You are on page 1of 178

of

Dictionary Theories, Laws, and

Concepts in Psychology

DICTIONARY OF THEORIES, LAWS, AND CONCEPTS IN PSYCHOLOGY


Jon E. Roeckelein

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport Connecticut London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Roeckelein, Jon E. Dictionary of theories, laws, and concepts in psychology Jon E. Roeckelein. p. c!. "ncludes bibliographical references #p. $ and inde%. "&'( )-*+*-*),-)-. #alk. paper$ +. Psychology/Dictionaries. ". 0itle. '1*+.R-.2 +334 +2)5.*/dc.+ 36-,*3,+ 'ritish Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is a7ailable. Copyright 8 +334 by Jon E. Roeckelein 9ll rights reser7ed. (o portion of this book !ay be reproduced, by any process or techni:ue, without the e%press written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card (u!ber; 36-,*3,+ "&'(; )-*+*-*),-)-. 1irst published in +334 <reenwood Press, 44 Post Road =est, =estport, C0 )-44+ 9n i!print of <reenwood Publishing <roup, "nc. Printed in the >nited &tates of 9!erica O 0he paper used in this book co!plies with the Per!anent Paper &tandard issued by the (ational "nfor!ation &tandards ?rgani@ation #A*3.,4-+34,$. +) 3 4 6 - 2 , * . +

0o Renee and Joshua, who appreciate se!antic and theoretical distinctions and who show great faith, tolerance, understanding, and wisdo!B and to 0ho! Cerha7e, who/using his uni:ue pedagogy/taught us that disco7eries and e%cite !ent are yet to be found lurking in the dusty !usty area of the history of psychology.

CONTENTS
Preface "ntroduction 9bbre7iations Dictionary of 0heories, Laws, and Concepts in Psychology 9ppendi% 9; 1re:uency of >sage of Concepts as &a!pled in Psychology 0e%tbooks, +442-+339ppendi% '; References/0e%tbooks &ur7eyed for Collection of Laws and 0heories in ++. Dears of Psychology &elected 'ibliography &ubEect "nde% i% %i %7ii + ,32 2.+ 2.6 2.3

PREFACE
"n discussing his i!printing e%peri!ents, Eckhard Fess once said that good psychologists try to !ake psychology a science. 0he present work is !y atte!pt to be a GgoodG psychologist. ?ne of the purposes of writing this dictionary of psychological concepts is to pro7ide a useful referent or baseline set of key concepts for e%a!ining the difficult topics of laws, theories, principles, effects, doctrines, and hypotheses in psychology. Hore specifically, it is hoped that this book of psychological concepts !ay ser7e as a 7aluable reference resource for answering :uestions in research concerning the se!antic issues and proble!s surrounding the i!portant ter!s of GlawG and GtheoryG as they ha7e appeared in the history of psychology. 1or e%a!ple, Fow far has psychology co!e in the last +*) years concerning its de7elop!ent of lawful cause/effect relationship state!entsI =here does psychology go fro! here in its usage of the key descriptor conceptsI Fow scientific is the science of psychology as Eudged by the :uality and :uantity of its laws, theories, and other descriptor ter!s and conceptsI Fow does psychology !easure up to the other sciences, especially the GnaturalG sciences of physics, che!istry, and bi ology, regarding the establish!ent of laws and theoriesI &ince so!e concepts are !ore fir!ly established in psychology than others, which of the ter!s in psychology pro7ide the !ost agree!ent a!ong psychologistsI Can we !ake psychology !ore scientific through e%a!ination of the ter!s and concepts that is usesI "f so, what new !easures and !ethods can we use specifically to acco!plish thisI =hich are the GstrongerG laws in psychology, and which are the GweakerG lawsI =hat are the !easurable !echanis!s through which laws change in significance and status fro! weak to strong, or 7ice 7ersaI Fow long does it take a theory to beco!e a lawI Fow 7alid, useful, or GgoodG are particular laws and theories in psychologyI 0his dictionary !ay pro7ide a substanti7e basis and starting point for researching and answering these and !any other such critical :uestions concerning the ter!inological issues in psychology. " sincerely hope so.

NTROD!CT ON
Psychology, like any other science, seeks to describe and e%plain its obser7a tions, data, and pheno!ena through the use of rigorous cause/effect state!ents. &o!e of these causal relationship state!ents lead to stronger and !ore certain predictions concerning outco!es than others. 1or e%a!ple, the generali@ed ter! of scientific law contains the strongest and !ost rigorous descripti7e account of how causal 7ariables operate. 9!ong the other, less rigorous, descriptors or concepts of how e7ents are connected in science in general and psychology in particular are the generali@ed concepts of theory, hypothesis, effect, doctrine, and principle. 0he ter! Ggenerali@ed conceptG here refers to a cause/effect descriptor #e.g., GlawGB GtheoryG$ that defines a particular set of e7ents and an e%pected outco!e #e.g., "law of effectGB Gcogniti7e dissonance theory"; "serial position effect"). 0he following definitions of the 7arious descriptor generali@ed concepts !ay ser7e as an initial guideline, or rule of thu!b, for !aking dis tinctions a!ong these generic ter!s. 0he ter! law !ay be defined as Ga 7erbal state!ent, supported by such a!ple e7idence as not to be open to doubt unless !uch further e7idence is obtained, of the way e7ents of a certain class consistently and unifor!ly occurG #English J English, +36-, p. .44$. 0he ter! theory has been defined as Ga coherent e%planation #of an array of logically interrelated propositions about a set of pheno!ena$ . . . which has undergone so!e 7alidation and which !ay be applied to !any data, but which does not ha7e the status of a lawG #Farri!an, +3--, p. .)+$. Psychological theories are said to 7ary with respect to te!poral duration of the target acti7ity where theories confined to se:uences of brief duration are ter!ed Gsynchronic,G and those concerned with e%tended durations are ter!ed GdiachronicG #<ergen, +33,$. 9nother general distinction concerning theories is shown in Royce5s #+33,$ two !aEor facets of theoretical psychology; the construction of Gsubstanti7e theoryG and G!etatheory.G &ubstanti7e theory #e.g., Gscientific the-

%ii

"(0R?D>C0"?(

oryG$ focuses on e%plaining the obser7ables and facts of a specifiable do!ain of in7estigation, whereas !etatheory focuses on e%plaining the nature of theory using conceptual linguistic analyses to clarify the !eanings and i!plications of theoretical ter!s. Har% and <oodson #+36-$ categori@e scientific theories with respect to their !ode of construction into three !aEor types; Gdeducti7eG #char acteri@ed by the deri7ation of propositions, to be e!pirically tested, on the basis of logically related prior pre!ises$B Ginducti7eG #e!phasi@es the accu!ulation or collection of disparate bits and pieces of data that are gradually articulated into theoretical propositions without any e%plicit guidance$B and GfunctionalG #an approach co!bining the best of deducti7e and inducti7e theory where s!all, fre:uently !odified hypotheses are e!ployed as in7estigation tools and focus their e!pirical attacks on specific beha7ioral proble!s$. (o theory, whate7er its :ualities, is e7er final, e7en though all the predicti7e state!ents !ade fro! it ha7e been 7erified perfectly. 0here always re!ains the possibility that any gi7en theory will be replaced by another theory that is si!pler, !ore general, or !ore consistent with other rele7ant theories #Har% J Filli%, +363$. 0he ter! hypothesis has been defined as a state!ent that Gatte!pts to e%plain a s!all or li!ited set of facts, whereas a theory atte!pts to enco!pass a broad range of facts and !ay e7en include se7eral hypothesesG #'uss, +36*, p. .6$. 0he ter! effect refers to Gan e7ent that in7ariably follows a specific other pheno!enon as in a causal relationshipB a resultG #=ol!an, +36*$. 0he ter! doctrine has been defined as Ga principle established through past decisions and interpretationsB a principle of faithB dog!aB tenet of belief supported by a teacher, a school, or a sectG (Webster's, +34-$. 0he ter! principle !ay be defined as Ga general inference that is deri7ed fro! e!pirical studies but that cannot be stated une:ui7ocally as a lawG #Farri!an, +3--, p. +,4$. &ince all these ter!s #i.e., law, theory, hypothesis, effect, doctrine, and principle) !ay be considered in the class of Ggenerali@ed conceptsG /or ter!s that con7ey differing a!ounts of certainty, predictability, and unifor!ity in psy-chology/the proble! arises as to the choice of the GbestG ter! to use fro! this class when describing any particular or specific causal pheno!enon. 9s so!e studies ha7e pointed out #e.g., Roeckelein, +33-c$, there are !any se!antic issues and proble!s associated with distinguishing a!ong these generali@ed ter!s in psychology. 1or instance, is the ter! law, in a scientific conte%t, itself o7erly GpretentiousGI Fill #+36), p. +,$ belie7es that it is, because the ter! law see!s to suggest that, gi7en certain conditions, such and such will necessarily always occur. "n reality, says Fill, !ost scientific laws are less precise than such cause/effect state!ents would i!ply, and, especially when referring to psychological laws, these state!ents need to be :ualified by phrases such as Gon the a7erageG or Gother things being e:ual.G ?ne se!antic proble! that will ha7e to be resol7ed e7entually in this area of generali@ed ter!s and concepts is the :uestion, Fow does a presu!ed cause/effect relationship co!e to be called a law? 1urther!ore, what are the !easurable dyna!ics and criteria that go into the se!antic transfor!ation of phe-

"(0R?D>C0"?(

%iii

no!ena fro! the status of tentati7e theory or hypothesis to that of rigorous law? 9s Har% #+36-, p. ,,$ points out, G0he de7elop!ent of laws is not an all-or-none process, and the gradual achie7e!ent of increasingly reliable relationships !ust be accepted as the nor!al !anner in which fully accepted laws are obtained.G 0urner #+3-6, pp. .2)-.2.$ re!inds us; G0here are different aspects to laws. &o!e laws are deri7ed fro! within a theory #laws as 5theore!s of a for!al theory5$, and so!e laws do not fall within the corpus of theore!s of a theoryB the ter! law itself in science is a!biguous.G Horeo7er, says 0urner, it is the nature of a law to be true, but the GtruthG or GfalsityG of laws is in itself another set of interpreti7e issues re:uiring clarification both as to se!antic-definitional assu!ptions and as to philosophical orientation. Perhaps, in the final analysis, as Fu!e #+6*3-+6,)$ and Einstein #+323$ suggested, it !ay be that nature5s GlawsG are !ore in the !ind of the percei7er than in the e%ternal world. ?ther se!antic and Ginterpreti7eG :uestions concerning the generali@ed concepts in psychology are, Do specific persons so!eti!es Gin7entG laws, theories, and hypothesesI 9re personalities #Ggreat !an theoryG$ in7ol7ed in Glaw!akingG and Gtheori@ingG in psychologyI "s the !aEor process surrounding the de7elop!ent of a generali@ed concept !erely a social con7ention, or does it reflect GtrueG and i!personal descriptions and disco7eries of natural e7entsI "s there a pattern or direction in the de7elop!ent of the generali@ed concepts in psychology that is analogous, generally, to the pattern and direction in the de7elop!ent of history itselfI 1or instance, Ciney #+33*, pp. 6-3$ discusses 7arious perspecti7es and hypotheses in the philosophy of history #e.g., cyclical hypothesisB linear-progressi7e hypothesisB chaos hypothesis$. Do de7elop!ental ideas and sche!as such as GcyclicalG and GchaosG apply e:ually well to analyses of the de7elop!ent of the generali@ed concepts in psychologyI >nani!ity and consensus of agree!ent by psychologists concerning such :uestions about the status of !any generali@ed concepts and ter!s in psychology do not see! to be forthco!ing in the i!!ediate future. 9 si!ple set of state!ents regarding the GtrueG distinctions a!ong the ter!s law, theory, hypothesis, doctrine, effect, and principle is probably largely illusory and indefensible at this stage of psychology5s !aturity. 0herefore, in atte!pting to understand the 7arious e7ents and pheno!ena that e!ploy the generali@ed concepts in psychology, a reasonable approach would be first to define the ter! or concept in :uestion and then to cite the historical and current references that are pertinent in the de7elop!ent of that cause/ effect relationship state!ent #cf; Roe J 1rederick, +34+$. "t see!s to be a wellestablished fact concerning the generali@ed concepts in psychology that certain concepts #theories, laws, etc.$ are e7ol7ing in the field and are constantly subEect to future change #e.g., is it theories of <estalt perceptual organi@ation or laws of <estalt perceptual organi@ationI$. 0he present book is an atte!pt to define and describe by source-referencing and cross-referencing the key or !aEor #and so!e interesting !inor$ generali@ed concepts in psychology and to pro7ide access to the literature on the concepts that explicitly e!ploy the generali@ed descriptors of law, theory, hypothesis,

%i7

"(0R?D>C0"?(

effect, doctrine, and principle in the field. 0he !ethod used here is to pro7ide descripti7e entries regarding the concepts and then to cite original sources and re7iews in which the concepts are e%plained and, thereby, gi7e the reader e% posure to the genesis, foundation, and de7elop!ent of each concept as well as to its historical definition, analysis, and criticis!. "n addition, " ha7e atte!pted to cite introductory psychology te%tbooks that were current when a gi7en con cept was first introduced, as well as later te%tbooks in order to indicate how so!e concepts ha7e !aintained their referencing status o7er decades of use in psychology. 1or e%a!ple, the Glaw of effectG and G=eber5s lawG ha7e re !ained high in fre:uency of usage by te%tbook authors since these concepts were first enunciated. ?n the other hand, the Glaw of dyna!ogenesisG and the Glaw of habit,G for instance, ha7e shown a decrease in usage o7er the years. 0he psychological concepts in this work ha7e been selected fro! Eournal articles, books, re7iews, !onographs, and histories of psychology. 0hese sources are pri!arily in the English language, but there are so!e references in the <er!an, 1rench, "talian, and &panish languages. 0he sources include references published through the year +33-. 9ppendi% 9 located at the end of this book is a data bank of the fre:uency counts of concepts containing the key descriptors of law and theory across fi7e ti!e periods #+442-+3+3, +3.)-+3*3, +3,)-+323, +3-)-+363, +34)-+33-$ co7 ering ++. years of introductory psychology te%tbooks. 9ppendi% ' is a listing of the te%tbooks sur7eyed across ++. years of introductory psychology te%t books. 0he criterion for choosing the concepts shown in 9ppendi% 9 was the sa!e as the standard used for choosing concepts in this dictionary; the explicit attach!ent of a descriptor ter! #e.g., GlawGB GtheoryG$ to concepts #e.g., "law of effectGB Grecapitulation theory") as used by writers in the psychological literature. 9ppendi% 9 !ay ser7e as a useful resource for in7estigators con ducting e!pirical research in this area of key concepts and descriptors in psy chology. 1or e%a!ple, which of the key concepts cited in psychology te%tbooks are GborrowedG or GsharedG and ha7e their origination in other sciences such as physics, che!istry, biology, sociology, or anthropologyI 9nother possible use for the data in 9ppendi% 9 is to GtrackG the usage of specific laws and theories across ++. years of psychology te%tbooks in order to detect historical trends and changes in writers5 usage of such ter!s #e.g., Roeckelein, +33-c$. ?ccasionally, a single concept !ay be known by se7eral na!es #e.g., the Glaw of parsi!onyG is the sa!e as G?cca!5s ra@orG and GHorgan5s canonG$, and, when this occurs, a cross-referencing !ethod is used to connect the e:ui7alent na!es. 1or e%a!ple, entries for G?cca!5s ra@orG and GHorgan5s canonG are included in the entry for the Glaw of parsi!ony.G 9lso, in order to sa7e page space concerning the single !ultina!ed concepts, the set of references applying to such concepts are listed under whiche7er na!e is !ost co!!only cited, regardless of conceptual, logical, or theoretical le7els. 0hus, for e%a!ple, the specific concept na!e of GFering5s color theoryG is subordinate here to the !ore general concept na!e of Gtetrachro!atic theory,G but the for!er na!e

"(0R?D>C0"?(

KC

beco!es the !ain entry in this book because it is cited !ore fre:uently #perhaps because of its Gepony!ousG or surna!e natureB see Roeckelein, +332, +33-a, b, +336a, b$. 0er!s !ay appear in the psychological literature with !ore than one descriptor ter! #e.g., "law of disuseGB "theory of disuseG$, and, when this occurs, the entry is gi7en !ultiple descriptors, with the first one signifying the !ore fre:uent usage #e.g., GDisuse, law theory of,G which indicates that in the literature GDisuseG appears as both a law and a theory with pri!ary reference !ade to the concept as a law and only secondary reference !ade to it as a theory$. Hany of the concepts ha7ing a generali@ed descriptor ha7e 7ery definite origins and are e%plicitly na!ed in the first entries in which they are discussed, while other concepts !ay be discussed without e%plicitly being na!ed. "n such cases of dubious origins of a concept, the first source to na!e the concept is cited as well as earlier GprecursorsG of the concept and later Ginterpreti7e re 7iewsG of that concept. 0here is so!e 7ariation in entry length due to the following reasons; the entry refers to a broad or general area #e.g., learningB personalityB perception$ re:uiring greater lengthB or the entry refers to a specific, narrow, or technical pheno!enon that in7ites only a brief description. 0here is li!ited page space, o7erall, a7ailable in the present 7olu!e to acco!!odate entries for all the concepts " collected. Fowe7er, !any concepts not appearing as regular entries are cited in 9ppendi% 9 along with useful references in 9ppendi% '. "n su!!ary, the definitions of particular concepts #which explicitly e!ploy one of the descriptor generali@ed ter!s$ often change with the passage of ti!e, especially in psychology, and !ay 7ary also fro! author to author #e.g., the concept GDerkes/ Dodson law" !ay be referred to by authors as the Gin7erted > cur7e hypothesis of !oti7ationG$. 0he approach taken in this book is to pro7ide widely accepted definitions of the generali@ed concepts and also to pro7ide historical references and current citations concerning the concepts in psychology as reflected by the authoritati7e accounts in the literature. 0ypically, the references and citations are listed chronologically, directly under the defining or descripti7e entry for each concept, in order to show the historical de7elop!ent of the concept. &ynony!ous and related concept na!es are listed under each entry, as appropriate, with an L sign. 1or e%a!ple, GFering5s color theoryG L Gtetrachro!atic theoryG L Gopponent-process theory.G 0he following abbre7iations are used in the references and citations in this book and refer to the Eournals and sources in which the concepts ha7e been described, defined, and discussed.

A""re#i$tions
9b. Monigl. Preuss. 9k. =issen. 9cta Physio. &can. 9cta Psy. 9cta Psy. 0ai. 9cta Psychiat. (eur. 9dd. J Proc. (at. Ed. 9ssoc. 9d!in. &ci. Nuar. 9d7. E%p. &oc. Psy. 9d7. &tud. 'eh. 9d7anc. &ci. 9!er. 9nthro. 9!er. Ed. Res. 9!er. Ed. Res. J. 9!er. "!ago 9!er. J. Clin. Fyp. 9!er. J. Fu!. <enet. 9!er. J. Hed. &ci. 9!er. J. ?phthal. 9!er. J. ?rthopsychiat. 9!er. J. Phys. 9nthro. 9!er. J. Physics 9!er. J. Physio. 9bhandlung der Moniglische Preussisch 9kade!ie der =issenschaftlich 9cta Physiology &candina7ia 9cta Psychologica 9cta Psychologica 0aiwanica #0aipei$ 9cta Psychiatrica et (eurologica 9ddresses and Proceedings of the (ational Education 9ssociation 9d!inistrati7e &cience Nuarterly 9d7ances in E%peri!ental &ocial Psychology 9d7ances in the &tudy of 'eha7ior 9d7ance!ent of &cience 9!erican 9nthropologist 9!erican Educational Research 9!erican Educational Research Journal 9!erican "!ago 9!erican Journal of Clinical Fypnosis 9!erican Journal of Fu!an <enetics 9!erican Journal of Hedical &cience 9!erican Journal of ?phthal!ology 9!erican Journal of ?rthopsychiatry 9!erican Journal of Physical 9nthropology 9!erican Journal of Physics 9!erican Journal of Physiology

%7iii 9''REC"90"?(& 9!er. J. Psy. 9!er. J. Psychiat. 9!er. J. Psychoan. 9!er. J. Psychother. 9!er. J. &ci. 9!er. Pol. Nuar. 9!er. Pol. &ci. Re7. 9!er. Psy. 9!er. Psy. &oc. 9!er. &ci. 9!er. &oc. Re7. 9ni!. Learn. 'eh. 9nn. 9!er. 9cad. Pol. J &oc. &ci. 9nn. Clin. Res.

