Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:50:13.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Note on Skinner and Pavlov's Physiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Víctor García-Hoz*
Affiliation:
Complutense University of Madrid
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Víctor García-Hoz, Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Facultad de Psicología.Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Campus de Somosaguas. 28223 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

These short notes describe the way in which Skinner considers and resolves his differences with Pavlov in the question of the relation between psychology and physiology as forms of knowledge. After establishing his viewpoint in the general epistemological issue, Skinner is concerned about linking his study of behavior to the work of Pavlov, who considered it to be of a physiological nature. Skinner contrasts Pavlov's empirical and theoretical work and characterizes the latter in terms of the notion of the “Conceptual Nervous System.”

Se analizan en estas breves notas el modo en que Skinner plantea y resuelve sus diferencias con Pavlov respecto a la relación entre psicología y fisiología como formas de saber. Tras establecer su punto de vista en la cuestión epistemológica general, Skinner se preocupa de vincular su estudio de la conducta con la obra de Pavlov, que éste considera fisiológica por naturaleza. Skinner contrapone el trabajo empírico y el trabajo teórico de Pavlov y caracteriza el último en términos de la noción de “Sistema Nervioso Conceptual”.

Type
Complutense University Celebration of B.F. Skinner's Centennial (1904-2004)
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

Dickinson, A. (1989). Expectancy theory in animal conditioning. In Klein, S.B. & Mowrer, R.R. (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 279308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gray, J.A. (1979). Pavlov. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Hebb, D.O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System). Psychological Review, 62, 243254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Morgan, C.L. (1894). An introduction to comparative psychology. London: Scott.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1931). The concept of the reflex in the description of behavior. In Skinner, B. F., Cumulative record (reprinted enlarged ed., pp. 319346). 1961, New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1951). Are theories of learning necessary? In Skinner, B. F., Cumulative record (reprinted enlarged ed., pp. 3969). 1961, New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, W. (1988). The behavior of organisms: Purposive behavior as a type of reflex. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 305317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verplanck, W.S. (1954). Burrhus F. Skinner. In Estes, W. K., Koch, S., MacCorquodale, K., Meehl, P.E., Mueller, C.G. Jr., Schoenfeld, W.N. & Verplanck, W.S. (Eds.), Modern learning theory (pp. 267316). New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar