдающихся психологов, таких как Нил Миллер, Эдвин Рэй Гатри (Газри) и др.
Оценивая необихевиоризм в целом, следует признать, что он продолжает занимать значительное место в психологии. Необихевиоризм широко используется в различных областях социальной практики, при лечении некоторых заболеваний, формировании поведения, направленного на поддержание здорового образа жизни.
В задачи работ студентов входило сравнить основные положения теорий Дж. Уотсона, Б. Ф. Скиннера и К. Л. Халла с идеями их последователей Н. Миллера, Э. Р. Гатри (Газри) и др. с целью выявления сходств и различий определенной теории, взятой в качестве основы сравнения, с идеями других представителей бихевиористического и необихевиористического течений.
Желаю приятного чтения.
Ирина Олеговна Окунева, ст. преподаватель
Let me introduce the best essays of the students of Psychology Institute which were written in the first term of the second academic year at the English language department. The object of the essays was a comparative analysis of the scientific work of outstanding behaviorists and neobehaviorists.
I would like to tell several words about the origin of this psychological school and the scientists whose works laid the foundation for the main ideas of the school. Behaviorism goes back to the works on reflexology by such Russian scientists as Ivan Petrovich Pavlov and Vladimir Mikhailovich Bekhterev. The concept of conditioned reflex according to Pavlov was later borrowed by an American behaviorist John Watson who denied consciousness as a subject matter of scientific investigation but admitted the importance of experiment as the method of behavioristic studies. Another great psychologist Burrhus Frederic Skinner contributed greatly to the development of behaviorism. He is best known for his operant conditioning theory which is aimed at elaboration of modifying behavior techniques.
The leading theorist of neobehaviorism is Clark Leonard Hull. According to Hull’s Drive Theory behavioral motives are the drives of an organism that arise as a result of deviation from the optimum biological conditions. He stated the law of primary reinforcement and the Theory of Learning that is based on the latter. Hull’s ideas influenced the work of many outstanding psychologists, such as Neal Elgar Miller, Edwin Ray Guthrie, etc.
On the whole one should admit that neobehaviorism still ranks highly in psychology. Neobehavioristic theories are widely used in social life, to treat some disorders, to mold the behavior aimed at maintenance of healthy lifestyle.
The students were to compare the main ideas of the theories by John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner and C. L. Hull with the ideas of their followers N. Miller, E. R. Guthrie, etc. in order to show similarities and differences of a certain theory in comparison with the theories of other behaviorists and neobehaviorists.
I wish you to enjoy your reading.
Irina Olegovna Okuneva, senior instructor
Essay by Lena Bogachova
In my presentation I’m going to be talking about Edwin Ray Guthrie and after some introduction I would like to compare Guthrie’s theory with other theories.
Firstly, Edwin Ray Guthrie was born in Lincoln, Nebraska. He received his bachelor’s degree in mathematics and his master’s degree in philosophy from the University of Nebraska. He worked as an instructor of the department of philosophy and then as an instructor of the department of psychology.
Secondly, Edwin Ray Guthrie was a behaviorist and that is why he had a concept in which all learning is based on a stimulus – response association. He believed that each movement produces stimuli and the stimuli then become conditioned. But, he didn’t believe that learning depends on reinforcement.
So, we have two different theories in the behaviorism. On the on hand, we have Skinner’s theory in which responses are followed by reinforcement. And a positive reinforce increases the likelihood of the response it follows. So, that is why it is better to use a positive reward.
And on the other hand, we have Guthrie’s theory in which he thought that reinforcement occurs after the association between the stimulus and the response has occurred. So, we have only one type of learning and the difference seen in learning arises from different types of situations.
We should mention that Guthrie’s theory is intimately connected with Clark Hull’s theory. His theory explains behavior in terms of stimulus and response, which become associated with each other in the learning process. And Guthrie believed in one- trial learning, which he described as pairing between stimulus pattern and a response. So, Guthrie and Clark Hull had the same parts in their theories.
And finally, I want to compare Guthrie’s theory and Tolman`s theory. On the one hand, these two theories are different in the scheme of stimulus and response, because Edward Tolman had the other scheme, which is known as «stimulus- stimulus».
But on the other hand, Edward Tolman and E. R. Guthrie didn’t believe that the reinforcement is the main thing that depends on behavior. Edward Tolman didn’t believe in reinforcement and E. R. Guthrie didn’t see the role of the reinforcement in his theory at all either.
At the end of my presentation, I want to tell that E. R. Guthrie tried to prove some of his ideas experimentally. Like other behaviorists he used animals as subjects in his experiments. And he had an experiment with students in which he showed the desired responses without stimuli. Guthrie’s theory has been criticized for its simplicity.
Essay by Anastasia Buyanova
Neal Elgar Miller was one of the outstanding psychologists of the XXth century. Despite of the fact, that he belonged to the behavioristic school he had views, different from its main representatives, such as Watson, Tolman, Skinner.
In his early years he tried to determine how the Freudian phenomena can be explained in terms of learning and behavior. Here he used experimental methods, and this work (especially experimental investigations) led him to the new approach of the study of learning and behavior, which is known as neuroscience.
Despite of representatives of classical behaviorism he recognized the presence of an additional variable. Like Hull he investigated motivations and drive, but in spite of the Hull’s theory Miller demonstrated that we cannot understand reinforcement only in terms of drive reduction. As we know Hull said that an animal for example a rat can do something following the electrical stimulation of the brain. It means that behavior can be coded by chemical or electrical influence of the brain.
One of Miller’s great contributions to psychology was that he was the first who suggested that people might learn to control not only their observable behavior but internal manifestations of the behavior such as heart rate and bowel contractions.
We can conclude that Miller’s discoveries like findings of the most representatives of behavioral school are used nowadays to solve people’s behavioral problems not only from the external and observable point of view but from the point of view of inner world of a person.
Comparison of biographies and scientific researches
of Edwin Ray Guthrie, Burrhus Frederic Skinner and Carl Leonard Hull
by Dasha Zhukova
In this text I would like to tell you about thee the most outstanding figures in the school of behaviorism Edwin Ray Guthrie, Burrhus Frederic Skinner and Carl L. Hull. Firstly I would like to tell you about some facts of their biographies. Hull and Skinner were born in America and Guthrie was born in England. They were nearly the persons of the same age (Guthrie was born in 1886, Skinner-1904, Hull-1884). They had different families. Guthrie grew in the family of a school teacher and a manager and there were 5 children in his family. Hull’s childhood wasn’t very easy either. He grew up handicapped and contracted polio at the age of 24. Skinner’s childhood was different. It was warm and stable. All of them were educated in the Universities and had some degrees, but they all started their education not from psychology. Guthrie was interested in mathematics (it’s interesting to say that Hull was interested in math too, and used it in his work later) and had a degree in philosophy, he was an instructor of the department of philosophy, but very soon changed it to the department of psychology. Skinner had a degree in English, tried to be a writer, but later he was interested in psychology. Hull aspired to be an engineer, but then he fell in love with psychology too. There are many interesting facts in their biographies, but I think, that the most important information is about their contribution to psychology.
They all were behaviorists, but there were some distinctions between their theories. Guthrie avoided mentioning of drives, successive repetition, rewards, or punishment. He thought that all learning is based on stimulus-response association. Hull’s theory was based on principles drawn from a variety of sources, and the theory of learning formed his works too. Hull explained behavior in terms of stimulus and response like Guthrie did. Skinner based on principles elaborated by Watson, he studied behavior within the framework of conditioning. His most important contribution was the theory of operant conditioning. There was one big distinction between Guthrie’s and Skinner’s theories: Guthrie didn’t believe that learning depends on reinforcement, and Skinner said that operants are learned because they are followed by reinforcement. The similar fact in Skinner’s and Hull’s works was that they were influenced by I. Pavlov and Watson. There is one big resemblance in the works of all of them: it is experimental method in psychology. They all made different researches with animals (pigeons, rats, cats). Hull hypothesized that animal’s learning depends on physiological need or drive and reinforcement, Skinner tried to prove that reinforcement, especially positive reinforcement influences learning, and Guthrie was talking about animals, which learn an association between a stimulus and behavioral act after only one experience(Guthrie worked together with Horton at his experiments).
All of these scientists try to present their theories to society. Guthrie was a teacher at the University (he had a large interest in the evaluation of teaching ability). He was criticized for the simplicity of his theory, but later he was the winner of the second gold medal awarded by the American Psychological Association and he was elected president of the APA. Hull presented his ideas in “Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning” and “Principles of Behavior”. He had his Ph.D. in Psychology when he was 34. Skinner’s discoveries have been applied in education; his ideas were presented in many books too. He continued to write until his death. He presented a report just eight days before his death. He had Ph.D. too. All of them died, but their theories are alive. They all were outstanding figures of behaviorism and scientific and experimental legacy of psychology. There are some differences and some resemblances in their biographies and investigations, but I think, that their contribution to psychology is almost equivalent and very important to modern specialists.