9!erican Journal of Psychology 9!erican Journal of Psychiatry 9!erican Journal of Psychoanalysis 9!erican Journal of Psychotherapy 9!erican Journal of &cience 9!erican Politics Nuarterly 9!erican Political &cience Re7iew 9!erican Psychologist 9!erican Psychological &ociety 9!erican &cientist 9!erican &ociological Re7iew 9ni!al Learning and 'eha7ior 9nnals of the 9!erican 9cade!y of Political and &ocial &cience 9nnals of Clinical Research 9nn. "nter. Hed. "nternal Hedicine 9nn. "nternat. Hed. "nternational Hedicine 9nn. (eur. (eurology 9nn. (.D. 9cad. &ci. (ew Dork 9cade!y of &ciences 9nn. Physik Physik 9nn. Psy. Psychologie 9nn. Re7. 9nthro. Re7iew of 9nthropology 9nn. Re7. (eurosci. Re7iew of (euroscience 9nnals 9nnals 9nnals of of of

9nnals of the 9nnals l59nnee 9nnual 9nnual der

9nn. Re7. Phar!. J 0o%. 9nnual Re7iew of Phar!acology J 0o%icology 9nn. Re7. Physio. Re7iew of Physiology 9nn. Re7. Psy. Re7iew of Psychology 9P9 Psychological 9ssociation 9pp. Cog. Psy. Cogniti7e Psychology 9r. 9nat. Physio. 9nnual 9nnual 9!erican 9pplied 9rchi7 fur

9nato!ie und Physiologie 9r. 9nat. Physio., Leip@ig 9rchi7 der 9nato!isch und Physiologie, Leip@ig 9r. 9nat. Psy. 9rchi7es of 9nato!y and Psychology 9r. <en. Psychiat. 9rchi7es of <eneral Psychiatry 9r. ges. Physio. 9rchi7 fur die gesa!te Physiologie 9r. ges. Psy. 9rchi7 fur die gesa!te Psychologie 9r. Hikr. 9nat. 9rchi7 Hikroskopische 9nato!isch der

9r. (eur. Psychiat. 9rchi7es of (eurological Psychiatry 9r. (euro. 9rchi7es of (eurology

9''REC"90"?(& 9r. (euro. Psychiat. 9r. Psy. 9r. Psy., (.D.

%i%

9rchi7es of (eurological Psychiatry 9rchi7es of Psychology 9rchi7es of Psychology, (ew Dork 9rchi7 der Psychiatrie and (er7enkrankheiten 9udio7isual "nstruction 9ustralian Psychologist 'asic and 9pplied &ocial Psychology 'eha7ioral and 'rain &ciences 'eha7ior 9nalysis Letters 'eha7ior Honographs 'eh. (euro. 'eha7ioral (euroscience 'eh. Res. Heth., "nst., J Research Hethods, "nstru!ents, J Co!p. 'eh. Res. 0heory Research 0heory 'eh. &ci. J Law &ciences and the Law 'eh. &ci. &cience 'eh. &upp. &upple!ents 'eh. 0her. 0herapy 'eha7ior Co!puters 'eha7ioral 'eha7ioral 'eha7ioral 'eha7ior 'eha7ior

9r. Psychiat. (er7enkr. 9ud. "nst. 9ust. Psy. 'asic J 9pp. &oc. Psy. 'eh. J 'rain &ci. 'eh. 9nal. Letters 'eh. Hono.

'er. "nter. Cong. E%p. Psy. 'erlin "nternational Congress of E%peri!ental Psycholog y 'er. &achs. <es. =iss. 'erichte <esellschaft =issenschaft, Leip@ig, Hath. Leip@ig Hath-Phys. Physiks. 'io. Psy. Psychology 'rit. J. Cri!. Journal of Cri!inology 'rit. J. <uid. Coun. Journal of <uidance and Counseling 'rit. J. Pol. &ci. Journal of Political &cience 'rit. J. Psy. Journal of Psychology 'iological 'ritish 'ritish 'ritish 'ritish

'rit. J. Psy. Hono. &upp. 'ritish Journal of Psychology Honograph &upple!ents 'rit. J. Psychiat. 'ritish Journal of Psychiatry 'rit. Hed. 'ull. 'ritish Hedical 'ulletin 'ull. 'ur. &tan. 'ulletin of the 'ureau of &tandards 'ull. l59ca. Roy. &ci. 'ru%. 'ulletins de l59cade!ie Royale des &ciences, de 'ru%elles 'ull. l59cad. R. &. Let. 'ulletin, Royal 9cade!ie &ciences Lettr es 'eau%'eau%-9rts 'el. 9rts 'elgiu! 'ull. Hath. 'iophys. 'ulletin of Hathe!atical 'iophysics 'ull. Henn. Clin. 'ulletin of the Henninger Clinic

9''REC"90"?(& 'ull. (at. Res. Coun. 'ull. Psychono!. &oc. 'ull. &oc. d59nat. C.R. &oc. 'io. He!. C.R. &oc. 'io. Paris Can. J. 9d!in. &ci. Can. J. Psy. Can. Hed. 9ssoc. J. Char. J Pers. Child De7. Child De7. Hono. Clin. Psy. Re7. Cog. Psy. Cog. 0her. Res. Co!. Ren. &oc. 'io. Co!!. Hono. Co!p. Psy. Hono. Conte!p. Psy. Contr. Psy. 0heor. Coun. Psy. De7. Hed. Child (eur. De7. Psy. Diss. 9bs. "nter. Ed. J Psy. Heas. Ed. Psy. EE< J Clin. (europhysio. Ele!. &chool J. Ency. Psy. Ergebn. Physio. Eug. Nuart. Eur. J. &oc. Psy. E%cep. Child. E%p. J Clin. Phar!. 1ed. Proc. <enet. Psy. Hono. <eron. 'ulletin of the (ational Research Council 'ulletin of the Psychono!ic &ociety 'ulletin &ociete d59nato!ie Co!ptes Rendus &ociete 'iologi:ue He!oir Co!ptes Rendus &ociete 'iologi:ue Paris Canadian Journal of 9d!inistrati7e &cience Canadian Journal of Psychology Canadian Hedical 9ssociation Journal Character and Personality Child De7elop!ent Child De7elop!ent Honographs Clinical Psychology Re7iew Cogniti7e Psychology Cogniti7e 0herapy and Research Co!ptes Rendus de la &ociete de 'iologie Co!!unications Honographs Co!parati7e Psychology Honographs Conte!porary Psychology Contributions to Psychological 0heory 0he Counseling Psychologist De7elop!ental Hedicine and Child (eurology De7elop!ental Psychology Dissertation 9bstracts "nternational Educational and Psychological Heasure!ent Educational Psychologist Electroencephalography and Clinical (europhysiology Ele!entary &chool Journal Encyclopedia of Psychology Ergebnis Physiologie Eugenics Nuarterly European Journal of &ocial Psychology E%ceptional Children E%peri!ental J Clinical Phar!acology 1ederation Proceedings <enetic Psychology Honographs <erontologist

9''REC"90"?(& Fandbk. E%p. Psy. Fandbk. <en. E%p. Psy. Fandbk. (or!. Path. Physio. Far. 'us. Re7. Far. Ed. Re7. Fealth Psy. Fu!. 'eh. Fu!. Co!!. Res. Fu!. De7. Fu!. 1act. Fu!. Rel. "!p. Fu!. Perf. Res. Nuar. "ndi7. Psy. 'ull. "nst. Child =elf. Hono. "nstr. &ci. "nt. Ency. >nif. &ci. "nt. J. 'eh. De7. "nt. J. Clin. E%p. Fyp. "nt. J. <roup Psychother. "nt. J. "ndi7. Psy. "nt. J. Pol. Ed. "nt. J. Psy. "nt. J. Psychiat. "nt. J. Psychoanal. "nt. J. &oc. Psychiat. J. 9bn. Psy. J. 9bn. &oc. Psy. J. 9cou. &oc. 9!er. J. 9lt. &tates Cons. J. 9!er. 9ca. Child Psychiat. J. 9!er. 9cad. Psychiat. J. 9!er. 9cad. Psychother. J. 9!er. Hed. 9ssoc. Fandbook of E%peri!ental Psychology Fandbook of <eneral E%peri!ental Psychology Fandbuch der (or!alen and Pathological Physiologie Far7ard 'usiness Re7iew Far7ard Educational Re7iew Fealth Psychology Fu!an 'eha7ior Fu!an Co!!unications Research Fu!an De7elop!ent Fu!an 1actors Fu!an Relations "!pro7ing Fu!an Perfor!ance; 9 Research Nuarterly "ndi7idual Psychology 'ulletin "nstitute of Child =elfare Honographs "nstructional &cience "nternational Encyclopedia of >nified &cience "nternational Journal of 'eha7ioral De7elop!ent "nternational Journal of Clinical and E%peri!ental Fypnosis "nternational Journal of <roup Psychotherapy "nternational Journal of "ndi7idual Psychology "nternational Journal of Political Education "nternational Journal of Psychology "nternational Journal of Psychiatry "nternational Journal of Psychoanalysis "nternational Journal of &ocial Psychiatry Journal of 9bnor!al Psychology Journal of 9bnor!al and &ocial Psychology Journal of the 9coustical &ociety of 9!erica Journal of 9ltered &tates of Consciousness Journal of the 9!erican 9cade!y of Child Psychiatry Journal of the 9!erican 9cade!y of Psychiatry Journal of the 9!erican 9cade!y of Psychotherapists Journal of the 9!erican Hedical 9ssociation

%%i

%%ii J. 9!er. Psychoan. 9ssoc. J. 9!er. Psychoan. 9ssoc. Hono. J. 9!er. &oc. Psyc. Res. J. 9!er. &tat. 9ssoc. J. 9nal. Psy. J. 9nat. J Physio. J. 9nat. Physio., Lon. J. 9pp. 'eh. 9nal. J. 9pp. Physio. J. 9pp. Psy. J. 9pp. &oc. Psy. J. 'eh. Hed. J. 'eh. 0her. E%p. Psychiat. J. 'lack &tud. J. Cell. Co!p. Physio. J. Clin. Endo. Het. J. Co!p. (eurol. J Psy. J. Co!p. (eurol. J. Co!p. Physio. Psy. J. Co!p. Psy. J. Cons. J Clin. Psy. J. Cons. Psy. J. Consu!er Res. J. Coun. Psy. J. Cross-Cult. Psy. J. de Phys. J. Ed. Psy. J. Ed. Psy. Hono. &upp. J. E%p. 9nal. 'eh. J. E%p. Ed. J. E%p. Psy.

9''REC"90"?(& Journal of the 9!erican Psychoanalytic 9ssociation Journal of the 9!erican Psychoanalytic 9ssociation Honographs Journal of the 9!erican &ociety for Psychical Research J. E%p. Psy.; 9ni! 'eh. E%peri!ental Psychology; 9ni!al Proc. Processes Journal of 9nalytical Psychology Journal of 9nato!y and Physiology Journal of 9nato!y and Physiology, London Journal of 9pplied 'eha7ior 9nalysis Journal of 9pplied Physiology Journal of 9pplied Psychology Journal of 9pplied &ocial Psychology Journal of 'eha7ioral Hedicine Journal of 'eha7ior 0herapy and E%peri!ental Psychiatry Journal of 'lack &tudies Journal of Cellular and Co!parati7e Physiology Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Hetabolis! Journal of Co!parati7e (eurology J Psychology Journal of Co!parati7e (eurology Journal of Co!parati7e and Physiological Psychology Journal of Co!parati7e Psychology Journal of Consulting J Clinical Psychology Journal of Consulting Psychology Journal of Consu!er Research Journal of Counseling Psychology Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Journal de Physiologie Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Educational Psychology Honograph &upple!ents Journal of the E%peri!ental 9nalysis of 'eha7ior Journal of 'eha7ior

Journal of the 9!erican &tatistical 9ssociation

Journal of E%peri!ental

Education Journal of E%peri!ental Psychology

9''REC"90"?(& J. E%p. Psy.; <en. J. E%p. Psy.; Fu!. Perc. J Perf. J. E%p. Psy.; Learn. He!. Cog. J. 1rank. "nst. J. <en. Physio. J. <en. Psy. J. <enet. Psy. J. Feal. &oc. 'eh. J. Fist. 'eh. &ci. J. Fu!. Psy. J. Fu!. &tress J. "ndi7. Psy. J. Learn. Dis. J. Han. J 1a!. J. Hath. 'eh. J. Hath. Psy. J. He!. J Lang. J. Hent. "!ag. J. Hent. &ci. J. Hind J 'eh. J. Hissouri Hed. 9ssoc. J. Horph. J. (er7. J Hent. Dis. J. (europhysio. J. (.D. 9cad. &oc. &ci. J. ?pt. &oc. 9!er. J. ?rg. 'eh. J. Parapsy. J. Pers. J. Pers. 9ssess. J. Pers. &oc. 'eh. J. Pers. &oc. Psy. J. Pers. &oc. Psy. Hono. J. Pers. &oc. Psy. Hono. &upp. Journal of E%peri!ental Psychology; <eneral Journal of E%peri!ental Psychology; Fu!an Perception Perfor!ance Journal of E%peri!ental Psychology; Learning He!ory Cognition Journal of the 1ranklin "nstitute Journal of <eneral Physiology Journal of <eneral Psychology Journal of <enetic Psychology Journal of Fealth and &ocial 'eha7ior Journal of the Fistory of the 'eha7ioral &ciences Journal of Fu!anistic Psychology Journal of Fu!an &tress Journal of "ndi7idual Psychology Journal of Learning Disabilities Journal of Harriage and the 1a!ily Journal of Hathe!atical 'eha7ior Journal of Hathe!atical Psychology Journal of He!ory and Language Journal of Hental "!agery Journal of Hental &cience Journal of Hind and 'eha7ior Journal of the Hissouri Hedical 9ssociation Journal of Horphology Journal of (er7ous and Hental Disorders Journal of (europhysiology Journal of the (ew Dork 9cade!y of &ocial &ciences Journal of the ?ptical &ociety of 9!erica Journal of ?rgani@ational 'eha7ior Journal of Parapsychology Journal of Personality Journal of Personality 9ssess!ent Journal of Personality and &ocial 'eha7ior Journal of Personality and &ocial Psychology Journal of Personality and &ocial Psychology Honographs Journal of Personality and &ocial Psychology Honographs &upple!ent

%%iii

%%i7 J. Phil.

9''REC"90"?(&

Journal of Pheno!enological Psychology Journal of Philosophy Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and &cientific Hethod Journal of Physiology Journal of Politics Journal of Political and Hilitary &ociology Journal of Population Journal of Psychiatric Research Journal of Psychoso!atic Research Journal of Rehabilitation Journal of Research in Personality Journal of &e% Research Journal of &ocial and Personal Relationships Journal of &ocial 'eha7ior and Personality Journal of &ocial and Clinical Psychology Journal of &ocial "ssues Journal of &tructural Learning Journal of &tudies on 9lcohol Journal of 0ranspersonal Psychology Journal of >nified &ciences Journal of Cerbal Learning and Cerbal 'eha7ior Journal of Cocational 'eha7ior Journal of the =ashington 9cade!y of &ciences Mlinical Honatsblatter der 9ugenheilkunde Learning and Hoti7ation Lunds >ni7ersities 9rsskrift Harriage and 1a!ily Li7ing He!ory and Cognition He!orie della Regia 9ccade!ia di &cien@e, Lettre 9rti in Hodena He!ories de la &ociete de 'iologie Hinnesota Hedicine Honographs of the &ociety for Research in Child De7elop!ent Hoti7ation and E!otion Hulti7ariate 'eha7ior Research (ebraska &y!posiu! on Hoti7ation

J. Pheno!. Psy. J. Phil., Psy., J &ci. Heth. J. Physio. J. Pol. J. Pol. Hil. &oc. J. Pop. J. Psychiat. Res. J. Psychoso!. Res. J. Rehab. J. Res. Pers. J. &e% Res. J. &oc. J Pers. Rel. J. &oc. 'eh. J Pers. J. &oc. Clin. Psy. J. &oc. "ss. J. &truc. Learn. J. &tud. 9lc. J. 0ransper. Psy. J. >nif. &ci. J. Cerb. Learn. Cerb. 'eh. J. Coc. 'eh. J. =ash. 9cad. &ci. Honatb. 9ugenheilk. Learn. J Hot. Lunds >ni7. 9rs. Harr. J 1a!. Li7. He!. J Cog. He!. Reg. 9cc. &ci. Let. 9rt. Hod. He!. &oc. 'io. Hinn Hed. Hono. &oc. Res. Child De7. Hot. J E!o. Hulti7ar. 'eh. Res. (eb. &y!. Hot.

9''REC"90"?(& (ew Eng. J. Hed. ?ccup. Hent. Feal. ?rg. J 9d!in. &ci. ?rg. 'eh. J Fu!. Dec. Proc. ?rg. 'eh. J Fu!. Per. Pap. 9!er. Congr. <en. &e!ant. Perc. J Hot. &kills Perc. J Psychophys. Pers. "ndi7. Diff. Personnel Psy. Pers. &oc. Psy. 'ull. Pflug. 9r. ges. Physio. Phil. Hag. Phil. &ci. Phil. &er. Phil. &tud. Phil. 0rans. Phil. 0rans. Roy. &oc. Lon. Phys. &oc. Dearbk. Physio. J 'eh. Physio. Re7. Physio. Aoo. Pogg. 9nn. Phys. Che!. Pogg. 9nn. Physik Proc. 9!er. Phil. &oc. Proc. (at. 9cad. &ci. Proc. Phy. &oc. Lon. Proc. R.&. Lon. Proc. &oc. Psyc. Res. Proc. =est. J. Co!p. Conf. Prof. Psy. Psy. 'ull. Psy. 'ull. Hono. &upp. Psy. 1orsch. (ew England Journal of Hedicine ?ccupational Hental Fealth ?rgani@ation and 9d!inistrati7e &ciences ?rgani@ational 'eha7ior J Fu!an Decision Processes ?rgani@ational 'eha7ior and Fu!an Perfor!ance Papers of the 9!erican Congress of <eneral &e!antics Perceptual and Hotor &kills Perception and Psychophysics Personality and "ndi7idual Differences Personnel Psychology Personality and &ocial Psychology 'ulletin Pflugers 9rchi7 <esa!te Physiologie Philosophy Haga@ine Philosophy of &cience Philosophical &eries Philosophische &tudien Philosophical 0ransactions Philosophical 0ransactions of the Royal &ociety of London Physical &ociety Dearbook Physiology and 'eha7ior Physiological Re7iew Physiological Aoology Poggendorf 9nnales der Physiologie and Che!ie Poggendorf 9nnales der Physik Proceedings of the 9!erican Philosophical &ociety Proceedings of the (ational 9cade!y of &ciences Proceedings of the Physics &ociety of London Proceedings of the Royal &ociety of London Proceedings of the &ociety for Psychical Research Proceedings of the =estern Joint Co!puter Conference Professional Psychology Psychological 'ulletin Psychological 'ulletin Honograph &upple!ent Psychologische 1orschung

KKC

%%7i Psy. "n:. Psy. "ss. Psy. Hono. Psy. Rec. Psy. Rep. Psy. Re7. Psy. Re7. Hono. &upp. Psy. &ci. Psy. &tud. Psy. 0oday Psychiat. 9nn. Psychiat. Nuar. Psychiat. Nuar. &upp. Psychoan. Psychother. Psychoan. Re7. Psychoan. &tudy Child Psychoanal. Psy. Psychono!. &ci. Psychophar!. 'ull. Psychophy. Psychoso!. Hed. Psychother.; 0heory Res. Prac. Pub. ?pin. Nuar. Nuar. J. E%p. Psy. Nuar. Re7. 'io. Rep. Res. &oc. Psy. Repl. &oc. Psy. Res. Har. Res. Publ. 9ssoc. (er7. Hent. Dis. Re7. 9nthro. Re7. Ed. Res. Re7. 1ran. Endo. Re7. Pers. J &oc. Psy. Re7. Res. Ed. Re7. &oc. Econ. &. 9fr. J. Psy. &. 9fr. Hed. J. Psychological "n:uiry Psychological "ssues Psychological Honographs Psychological Record Psychological Reports Psychological Re7iew

9''REC"90"?(&

Psychological Re7iew Honograph &upple!ent Psychological &cience Psychological &tudies Psychology 0oday Psychiatric 9nnals Psychiatric Nuarterly Psychiatric Nuarterly &upple!ent Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Psychoanalytic Re7iew Psychoanalytic &tudy of the Child Psychoanalytic Psychology Psychono!ic &cience Psychophar!acology 'ulletin Psychophysiology Psychoso!atic Hedicine Psychotherapy; 0heory, Research, and Practice Public ?pinion Nuarterly Nuarterly Journal of E%peri!ental Psychology Nuarterly Re7iew of 'iology Representati7e Research in &ocial Psychology Replications in &ocial Psychology Research in Harketing Research Publication of the 9ssociation of (er7ous Hental Disease Re7iew of 9nthropology Re7iew of Educational Research Re7ue 1rancaise d5Endocrinologie Re7iew of Personality and &ocial Psychology Re7iew of Research in Education Re7iew of &ocial Econo!y &outh 9frican Journal of Psychology &outh 9frican Hedical Journal

9''REC"90"?(& &chi@o. 'ull. &chwei@ A. Psy. 9n. &ci. 9!er. &ci. Hon.

