Learning

Abstract

THEORYBooks by Hull (74) and Guthrie (62) have brought their respective S-R' theories up to date. A brief article by Tolman (165) gives a pr�cis of his most recent general formulation. MacCorquodale & Meehl (110) have pre sented an elaboration of an earlier paper (112) in which they formalized ex pectancy theory by a set of postulates. They include reinforcement in addi tion to frequency of presentations, Sl-R1-$t, as probably an important determiner of expectancies.' This is the only point in their discussion to which the present reviewers would definitely take exception.Hull's last book (74) is of great significance and will long stand as a me morial to his creative genius. It presents in final form his basic postulates and corollaries. It also contains many ingenious, though often not very rigor ous, applications of these postulates and corollaries, through the derivation of theorems, to most of the factual problems of animal learning. One feature of the system as now presented, in which we naturally concur, is his latest equation for Reaction Potential, SEB = D X V, X K X SHB

Individual Differences in Motivation and Behavior in Particular Situations

“…tasks are presented as tests of important abilities (1) The assumption was "that the achievement motive measured m imaginative behavior becomes a determinant of overt stnving only to the extent that a particular performance is perceived as instrumental to the goal of personal accomplishment" (1, p 387) A more general statement of this idea is that the strength of the behavioral tendency (B) IS a joint (positive) function of the strength of a particular motive (m) and the strength of the expectancy (e) that a particular act IS instrumental to attainment of the goal of that motive, B = f (m, e) This principle is similar to recent statements of the expectancy leaming theory prmciple of activation (8,13) except in the conception of a motive as an antiapatory goal state having directive (vector) properties, l e, as a selective energizer of behavior, rather than as dnve, a nondirective impetus to action (see 2, p 81 and 5, p 2 for this distinction)…”

“….niN INITIAL ATTEMPT has been made elsewhere (2) to state a principle of action (or performance) that would accoimt for the result of expenments in which individual differences in the strength of particular motives are inferred from imaginative (TAT) stories and related to overt behavior The pnnciple extends an assumption made earlier to account for the fact that strength of achievement motive as measured in imaginative stories is positively related to recall of interrupted tasks and the Zeigamik effect only when the. tasks are presented as tests of important abilities (1) The assumption was "that the achievement motive measured m imaginative behavior becomes a determinant of overt stnving only to the extent that a particular performance is perceived as instrumental to the goal of personal accomplishment" (1, p 387) A more general statement of this idea is that the strength of the behavioral tendency (B) IS a joint (positive) function of the strength of a particular motive (m) and the strength of the expectancy (e) that a particular act IS instrumental to attainment of the goal of that motive, B = f (m, e) This principle is similar to recent statements of the expectancy leaming theory prmciple of activation (8,13) except in the conception of a motive as an antiapatory goal state having directive (vector) properties, l e, as a selective energizer of behavior, rather than as dnve, a nondirective impetus to action (see 2, p 81 and 5, p 2 for this distinction)…”

Reinforcers and reinforcement: Their relation to maze performance.

“…Thinking about reinforcement has been marked, for the most part, by a tendency to equate internal process and stimulus agent and a preoccupation with frequency of presentation of the agent as the crucial reinforcement variable. Thus Tolman and Postman (1954), have commented, ". .…”

Relationships between eating disorder-specific and transdiagnostic risk factors for binge eating: An integrative moderated mediation model of emotion regulation, anticipatory reward, and expectancy

“…Expectancy theory is one framework from which to understand risk for ED behaviors, which posits that individuals make decisions based on previously learned associations between behaviors and outcome, and select behaviors based on their expectations of the results of the behavior (Behan, 1953; Tolman & Postman, 1954). Eating expectancies refer to individuals’ history of positive and negative reinforcement from eating and have been implicated in the etiology and maintenance of ED psychopathology (Bohon, Stice, & Burton, 2009; Holstein, Smith, & Atlas, 1998; Smith, Simmons, Flory, Annus, & Hill, 2007; Pearson, Combs, Zapolski, & Smith, 2012).…”