New Formula for Behaviorism

Edward Tolman

A New Formula For Behaviorism

This article represents Edward Tolman’s ideas about a new version of behaviorism that was to bring unity to the conflicts between cognitive psychology and behaviorist psychology. Tolman, although a methodological behaviorist, did not venture near the zealous ideas that B.F. Skinner promoted. 

To make it clear where he stood, Tolman issues his review of Watson’s version of Behaviorism, “he [Watson] says, will be the study of stimulus and response such that given the stimulus we can predict the response, and given the response we can predict the stimulus.” (Tolman, 1921) Tolman does not end his critique in just defining the idea; he offers an interesting quote from Watson,

“It is perfectly possible for a student of behavior entirely ignorant of the sympathetic nervous system and of the glands and smooth muscles or even of the central nervous system as a whole, to write a thoroughly comprehensive and accurate study of the emotions.” (Tolman, 1921)

Tolman’s response is how can someone ignorant of these things, “account for anything.” (Tolman, 1921) For the remainder of the article, Tolman lays out how his idea is to be structured.

He begins his theses by stating how non-physiological Behaviorism is possible. He goes on to maintain that this new Behaviorism will be capable of utilizing, “mental tests, objective measurements of memory, Animal Psychology, and valid results of Introspective Psychology.” (Tolman, 1921) He then differentiates between Introspective Psychology where consciousness is private and only observable by the individual, but that the information is not translated well, and Behavioral Psychology where the behavior or potential behavior is more easily observable.

Tolman finishes the article by covering the 4 concepts required to understand his new form of Behaviorism. 

First he states the “Stimulating Agency” is the initiating cause of behavior, and it can come from various ways. It can come through sense organ stimulation, administering drugs, and it can be neurologically based.

Once you have the Stimulus then the second part is the “Behavior-Cue.” The “Behavior-Cue” is the internal response, how we feel and process those feelings, our perceptions of color, shape, ect… 

Third is the “Behavior-Object.” The “Behavior-Object” is the process of afixing meaning to the “Behavior-Cue(s)” that are formed. 

This entire process leads us to the fourth concept called the “Behavior-Act.” The “Behavior-Act” is the observable, physical behavior. 

With this format, Tolman believed that the value in this idea rested in its ability to be more successful in treating patients.

 

I did find this reading to be enjoyable despite the arduous deciphering of the ideas presented. Of all that I have read, this short (five pages 10pt type) article proved to be one of the toughest so far. I think I enjoyed it so much because I can relate to the type of thought processes that, I believe, passed through Tolman’s mind. Trying to forge ahead with a new idea amidst detractors on all sides is very difficult, but sticking your neck out anyway and moving forward is somehow its own reward.

From a purely pragmatic view, I think Tolman was on to something. Taking the best of the experimental method, behavioral method, and introspective method seems like a good way to create a better environment for studying behavior. Tolman believed to understand behavior it would have to be seen as a system of interrelated functions. This idea seems very reasonable to me. 

From a Christian perspective, as far as this article is concerned, I will briefly touch on a few problem issues. First, the doctrine on which Behaviorism rests is naturalistic. This means that the material world is the supreme truth, and everything can be accounted for through the expression of natural laws. That would imply that man has no soul and no mind, only a brain that responds to stimuli. Behaviorism relieves man of his responsibility, removes his dignity, and makes freedom impossible. He is reduced to a machine that is, “shaped” as Skinner might say, by those who are able to wield the implements of Behaviorism effectively.

I would like to end this paper with an interesting quote,

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”

G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, 1908

Tolman, E. C. (1921, August 5). A New Formula For Behaviorism. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from Classics in the History of Psychology: http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Tolman/formula.htm

TJ