%%7ii

&chi@ophrenia 'ulletin &chwei@ Aeitschrift fur Psychologie 9nwend &cientific 9!erican &cientific Honthly &it@ungsberichte 9kade!ie =issenschaft der 'erlin &ocial 'eha7ior and Personality &ociete des 'iologi:ue &ociete 'iologi:ue He!oirs, Paris &ocial 1orces &ocial Proble!s &ocial Psychology Nuarterly &ocial Research &oc. &ci. (atl. 'ull. (ational 'ulletin &ociete &cience

&it@ber. 9kad. =iss. 'erlin &oc. 'eh. J Pers. &oc. 'io. &oc. 'io. He!. Paris &oc. 1or. &oc. Prob. &oc. Psy. Nuar. &oc. Res.

&ociety 9d7. &oc. Psy. &ociety for the 9d7ance!ent of &ocial Psychology (ews. (ewsletter &tud. Ed. Psy., (at. Cen. &tudies in Educational Psychology, (ational Center >ni7. of >ni7ersities 0each. Coll. Contr. Ed. Contributions to Education 0heory J Psy. Psychology 0heory Res. &oc. Ed. Research in &ocial Education >. "owa &tud. Child =elf. "owa &tudies of Child =elfare >. ?re. Pub. &tud. Psy. ?regon Publications of &tudies in 0eachers College 0heory 0heory >ni7ersity >ni7ersity Psychology >ni7. Cal. Pub. Psy. >ni7ersity California Publications in Psychology Cis. Res. Coc. <uid. Nuar. <uidance Nuarterly Douth &oc. &ociety A. 'io. 'iologisch A. Mlin. Psy. Psychother. Cocational Douth Aeitschrift Aeitschrift and fur fur of and and of of

Cision Research

Mlinische Psychologie und Psychot herapie A. Psy. Aeitschrift fur Psychologie A. Psy. Physio. &inn. Aeitschrift fur Psychologie und Physiologie &innesor gange A. &inn. Aeitschrift &innesphysiologie A. 0ierpsy. Aeitschrift 0ierpsychologie fur

fur

Ab. Psychoan. Aentlichblatt Psychoanalyse Abl. Physio. Aeitblatter der Physiologie

Dictionary of Theories, Laws, and Concepts in Psychology

A
9'C 0FE?RD. 0he 9!erican psychologist 9lbert Ellis #+3+*/ $ de7eloped rational-e!oti7e therapy #RE0$, which is a directi7e, confrontational psycho therapy designed to challenge and !odify clients5 irrational beliefs thought to cause their personal distress #Ellis, +3-+, +366, +346$. RE0 is based on Ellis5 AB theory #=ood J =ood, +33*$. 0he 9 refers to the acti!ating e7ent, the B to the person5s belief about the e7ent, and the to the e!otional conse"#ence that follows. Ellis clai!s that it is not the e7ent that causes the e!otional con se:uence, but rather the person5s belief about the e7entB that is, 9 does not cause , but B causes . "f the belief is irrational, then the e!otional conse:uence can be e%tre!e distress. 'ecause reality does not confor! to such irrational beliefs as GE7eryone should lo7e !eG or G" !ust be perfect,G patients who hold such beliefs are open to frustration and unhappiness. "rrational beliefs cause people to 7iew an undesirable e7ent as a catastrophe rather than !erely as a disappoint!ent, an%iety, or incon7enienceB in addition, persons !ay go on to feel an%ious about their an%iety and depressed about their depression #Ellis, +346$. RE0 and AB theory help clients to see rationally and logically that their false beliefs and unrealistic e%pectations are the real causes of their proble!s. 9s clients begin to replace irrational beliefs with rational beliefs, their e!otional reactions beco!e !ore appropriate, less distressing, and !ore likely to lead to constructi7e beha7ior #Ellis, +363$. &ee also C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& Ellis, 9. #+3-+$. 9 g#ide to rational li!ing. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Ellis, 9. #+366$. 0he basic clinical theory of rational-e!oti7e therapy. "n 9. Ellis J R. <rieger #Eds.$, $andboo% of rational&e'oti!e therapy. (ew Dork; &pringer. Ellis, 9. #+363$. Rational e!oti7e therapy. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, #rrent psychothera& pies. "tasca, Peacock.

9'(ED5& E11EC0

Ellis, 9. #+346$. 0he i!possibility of achie7ing consistently good !ental health. A'er. (sy., )*, *-,-*62. =ood, E., J =ood, &. #+33*$. +he world of psychology. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon.

9'(ED5& E11EC0. &ee 9'(ED5& L9=. 9'(ED5& L9=. 0he English che!ist and physiologist =illia! de =i7eleslie 9bney #+4,,-+3.)$ de7eloped this principle concerning the additi7ity of het-erochro!atic lu!inances #GbrightnessesG$, which states that the lu!inance of a !i%ture of differently colored lights is e:ual to the su! of the lu!inances of the co!ponents. Abney's law has not generally been fully supported by later research, and, interestingly, :uestions about the law lie at the root of a theoretical debate in colori!etry #Judd, +322$. 0he deficiencies of Abney's law ha7e been known for a long ti!e #<raha!, +3-2$, but the weaknesses ha7e been e7aded or tolerated by scientists only until recently #cf; "7es, +3+., +3+2B Dresler, +32*$. 9 pheno!enon of perception called Abney's effect refers to 7isual conditions in7ol7ing the sudden illu!ination of a large surface area #cf; ,a'bert's law- cosine law, which states that the illu!ination on a surface 7aries directly as the cosine of the angle between the incident ray and the perpendicular to the surfaceB =arren, +3*,$. 0he perception of light in Abney's effect is that it see!s to co!e on first in the center of the patch of area and then spread to the edges instead of appearing on the total area e:ually all at the sa!e ti!e. &ubse:uently, when the light is e%tinguished, the outer edges disappear first, first followed by the center area disappearing last #Reber, +332$. "n addition to these pheno!ena, 9bney is pro!inent for his contributions to the science of photography, including stellar photography, and for his disco7ery of how to !ake photographic plates that are sensiti7e to red and infrared light #Huir, +33,$. &ee also C?L?R H"K0>RE L9=& 0FE?RD ?1B <R9&&H9((5& L9=&B (E=0?(5& L9= PR"(C"PLE#&$ ?1 C?L?R H"K0>RE. RE1ERE(CE&
9bney, =., J 1esting, E. #+44-$. Colour photo!etry. (hil. +rans. .oy. /oc., ,on., +66, ,.*-,2-. 9bney, =. #+436$. 0he sensiti7eness of the retina to light and colour. (hil. +rans. .oy. /oc., ,on. 012A, +22-+3*. "7es, F. #+3+.$. &tudies in the photo!etry of lights of different colors. "C. 0he addition of lu!inosities of different color. (hil. 3ag., *), 4,2-42*. 9bney, =. #+3+*$. .esearches in colo#r !ision. London; Long!ans, <reen. "7es, F. #+3+2$. 0he transfor!ation of color-!i%ture e:uations fro! one syste! to another. 4. 5ran%. 6nst., 072, -6*-6)+. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. Le<rand, D., J <eblewic@, E. #+3*6$. La dualite de la 7ision au% brilliances ele7ees. Ann. (sy., 97, +-.+. Peiron, F. #+3*3$. La dissociation de l5adaptation lu!ineuse et de l5adaptation chro!a-ti:ue. Ann. (sy., )2, +-+,.

9CC?HH?D90"?(, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1

Dresler, 9. #+32*$. 0he non-additi7ity of heterochro!atic brightnesses. +ransactions of the 6ll#'ination :ngineering /ociety, ,ondon, 07, +,+-+-2. Judd, D. #+322$. Radical changes in photo!etry and colori!etry foreshadowed by C"E actions in Aurich. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., )<, 436-434. &perling, F. #+324$. 9n e%peri!ental in7estigation of the relationship between colour !i%ture and lu!inous efficiency. "n =is#al proble's of colo#r. &y!posiu!, (ational Physical Laboratory, &epte!ber .*-.2, +326. London; Fer HaEesty5s &tationery ?ffice. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. Color !i%ture and color syste!s. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. Huir, F. #Ed.$ #+33,$. ,aro#sse dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork. Larousse. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 9'(?RH9L"0D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. &ee P&DCF?P90F?L?<D, 0FE? R"E& ?1. 9'&0R9C0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1. &ee C?<("0"CE &0DLE H?DEL&. 9CC?HH?D90"?(, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1. 0he concept of acco''odation in psychology has a 7ariety of !eanings depending on the conte%t in which it is used. "n general ter!s, it refers to any !o7e!ent or adEust!ent #physical or psychological$ that is !ade to prepare the organis! for so!e sti!ulus input. "n the conte%t of 7ision #9lpern, +3-.$, it refers to the auto!atic adEust!ent process wherein the shape of the lens of the eye changes to focus on obEects situated at different distances fro! the obser7er. 0he suspensory liga!ents hold the lens in a relati7ely flattened position when the nor!al eye is at rest and can focus clearly on obEects that are about .) feet away #distant 7ision$. =hen obEects are closer than .) feet #near 7ision$, the ciliary !uscles contract, which causes rela%ation of the suspensory liga!ents and which, in turn, allows the flattened lens to thicken or bulge in shape, causing a sharper focus of light rays on the retina #Fochberg, +3-2$. 0he ter! acco''odation sensation refers to a sensation that acco!panies changes of 7isual adEust!ent that is attributable to changes in tension of the ciliary !uscles that control the shape of the lens, and the ter! acco''odation ti'e refers to te!poral duration fro! the !o!ent a 7isual sti!ulus is presented in the line of 7ision until the lenses of the eyes ha7e adEusted for clear 7ision of an obEect #=arren, +3*,$. 'artley #+32+$ reported that le7el of illu!ination has an effect on 7isual acco!!odation and that the !ost likely theory of the physiological !echanis! for acco!!odation is that of a basic tonal background caused by 7ascular inner7ation of the sy!pathetic ner7ous syste! that affects the oculo!otor ner7e to !ake specific focusing adEust!ents. "n the conte%t of infant and childhood de7elop!ent, Jean Piaget #+32,, +36)$ used the ter! acco''odation to refer to the child5s !odification of ideas or concepts of the world in response to new e%periences in the en7iron!ent or in response to e%periences that are inconsistent with pre7iously

9CC?HH?D90"?(, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1

known ideas or concepts. Related ter!s in Piaget5s theoretical 7iewpoint are assi'ilation #incorporating new or !odified ideas and concepts into the child5s e%isting cogniti7e structure$ and sche'a #the de7elop!ent of an organi@ed cogniti7e structure or pattern as a result of acco!!odation and assi!ilation$. 9c cording to Piaget, sche!a #or Gsche!eG or Gsche!ataG$ nor!ally de7elop during the first two years of the child5s life. =hen acco!!odation is used in the conte%t of ner7e acti7ity, it describes the increased e%citability of the ner7e that occurs when a constant sti!ulus #such as an electric current$ is applied to the ner7e, and the subse:uent slow decrease #Gacco!!odationG$ in ner7e e%citability with continued sti!ulation. =hen the sti!ulus is ter!inated, a sudden drop in ner7e e%citability occurs. 9fter such a se:uence of e7ents and following ter!ination of the sti!ulating e7ent, the ner7e is less sensiti7e briefly to sti! ulation than it was before initiation of the original sti!ulus. Acco''odation is used in a social psychological and sociological conte%t to refer to a process of social adEust!ent that is designed to create or !aintain group har!ony #Reber, +332$. 0he notion of acco''odation in the case of social beha7ior !ay take the for! of bargaining, conciliation, conflict resolution, co!pro!ise, arbitration, negotiation, or truce-!aking a!ong the concerned or antagonistic indi7iduals, groups, or nations #Rubin J 'rown, +362B Druck!an, +366$. "n a historical conte%t, in the area of attention, the ter! acco''odation is archaic and referred to the person5s adEust!ent or readEust!ent that was essential to the !a%i!al clearness #0itchener, +3)4, referred to Gsensory clearnessG or GattensityG$ of an i!pression when the nor!al !ean acco''odation ti'e was !easured to be about one and one-half second with a range between ).. and *.) seconds #=ar ren, +3*,$. &ee also '9L9(CE, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?RD ?1B 1E&0"(<ER5& C?<("0"CE D"&&?(9(CE 0FE?RDB P"9<E05& 0FE?RD ?1 DECEL?PHE(09L &09<E&. RE1ERE(CE& 'aldwin, J. #+43,$. $andboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. 0itchener, E. #+3)4$. ,ect#res on the experi'ental psychology of feeling and attention. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =arren, F. #+3+3$. $#'an psychology. 'oston; Foughton Hifflin =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. 'artley, &. #+32+$. 0he psychophysiology of 7ision. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andboo% of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; =iley. Piaget, J. #+32,$. +he constr#ction of reality in the child. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. 9lpern, H. #+3-.$. 9cco!!odation. "n F. Darson #Ed.$, +he eye. Col. *. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Fochberg, J. #+3-2$. (erception. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Piaget, J. #+36)$. Piaget5s theory. "n P. Hussen #Ed.$, ar'ichael's 'an#al of child psychology. (ew Dork; =iley. Rubin, J., J 'rown, '. #+362$. +he social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press.

9CF"ECEHE(0 H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?RD ?1 Druck!an, D. #Ed.$ #+366$. >egotiations? /ocial psychological perspecti!es. 'e7erly Fills, C9; &age. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

9CF"ECEHE(0 H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?RD ?1. L need achie7e!ent L achie7e!ent need. 0he 9!erican psychologist Fenry 9. Hurray #+43*-+344$ first defined an indi7idual5s need for achie7e!ent (achie!e'ent 'oti!ation, or nAch) as a desire for significant acco!plish!ents, for !astering skills, for o7er co!ing obstacles in the way of one5s success, or for rapidly attaining high stan-dard#s$ #Hurray, +3*4$. Hurray and other researchers, such as the 9!erican psy chologists Da7id C. HcClelland #+3+6/ $ and John =. 9tkinson #+3.*/ $, de7eloped 7arious ways to !easure the concept of achie!e'ent 'oti!ation, pro!inent a!ong which is the use of personality GproEecti7eG tests #such as the 0he!atic 9pperception 0est, or 090, where the person5s task is to in7ent stories about the content of a!biguous pictures or photos$. HcClelland #+3-+$ e%tended the concept of nAch fro! the le7el of analysis of the indi7idual to that of entire societies or cultures. 0he theoretical underpinnings of achie!e'ent 'oti!ation, including both GintrinsicG and Ge%trinsicG !oti7es, ha7e two es sential co!ponents; an assu!ed energi@ing or !oti7ating !echanis! that directs a person toward goals and a set of internali@ed conditions or standards #whether created by oneself or by others$ that represent personal fulfill!ent or achie7e !ent. 9 nu!ber of studies ha7e critici@ed the theory of nAch. 1or e%a!ple, =einstein #+3-3$ found low reliability and :uestionable 7alidity assess!ents for the 090 !easuresB Haehr and (icholls #+34)$ critici@ed the nAch researchers5 narrow e!phasis on personality as a crucial deter!inant of beha7ior and their inability to find ade:uate results concerning nAch in wo!en #cf; =einer, Johnson, J Hehrabian, +3-4B Forner, +36.$. ?n the other hand, Lindgren #+36-$ suggests that the unsatisfactory 7alidity and reliability assess!ents of nAch !easures !ay be due to the atte!pt to !easure a spectru! of personality traits that is too broad, and proposed that forced-choice types of :uestions, rather than proEecti7e-types of tests, be used where indi7iduals being tested would choose between Gachie7e!ent-relatedG and Gaffiliation-relatedG personal styles. 0he nAch 7iewpoint was aug!ented in the +36)s when the field of cogniti!e psychology first appeared and placed e!phasis upon a person5s GcognitionsG about the nature and purpose of achie7e!ent in a cultural conte%t #Haehr J (icholls, +34)$. 0hen, by the +34)s, the unresol7ed :uestion was raised as to whether nAch should be studied as a personality trait, as suggested by personality psy chologists, or as a cogniti7e beha7ior, as suggested by cogniti7e psychologists. Perhaps future research on the concept of nAch !ay show greater reconciliation of the areas of personality psychology and cogniti7e psychology. &ee also H? 0"C90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& Hurray, F. #+3*4$. :xplorations in personality. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press.

9CF"ECEHE(0 H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?RD ?1

9tkinson, J. #+324$. 3oti!es in fantasy, action, and society. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand. HcClelland, D. #+3-+$. +he achie!ing society. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand. 9tkinson, J. #+3-,$. An introd#ction to 'oti!ation. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand. HcClelland, D. #+3-2$. (eed achie7e!ent and entrepreneurship; 9 longitudinal study. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 0, *43-*3.. 9tkinson, 4., @ 1eather, (. #Eds.$ #+3--$. 9 theory of achie!e'ent 'oti!ation. (ew Dork; =iley. Feckhausen, F. #+3-6$. +he anato'y of achie!e'ent 'oti!ation. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Feckhausen, F. #+3-4$. 9chie7e!ent !oti7ation research; Current proble!s and so!e contributions toward a general theory of !oti7ation. "n =. 9rnold #Ed.$, >ebras%a /y'posi#' on 3oti!ation. Lincoln; >ni7ersity of (ebraska Press. =einer, '., Johnson, P., J Hehrabian, 9. #+3-4$. 9chie7e!ent !oti7ation and the recall of inco!pleted and co!pleted e%a! :uestions. 4. :d. (sy., <1, +4+-+42. =einstein, H. #+3-3$. 9chie7e!ent !oti7ation and risk preference. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 09, +2*-+6.. HcClelland, D., J =inter, D. #+36+$. 3oti!ating econo'ic achie!e'ent. (ew Dork; 1ree Press. Fo!er, H. #+36.$. 0oward an understanding of achie7e!ent-related conflicts in wo!en. 4. /oc. 6ss., *7, +,6-+6.. HcClelland, D. #+36*$. 0esting for co!petence rather than for Gintelligence.G A'er. (sy., *7, +-+,. 9tkinson, 4., @ Raynor, J. #Eds.$ #+36,$. 3oti!ation and achie!e'ent. =ashington, DC; =inston. =einer, '. #Ed.$ #+36,$. Achie!e'ent 'oti!ation and attrib#tion theory. Horristown, (J; <eneral Learning Press. Lindgren, F. #+36-$. Heasuring need to achie7e by (ach (aff scale-9 forced-choice :uestionnaire. (sy. .ep., 91, 3)6-3+). HcClelland, D., 9tkinson, 4., Clark, R., J Lowell, E. #+36-$. +he achie!e'ent 'oti!e. (ew Dork; "r7ington. Feckhausen, F. #+366$. 9chie7e!ent !oti7ation and its constructs; 9 cogniti7e !odel. 3ot. @ :'o., +, .4*-*.3. HcClelland, D. #+364$. Hanaging !oti7ation to e%pand hu!an freedo!. A'er. (sy., 99, .)+-.+). Haehr, H., J (icholls, J. #+34)$. Culture and achie7e!ent !oti7ation; 9 second look. "n (. =arren #Ed.$, /t#dies in cross&c#lt#ral psychology. Col. *. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Feckhausen, F. #+34.$. 0he de7elop!ent of achie7e!ent !oti7ation. "n =. Fartup #Ed.$, .e!iew of child de!elop'ent research. Col. -. Chicago; >ni7ersity of Chicago Press. Cooper, =. #+34*$. 9n achie7e!ent !oti7ation no!ological network. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )), 4,+-4-+. Dweck, C., J Elliott, E. #+34*$. 9chie7e!ent !oti7ation. "n P. Hussen J E. Fetherington #Eds.$, $andboo% of child psychology. Col. ,. (ew Dork; =iley. HcClelland, D. #+34*$. &ources of adult !oti7es in patterns of parent beha7ior in early childhood. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )), 2-,-26,. HcClelland, D. #+342$. $#'an 'oti!ation. <len7iew, "L; &cott, 1ores!an.

9CF5& L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?RD 9CF"ECEHE(0 H?0"C90"?( 0FE?RD C9REER ?CC>P90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. ?1 =?RM. &ee

6 =?RM

9CF5& L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?RD. 0he <er!an psychologist (ar@iss 9ch #+46+-+3,-$ was one !e!ber of the group of researchers #others included ). Mulpe, F. =att, M. Harbe, and M. 'uhler$ at the fa!ous =ur@burg GnewG e%peri!ental school in <er!any during the early +3))s. 0he =ur@burg group studied thought processes 7ia 7erbali@ed introspection and co!ple% cogniti7e e7ents #as opposed to studying sensations, which was the pri!ary e!phasis at the >ni7ersity of Leip@ig under =ilhel! =undt5s leadership$. 9ch5s work on syste!atic e%peri!ental introspection, awareness, and deter'ining tendency was ger!inal to the e%odus of e%peri!ental psychologists away fro! the e%clusi7e use of introspection as a research !ethod. 9ch5s !ethod of e%peri!ental intro spection was syste!atic in that it clearly delineated the li!its of a participant5s introspection #i.e., Glooking into one5s own e%perience and reporting on itG$ to the Gfore,G the G!id,G and the GafterG periods for !aking introspecti7e reports during the conduct of an e%peri!ent. 9ch also achie7ed relati7ely high le7els of precision in his studies by using de7ices such as the GFipp chronoscopeG #an apparatus for !easuring ti!e inter7als, first !ade by Hathias Fipp, a watch !aker, in +4,*B =arren, +3*,B 9ch, +3)2$ during his e%peri!ents. 9ch5s principles concerning deter'ining tendency in e%peri!ents contain what are, perhaps, the !ost i!portant aspects of his work for present-day e%peri!ental psychologists. 9ch showed that there were #nconscio#s infl#ences operating on the beha7ior of the participants in his e%peri!ents, including the instructions that were gi7en by the e%peri!enter to the participant. 0he deter'ining tendencies were thought to be known by so!e !eans other than the participant5s introspection. 9n e%a!ple of deter'ining tendency is pro7ided by 'oring, Langfeld, and =eld #+3*3, p. *43$, who describe an e%peri!ent on hypnosis #cf; ?rne, +363$. 9fter the subEect #the word GparticipantG see!s to be the fa7ored ter! to use today in e%peri!ental conte%ts$ was hypnoti@ed, the suggestion was !ade that after waking, two cards with two digits on each would be shown. 1or the first card, the person was to gi7e the su! of the digits, and for the second card, he was to gi7e the difference between the two digits. >pon waking fro! the hypnotic state, a card was shown on which the digits - and . were writtenB the person i!!ediately said G4.G =hen the second card was shown, containing the digits , and ., the sa!e indi7idual said G..G 0he person had no !e!ory of the prior suggestion and could gi7e no e%planation of what he had said about the cards, nor did it occur to the person that 4 was the su! of . and - or that . was the difference between , and .. 9ccording to Ach's principle, the deter!ining tendencies Gfi%G the course of thought by fa7oring certain GassociationsG that spring fro! the i!!ediate or current situation and inhibit other associations. "n this way, the tendencies gi7e directi7e order in a situation con taining a nu!ber of co!peting possibilities and enable an answer to be gi7en

9C0"C90"?( 9R?>&9L 0FE?RD

to the :uestion of why a particular possibility is !ateriali@ed rather than any other one. ?ther e%peri!ents ha7e indicated that deter!ining tendencies func tion to gi7e co!pletion to already established patterns of thought #cf; Aeigarnik effectB !ind !ental set$ and !ay reinforce old associations that the indi7idual !ay ha7e partially established. 9ccording to Ach's principle, the directi7e or deter!ining tendency !akes the action of a person !ore than a rigid !echanical se:uence of e7ents such as is found in the !o7e!ents of a !achine 0he ter! deter'ining tendencies is so!ewhat archaic today and is replaced by 7alidity-and controlsensiti7e ter!s in e%peri!ental psychology such as Gpreparatory set,G Gde!and characteristics of the situation,G Gecological 7alidity of the e%peri!ent,G and Ge%peri!enter effectG #'runswik, +3,6B Ray, +33-$. &uch conte!porary ter!s seek to sensiti@e and !oti7ate the e%peri!enter to control 7arious potentially confounding 7ariables that !ay e%ist in the psychological e%peri!ent where there is a dyna!ic interplay between the participant, the e%peri!enter, and the e%peri!ental setting or conte%t. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B H"(D HE(09L &E0, L9= ?1B PERCEP0"?( #". <E(ER9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B AE"<9R("M E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?(. RE1ERE(CE&
9ch, (. #+3)2$. Aber die Willenstatig%eit and das 8en%en. :ine experi'entalle Anter&s#ch#ng 'it eine' Anhange? Aber das $ippsche hronos%op. <ottingen, =est <er!any; Candenhoeck J Ruprecht. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. 'oring, E. <., Langfeld, F., J =eld, F. #+3*2$. (sychology? A fact#al textboo%. (ew Dork; =iley. &troud, J. #+3*4$. 6ntrod#ction to general psychology. (ew Dork; Prentice-Fall. 'oring, E. <., Langfeld, F., J =eld, F. #+3*3$. 6ntrod#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; =iley. 9ch, (. #+3,,$. ,ehrb#ch der psychologie. Col. *; (ra%tische psychologie. 'a!berg; 'uchner. 'runswik, E. #+3,6$. /yste'atic and representati!e design of psychological experi'ents. 'erkeley; >ni7ersity of California Press. ?rne, H. #+363$. ?n the si!ulating subEect as a :uasi-control group in hypnosis research; =hat, why, and how. "n E. 1ro!! J R. &hor #Eds.$, $ypnosis? 8e!elop'ents in research and new perspecti!es. (ew Dork; 9ldine. Ray, =. #+33-$. 3ethods toward a science of beha!ior and experience. Pacific <ro7e, C9; 'rooks Cole.

9C0"C90"?( 9R?>&9L 0FE?RD. 0he ter! acti!ation theory was !ost pro!inently used by Donald '. Lindsley #+32+$ as a working theory for e!otion. 0he concept acti!ate !eans not only Gto !ake acti7eG but also Gto render capable of reactingG #=oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$. 9t one end of a continuu! of acti7ation is a strong reaction to sti!ulation, and at the other end is the condition of :uiescence, sleep, or death, with little or no reaction to sti!ulation. 0he acti!ation-aro#sal theory de7eloped fro! work in the area of physiology, specifically on the electrical acti7ity of the brain where the cerebral

9C0"C90"?( 9R?>&9L 0FE?RD

corte% was seen to be aroused by discharge of a lower center of the brain in the hypothala!ic region. 0he general for! of the acti!ation theory is a for! of the older Genergy-!obili@ationG concept of e!otion #Cannon, +3+2$ where early studies showed how the body prepares for e!ergency action during states of rage and fear. 0he use of the ter! acti!ation is generally restricted to the energi@ing influence of one internal syste!, such as the reticular acti7ating syste!, on another one and is not an e%act synony! for either GarousalG #a general ter!$ or Gsti!ulationG #acti7ation produced by specific e%ternal sources$. Fistorically, the concept of acti!ation was central to the study and de7elop!ent of dri7es, !oti7es, and e!otions in psychology. "t has been relati7ely easy to iden tify beha7ioral states as le7els of arousal #cf; 'erlyne5s, +3-), +36+, Gaesthetic arousal,G which can be raised through properties of sti!ulus patterns such as no7elty$, but parallel physiological processes were !ore difficult to disco7er. 0he electroencephalograph #EE<$ has been a so!ewhat successful indicator of arousal le7el where the lower fre:uency EE< is obser7ed when beha7ioral arousal declines, but, gi7en certain e%ceptions to this si!ple relationship, the EE< is only an appro%i!ate indicator of arousal. 9lso associated with the aro#sal theory is the sleep/wakefulness cycle of organis!s where an indi7idual goes to sleep when input falls below a certain le7el. 0his hypothesis #'re!er, +3*2$ is tenable when considering the general nocturnal sleeping habits of hu!ans, but it has difficulty when e%plaining the beha7ior of certain ani!al species that sleep during the day and are !ost acti7e at night. 0he sensory input interpretation of arousal was predo!inant until the studies by Horu@@i and Hagoun #+3,3$ at the >ni7ersity of Pisa in "taly and Lindsley, 'owden, and Hagoun #+3,3$ at the >ni7ersity of California at Los 9ngeles #>CL9$ in the >nited &tates showed that se7ering all the sensory ner7es in cats #without da!aging the reticular for!ation$ was acco!panied by nor!al wakefulness/sleep patterns in the EE<. 0he 7iew today #Le7inthal, +34*$ has changed so!ewhat fro! the si!ple picture of the reticular for!ation as the !aEor acti7ator for arousal patterns and includes the recognition that EE< arousal signs are not always consistent with changes in beha7ioral arousal. &ee also C9((?( C9((?(/'9RD 0FE?RDB DR"CE, 0FE?R"E& ?1B EH?0"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1B L"(D&LED5& 9C0"C90"?( 0FE?RDB H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1B &PRE9D"(<-9C0"C90"?( H?DEL ?1 HEH?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Cannon, =. #+3+2$. Bodily changes in pain, h#nger, fear, and rage. (ew Dork; 9ppleton. 're!er, 1. #+3*2$. Cer7eau isole et physiologie du so!!eil. oin. .en. /oc. Bio., ((aris), 007, +.*2-+.,+. Darrow, C. #+3,-$. 0he electroencephalogra! and psychophysiological regulation of the brain. A'er. 4. (sychiat., 02*, 63+-634. Duffy, E., J Lacey, ). #+3,-$. 9daptation in energy !obili@ation; Changes in general le7el of pal!ar skin conductance. 4. :xp. (sy., 9B, ,*6-,2.. Lindsley, D., 'owden, J., J Hagoun, F. #+3,3$. Effect upon EE< of acute inEury to the brain ste! acti7ating syste!. ::C @ lin. >e#rophysio., +, ,62-,4-.

+)

9C0"C90"?( H?DEL ?1 HEH?RD ?R<9("A90"?(

Horu@@i, <., J Hagoun, F. #+3,3$. 'rain ste! reticular for!ation and acti7ation of the EE<. ::C @ lin. >e#rophysio., 0, ,22-,6*. Lindsley, D., &chreiner, L., Mnowles, =., J Hagoun, F. #+32)$. 'eha7ioral and EE< changes following chronic brain ste! lesions in the cat. ::C @ lin. >e#rophy& sio., *, ,4*-,34. Duffy, E. #+32+$. 0he concept of energy !obili@ation. (sy. .e!., <7, *)-,). Lindsley, D. #+32+$. E!otion. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy., pp. ,6*-2+-. (ew Dork; =iley. Duffy, E. #+326$. 0he psychological significance of the concept of GarousalG or Gacti7ation.G (sy. .e!., B), .-2-.62. Hal!o, R. #+323$. 9cti7ation; 9 neuropsychological di!ension. (sy. .e!., BB, *-6-*4-. 'erlyne, D. #+3-)$. onflict, aro#sal, and c#riosity. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Duffy, E. #+3-.$. Acti!ation and beha!ior. (ew Dork; =iley. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 'erlyne, D. #+36+$. (sychobiology and aesthetics. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. Le7inthal, C. #+34*$. 6ntrod#ction to physiological psychology. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall.

9C0"C90"?( H?DEL ?1 HEH?RD ?R<9("A90"?(. &ee 1?R<E00"(< HEH?RD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9C0"C90"?(-&D(0FE&"& 0FE?RD. &ee DRE9H 0FE?RD. 9D9P090"?(, PR"(C"PLE& L9=& ?1. 0he ter! adaptation deri7es fro! the Latin word adaptare, !eaning Gto fit,G and has a 7ariety of !eanings in science. "n the discipline of biology, adaptation refers to structural or beha7ioral changes of an organis!, or part of an organis!, that fit it !ore perfectly for the en7iron!ental conditions in which it li7es where the changes ha7e e7olutionary sur7i7al 7alue. "n the area of physiology, adaptation is the change or adEust!ent of a sense organ to so!e inco!ing sti!ulation, and the ter! sensory adaptation includes a decreased sensiti7ity to sti!uli due to prolonged sti!ulation #also called negati!e adaptation; =arren, +3*,$. "n psychology, in general, adaptation is the change in :uality, clarity, or intensity of a sensory e%perience that occurs with continuous and unchanged sti!ulation. "n psychology, in particular, adaptation !ay be discussed in a !ultitude of conte%ts, a!ong which are 7isual adaptation, olfactory adaptation, pain adaptation, cutaneous adaptation, and gustatory adaptation #=oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$. "n !is#al adaptation, a set of processes takes place after change of e%posure fro! dark to light #or light to dark$ whereby the eye is !ore capable of recei7ing sti!uli under the new conditionsB included here are dark, light, and chro!atic adaptation. 8ar% #GscotopicG$ adaptation is the process of adEust!ent of the eyes to low intensities of illu!ination that takes about four hours to co!plete, e7en though effecti7e dark adaptation takes only about *) !inutes #where the retinal cones take only about 6 !inutes to adapt, and the rods take the full four

9D9P090"?(, PR"(C"PLE& L9=& ?1

++

hours to adapt$. "t is esti!ated that the totally dark-adapted eye is about + !illion ti!es as sensiti7e as the nor!ally illu!inated eye #Reber, +332$. ,ight #GphotopicG$ adaptation is the process of adEust!ent of the eye to a high le7el of light intensity where the pupil of the eye is constricted, and the retinal cones are acti7ated, !aking the eye relati7ely insensiti7e to light of lower intensities. 8ar% adaptation is the shift in retinal receptors fro! the photopic #cones$ syste! to the scotopic #rods$ syste!, while light adaptation is the shift fro! the sco-topic to the photopic syste!. 0he ter! brightness adaptation refers to a decrease in the brilliance of a sti!ulus that is caused by an increase in the general illu !ination of the surrounding 7isual field. olor #Gchro!aticG or GspectralG$ adaptation is alteration of hue or saturation or both, due to a pre7ious e%posure to light of so!e other wa7elength #also called color fatig#e; =arren, +3*,$B during color adaptation, an indi7idual5s absolute threshold of sensiti7ity to hue is raised. ross adaptation #Reber, +332$ is adEust!ent to all sti!uli of a group of sti!uli after e%posure to only one of the sti!uli fro! that group. "n olfactory adaptation, for instance, a person !ay beco!e adapted to one odor that subse:uently will produce in her or hi! a di!inution in sensiti7ity to a large nu!ber and 7ariety of other odors. /ocial #or GculturalG$ adaptation is the !odification or adEust!ent of personal beha7ior that is necessary to !aintain har!onious interaction with other indi7iduals in the group #Gsocial acco!!odationG$, such as e%hibiting confor!ity beha7ior to the custo!s #or taboos$ of a particular social group. =hen used in a learning conte%t, adaptation refers to a change in an organis!5s !ode of beha7ior that results in !ore effecti7e or !ore satisfactory adEust!ent to the pre7ailing situation, as well as the eli!ination of irrele7ant beha7ior as learning progresses #=ol!an, +36*$. 9s used in the area of personality psychology, adaptation has been used to denote a process of upward adEust!ent and co!pensation for one5s innate deficiencies #9dler, +32-$, as a !odification in dri7es, e!otions, and attitudes in adEusting to the en7iron!ent #1ro!!, +3,+$, and as a critical concept in a theory of the ego #Fart!ann, +3-,$. 0he ter! adaptation ti'e is defined as the ti!e that elapses fro! the onset of a continuous sti!ulus up to the point where any further sti!ulation causes no further change in the responsi7eness of the sensory organ or syste!. 9s used in !ore infor!al ter!s, adaptation ti'e is the ti!e needed in adEust!ent for efficient perfor!ance of a task. 9lso, there is genetic adaptation #species-specific characteristics, such as long necks in giraffes, that are distillations of e7olutionary processes o7er !any generations that help the organis! to sur7i7e in a changing en7iron!ent$, phenotypic adaptation #te!porary adEust!ents of the indi7idual, such as the return of one5s ability to see clearly after a period in a darkened roo! following e%posure to bright lights$, and percept#al adaptation #the ability to adEust to an artificially displaced, or e7en in7erted, 7isual field$. 0he related concept of habit#ation, whose older definition was Gthe process of beco!ing adapted to a gi7en sti!ulus, situation, or general en7iron!entG #=arren, +3*,$, has been redefined today in !ore !odern ter!s as Gthe gradual eli!ination of an unconditioned response, espe-

+. 9D9P090"?(-LECEL 0FE?RD 9D9P0"CE (?(RE&P?(D"(< 0FE?RD. &ee &LEEP, 0FE?R"E& ?1. cially an orienting response, by the repeated presentation of the unconditional sti!ulus, and will not occur to highly no%ious sti!uliG #Carlson, +33)$. 0hus, the principle law of adaptation has been a 7aluable o!nibus concept in the history of psychology and other disciplines, where it has helped to ad7ance the scientific understanding of organis!s5 functional, physical, and social adEust !ents to an e7er-changing en7iron!ent. &ee also D9R="(5& EC?L>0"?( 0FE?RDB F9'"0 F9'"0 1?RH90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B F9'"0>90"?(, PR"(C"PLE L9= ?1B FEL&?(5& 9D9P090"?(-LECEL 0FE?RDB P>RM"(JE E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?( &F"10B &ELDE5& 0FE?RD H?DEL ?1 &0RE&&. RE1ERE(CE& &tratton, <. #+436$. Cision without in7ersion of the retinal i!age. (sy. .e!., ), *,+-*-). &eashore, C. #+3.*$. 6ntrod#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. #+3.4$. 9 textboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. Fecht, &., J &hlaer, &. #+3*4$. 9n adapto!eter for !easuring hu!an dark adaptation. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., *7, .-3-.62. Cro@ier, =. #+3,)$. 0he theory of the 7isual threshold. F. ?n the kinetics of adaptation. (roc. >at. Acad. /ci., *B, **,-**3. 1ro!!, E. #+3,+$. :scape fro' freedo'. (ew Dork; 97on 'ooks. Fecht, &., J Fsia, D. #+3,2$. Dark adaptation following light adaptation to red and white lights. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., 9<, .-+-.-6. Cohen, J. #+3,-a$. Color adaptation of the hu!an eye. A'er. 4. (sy., 23,4,-++). Cohen, 4. #+3,-b$. Color adaptation to +3,2. (sy. B#ll., )9, +.+-+,). ?sgood, C. #+32*$. 3ethod and theory in experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 9dler, 9. #+32-$. +he indi!id#al psychology of Alfred Adler? A syste'atic presentation in selections fro' his writings. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. Fess, E. #+32-$. &pace perception in the chick. /ci. A'er., 01<, 6+-4). Fart!ann, F. #+3-,$. :go psychology and the proble' of adaptation. (ew Dork; "nternational >ni7ersities Press. Mohler, ". #+3-,$. +he for'ation and transfor'ation of the percept#al world. (ew Dork; "nternational >ni7ersities Press. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Rock, ". #+3--$. +he nat#re of percept#al adaptation. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. Carlson, (. #+33)$. (sychology? +he science of beha!ior. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 9D9P090"?(-LECEL 0FE?RD. &ee FEL&?(5& 9D9P090"?(-LECEL 0FE?RD.

