Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:28:10.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

E. C. Tolman and the Intervening Variable: A Study in the Epistemological History of Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ron Amundson
Ron Amundson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Hawaii at Hilo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

E. C. Tolman's ‘purposive behaviorism’ is commonly interpreted as an attempt to operationalize a cognitivist theory of learning by the use of the ‘Intervening Variable’ (IV). Tolman would thus be a counterinstance to an otherwise reliable correlation of cognitivism with realism, and S-R behaviorism with operationalism. A study of Tolman's epistemological background, with a careful reading of his methodological writings, shows the common interpretation to be false. Tolman was a cognitivist and a realist. His ‘IV’ has been systematically misinterpreted by both behaviorists and antibehaviorists. For this reason, Tolman's alliance with modern cognitivism and his influence on its development have been underestimated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 268 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

I wish to express thanks to Dudley Shapere, Ann Covalt and Terry Smith for much assistance, insight, and encouragement. I am also grateful to B. F. Ritchie, Paul Meehl, and a most perceptive anonymous referee. Research for this project has been supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities during the summers of 1980 and 1981.

References

Chisholm, R. (1952), “Intentionality and the Theory of Signs”, Philosophical Studies 3: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1978), Brainstorms. Montgomery, Vt.: Bradford.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. (1950a), “Existential Hypotheses”, Philosophy of Science 17: 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, H. (1950b), “Logical Reconstruction, Realism, and Pure Semiotic”, Philosophy of Science 17: 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, P. (1949), Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H., Krantz, D. L., and Rains, J. D. (eds.) (1965), Controversial Issues in Learning Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Guthrie, E. R. (1960), The Psychology of Learning (rev. ed.). Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Holt, E. B., Marvin, W. T., Montague, W. P., Perry, R. B., Pitkin, W. B., and Spalding, E. G. (1912), The New Realism. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kendler, H. H. (1952), “What Is Learned —A Theoretical Blind Alley”, reprinted in Goldstein et al. 1965.Google Scholar
Leahey, T. H. (1980), A History of Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K. (1970), “On Chomsky's Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior“, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 13: 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCorquodale, K., and Meehl, P. E. (1948), “On a Distinction between Hypothetical Constructs and Intervening Variables”, Psychological Review 55: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCorquodale, K., and Meehl, P. E., (1954), “E. C. Tolman”, in Estes, W. K., Koch, S., MacCorquodale, K., Meehl, P. E., Mueller, C., Schoenfeld, W., and Verplanck, W. S., Modern Learning Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, B. (1977), Behaviorism and the Limits of Scientific Method. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., and Mandler, G. (1964), Thinking: From Association to Gestalt. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1982), personal communication, 11/17/82.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960), Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1918), “Docility and Purposiveness”, Psychological Review 25: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, R. B. (1921), “A Behaviorist View of Purpose”, Journal of Philosophy 18: 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, B. F. (1981), personal communication, 12/27/81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, B. F., (1982), personal communication, 8/2/82.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. S. (1952), “Mind, Meaning, and Behavior”, Philosophical Studies 3: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, K. (1944), “The Nature of Theory Construction in Contemporary Psychology”, Psychological Review 51: 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, K., (1948), “The Postulates and Methods of Behaviorism”, Psychological Review 55: 67–78.10.1037/h0063589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, K., (1951), “Theoretical Interpretations of Learning”, in Stevens, S. S. (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1964); The Explanation of Behavior. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tibbetts, P. (1975), “The Doctrine of ‘Pure Experience': The Evolution of a Concept from Mach to James to Tolman”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 11: 55–66.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titchener, E. B. (1909), Experimental Psychology of the Thought Processes. Syracuse: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1917), “More on the Temporal Relations between Meaning and Imagery”, Psychological Review 24: 114–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1920), “Instinct and Purpose”, Psychological Review 27: 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1925a), “Behaviorism and Purpose”, repr. in Tolman 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1925b), “Purpose and Cognition”, repr. in Tolman 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1926), “A Behavioristic Theory of Ideas”, repr. in Tolman 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1932), Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Century.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1935), “Psychology versus Immediate Experience”, repr. in Tolman 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1936), “Operational Behaviorism and Current Trends in Psychology”, repr. in Tolman 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1938), “The Determiners of Behavior at a Choice Point”, repr. in Tolman 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1949), “Discussion: Interrelationships Between Perception and Personality”, Journal of Personality 18: 48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1951), Behavior and Psychological Man. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1952), Autobiography, in A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Boring, E. G., et al. (eds.), v.4.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. (1959), “Principles of Purposive Behaviorism”, in Koch, S., (ed.) Psychology: A Study of a Science, v.2. New York: MacGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F., and Kalish, D. (1946), “Studies in Spatial Learning I: Orientation and the Short-cut”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 36: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed