AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR (TEAB)<sup>1</sup>

Kantor, J. R.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-101

Cited by 83 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But so scientifically unacceptable were the anecdotal methods supporting these claims that a strong counter-reaction understandably set in. Morgan (1909) (Kantor, 1970 It is a number derived by totalling up the observed key pecks in some measured duration and then dividing the total by the duration. In this case, the mathematical derivation of the quantity of theoretical interest happens to be an exceedingly simple one, and everyone's mathematical education is sufficient to provide him not only with the necessary mathematical tools but also with an intuitive understanding of the mathematics.…”

Section: The Status Of a Concept Of Memory In The Experimental Analysmentioning

confidence: 99%

ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR¹

Shimp

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some common reinforcement contingencies make the delivery of a reinforcer depend on the occurrence of behavior lacking significant temporal structure: a reinforcer may be contingent on nearly instantaneous responses such as a pigeon's key peck, a rat's lever press, a human's button press or brief verbal utterance, and so on. Such a reinforcement contingency conforms much more closely to the functionalist tradition in experimental psychology than to the structuralist tradition. Until recently, the functionalist tradition, in the form of a kind of associationism, typified most research on human learning and memory. Recently, however, research on human memory has focused more on structural issues: now the basic unit of analysis often involves an organized temporal pattern of behavior. A focus on the interrelations between the function and structure of behavior identifies a set of independent and dependent variables different froin those identified by certain common kinds of "molar" behavioral analyses. In so doing, such a focus redefines some of the significant issues in the experimental analysis of behavior.

show abstract

Section: The Status Of a Concept Of Memory In The Experimental Analysmentioning

confidence: 99%

ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR¹

Shimp

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kantor (1970) criticized the traditional operant approach of reducing "all behavior to a single dass adaptable to arbitrarily chosen patterns of manipulation and specialized apparatus," and proposed the analysis of behavioral fields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A behavioral field approach to instrumental learning in the rat: I. Partial reinforcement effects and sex differences

Wong

1977

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral field approach employs naturalistic observation and simultaneous, multiple recordings of ecologically relevant aspects of behavior-environment interactions. Applying this approach to runway learning in the rat, the inferior acquisition speed of partial reinforcement (PRF) subjects as compared to continuous reinforcement (CRF) subjects was found to result from greater response variability, more sniffing and goal-avoidance behavior, and slower dropping out of collateral behaviors (e.g., drinking and sand-digging). Extinction first produced an increase in exploratory behavior, then displacement activities (e.g., grooming and biting) and goal-avoidance. CRF subjects showed greater response persistence as measured by number of extinction trials to disrupt an established, favored path. PRF subjects showed greater goal persistence as measured by trials to retrace from goalbox. In extinction, while CRF subjects were more inclined to engage in drinking and sand-digging in the startbox. PRF subjects exhibited more biting behavior in the goalbox. The only sex-related differences were superior speeds by female CRF subjects, inferior goal speeds by female PRF subjects during acquisition, and superior goalbox escape learning by females in extinction.The behavioral field approach to instrumental learning may be characterized by naturalistic observation and simultaneous multiple recordings of ecologically relevant aspects of behavior-environment interactions in a testing situation that permits the display of speciesspecific behavior; its focus of analysis is on the interrelationship between the designated instrumental response and other responses observed in the testing situation.In contrast to the behavioral field approach, the traditional research strategy in animal learning calls for the arbitrary isolation of a small segment of environment (the stimulus) and a small segment of behavior (the response) and the analysis of functional relationship between them. To achieve this end, researchers typically employ a simple, straight runway or a barren operant chamber equipped with a protruding lever or a lighted key. In this simple-parts approach, highly complex behavioral phenomena are reduced to the analysis of some simple stimulus-response relationship quite arbitrarily chosen on the basis of convenience in manipulation and quantification. But focusing on simple parts

show abstract

“…Generally speaking, psychologists do not distinguish the stimulating action of an object from the object constituting its source (Kantor, 1970), a problem Kantor (1947) attributes to their having borrowed this term from biology, where the distinction between objects and their stimulational properties is less critical. This is not a trivial problem for the discipline of psychology, though, as failing to make this distinction inevitably results in the misconstruction of psychological events, particularly those of the most complex varieties (Kantor, 1924(Kantor, , 1926.…”

Section: Descriptive Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%