9DLER5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

+*

ADDITIVE COLOR MIXTURE, PRINCIPLE OF. &ee C?L?R H"K0>RE, L9=& 0FE?RD ?1. ADDITIVE LAW OF PROBABILITY. &ee PR?'9'"L"0D 0FE?RD L9=&. ADLER'S THEORY OF PERSONALITY. 0he 9ustrian psychoanalyst 9lfred 9dler #+46)-+3*6$ recei7ed his !edical degree in +432 fro! the >ni7ersity of Cienna with a specialty in ophthal!ology but then changed to psychiatry after a period of practice in general !edicine. 9dler was one of the charter !e!bers of the Cienna Psychoanalytic &ociety, ser7ing as its president in +3+), but resigned fro! the society in +3++ because of theoretical differences with &ig!und 1reud #Colby, +32+B 9nsbacher J 9nsbacher, +32-, +3-,$. 9dler went on to establish his own school, called the &ociety for 1ree Psychoanalytic Research #later called the &ociety of "ndi7idual PsychologyB 9dler, +3*)$, which attracted followers throughout the world and also inspired the establish!ent of an e%peri!ental school in Cienna that e!ployed his theories of education #9dler, +326$. 9fter !o7ing to (ew Dork City in +3*,, 9dler continued to practice psychiatry and was a professor at the Long "sland College of Hedicine. Fis theoretical approach to personality #9dler, +3.6$ generally e!phasi@ed the concepts of goal stri7ing, unity, and acti7e participation of the indi7idual and stressed the cogniti7e rather than the unconscious processes of personality #cf; 1reud, +3,)$. 9dler5s theory of personality is an e%tre!ely Gecono!icalG one #Fall J Lind@ey, +364$ where a few basic assu!ptions #cf; &hul!an, +33,$ sustain the whole theoretical structure; #+$ fictional finalis! / hu!ans are !oti7ated !ore by their subEecti7e e%pectations of the future than by their obEecti7e e%periences of the pastB #.$ stri7ing for superiority #for!erly called the Gwill to powerG by 9dler$ / hu!ans5 final goal is to be aggressi7e, powerful, and superior where one stri7es for perfect co!pletion and is dri7en GupwardlyG to ward GhigherG goalsB #*$ inferiority feelings and co!pensation #9dler accepted being called the Gfather of the inferiority co!ple%GB 9nsbacher, +33,$ / hu!ans are !oti7ated by the need to o7erco!e any percei7ed or felt le7el of inferiority #cf; 9dler, +3+6$ that arises fro! a sense of inco!pletion or i!perfection in any area of their li7esB #,$ innate social interest #9dler, +3.3a, +3*3$ /hu!ans5 stri7ing for superiority beco!es sociali@ed where working for the co!!on good per!its indi7iduals to co!pensate for their weaknessesB #2$ style of life #9dler, +3.3b, +3*6$ / the syste! principle, or self-created life plan, by which the uni:ue indi7idual personality achie7es a higher le7el of functioning in life and where all the person5s dri7es, feelings, !e!ories, e!otions, and cogniti7e processes are subordinate to that indi7idual5s lifestyleB #-$ the creati7e self/ this doctrine asserts that hu!ans construct their own personalities out of the raw !aterial of heredity and e%perience and that one5s creati7e self gi7es !eaning to life by creating the goals the!sel7es, as well as the !eans to get to the goals in lifeB the creati7e self is the Gacti7eG principle of hu!an life and is

+,

9DLER5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

not unlike the older concept of the so#l #Fall J Lind@ey, +364$. 9dler5s theory of therapy e!phasi@es the goals of the therapist to be the establish!ent of a relationship of trust, to disco7er and understand the patient5s Gassu!pti7e uni 7erse,G to re7eal these assu!ptions to the person in such a way that they beco!e subEect to self-correction and facilitate change, to con7ey a sense of worth and faith in the person5s inner strength, and to offer the patient a !odel for good beha7ior and effecti7e coping strategies #Dreikurs, +3-6B Dink!eyer, Pew, J Dink!eyer, +363B &hul!an, +33,$. 9dler5s personality theory e%e!plifies a hu!anistic orientation toward indi7idual de7elop!ent that is contrary to 1reud5s !ore !aterialistic conception of the person and gi7es hu!ans the characteristics of altruis!, cooperation, hu!anitarianis!, awareness, uni:ueness, dignity, and creati7ity. 9dler5s work and concepts #while yet unrecogni@ed by so!e psychologists$ ha7e been generally 7alidated, ha7e influenced !ost current personality theories #including psychoanalytic approaches$, and ha7e led to a continuation of the 9dlerian tradition in this country #Dreikurs, +32)B Dreikurs, Corsini, Lowe, J &onstegard, +323B Ellis, +36+B Corsini, +366$. &ee also 9LL-P?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB '"R0F ?RDER 0FE?RDB 1RE>D5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB H9&L?=5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB R?<ER&5 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D. RE1ERE(CE& 9dler, 9. #+3+)$. >ber !annliche Einstellung bei =eiblichen (eurofiken. Db. (sychoan., 0, +6,-+64. 9dler, 9. #+3+.$. +he ne#rotic constit#tion. (ew Dork; 9rno Press. 9dler, 9. #+3+6$. /t#dy of organ inferiority and its psychical co'pensation. (ew Dork; (er7ous and Hental Diseases. 9dler, 9. #+3.6$. +he practice and theory of indi!id#al psychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt, 'race, J =orld. 9dler, 9. #+3.3a$. (roble's of ne#rosis. London; Megan Paul. 9dler, 9. #+3.3b$. +he science of li!ing. (ew Dork; <reenberg. 9dler, 9. #+3*)$. "ndi7idual psychology. "n C. Hurchison #Ed.$, (sychologies of 0192. =orcester, H9; Clark >ni7ersity Press. 9dler, 9. #+3*+$. What life sho#ld 'ean to yo#. 'oston; Little, 'rown. 9dler, 9. #+3*6$. Position in fa!ily constellation influences life style. 6nter. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 9, .++-..6. 9dler, 9. #+3*3$. /ocial interest? A challenge to 'an%ind. (ew Dork; Putna!. 'otto!e, P. #+3*3$. Alfred Adler? A biography. (ew Dork; Putna!. 1reud, &. #+3,)$. An o#tline of psychoanalysis. (ew Dork; (orton. Ja!es, =. #+3,6$. Maren Fo!ey and Erich 1ro!! in relation to 9lfred 9dler. 6ndi!. (sy. B#ll., B, +)2-++-. Dreikurs, R. #+32)$. 5#nda'entals of Adlerian psychology. Chicago; 9dler "nstitute. Colby, M. #+32+$. ?n the disagree!ent between 1reud and 9dler. A'er. 6'ago, 7,

..3-

.*4. 9nsbacher, F., J 9nsbacher, R. #Eds.$ #+32-$. +he indi!id#al psychology of Alfred Adler. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. 9dler, 9. #+326$. +he ed#cation of children. London; 9llen J >nwin.

9<<RE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1

+2

Dreikurs, R., Corsini, R., Lowe, R., J &onstegard, H. #+323$. Adlerian fa'ily co#nseling. Eugene; >ni7ersity of ?regon Press. =ay, L. #+3-.$. Adler's place in psychology. (ew Dork; Collier 'ooks. ?rgler, F. #+3-*$. Alfred Adler? +he 'an and his wor%. (ew Dork; Li7eright. 9nsbacher, F., J 9nsbacher, R. #Eds.$ #+3-,$. /#periority and social interest by Alfred Adler. E7anston, "L; (orthwestern >ni7ersity Press. Clark, M. #+3-6$. "!plications of 9dlerian theory for an understanding of ci7il rights proble!s and action. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., *9, +4+-+3). Dreikurs, R. #+3-6$. (sychodyna'ics, psychotherapy, and co#nseling? ollected papers. Chicago; 9dler "nstitute. Ellis, 9. #+36+$. Reason and e!otion in the indi7idual psychology of 9lfred 9dler. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., *E, 2)--,. Hosak, F. #Ed.$ #+36*$. Alfred Adler? $is infl#ence on psychology today. Park Ridge, "L; (oyes Press. &perber, H. #+36,$. 3as%s of loneliness? Alfred Adler in perspecti!e. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Corsini, R. #+366$. "ndi7idual education. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 99, .32-*,3. Fall, C., J Lind@ey, <. #+364$. +heories of personality. (ew Dork; =iley. Dink!eyer, D., Pew, =., J Dink!eyer, D., Jr. #+363$. Adlerian co#nseling and psychotherapy. Honterey, C9; 'rooks Cole. 9nsbacher, F. #+33,$. 9lfred 9dler. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. &hul!an, '. #+33,$. 9dlerian psychotherapy. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

9E&0FE0"C&, PR"(C"PLE ?1. &ee AE"&"(<5& PR"(C"PLE. 910ERD"&CF9R<E, L9= ?1. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. 910ER"H9<E L9=. &ee EHHER05& L9=. 9<<RE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he concept of aggression is a 7ery general and co!ple% pheno!enon that refers to a wide 7ariety of acts, has !any causes, and is hard to predict and control. Co!!only, the ter! is used for beha7iors that !ay be !oti7ated by frustration or fear, by a desire to cause fear in others, or by a desire to pro!ote one5s own interests and ideas. Patterns of usage of the concept of aggression usually indicate so!e theoretical orientation bias on the writer5s part #Reber, +332$. 1or instance, ethologists consider aggression to be an e7olutionarily genetically deter!ined instinctual pattern of beha7iors in 7ol7ing specific en7iron!ental sti!uli #e.g., territorial in7asion$B classical psychoanalysts #i.e., 1reudians$ consider aggression to be a conscious correlate of 0hanatos #e.g., death wish beha7iorsB =eis!an, +362$B learning theorists !ay regard aggression as a displaced response to any frustrating situation #e.g., fr#stration&aggression hypothesis, Hiller, +3,+, where one person !ay attack an innocent bystander out of inability to achie7e so!e unrelated goal$B and

+-

9<<RE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1

social-learning theorists !ay consider aggression to be a for! of learned and reinforced beha7ior gained by i!itating or obser7ing so!e other indi7idual who engages in aggressi7e acts #e.g., young boy i!itates his father5s aggression toward an ethnic-!inority person$. 0he concept of aggression, !uch like the concept of personality, see!s to play a central role in !any theoretical orientations where usage follows theory, and it is difficult to disco7er !utually agreed-upon definitions of the ter!. <oldstein #+33,$ has categori@ed the theories of ag& gression as to their theoretical conte%ts and as to their association with concepts such as instincts, dri7es, and learning social-learning factors. 0here is a persis tent popular belief that aggression is instinct#al, where acts of aggression are !erely the !anifestation of an innate tendency to fight. 9ccording to this 7iew #e.g., 9rdrey, +3--B Loren@, +3--B Horris, +3-6$, aggressi7e energy ste!!ing fro! this uncontrollable instinct is generated spontaneously, continuously, and at a constant rate in the indi7idual. &uch aggressi7e energy builds up o7er ti!e #e.g., Loren@5s hydra#lic 'odel of aggression), and the !ore that accu!ulates, the weaker the sti!ulus that is needed to set it off into o7ert aggressi7e acts. 9lso, if too !uch ti!e elapses since the last aggressi7e act, it !ay occur spon taneously for no apparent reason. 0hus, according to this orientation, aggressi7e energy ine7itably accu!ulates, and ine7itably it !ust be e%pressed. Perhaps this is the reason that co!petiti7e sports e7ents #particularly Gbodily contactG sports$ ha7e been so popular throughout history. E7en though e!pirical studies do not 7erify the Gdraining offG or Gcathartic-e%pressionG rationale for aggression, instinct theory is attracti7e to !any people as a basis for aggression because it is a co!prehensi7e and easy blend of anecdote, analogical leaps, unsyste!atic Eournalis!, selfser7ing rationali@ation, irresponsibility, and undefined concepts #<oldstein, +33,$. 9ccording to the dri!e theory of aggression, aggressi7e acts ste! fro! a heightened state of arousal or dri7e that is reduced through o7ert e%pression of aggressi7e beha7ior #'aron, +366$. Consistent with this approach is the classical fr#stration&aggression hypothesis #Dollard, Doob, Hiller, Howrer, J &ears, +3*3$, which states in its !odified for! #Hiller, +3,+$ that frustration produces instigations to a nu!ber of different types of responses, one of which is an instigation to aggression. Cariations of this hypothesis ha7e been the fr#stration& regression hypothesis #'arker, De!bo, J Lewin, +3,+$ and the fr#stration fixationhypothesis #Haier, +3,3$. Certain other aspects of the dri!e theory approach to understanding aggression e!phasi@e the strength of the instigating e7ents, the i!portance of the frustrated goal response to the indi7idual, the nu!ber of frustrated response se:uences, the degree of frustration, the a!ount of potential punish!ent for aggression, and the dyna!ics of displace!ent and catharsis in dealing with aggression. 0he research on the fr#stration&aggression hypothesis #'uss, +3-+B 'erkowit@, +3-.B 1eshbach, +36)B Aill!an, +363$ and its related ideas was e7entually te!pered by the fact that it essentially in7ol7ed a logical circularity of reasoning #Johnson, +36.B cf; law of effect), and the dri!e theory approach ga7e way so!ewhat to the social learning theory of aggression #e.g., 'andura, +36*$, which e!phasi@es that the causes of aggressi7e

9<<RE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1

+6

beha7ior are not found e%clusi7ely in the organis! but in en7iron!ental forces as well. /ocial learning theory focuses on the processes that are responsible for the indi7idual5s ac"#isition #physiological as well as psychological$ of aggressi7e beha7iors #e.g., Hoyer, +36,, +36-B 0hiesen, +36-$, the instigation of o7ert aggressi7e acts at particular ti!es #e.g., 0och, +3-3B 1eshbach, +36)$, and the 'aintenance of aggressi7e beha7ior #e.g., 1eld!an, +366$. Research in this area has also been concerned with the prediction of aggression #e.g., <oldstein, +36,B HcCord, +363B Honahan, +34+$ and the control of aggression #e.g., 'ostow J 'ailey, +3-3B Fa!berger J Lohr, +34)B <oldstein, Can, Da7idson, J =ehr, +34+$. "n general ter!s, research on aggression has indicated that aggressi7e cri!inal beha7ior correlates with the factors of past cri!inal beha7ior, se%, age, race, socioecono!ic status, and alcohol or opiate abuse #<oldstein, +33,$. Fow e7er, such actuarial probabilities concerning cri!inal aggression !ost likely con tain, at best, only !odest 7alue for the prediction of o7ert aggressi7e acts in any gi7en indi7idual at any gi7en ti!e. &ee also '9(D>R95& 0FE?RDB FD DR9>L"C 0FE?RDB PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?R"E&.
RE1ERE(CE& Dollard, J., Doob, L., Hiller, (., Howrer, ). F., J &ears, R. #+3*3$. 5r#stration and aggression. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. 'arker, R., De!bo, 0., J Lewin, M. #+3,+$. 1rustration and regression. "n R. 'arker, J. Mounin, J F. =right #Eds.$, hild beha!ior and de!elop'ent. (ew Dork; Hc<rawFill. Hiller, (. #+3,+$. 0he frustration-aggression hypothesis. (sy. .e!., )7, **6-*,.. Haier, (. #+3,3$. 5r#stration? +he st#dy of beha!ior witho#t a goal. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. 'uss, 9. #+3-+$. +he psychology of aggression. (ew Dork; =iley. 'erkowit@, L. #+3-.$. Aggression? A social psychological analysis. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. 9rdrey, R. #+3--$. +he territorial i'perati!e. (ew Dork; 9theneu!. Loren@, M. #+3--$. ;n aggression. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. Horris, D. #+3-6$. +he na%ed ape. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. 'ostow, D., J 'ailey, J. #+3-3$. Hodification of se7ere disrupti7e and aggressi7e beha7ior using brief ti!eout and reinforce!ent procedures. 4. App. Beh. Anal., *, *+-*6. 0och, F. #+3-3$. =iolent 'en. Chicago; 9ldine. 1eshbach, &. #+36)$. 9ggression. "n P. Hussen #Ed.$, ar'ichael's 'an#al of child psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; =iley. Johnson, R. #+36.$. Aggression in 'an and ani'als. Philadelphia; &aunders. 'andura, 9. #+36*$. Aggression? A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, (J; PrenticeFall. <oldstein, R. #+36,$. 'rain research and 7iolent beha7ior. Ar. >e#ro., 92, +-+4. Mornadt, F.-J. #+36,$. 0oward a !oti7ation theory of aggression and aggression inhibition. "n J. de=it J =. Fartup #Eds.$, 8eter'inants and origins of aggressi!e beha!ior. 0he Fague; Houton. Hoyer, M. #+36,$. +he psychobiology of aggression. (ew Dork; Farper J Row.

+4

9<"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1

=eis!an, 9. #+362$. 0hanatology. "n 9. 1ried!an, F. Maplan, J '. &adock #Eds.$, o'prehensi!e textboo% of psychiatry. 'alti!ore; =illia!s J =ilkins Hoyer, M. #Ed.$ #+36-$. (hysiology of aggression. (ew Dork; Ra7en Press. Rosen@weig, &. #+36-$. 9ggressi7e beha7ior and the Rosen@weig Picture-1rustration #P-1$ study. 4. lin. (sy., 9*, 442-43+. 0hiessen, D. #+36-$. +he e!ol#tion and che'istry of aggression. &pringfield, "L; 0ho!as. 'aron, R. #+366$. $#'an aggression. (ew Dork; Plenu!. 1eld!an, H. #+366$. ri'inal beha!ior? A psychological analysis. (ew Dork; =iley. 1rodi, 9., Hacaulay, 4., @ 0ho!e, P. #+366$. 9re wo!en always less aggressi7e than !enI 9 re7iew of the e%peri!ental literature. (sy. B#ll., 7), -*,---). Lefkowit@, H., Eron, L., =alder, L., J Feus!ann, L. #+366$. Crowing #p to be !iolent. (ew Dork; Perga!on Press. HcCord, J. #+363$. &o!e child rearing antecedents to cri!inal beha7ior in adult !en. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 9E, +,66-+,4-. Aill!an, D. #+363$. $ostility and aggression. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. Fa!berger, M., J Lohr, J. #+34)$. Rational restructuring for anger control; 9 :uasie%peri!ental case study. og. +her. .es., ), 33-+).. Haccoby, E., J Jacklin, C. #+34)$. &e% differences in aggression; 9 reEoinder and reprise. hild. 8e!., <0, 3-,-34). <oldstein, 9., Can, E., Da7idson, =., J =ehr, P. #+34+$. 6n response to aggression. (ew Dork; Perga!on Press. Honahan, J. #Ed.$ #+34+$. +he clinical prediction of !iolent beha!ior. =ashington, DC; (ational "nstitute of Hental Fealth. <oldstein, 9., J Rosenbau!, 9. #+34.$. Aggress&less. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Mornadt, F.-J. #+34.$. Aggressions'oti! and Aggressionshe''#ng. 'ern; Fuber. 1reed!an, J. #+34,$. Effect of tele7ision 7iolence on aggressi7eness. (sy. B#ll., 1B, ..6.,-. 1reed!an, J. #+34-$. 0ele7ision 7iolence and aggression; 9 reEoinder. (sy. B#ll., 022, *6.-*64. Josephson, =. #+346$. 0ele7ision 7iolence and children5s aggression; 0esting the pri!ing, social script, and disinhibition predictions. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., <9, 44.-43). 'erkowit@, L. #+343$. 1rustration-aggression hypothesis; E%a!ination and refor!ulation. (sy. B#ll., 02B, 23-6*. =ido!, C. #+343$. Does 7iolence beget 7iolenceI 9 critical e%a!ination of the literature. (sy. B#ll., 02B, *-.4. 'erkowit@, L. #+33)$. ?n the for!ation and regulation of anger and aggression. A'er. (sy., )<, ,3,-2)*. <oldstein, 9. #+33,$. 9ggression. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 9<"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1. &tudies of aging and beha7ior changes o7er the

entire life span ha7e led to the conclusion that cogniti7e and other functions increase and i!pro7e through the first .) years or so of life, hold that le7el for the ne%t ,)--) years, and then narrow and close down in a final deterioration phase #9!es, +33,$. Research at the <esell "nstitute of Child De7elop!ent #<esell, +3.4B <esell J "lg, +3,-B <esell, "lg, J 9!es, +32-B 9!es, <illespie,

9<"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1

+3

Faines, J "lg, +363$ has suggested the principle that children should be pro !oted in school on the basis of their beha!ioral age rather than their chronological age and, by e%tension, that this sa!e basic principle should guide one5s e%pectations of an indi7idual5s functioning. Differences in indi7iduals as a result of age ha7e been studied by cross&sectional #groups of persons of different ages are obser7ed at the sa!e ti!e$, longit#dinal #the sa!e group of persons is obser7ed at different ages$, and se"#ential !ethods #co!bination of cross-sectional with longitudinal !ethods to study cohort effects or influences that occur in the e%periences of disparate age groupsB &chaie, +3-2B 'altes, +3-4$. 0he relati7ely new field called geriatric psychology #the science of the beha7ior and diseases of the agedB &il7er!an, +33,$ has e!erged in the last 2) years where e%peri!ental studies of the aging process ha7e been conducted #cf; the broader science of aging called gerontology; Hanaster, +33,$. 9 nu!ber of generali@ations, so!e fairly ob7ious and predictable, concerning beha7ior changes in later life ha7e been described #Denny, +33,$. 1or e%a!ple, about ,)O of one5s cortical cells !ay be lost by age 4)-3)B fats increase, and water content decreases o7er the life spanB 7isual abilities start to decline in !iddle age, where acco!!odation and acuity lessen due to elasticity loss in the eyes5 lens and where changes in the retina in older age increase sensiti7ity to glare and affect color 7isionB auditory abilities begin to decline in !iddle age, where perception of the higher fre:uencies !ay disappear and where hearing loss later in life !ay lead to stress, depression, and e!otional disturbancesB long-ter! !e!ory deficits in the aged are usually retrie7al proble!s, and short-ter! !e!ory difficulties occur when the learning task re:uires di7ided attention, but span of !e!ory re!ains intact until e%tre!e old ageB 9l@hei!er5s disease #na!ed after the <er!an neurologist 9lois 9l@hei!er, +4-,-+3+2, who first described it in +3)6$, in7ol7ing progressi7e !ental i!pair!ent that usually begins with a deficit in recent !e!ory and is caused by consistent cellular changes in the aging brain, !ay be obser7ed beginning in !iddle age #,2--) years of age$B and, in proble!-sol7ing situations, older people tend to ask uninfor!ati7e :uestions, to be distracted by redundant and irrele7ant infor!ation, and to treat both negati7e and positi7e instances of a concept as positi7e, and apparent rigidity in old persons !ay be due to their inability to profit fro! negati7e infor!ation. +heories of aging are basically !odels of balance or Gtrade-offG; in old age, a person !ay lose energy reser7e but gain an ability to control e!otional reactions and, thereby, conser7e energy. 9ccording to this 7iew, two general kinds of changes #i.e., losses or gains ) can be e%pected with old age #'altes, +346$. Paul 'altes #+3*3/ $, a pioneer of life&span de!elop'ental psychology, stresses that persons continue to !aintain a capacity for change across the entire life span. 'altes and his colleagues #'altes J &chaie, +36*B (esselroade J 'altes, +363B 'altes J =illis, +34.$ argue for the plasticity of intelligence in aging persons and also ad7ance the notion of interdisciplinary collaboration in order to !ore fully understand the role of social change in psychological de7elop!ent. Carious perspecti7es on the causes of aging ha7e been proposed #'aron, +33.$,

.)

