Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:13:20.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Pavlov on the Psychology of Learning in English-Speaking Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Robert A. Boakes
Robert A. Boakes*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert A. Boakes, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2009. E mail: bobb@psych.usyd.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The translation of Pavlov's lectures (Pavlov, 1927) provided English-speaking psychologists with access to the full scope of Pavlov's research and theoretical ideas. The impact this had on their study of the psychology of learning can be assessed by examining influential books in this area. This reveals that Watson (1924) had been highly effective in promoting the misleading idea that Pavlov was a fellow S-R theorist. This assumption was not questioned by Tolman (1932), Hilgard and Marquis (1940) or by Hull (1943). However, this mistake was not made by Skinner (1938), who also provided the strongest arguments against Pavlov's belief that behavioral effects required explanation in terms of physiological processes. Post-1927 most learning research in the English-speaking countries continued to use instrumental, rather than Pavlovian, conditioning procedures. Nevertheless, many of the issues addressed by this research were ones that Pavlov had been the first to raise, so that his major influence can be seen as that of defining a research program for subsequent students of learning.

La traducción de las conferencias de Pavlov (Pavlov, 1927) proporcionó a los psicólogos angloparlantes el acceso al panorama global de la investigación y las ideas teóricas de Pavlov. El impacto que esto supuso para su estudio de la psicología del aprendizaje puede evaluarse mediante el examen de libros influyentes en esta área. Esto revela que Watson (1924) promovió eficazmente la errónea idea de que Pavlov era un teórico del E-R. Esta suposición no fue cuestionada por Tolman (1932), Hilgard y Marquis (1940) o Hull (1943). Sin embargo, Skinner (1938) no cometió este error y además proporcionó los más sólidos argumentos contra la creencia de Pavlov de que los efectos conductuales requieren una explicación en términos de procesos fisiológicos. A partir de 1927 la mayor parte de la investigación en aprendizaje en los países angloparlantes usó procedimientos instrumentales más que pavlovianos. Con todo, muchos de los temas planteados por estas investigaciones habían sido planteados por primera vez por Pavlov, así que se puede considerar que su influencia principal fue la de definir un programa de investigación para los estudiosos del aprendizaje.

Keywords

Pavlovian conditioningoperant conditioningbehaviorismcondicionamiento pavlovianocondicionamiento operanteconductismo
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. 93 - 98
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

Boakes, R.A. (1984). From Darwin to behaviourism: Psychology and the animal mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, S.R. (1988). Assessing Pavlov's impact on the American conditioning enterprise. Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 23, 102–106.Google ScholarPubMed
Dashiell, J.F. (1937). Fundamentals of general psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Garcia-Hoz, V. (this issue). Signalization and stimulus-substitution in Pavlov's theory of conditioning.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E.R., & Marquis, D.G. (1940). Conditioning and learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Kimble, G.A. (1961). Hilgard and Marquis' conditioning and learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Klimenko, V.M., & Golikov, J.P. (this issue). The Pavlov department of physiology: A scientific history.Google Scholar
Konorski, J., & Miller, S. (1937). On two types of conditioned reflex. Journal of General Psychology, 16, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, N.J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. (1935). A briefer general psychology. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I.P. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes. New York: International.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I.P. (1932). The reply of a physiologist to psychologists. Psychological Review, 39, 91–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaud, J.J. (this issue.) Pavlov and the foundation of behavior therapy.Google Scholar
Ruiz, G., Sánchez, N., & De la Casa, L.G. (this issue.) Pavlov in America: A heterodox approach to the study of his influence.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E.L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 2, No.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Watson, J.B. (1916). The place of the conditioned reflex in psychology. Psychological Review, 23, 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J.B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Woodworth, R.S. (1929). Psychology (Rev. ed.) New York: Holt.Google Scholar