9<"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1

and !any fall under the !aEor headings of genetic progra''ing theories #which suggest that aging is the result of built-in, genetically deter!ined biological clocks$ and wear&and&tear theories #which suggest that aging results fro! gradual wearing out of organ syste!s or other parts of the body$. 0wo principal theories concerning one5s successful adEust!ent to the social and physical changes of aging are the disengage'ent theory and the acti!ity theory. 9ccording to the disengage'ent theory, it is assu!ed to be nor!al and desirable for indi7iduals to withdraw fro! society as they age since it relie7es the! of roles and responsibilities they beco!e less able to fulfill #Cu!!ing J Fenry, +3-+B 'rown, +36,$. 0he disengage'ent theory of social aging, howe7er, has been discredited largely for a nu!ber of reasons. 1or instance, not all social contact is li!ited or eli!inated in older people, and e!otional detach!ent does not always necessarily occur in older people as disengage'ent theory falsely i!plies #Ai!bardo J =eber, +33,$. 0he acti!ity theory of aging, a Guse-it-or-lose-itG approach, assu!es that acti7ity is the essence of life for people of all ages and predicts that people who re!ain acti7e physically, !entally, and socially will adEust better to aging #Fa7ighurst, +3-+B 'arrow J &!ith, +363$. 9nother theoretical approach, the selecti!e social interaction 7iewpoint, suggests that as people age, they beco!e !ore selecti7e in choosing their social partners. 0his perspecti7e suggests a practical way for older persons to regulate e!otional e%periences and conser7e physical energy #Carstensen, +33+$. 0he discri!ina tion or preEudice against indi7iduals on the basis of age is called ageis' #Coon, +33.$ and !ay be countered by dispelling so!e of the !yths that ha7e de7el oped o7er ti!e concerning the aged. 1or e%a!ple, the !yth that older workers perfor! less effecti7ely on Eobs re:uiring both speed and skill !ay be disputed #&althouse, +346B &chaie, +344$, and the !yths that older persons beco!e iso lated and neglected by their fa!ilies or that the !aEority of elderly persons show signs of senility, !ental decay, or !ental illness !ay be refuted. ?n the positi7e side, se7eral prescriptions for well-being in old age e!phasi@e that older persons should establish patterns for self-acceptance, positi7e relations with others, au tono!y or personal freedo!, !astery o7er the en7iron!ent, a purpose in life, and continued personal growth #Ryff, +343$. &ee also DECEL?PHE(09L 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& <esell, 9. #+3.4$. 6nfancy and h#'an growth. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. <esell, 9., J "lg, 1. #+3,-$. +he child fro' fi!e to ten. (ew Dork; Farper. <esell, 9., "lg, 1., J 9!es, L. #+32-$. Fo#th? +he years fro' ten to sixteen. (ew Dork; Farper. Cu!!ing, E., J Fenry, =. #+3-+$. Crowing old? +he process of disengage'ent. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. Fa7ighurst, R. #+3-+$. &uccessful aging. Ceron., +, 4-+*.

&chaie, M. #+3-2$. 9 genetic !odel for the study of de7elop!ental proble!s. (sy. B#ll., B), 3.-+)6.

9<"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1

.+

'altes, P. #+3-4$. Longitudinal and cross-sectional se:uences in the study of age and generation effects. $#'. 8e!., 00, +,2-+6+. <oulet, L., J 'altes, P. #Eds.$ #+36)$. ,ife&span de!elop'ental psychology? .esearch and theory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'altes, P., J Labou7ie, <. #+36*$. 9dult de7elop!ent of intellectual perfor!ance; De scription, e%planation, and !odification. "n C. Eisdorfer J H. Lawton #Eds.$, +he psychology of ad#lt de!elop'ent and aging. =ashington, DC; 9!erican Psychological 9ssociation. 'altes, P., J &chaie, M. #Eds.$ #+36*$. ,ife&span de!elop'ental psychology? (ersonality and socialiGation. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 9!es, L. #+36,$. Calibration of aging. 4. (ers. Assess., 97, 2)2-2.3. 'rown, 9. #+36,$. &atisfying relationships for the elderly and their patterns of disen gage!ent. Ceron., 0), .24-.-.. =alsh, D. #+362$. 9ge differences in learning and !e!ory. "n D. =oodruff J J. 'irren #Eds.$, Aging? /cientific perspecti!es and social iss#es. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 'instock, R., J &hanas, E. #Eds.$ #+36-$. $andboo% of aging and the social sciences. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. &heehy, C. #+36-$. (assages? (redictable crises of ad#lt life. (ew Dork; Dutton. Craik, 1. #+366$. 9ge differences in hu!an !e!ory. "n J. 'irren J M. &chaie #Eds.$, $andboo% of the psychology of aging. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 1rich, C., J Fayflick, L. #Eds.$ #+366$. $andboo% of the biology of aging. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 9!es, L., <illespie, C., Faines, 4., @ "lg, 1. #+363$. +he Cesell 6nstit#te's child fro' one to six. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. 'arrow, <., J &!ith, P. #+363$. Aging, ageis', and society. &t. Paul, H(; =est. (esselroade, 4., @ 'altes, P. #Eds.$ #+363$. ,ongit#dinal research in the st#dy of beha!ior and de!elop'ent. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'irren, 4., @ &loane, R. #Eds.$ #+34)$. $andboo% of 'ental health and aging. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 'altes, P., J =illis, &. #+34.$. Plasticity and enhance!ent of intellectual functioning in old age; Penn &tate5s 9dult De7elop!ent and Enrich!ent ProEect #9DEP0$. "n 1. Craik J &. 0rehub #Eds.$, Aging and cogniti!e processes. (ew Dork; Plenu!. 'altes, P. #+346$. 0heoretical propositions on life-span de7elop!ental psychology; ?n the dyna!ics between growth and decline. 8e!. (sy., *9, -++--.-. &althouse, 0. #+346$. 9ge, e%perience, and co!pensation. "n C. &chooler J M. &chaie #Eds.$, ogniti!e f#nctioning and social str#ct#re o!er the life co#rse. (D; 9ble%. &chaie, M. #+344$. 9geis! in psychological research. A'er. (sy., )9, +63-+4*. Ryff, C. #+343$. 'eyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction; (ew directions in :uest of successful ageing. 6nt. 4. Beh. 8e!., 0*, *2-22. Pal!ore, E. #+33)$. Ageis'? >egati!e and positi!e. (ew Dork; &pringer. Carstensen, L. #+33+$. &electi7ity theory; &ocial acti7ity in life-span conte%t. "n M. &chaie #Ed.$, Ann#al re!iew of geriatrics and gerontology. (ew Dork; &pringer. 'aron, R. #+33.$. (sychology. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. Coon, D. #+33.$. 6ntrod#ction to psychology. &t. Paul, H(; =est. Pal!ore, E. #Ed.$ #+33*$. 8e!elop'ents and research on aging? An international hand& boo%. =estport, C0; <reenwood Press.

..

9LEK9(DER5& L9=

9!es, L. #+33,$. 9ging; 'eha7ior changes. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Denny, H. #+33,$. 9ge differences. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Hanaster, <. #+33,$. <erontology. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. &il7er!an, F. #+33,$. <eriatric psychology. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Ai!bardo, P., J =eber, 9. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; FarperCollins. 9LEK9(DER5& L9=. &ee C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9L<E'R9"C &>HH90"?(, L9= ?1. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. 9L<?R"0FH"C-FE>R"&0"C 0FE?RD. 0he ter! algorith' refers to a precise and una!biguous direction #GprescriptionG$ for carrying out a defined se:uence of relati7ely ele!entary operations in order to sol7e a certain class or type of proble! #Landa, +33,$. 9n e%a!ple of an algorith! is the use of a flowchart #i.e., a techni:ue that first poses a :uestion and then, depending on the answer, directs the indi7idual to go to another :uestion, etc., until a final answer is achie7ed$ for finding the greatest co!!on deno!inator of two natural nu!bers. 0he e%ecution of the cogniti7e operations according to the directions of an algorith! is called the algorith'ic process, and, since each algorith! is applicable to a wide set of proble!s that belong to a certain class, it represents a general and guaranteed !ethod for proble! sol7ing. 0he related ter! he#ristic, howe7er, denotes only a Grule of thu!bG approach that !ay direct a proble!-sol7ing process but does not guarantee a solution to the proble!. 9n e%a!ple of a heuristic rule is, 0ry to sol7e a related proble! if the proposed proble! cannot i!!ediately be sol7ed. "n this case, the set of directions is called a he#ristic prescription. Feuristic prescriptions, as co!pared to algorith!ic prescriptions, contain a certain a!ount of a!biguity and uncertainty. Classes of proble!s, according to this approach, !ay be 7iewed as Galgorith!ically sol7able,G Galgorith!ically unsol7able,G or Gunknown as to algorith!ical sol7ability.G 0hus, in the case of so!e proble!s, an appropriate algorith! !ay not e%ist #e.g., algorith!s for pro7ing !ost !athe!atical theore!s$, or an algorith! !ay be inefficient #e.g., an algorith! for finding the opti!u! !o7e in a chess ga!e$ #Reber, +332$. 0he practical significance of using algorith!s for proble!-sol7ing tasks is that it allows children and a7erage adult learners to sol7e certain proble!s that, otherwise, !ight see! to be beyond their cogniti7e, intellectual, or sensori!otor capabilities. 0he algorith'ic&he#ristic theory #9F0$, for!ulated by Le7 Landa in +32.-+3-+ while in the >&&R, is able to deal with a wide 7ariety of learning, instructional, and perfor!ance proble!s, which include the de7elop!ent of general !ethods of thinking in studentsB the psychological and logical structure of different !ethods of thinkingB classifica-

9L<?R"0FH"C-FE>R"&0"C 0FE?RD

.*

tion of particular !ethods by different functional and logical characteristicsB differences between algorith!ic prescriptions and processes and their interac tionsB for!ation in students of the ability for self-progra!!ing, self-regulation, and self-control of their cogniti7e and practical acti7itiesB and !ethods of designing indi7iduali@ed adapti7e instruction in algo-heuristics, including usage of co!puters. 0he area of research in7ol7ing instr#ctional theory prescribes the steps used to design effecti7e instructional strategies, such as the identification of the educational goals #i.e., what the learner should be able to do after instruc tion$ and the identification of prototypic cogniti7e processes rules #i.e., what the learner !ust learn in order to perfor! successfully on tasks associated with the educational goals$ #e.g., <agne, +3-2, +33,B 'runer5s theory of instr#ction, +3--B &candura, +36*, +34)B Reigeluth, +34+$. Fistorically, the theory doctrine of for'al discipline-training #e.g., Lund, +3**B Hunn, +3,-$ was an approach to education that ad7ocated that so!e subEects courses #e.g., Latin$ ought to be studied, independently of any content that they !ight ha7e, because they ac :uainted the student with basic principles #or Gfor!sG$ that will ulti!ately pro7e of 7alue in other ways and generally ser7e to Gtrain the !ind.G 0he enthusias! for this theory has wa%ed and waned se7eral ti!es o7er the years #Reber, +332$. Conte!porary instr#ctional theory pro7ides a generali@ed basis for instructional prescriptions that, in principle, !ay be used with any particular subEect !atter that !ight be of interest/no !atter how co!ple% that subEect !atter #&candura, +33,$. &ee also C?<("0"CE &0DLE H?DEL&. RE1ERE(CE&
Lund, 1. #+3**$. (sychology? An e'pirical st#dy of beha!ior. (ew Dork; Ronald Press. Polya, <. #+3,2$. $ow to sol!e it? A new concept of 'athe'atical 'ethod. Princeton, (J; Princeton >ni7ersity Press. Hunn, (. #+3,-$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Foughton Hifflin <agne, R. #+3-2$. +he conditions of learning. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 'runer, J. #+3--$. +oward a theory of instr#ction. Ca!bridge; Far7ard >ni7ersity Press. &candura, J. #+36*$. /tr#ct#ral learning. 6. +heory and research. London; <ordon J 'reach. Landa, L. #+36,$. Algorith'iGation in learning and instr#ction. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Educational 0echnology Publications. Herrill, P. #+366$. 9lgorith!ic organi@ation in teaching and learning; Literature and research in the >.&.9. 6'p. $#'. (erf. .es. H#ar., B, 3*-++.. Landa, L. #+364$. &o!e proble!s in algo-heuristic theory of thinking, learning, and instruction. "n J. &candura J C. 'ainerd #Eds.$, /tr#ct#ral-process 'odels of co'plex h#'an beha!ior. 9lphen aan den RiEn; &iEthoff J (oordhoff. &candura, J. #+34)$. 0heoretical foundations of instruction; 9 syste!s alternati7e to cogniti7e psychology. 4. /tr#c. ,earn., B, *,6-*3,. Reigeluth, C. #Ed.$ #+34+$. (rescripti!e theories of instr#ction. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. <roner, R., <roner, H., J 'ischof, =. #Eds.$ #+34*$. 3ethods of he#ristics. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!.

.,

9L"E(90"?( 0FE?R"E&

Landa, L. #+34*$. 6nstr#ctional reg#lation and control? ybernetics, algorith'iGation, and he#ristics in ed#cation. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Educational 0echnology Publications. <laser, R. #+33)$. 0he ree!ergence of learning theory within instructional research. A'er. (sy., )<, .3-*3. <agne, R. #+33,$. Learning outco!es. ". "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Landa, L. #+33,$. 9lgorith!ic-heuristic theory. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Harton, 1. #+33,$. Learning outco!es. "". "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. &candura, J. #+33,$. "nstructional theory. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. Hc<uire, =. #+336$. Creati7e hypothesis generating in psychology; &o!e useful heuristics. Ann. .e!. (sy., )7, +-*). 9L"E(90"?( 0FE?R"E&. &ee F?R(ED5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB P&DCF?P90F?L?<D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9LL-?R-(?(E L9= PR"(C"PLE. 0his principle, disco7ered by the 9!er ican physiologist Fenry Pickering 'owditch #+4,)-+3+6$ while he was studying cardiac !uscle #=arren, +3*,$, states that in any single ner7e or !uscle fiber the response to a sti!ulus abo7e threshold le7el is !a%i!al, independent of the intensity of the sti!ulus, and dependent only on the condition of the cell at the !o!ent of sti!ulation. 0he all&or&none property of the ner7e i!pulse is contained in the fact that its a!plitude is always the sa!e where the neural code is deter!ined by fre:uency rather than si@e of the ner7e response. &tronger sti!uli result in !ore i!pulses being generated per second, but each sti!ulus has the sa!e a!plitude #9drian, +3+,, +3**$. 0he process of ner7e conduction has been likened to the burning of a fuse because both processes in7ol7e the progressi7e release of energy by local action #=oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$. Fowe7er, it is true that not all fuses or all ner7e fibers ha7e the sa!e a!ount of energy a7ailableB thick fuses and thick ner7e fibers trans!it a larger distur bance and trans!it it faster. "t is also true that the a7ailable energy in any ner7e fiber 7aries fro! ti!e to ti!e with corresponding changes in the !agnitude and speed of the i!pulse. 0he all&or&none law, howe7er, is still 7alid because the ner7e fiber either reacts with all of its a7ailable energy, or else #if the sti!ulus is too weak$ it does not react at all. 0he top speed of the ner7e i!pulse is esti!ated to be +)) !eters per second and is attained only in the larger fibers of the body. 0hin fibers conduct i!pulses at !uch slower rates, down to about + !eter per second in so!e ani!al species. 0he !aEor difference between the fuse and the ner7e fiber in this analogy is that the ner7e fiber restores itself after each i!pulse occurs, while the fuse does not. ?nly a s!all a!ount of the stored energy is !o!entarily a7ailable at the surface of the ner7e fiber where the local acti7ity takes place. 0he energy is pro!ptly replaced as soon as this portion is

9LLP?R05& C?(1?RH"0D FDP?0FE&"& .2 9LLP?R05& C?(1?RH"0D FDP?0FE&"&. 0he 9!erican social psychologist 1loyd Fenry 9llport #+43)-+364$ proposed that confor'ing beha7ior consu!ed by the single ner7e i!pulse. Fowe7er, the replace!ent process takes a short a!ount of ti!e, and a second i!pulse cannot follow i!!ediately. 9t this stage in the process, the fiber is said to be in its absol#te refractory phase #?sgood, +32*, refers to these e7ents collecti7ely as the refractory law). 0hen, within a !illisecond or so, the fiber has reco7ered enough to allow a 7ery strong sti!ulus to create a 7ery weak i!pulse. 1ollowing this relati!e refractory phase of firing, there is a gradual buildup of a7ailable energy where the sti!ulus threshold is decreased, and the !agnitude and speed of the i!pulse are in creased. ?sgood #+32*$ coins the ter! essential identity law, which is related to the physiological all&or&none law and refers to the fact that ner7e i!pulses are all the sa!e in kind. 1or e%a!ple, i!pulses tra7eling in optic ner7e fibers differ :ualitati7ely in no way fro! i!pulses in cutaneous fibers, and acti7ity in the 7isual areas of the corte% does not appear to differ :ualitati7ely fro! acti7ity in the so!esthetic, or e7en in the !otor, areas. 0he all&or&none principle fro! physiology has been e%panded conceptually to the area of the psychology of learning where it refers to associations of learned !aterials that are either for!ed co!pletely on a single trial or not for!ed at all #cf; one&trial learning of <uthrie, +32.B &kinner, +32*$. 0he all&or&none law-principle has been consistently well referenced and represented in psychology te%tbooks fro! +442 through +33- #Roeckelein, +33-$. &ee also C?(0"(>"0D 0FE?RDB <>0FR"E5& 0FE?RD ?1 'EF9C"?RB &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& 9drian, E. #+3+,$. 0he all-or-none principle in ner7e. 4. (hysio., )E, ,2)-,6,. =atson, J. '. #+3+3$. (sychology? 5ro' the standpoint of a beha!iorist. Philadelphia; Lippincott. Dunlap, M. #+3..$. +he ele'ents of scientific psychology. &t. Louis, H?; Hosby. 9drian, =. #+3**$. 0he all-or-nothing reaction. :rgebn. (hysio., 9<, 6,,-622. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. 'oring, E. <., Langfeld, F., J =eld, F. #+3*2$. (sychology? A fact#al textboo%. (ew Dork; =iley. Hunn, (. #+3,-$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Foughton Hifflin 'rink, 1. #+32+$. E%citation and conduction in the neuron. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. <uthrie, E. #+32.$. +he psychology of learning. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. ?sgood, C. #+32*$. 3ethod and theory in experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. &kinner, '. 1. #+32*$. /cience and h#'an beha!ior. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston.

Roeckelein, J. E. #+33-$. Citation of laws and theories in te%tbooks across ++. years of psychology. (sy. .ep., E1, 363-334.

.-

9LLP?R05& 1>(C0"?(9L 9>0?(?HD PR"(C"PLE

can be recogni@ed by its distincti7e distribution, which takes the shape of an in7erted J cur7e #9llport, +3*,$. 9 few people o7erconfor! #are to the left of the cur7e5s peak$, the o7erwhel!ing !aEority are positioned e%actly at the peak, which accounts for the spike of the J, and a !inority de7iate fro! the nor!, which accounts for an elongated, but low-le7el, tail. 9llport 7alidated his confor'ity hypothesis !ainly by obser7ations in field situations in7ol7ing acti7ities such as reporting to work, using holy water in a Catholic church, and stopping at a stop sign. 9llport5s data refer pri!arily to situations where adherence to standards is enforced #Gco!pliant beha7iorG$. onfor'ity is seen as an inter!ediate stage between superficial co!pliance and per!anent internali@ation and as a conflict between what a person basically is and what group !e!bership induces fro! the indi7idual #Corsini, +33,$. &ee also 900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 'D&09(DER "(0ERCE(0"?( E11EC0B C?(1L"C0, 0FE?R"E& ?1B <R?>P0F"(M PFE(?HE(?(. RE1ERE(CE& 9llport, 1. #+3.,$. /ocial psychology. 'oston; Foughton Hifflin 9llport, 1. #+3*,$. 0he J-cur7e hypothesis of confor!ing beha7ior. 4. /oc. (sy., <, +,++4*. &herif, H. #+3*2$. 9 study of so!e social factors in perception. Ar. (sy., *E, no. +46. 1estinger, L., &chachter, &., J 'ack, M. #+32)$. /ocial press#res in infor'al gro#ps? A st#dy of h#'an factors in ho#sing. (ew Dork; Farper. 9sch, &. #+32+$. Effects of group pressure upon the !odification and distortion of Eudg!ent. "n F. <uet@kow #Ed.$, Cro#ps, leadership, and 'en. Pittsburgh; Carnegie. 9sch, &. #+322$. ?pinions and social pressure. /ci. A'er., 019, *+-*2. 9sch, &. #+32-$. &tudies of independence and confor!ity. ". 9 !inority of one against a unani!ous !aEority. (sy. 3ono., E2, no. ,+-. &herif, H., J &herif, C. #+3-,$. .eference gro#ps? :xplorations into confor'ity and de!iation of adolescents. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. Caughan, <. #+3-,$. 0he trans-situational aspect of confor!ity beha7ior. 4. (ers., 9*, **2-*2,. 9llen, C. #+3-2$. &ituational factors in confor!ity. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Follander, E., J =illis, R. #+3-6$. &o!e current issues in the psychology of confor!ity and nonconfor!ity. (sy. B#ll., B7, -.-6-. Eagly, 9. #+364$. &e% differences in influenceability. (sy. B#ll., 7<, 4--++-. Cooper, F. #+363$. &tatistically co!bining independent studies; 9 !eta-analysis of se% differences in confor!ity research. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 9E, +*+-+,-. Corsini, R. J. #+33,$. Confor!ity. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. &a!uel, =. #+33,$. Confor!ing personality. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 9LLP?R05& 1>(C0"?(9L 9>0?(?HD PR"(C"PLE. 0he 9!erican psychologist <ordon =illard 9llport #+436-+3-6$ studied, researched, and taught in

the area of personality, which he regarded as the natural subEect !atter

9LLP?R05& 1>(C0"?(9L 9>0?(?HD PR"(C"PLE

.6

of psychology. "n his e%ploration and de7elop!ent of personality theory, 9llport concei7ed of personality as an organi@ed whole #rather than !erely a collection of habits$ where one5s self can !ake choices and influence the growth or outco!e of its own personality #9llport, +322$. 9llport for!ulated the concept of f#nctional a#tono'y of 'oti!es, which e!phasi@ed the e!ergence of new !oti7ational syste!s in a person5s life #9llport, +3*6$. 0he principle of f#nctional a#tono'y describes the case where well-established habits #such as a person5s going to work for +. hours a day for !any years and earning a great deal of !oney$ can beco!e ends or !oti7es in the!sel7es #such as continuing to go to work for +. hours a day, e7en though the person has beco!e wealthy, could easily retire, and actually does not need to work at all$. 9ccording to the prin& ciple of f#nctional a#tono'y of 'oti!es, !eans to a goal beco!e ends in the!sel7es where the original acti7ities ha7e now beco!e !oti7es and function independently of the purposes or needs that they initially ser7ed. =hen it was first introduced, the concept of f#nctional a#tono'y was both contro7ersial and radical because it ran counter to the pre7ailing theories of !oti7ation, which stressed !echanis!s directly linked to basic physiological needs #<oranson, +33,$. 9llport5s idea raised the possibility that si!ple and co!ple% !oti7es can function :uite separately fro! any direct physiological dri7e or need. 0he con cept of f#nctional a#tono'y liberali@ed the area of !oti7ation inas!uch as it allowed the indi7idual to be an acti7e #rather than a passi7e$ entity whose be ha7ior could be present-oriented, as well as future-oriented, and not !erely pastoriented. Judging by its absence in !ost current introductory psychology te%tbooks, the principle of f#nctional a#tono'y of 'oti!es see!s to be less referenced generally today than it was years ago, e7en though the ter! see!s, fro! casual obser7ation, to ha7e beco!e part of psychologists5 infor!al 7ocab ulary. 0hus, the notion of f#nctionally a#tono'o#s 'oti!es #though contro7ersial at one ti!eB Fall J Lind@ey, +364$ no longer see!s particularly strange and has been accepted and absorbed into the !ainstrea! of psychology. "ndeed, recent theories of !oti7ation ha7e proposed and described Gsupra-G or Ge%traphysiologically basedG needs in shaping indi7iduals5 personality such as !o ti7es for e%ploration, curiosity, !astery, !anipulation, self-actuali@ation, sensationseeking, and co!petence #<oranson, +33,$. &ee also 9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& 9llport, <. #+3*6$. 0he functional autono!y of !oti7es. A'er. 4. (sy., <2, +,++2-. 9llport, <. #+3,)$. 0he psychologist5s fra!e of reference. (sy. B#ll., 9E, +-.4. 9llport, <. #+32*$. 0he trend in !oti7ational theory. A'er. 4. ;rthopsychiat., *9, +)6++3. 9llport, <. #+322$. Beco'ing? Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. Hischel, =., Ebbesen, E., J Aeiss, 9. #+36*$. &electi7e attention to the self; &ituational and dispositional deter!inants. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., *E, +.3-+,..

.4

9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 E(E&0R>E(CE

Fall, C., J Lind@ey, <. #+364$. +heories of personality. (ew Dork; =iley. Hischel, =., J Peake, P. #+34.$. 'eyond deEa 7u in the search for cross-situational consistency. (sy. .e!., 71, 6*)-622. <oranson, R. #+33,$. 1unctional autono!y. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 E(E&0R>E(CE. L e7ent-structure theory. 0his theory of perception, de7eloped by 1loyd Fenry 9llport #+43)-+364$, who! !any consider to be the father of e%peri!ental social psychology, consists of a kinetic geo!etry #Gkine!aticsG$ of the self-closedness of ongoing-e7ent series and associati7e probability concepts of the energies #i.e., e7ents$ in7ol7ed in the self-closed structures and their interrelationships. 9s one can sense here, the progra!!atic nature of this rather intriguing theory is stated in so!ewhat abstract ter!s. 0his is because the !odel was intended to be applied to !any different pheno!ena at 7arious le7els of analysis. 9llport5s theoretical !odel of e!ent&str#ct#re atte!pted to cast the laws of nature under two headings; a for!al principle of nature in ter!s other than G:uantitati7eG and a principle of GcorporationG of !any perceptual and social pheno!ena. "f the theory is true, said 9llport #+322, p. ---$, Gnature is not a !achine, nor are organis!s controlled by :uantitati7e or !echanical laws.. . . P0Qhe theory is ad7anced !erely as one way of looking at the proble! of structure, one atte!pt to fatho! the !ystery of the for! and unity of nature which ha7e thus far been left largely untouched by science.G 9llport5s theory of enestr#ence holds that social structure has no physical or anato!ical basis but consists of cycles of e7ents that GhoopG and return upon the!sel7es to co!plete and sustain the cycle. 0o !any psychologists, the e!ent&str#ct#re theory suggested by 9llport see!s to be a rather a!bitious prescription for the synthesis and consolidation of other theories of perception and social beha7ior into a unifying and cohesi7e syste!. 9llport5s +3-6 article in the A'erican (sychologist is reco!!ended, especially, to the interested reader. &ee also PERCEP0"?( #". <E(ER9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& 9llport, 1. #+3,)$. 9n e7ent-syste! of collecti7e action. 4. /oc. (sy., 00, ,+6-,,2. 9llport, 1. #+32,$. 0he structuring of e7ents; ?utline of a general theory with applications to psychology. (sy. .e!., B0, .4+-*)*. 9llport, 1. #+322$. +heories of perception and the concept of str#ct#re. (ew Dork; =iley. 0annenbau!, 9., J 9llport, 1. #+32-$. Personality structure and group structure; 9n interpreti7e study of their relationship through an e7ent-structure hypothesis. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., <9, .6.-.4). Feider, 1. #+323$. ?n perception and e7ent structure, and the psychological en7iron!ent; &elected papers. (sy. 6ss., +, +-+.*. 9llport, 1. #+3-.$. 9 structurono!ic concept of beha7ior; "ndi7idual and collecti7e. ". &tructural theory and the !aster proble! of social psychology. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., B), *-*). 9llport, 1. #+3-6$. 9 theory of enestruence #e7ent-structure$. A'er. (sy., **, +-+,.

9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

.3

9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D. "n taking an eclectic and hu !anistic approach to the study of personality, <ordon =illard 9llport #+436+3-6$ drew on a wide 7ariety of sources, fro! =illia! HcDougall5s theory of !oti7es #HcDougall, +3.*$ to the e%peri!ental-social psychological analysis of beha7ior #9llport, +3-)$. =hile 9llport also drew so!e of his ideas fro! the psychodyna!ic theories of personality #e.g., 1reud, +3,)$, he was opposed strongly to the 1reudian 7iews of the unconscious, and he reEected any reductionist theory that attributed hu!an beha7ior to innate instincts, childhood con ditioning, or repressed co!ple%es #Cernon, +33,$. "n e%a!ining the other sciences and scientific !odels, 9llport #+3,6$ opposed e%tensi7e borrowing fro! the natural sciences and belie7ed that the !ethods and theoretical !odels that ha7e been useful in the physical sciences !ay only !islead one when atte!pting to study co!ple% hu!an beha7ior. 9llport thought of personality as an organi@ed entity that is future-oriented and not !erely a bundle of habits and fi%ations #9llport, +322$. Fe argued that one5s self #or propri#') is able to !ake choices where it can influence the de7elop!ent of its own personality along with adEusting to the e!ergence of new !oti7ational syste!s #Gfunctional au tono!y of !oti7esG$. 9llport e!phasi@ed a !ultifaceted !ethodological approach toward personality study that co!bined the idiographic #study and analysis of single cases$ and the no'othetic #disco7ery of general or uni7ersal laws that apply to all hu!ans$ 7iewpoints #9llport, +3-.a$. E7en though 9llport hi!self de7eloped 7arious tests of personality traits, 7alues, and attitudes, he saw little !erit in conducting factorial-type studies of personality #9llport, Cernon, J Lind@ey, +3*+ +32+B 9llport, +3*6B cf; Cattell, +3,-, +32.$. 9llport5s theory of personality #9llport, +3*6, +3-+$ is often called a trait theory where traits #i.e., enduring predispositions to respond in certain ways$ occupy the po sition of a !aEor !oti7ational construct #cf; Hurray5s, +3*4, need; 1reud5s, +3,), instinct; and HcDougall5s, +3.*, senti'ent theories$. ?ne of 9llport5s early studies #9llport J ?dbert, +3*-$ found al!ost +4,))) words in the dictionary that could be used as trait na!es to describe personality. >sing an idiographic approach of analysis #9llport, +3*6$ where an indi7idual5s uni:ue personality traits were arranged into a hierarchy fro! G!ost i!portantG at the top to Gleast i!portantG at the botto!, 9llport subse:uently di7ided the hierarchy into three separate groups of traits; cardinal #the unco!!on, but per7asi7e and all-enco!passing characteristics that influence !ost areas of only a few people5s li7es, such as hu!anitarianis! and honesty$, central #specific beha7ioral tendencies that are highly characteristic of an indi7idual, such as outgoing and a!bitious$, and secondary #the less-enduring and transitory characteristics such as liking to hike or cycle$. 9llport e!phasi@ed that no two people ha7e e%actly the sa!e traits, and his trait theory of personality stressed the uni:ueness of the indi7idual. 9lthough few psychologists ha7e e!braced 9llport5s personality theory in its total for!, it has ne7ertheless been influential and useful, especially in its restoration and purification of the ego concept #9llport, +3,*$, and 9llport hi!self was one of the few theorists who ha7e pro7ided an effecti7e

*)

9LLP?R05& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

bridge between acade!ic psychology and clinical-personality psychology #Fall J Lind@ey, +364$. =hile 9llport5s !ain work was on the de7elop!ent of a co!prehensi7e personality theory, his interests were wide-ranging, including studies on ru!or, social attitudes, religion, graphology, eidetic i!agery, radio 7oices, and preEudice #9llport J Cernon, +3**B 9llport J Cantril, +3*,B 9llport J Post!an, +3,6B 9llport, +32,, +3-), +3-.b$. Critics of 9llport5s theoretical orientation and work #cf; 9llport, +3--$ ha7e included 'ertocci #+3,)$, Coutu #+3,3$, &eward #+3,4$, &kaggs #+3,2$, and &anford #+3-*$. Perhaps the !ost re!arkable aspect of 9llport5s work has been its ability to e%ert a broad influence and sense of no7elty in psychology in spite of its pluralis! and eclecticis! #Fall J Lind@ey, +364$. &ee also 9LLP?R05& 1>(C0"?(9L 9>0?(?HD PR"(C"PLEB "D"?<R9PF"C (?H?0FE0"C L9=&B HCD?><9LL5& F?RH"C "(&0"(C0 0FE?RD D?C0R"(E. RE1ERE(CE& 9llport, 1., J 9llport, <. #+3.+$. Personality traits; 0heir classification and !easure!ent. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., 0B, --,). HcDougall, =. #+3.*$. ;#tline of psychology. (ew Dork; &cribners. 9llport, <. #+3.3$. 0he study of personality by the intuiti7e !ethod. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., *), +,-.6. 9llport, <., Cernon, P., J Lind@ey, <. #+3*+ +32+$. A st#dy of !al#es. 'oston; Foughton Hifflin. 9llport, <., J Cernon, P. #+3**$. /t#dies in expressi!e 'o!e'ent. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 9llport, <., J Cantril, F. #+3*,$. Judging personality fro! 7oice. 4. /oc. (sy., <, *622. 9llport, <., J ?dbert, F. #+3*-$. 0rait na!es; 9 psycho-le%ical study. (sy. 3ono., )E, no. .++. 9llport, <. #+3*6$. (ersonality? A psychological interpretation. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Hurray, F. #+3*4$. :xplorations in personality. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 9llport, <. #+3,)$. Hoti7ation in personality; Reply to Hr. 'ertocci. (sy. .e!., )E, 2**22,. 'ertocci, P. #+3,)$. 9 criti:ue of <. =. 9llport5s theory of !oti7ation. (sy. .e!., )E, 2)+-2*.. 1reud, &. #+3,)$. An o#tline of psychoanalysis. (ew Dork; (orton. 9llport, <. #+3,*$. 0he ego in conte!porary psychology. (sy. .e!., <2, ,2+-,64. &kaggs, E. #+3,2$. Personalistic psychology as science. (sy. .e!., <*, .*,-.*4. 9llport, <. #+3,-$. Effect; 9 secondary principle of learning. (sy. .e!., <9, **2*,6. Cattell, R. #+3,-$. 8escription and 'eas#re'ent of personality. (ew Dork; =orld. 9llport, <. #+3,6$. &cientific !odels and hu!an !orals. (sy. .e!., <), +4.-+3.. 9llport, <., J Post!an, L. #+3,6$. +he psychology of r#'or. (ew Dork; Folt. &eward, J. #+3,4$. 0he sign of a sy!bol; 9 reply to Professor 9llport. (sy. .e!., <<, .66-.3-. Coutu, =. #+3,3$. :'ergent h#'an nat#re. (ew Dork; Mnopf. Cattell, R. #+32.$. 5actor analysis? An introd#ction and 'an#al for psychologist and social scientist. (ew Dork; Farper.

9llport, <. #+32,$. +he nat#re of preI#dice. Ca!bridge, H9; 9ddison-=esley.

9LR>0A5& 0FE?RD

*+

9llport, <. #+322$. Beco'ing? Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. 9llport, <. #+3-)$. (ersonality and social enco#nter. 'oston; 'eacon Press. 9llport, <. #+3-+$. (attern and growth in personality. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 9llport, <. #+3-.a$. 0he general and the uni:ue in psychological science. 4. (ers., 92, ,)2-,... 9llport, <. #+3-.b$. +he indi!id#al and his religion. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. &anford, (. #+3-*$. Personality; "ts place in psychology. "n &. Moch #Ed.$, (sychology? A st#dy of a science. Col. 2. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. 9llport, <. #+3--$. 0raits re7isited. A'er. (sy., *0, +-+). Fall, C., J Lind@ey, <. #+364$. +heories of personality. (ew Dork; =iley. Cernon, P. #+33,$. <ordon =illard 9llport. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 9LR>0A5& 0FE?RD. 0he <er!an researcher &. 9lrut@ !ade the suggestion at the turn of the century that the si!ultaneous arousal of both war! and cold receptors in the skin gi7e the resultant sensation of heat. 9 clear de!onstration of a hot sensation that results fro! the si!ultaneous sti!ulation of neighboring war!th and cold receptors is the so-called synthetic heat e%peri!ent #'urnett J Dallenbach, +3.6, +3.4$, where no genuine heat is applied, but war! spots are subEected to !oderate war!th and cold spots to cold. >nder these conditions, the first sensation is usually cold, which is followed by heat, which disappears after a few seconds and then gi7es the sensation of cold again. 0his theory is related to the pheno!enon of paradoxical cold, where the sensation of cold results fro! a war! sti!ulus #7on 1rey, +432$. 0he case for paradoxical cold and synthetic heat is not co!pletely conclusi7e, and there is so!e e7idence against the Alr#tG theory #Jenkins, +3*4$. Related theories in this area of the sti!ulation of cutaneous senses are the concentration theory of c#taneo#s cold and the spot theory of te'perat#re senses #Jenkins, +3,), +3,+B =oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$. &ee also (91E5& 0FE?RD ?1 C>09(E?>& &E(&"0"C"0D. RE1ERE(CE& 7on 1rey, H. #+432$. 'eitrage @ur &innesphysiologie des Faut. Ber. /achs. Ces. Wiss. ,eipGig 3ath&(hys. )E, +---+4,. 9lrut@, &. #+436$. ?!forni!!elsen Ghett.G Appsala ,a%foren, *, *,)-*23. 7on 1rey, H. #+3),$. =orles#ngen #ber physiologie. 'erlin. 9lrut@, &. #+3)4$. >ntersuchungen uber die 0e!peratursinne. D. (sy., )E, +-+.).,.,+.4-. 'urnett, (., J Dallenbach, M. #+3.6$. 0he e%perience of heat. A'er. 4. (sy., 97, ,+4,*+. 'urnett, (., J Dallenbach, M. #+3.4$. Feat intensity. A'er. 4. (sy., )2, ,4,-,3,. Jenkins, =. #+3*4$. &tudies in ther!al sensiti7ity. 1urther e7idence against the

9lrut@ theory. 4. :xp. (sy., *9, ,++-,...

*. 9H&EL5& FDP?0FE&"& 0FE?RD 0ol!an, E. #+3*.$. (#rposi!e beha!ior in ani'als and 'en. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. Jenkins, =. #+3,)$. &tudies in ther!al sensiti7ity. Part/whole relations in seriati! war!-!apping. 4. :xp. (sy., *E, 6--4). Jenkins, =. #+3,+$. &tudies in ther!al sensiti7ity. 1urther e7idence on the effects of sti!ulus te!perature. 4. :xp. (sy., *1, ,+*-,+3. 'oring, E. <. #+3,.$. /ensation and perception in the history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 9H&EL5& FDP?0FE&"& 0FE?RD. 0he 9!erican psychologist 9bra! 9!-sel #+324, +3-., +3-6$ enunciated the fr#stration hypothesis concerning non-reward and e%tinction of instru!ental beha7ior where the occurrence of nonreward at a !o!ent when the organis! is e%pecting a reward causes the elicitation of a pri!ary Gfrustration reaction.G 0he feedback sti!ulation fro! this frustration reaction is a7ersi7e and has short-ter!, persisting !oti7ational effects upon subse:uent instru!ental beha7ior. 9!sel states that fractional parts of the frustration reaction beco!e classically conditioned to sti!uli preceding its elicitationB cues fro! GanticipatoryG frustration are connected to a7oidance responses where the connections are !odifiable through training Earlier treat!ents and interpretations of the nonreward situation had 7iewed it in a passi7e role #e.g., 0ol!an, +3*., assu!ed that nonreward ser7ed si!ply to weaken an organis!5s e%pectancy of rewardB Full, +3,*, concei7ed of nonreward trials as allowing the buildup of inhibitory factors without being offset by corresponding increases in habit or incenti7e !oti7ation$. ?n the other hand, 9!sel5s fr#stration hypothesis considers the condition of nonreward as an acti7ely punishing and a7ersi7e e7ent, rather than as a passi7e condition. 0he conse:uence of 9!-sel5s position is that !any of the effects of nonreward upon responding are 7iewed today as analogous to the effects produced upon that sa!e beha7ior by the application of punish!ent #cf; &pence, +3-)B =agner, +3-*, +3--B Daly, +36,$. =hile 9!sel5s fr#stration theory is one of the do!inant conceptions of e%tinction, it does re:uire critical analysis in light of a few failings. 1or e%a!ple, Le7y and &eward #+3-3$ suggest that no frustration effect occurs if the organis! is e%pecting different incenti7es in two goal locationsB 'ower #+3-)$ obser7es that 9!sel5s extinction theory applies only to instru!ental, appetiti7e responses and not to e%tinction in classical conditioning or instru!ental escape conditioning situationsB Capaldi #+3-6$ and others ha7e produced different resistance le7els to e%tinction by 7ariations in the se:uential pattern of reward and non-reward trials during ac:uisition of responsesB and Robbins #+36+$ re7iews so!e studies that suggest that e%tinction is a !ultiple-deter!inant process while 9!-sel5s fr#stration hypothesis is only one co!ponent of the total pheno!enon #'ower J Filgard, +34+$. &ee also C9P9LD"5& 0FE?RDB F>LL5& LE9R("(< 0FE?RDB 0?LH9(5& 0FE?RD.

RE1ERE(CE&

9(<D9L5& PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?RD

**

Full, C. #+3,*$. (rinciples of beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. 9!sel, 9. #+324$. 0he role of frustrati7e nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations. (sy. B#ll., <<, +).-++3. 'ower, <. #+3-)$. Partial and correlated reward in escape learning. 4. :xp. (sy., <1, +.-+*). &pence, M. #+3-)$. 0he roles of reinforce!ent and nonreinforce!ent in si!ple learning. "n Beha!ior theory and learning? /elected papers of J. W. /pence. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 9!sel, 9. #+3-.$. 1rustrati7e nonreward in partial reinforce!ent and discri!ination learning. (sy. B#ll., B1, *)--*.4. 'ower, <. #+3-.$. 0he influence of graded reductions in reward and prior frustrating e7ents upon the !agnitude of the frustration effect. 4. o'p. (hysio. (sy., <<, 24.-246. =agner, 9. #+3-*$. Conditioned frustration as a learned dri7e. 4. :xp. (sy., BB, +,.+,4. Ross, R. #+3-,$. Positi7e and negati7e partial-reinforce!ent effects carried through continuous reinforce!ent, changed !oti7ation, and changed response. 4. :xp. (sy., B7, ,3.-2).. 9!sel, 9., J =ard, J. #+3-2$. 1rustration and persistence; Resistance to discri!ination following prior e%perience with the discri!inanda. (sy. 3ono., E1, no. 236. =agner, 9. #+3--$. 1rustration and punish!ent. "n R. Faber #Ed.$, .esearch on 'oti& !ation. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 9!sel, 9. #+3-6$. Partial reinforce!ent effects on 7igor and persistence. "n M. &pence J J. &pence #Eds.$, +he psychology of learning and 'oti!ation. Col. +. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Capaldi, E. #+3-6$. 9 se:uential hypothesis of instru!ental learning. "n M. &pence J J. &pence #Eds.$, +he psychology of learning and 'oti!ation. Col. +. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Le7y, (., J &eward, J. #+3-3$. 1rustration and ho!ogeneity of rewards in the double runway. 4. :xp. (sy., 70, ,-)-,-*. Robbins, D. #+36+$. Partial reinforce!ent; 9 selecti7e re7iew of the alleyway literature since +3-). (sy. B#ll., EB, ,+2-,*+. Daly, F. #+36,$. Reinforcing properties of escape fro! frustration aroused in 7arious learning situations. "n <. 'ower #Ed.$, +he psychology of learning and 'oti!ation. Col. 4. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'ower, <., J Filgard, E. #+34+$. +heories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; PrenticeFall. Fergenhahn, '. #+34.$. An introd#ction to theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 9(9L?<>E 0FE?RD ?1 HEH?RD. &ee 1?R<E00"(< HEH?RD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9(CE&0R9L "(FER"09(CE, L9= ?1. &ee <9L0?(5& L9=&. 9(<D9L5& PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?RD. 0he Fungarian 9!erican 9ndras 9ngyal #+3).+3-)$ de7eloped a theory of personality in which he described two basic types of !oti7ational processes in hu!ans; stri7ing toward lo7e

*,

9(<D9L5& PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?RD

#Gho!ono!yG$ and stri7ing toward !astery #Gautono!yG$ #9ngyal, +3,+$. 9ngyal concei7ed of personality as an interdependent syste! where tensions arise between the person and the en7iron!ent and which is controlled by both ho!ono!y and autono!y processes. "n 9ngyal5s for!ulation, the connection between the parts of the syste! are subordinate to the o7erall whole where, for e%a!ple, neurosis is one syste!, and o7erall health is another syste!. 9lso, when the syste!s #through Gsyste! analysisG$ beco!e disturbed or disrupted, the process of therapy is indicated and refers to the restoration of the health syste! to its nor!ally do!inant role. "n its dyna!ics, 9ngyal5s personality theory !ay be characteri@ed as organis'ic or holistic #9ngyal, +3-2B cf; 'ernard, +4-- +326B =erthei!er, +3.*B Mantor, +3.,, +3**B &!uts, +3.-B Coghill, +3.3B <oldstein, +3*3B Hurphy, +3,6$. "n the genesis of his personality theory, 9ngyal e!phasi@ed the need for a new science that was not pri!arily psychological, physiological, or sociological in character but that 7iewed the person as a whole. 9ngyal, unlike Murt <oldstein #+3*3$, insisted that it is i!possible to differentiate the organis! fro! the en7iron!ent #9ngyal coined the ter! bio& spheric to indicate the holistic relationship between one indi7idual and the en 7iron!ent$ because they interpenetrate one another in such a co!ple% fashion that any atte!pt to distinguish the! would be artificial and tend to destroy the natural unity of the whole #Fall J Lind@ey, +364$. 9ngyal5s personality theory has not had a significant i!pact on acade!ic psychology, perhaps because it was de7eloped predo!inantly within a clinical, or nonacade!ic, conte%t #Lich tenstein, +33,$. &ee also <?LD&0E"(5& ?R<9("&H"C 0FE?RDB H>RPFD5& '"?&?C"9L 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& 'ernard, C. #+4-- +326$. An introd#ction to the st#dy of experi'ental 'edicine. (ew Dork; Do7er. =erthei!er, H. #+3.*$. >ntersuchungen @ur Lehre 7on der <estalt. (sy. 5orsch., ), *)+*2). Mantor, J. R. #+3.,$. (rinciples of psychology. (ew Dork; Mnopf. &!uts, J. #+3.-$. $olis' and e!ol#tion. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Coghill, <. #+3.3$. Anato'y and the proble' of beha!ior. London; Ca!bridge >ni7ersity Press. Mantor, J. R. #+3**$. 9 s#r!ey of the science of psychology. 'loo!ington, "(; Principia Press. <oldstein, M. #+3*3$. +he organis'? A holistic approach to biology deri!ed fro' path& ological data in 'an. (ew Dork; 9!erican 'ook. 9ngyal, 9. #+3,+$. 5o#ndations for a science of personality. (ew Dork; Co!!onwealth 1oundation. Hurphy, <. #+3,6$. (ersonality? A biosocial approach to origins and str#ct#re. (ew

Dork; Farper. 9ngyal, 9. #+3,4$. 0he holistic approach in psychiatry. A'er. 4. (sychiat., 02<, +64+4.. 9ngyal, 9. #+32+$. 9 theoretical !odel for personality studies. 4. (ers., *2, +*+-+,..

9(K"E0D, 0FE?R"E& ?1

*2

9ngyal, 9. #+3-2$. >e#rosis and treat'ent? A holistic theory. (ew Dork; =iley. Fall, C., J Lind@ey, <. #+364$. +heories of personality. (ew Dork; =iley. Lichtenstein, P. #+33,$. 9ndras 9ngyal. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 9("H9L H9<(E0"&H, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0FE?RD ?1. &ee FDP(?&"& FDP(?0"&H,

9(&'9CFER E11EC0. &ee PERCEP0"?( #". <E(ER9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9(K"E0D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9n%iety is a subEecti7e e!otional state that is characteri@ed by per7asi7e feelings such as dread and apprehension and is often acco!panied by physical sy!pto!s such as tre!ors, !uscle tension, chest pain, palpitations, di@@iness, headache, and gastrointestinal distress #0horn-<ray, +33,$. 9n%iety !ay or !ay not be associated with fearful or stressful sti!uliB it is an e!otional attitude or senti!ent concerning the future, characteri@ed by an unpleasant alternation or !ingling of dread and hope. 9n%iety neurosis is a functional disorder of the ner7ous syste! for which no actual lesion is found and whose !ost pro!inent sy!pto! is a !arked degree of !orbid and obEec ti7ely unfounded dread #=arren, +3*,$. 9n%iety is often distinguished fro! fear in that an an%iety state is often obEectless, whereas fear assu!es a specific feared obEect, person, or e7entB and an%iety disorder is a co7er ter! for a 7ariety of !aladapti7e syndro!es that ha7e se7ere an%iety as the do!inant disturbance #Reber, +332$. +heories of anxiety !ay be classified generally as psychoanalyticK psychodyna'ic theories or as learning-beha!ioral theories #Mutash, +33,$. 0he concept of anxiety ne#rosis was first for!ulated in a psychoanalytic conte%t in +432 by &ig!und 1reud, who thought it to be a result of the discharge of repressed libido #accu!ulated so!atic se%ual tension$. 1reud theori@ed that when libidinal e%citation produced threatening se%ual wishes, fantasies, or e% periences, such !ental constructions were repressed, and the blocked libidinal energy subse:uently de7eloped into an%iety or so!atic sy!pto!s. 1reud later refor!ulated his notion of an%iety to relate it to the conflict between the ego #reality principle$ and the id #pleasure principle$. 0he e!otion that was e%perienced during the trau!atic state created by the tension between ego and id was called anxiety #1reud, +3.*, +3*-, +3-,$. 1reud5s de7elop!ent of his anxiety theory included a chronological se:uence of early sources of an%iety that e!phasi@ed absence of !other, punish!ents leading to fear of losing parental lo7e, castration fear during the oedipal stage, and disappro7al by the s#perego #conscience$. "n such instances of an%iety, a child !ay co!e to fear her or his own instinctual wishes, and the !eans by which the ego opposes the id5s wishes are re7ealed by the 7arious defense syste!s that are sent into action by the an%iety. 0he defense syste!s !echanis!s include identification, denial, intel lectuali@ation, proEection, and repression, a!ong others. ?ther psychoanalyticK psychodyna'ic theories of an%iety are those of Helanie Mlein #+3*., +32.$, Rollo Hay #+32)$, Farry &tack &ulli7an #+32*$, and ". Mutash #+34)$. Mlein5s

*-

9(K"E0D, 0FE?R"E& ?1

theory focused on the child5s fear of death as the basic cause of an%iety. Hay5s theory e!phasi@ed the creation of an%iety as a result of one5s 7alue syste! being threatenedB &ulli7an5s theory e%a!ined the unpleasant state of tension that was caused by disappro7al in7ol7ed in interpersonal relationshipsB and Mutash5s anxiety&stress theory points to the dise:uilibriu! #an%iety$ that occurs when one is not e%periencing opti!al stress le7els for one5s constitution either in a healthy balance #e:uilibriu!$ or in an unhealthy balance #!ale:uilibriu!$, and where an%iety can be adapti7e #when a need to change is indicated by an opti!al stress le7el$ or !aladapti7e #when stress is either too high or too low$. ,earningbeha!ioral theories of an%iety ha7e been distinguished fro! the psychoanalyticpsychodyna'ic theories concerning the type of sti!uli #pro%i!al 7ersus distal$ that are in7ol7ed #'oot@in J Ha%, +34)$, where pro%i!al cues sti!uli #such as reinforce!ent in a sti!ulus/response se:uence$ are associated with learningbeha!ioral theories, and the distal cues sti!uli #such as so!e intrapsychic conflict$ are associated with the psychoanalytic-psychodyna'ic theories. 0he learn& ing-beha!ioral anxiety theories ha7e been de7eloped based on the work of researchers such as =atson and Rayner #+3.)$, Pa7lo7 #+3.6$, =agner and Re scorla #+36.$, Howrer #+3-) a , b$, Ferrnstein #+3-3$ , ' andura #+366$ , 'erger #+3-.$, and Rach!an #+364$. 0his approach is characteri@ed by e!pirical con ditioning studies #rather than personality and clinical studies$ and atte!pts to understand, e%plain, and treat an%iety by in7oking concepts such as reinforce'ent #the increase in the fre:uency of a response caused by pleasant rewarding conse:uences$, p#nish'ent #the decrease in the fre:uency of beha7iors due to unpleasant conse:uences$, infor'ation processing, expectancy, efficacy expec& tations, fear red#ction, discri'inati!e or signaling !al#e of sti!uli, predicti!e !al#e of sti!uli, a!oidance beha!ior, s#ccessi!e approxi'ations of desired beha7ior, inco'patible beha7iors, cogniti!e processes, 'odeling beha7iors, obser& !ational learning, and biofeedbac% #Mutash, +33,$. Carious antianxiety drugs #such as the Gsedati7e-hypnoticsG na!ed Caliu! and Libriu!$ ha7e been pre scribed by physicians for indi7iduals who e%perience the often o7erwhel!ing effects of an%iety #0horn-<ray, +33,$. &ee also 1RE>D5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB LE9R("(< 0FE?R"E& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& =atson, J. '., J Rayner, R. #+3.)$. Conditioned e!otional reactions. 4. :xp. (sy., 9, +-+,. 1reud, &. #+3.*$. +he ego and the id. (ew Dork; (orton. Pa7lo7, ". #+3.6$. onditioned reflexes. (ew Dork; Do7er. Mlein, H. #+3*.$. +he psychoanalysis of children. London; Fogarth Press. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. 1reud, &. #+3*-$. +he proble' of anxiety. (ew Dork; (orton. Hay, R. #+32)$. +he 'eaning of anxiety. (ew Dork; Ronald Press. Mlein, H. #+32.$. ?n the theory of an%iety and guilt. "n J. Ri7iere #Ed.$, 8e!elop'ents in psychoanalysis. London; Fogarth Press.

&ulli7an, F. &. #+32*$. +he interpersonal theory of psychiatry. (ew Dork; (orton.

9PP9RE(0 H?CEHE(0, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1

*6

Howrer, ). F. #+3-)a$. ,earning theory and beha!ior. (ew Dork; =iley. Howrer, ). F. #+3-)b$. ,earning theory and sy'bolic processes. (ew Dork; =iley. 'erger, &. #+3-.$. Conditioning through 7icarious instigation. (sy. .e!., B1, ,2)-,--. 1reud, &. #+3-,$. +he co'plete psychological wor%s of /ig'#nd 5re#d. Cols. +-.,. London; Fogarth Press. Ferrnstein, R. #+3-3$. Hethod and theory in the study of a7oidance. (sy. .e!., EB, ,3-3. =agner, 9., J Rescorla, R. #+36.$. "nhibition in Pa7lo7ian conditioning; 9pplications of a theory. "n R. 'okes J H. Falliday #Eds.$, 6nhibition and learning. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'andura, 9. #+366$. /ocial learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Rach!an, &. #+364$. 5ear and co#rage. &an 1rancisco; 1ree!an. 'oot@in, R., J Ha%, D. #+34)$. Learning and beha7ioral theories. "n ". Mutash J L. &chlesinger #Eds.$, $andboo% on stress and anxiety. &an. 1rancisco; Jossey-'ass. Mutash, ". #+34)$. Pre7ention and e:uilibriu!-dise:uilibriu! theory. "n ". Mutash J L. &chlesinger #Eds.$, $andboo% on stress and anxiety. &an 1rancisco; Jossey-'ass. Mutash, ". #+33,$. 9n%iety. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 0horn-<ray, '. #+33,$. 9ntian%iety drugs. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

9PP9RE(0 H?CEHE(0, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he pheno!enon of apparent 'o!e'ent refers to the subEecti7e 7isual perception of !o7e!ent in the absence of any real or obEecti7e physical !otion. Co!!on types of apparent !o7e!ent include the phi pheno'enon, the a#to%inetic effect, and the aftereffects of seen 'o!e'ent. ?ther kinds of apparent !o7e!ent are alpha&, beta&, delta&, epsilon&, ga''a&, ind#ced&, and stroboscopic !o7e!ent #Menkel, +3+*B =ol!an, +36*$. 0he phi pheno'enon, or stroboscopic !o7e!ent, !ay be obser7ed when two adEacent sti!ulus lights are flashed in rapid succession. "f the intersti!ulus period is too long, the lights appear to go on and off sepa rately. "f the intersti!ulus period is too short, the lights appear to flash at the sa!e ti!e. =hen the intersti!ulus period is about *)-.)) !illiseconds, how e7er, one gets the sensation of a light !o7ing fro! one location to another location #stroboscopic !o7e!ent is the basis for the effect of !otion seen on tele7ision and !otion pictures$. 0he a#to%inetic effect refers to !o7e!ent that see!s to occur when a stationary obEect is 7iewed against a dark or ill-defined background, and where the stationary obEect appears to !o7e after looking at it for a few !inutes. Aftereffects of seen 'o!e'ent !ay occur when an indi7idual stares for a few !inutes at so!e continuous !otion of an obEect in one direction and then shifts the ga@e to a different surface #such as looking at a waterfall for a few !inutes and then looking away to a te%tured surface where the surface now appears to be going in the opposite, or upward, directionB Ja!es, +43), p. 43$. 6nd#ced 'o!e'ent refers to the illusion of !o7e!ent where a 7isual fra!e of reference is actually !o7ing in one direction #such as clouds !o7ing across the !oon$, and a stationary obEect #such as the !oon$ subse:uently see!s to !o7e in the opposite direction. Alpha 'o!e'ent occurs when there appears to

*4

9PP9RE(0 H?CEHE(0, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1

be a change of si@e in parts of a figure that are e%posed in succession. Beta 'o!e'ent refers the illusion of !o7e!ent when differently si@ed, or positioned, obEects are e%posed in succession. 8elta 'o!e'ent refers to the apparent !o7e!ent of a light sti!ulus to a darker sti!ulus after successi7e e%posure when the 7ariables of sti!ulus si@e, distance, and intersti!ulus inter7al are controlled. :psilon 'o!e'ent is the 7isual perception of !o7e!ent when a white line 7iewed against a black background is changed so that subse:uently one now 7iews a black line against a white background. Ca''a 'o!e'ent refers to the apparent contraction and e%pansion of a figure that is shown suddenly #or is withdrawn$ or a figure that is e%posed to sudden illu!ination changes. Carious theories of apparent 'o!e'ent ha7e been de7eloped and described #e.g., =oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$ and include the inference theory #where we actually see only the initial and ter!inal positions and infer that the obEect !ust ha7e !o7edB =erthei!er, +3+., +3.2$B the eye&'o!e'ent theory #in which e!phasis is placed on the fact that the eyes obEecti7ely !o7e across fro! the initial sti!ulus position to the final position, and where eye !o7e!ent itself contrib utes to the sensation of !otionB cf; <uilford J Felson, +3.3B =endt, +32.$B and the brain fieldtheory #which suggested that the retina, or the 7isual corte%, was actually sti!ulated in the region lying between the initial and the ter!inal positions of the sti!uliB E%ner, +462B Mohler, +3*4, +3,)$. =oodworth and &chlosberg #+3-2$ obser7ed that there is no generally acceptable theory of ap& parent 'o!e'ent e%cept, perhaps, for the de7elop!ent of a no7el theory that would regard perception as a type of response to the inco!ing sensory sti!u lation and that subse:uently applies the principle of sti'#l#s generaliGation to the ulti!ate e%planation of !o7e!ent. 0hus, if the sti!uli that are recei7ed are sufficiently si!ilar to those that were recei7ed fro! real !o7e!ent, then the perceptual response would likely be the sa!e #cf; Moffka, +3*+, +3*2B (eff, +3*-B <raha!, +32+$. <raha! #+3-2$ suggested that new analyses and in7es tigations in the field of perceptual apparent !o7e!ent would lead to needed theoretical i!pro7e!ents. &ee also M?R0E5& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& E%ner, &. #+462$. E%peri!entelle >ntersuchungen der einfachsten psychischen Processe. F" 9bhandlung; Der personlichen <leichung @weiter 0heil. (fl#g. Ar. ges. (hy&sio., 00, ,)*-,*.. Cierordt, M. #+46-$. Die 'ewegungse!pfindung. D. Bio., 0*, ..--.,). 9ubert, F. #+44-$. Die 'ewegungse!pfindung. Ar. ges. (hysio., 91, *,6*6). Ja!es, =. #+43)$. (rinciples of psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; Folt. &tern, L. #+43,$. Die =ahrneh!ung 7on 'ewegungen 7er!ittelst des 9uges. D. (sy., 6, *.+-*42. Harbe, M. #+434$. Die &troboskopischen Erscheinungen. (hil. /t#d., 0), *6--,)+. Durr, E. #+3))$. >ber die &troboskopischen Erscheinungen. (hil. /t#d., 0<, 2)+-2.*. =erthei!er, H. #+3+.$. E%peri!entelle &tudien uber das &ehen 7on 'ewegung. D. (sy., B0, +-+-.-2.

Menkel, 1. #+3+*$. >ntersuchungen uber den Ausa!!enhang @wischen Erscheinungs

9R"&0?0LE5& D?C0R"(E& 0FE?R"E&

*3

grosse and Erscheinungsbewegung bei einigen sogenannten optischen 0auschun-gen. D. (sy., BE, *24-,,3. =erthei!er, H. #+3.2$. 8rei Abhandl#ngen G#r Cestalttheorie. Erlangen; Philosophischen 9kade!ie. Figginson, <. #+3.-$. 0he 7isual apprehension of !o7e!ent under successi7e retinal e%citations. A'er. 4. (sy., 9E, -*-++2. <uilford, 4., @ Felson, F. #+3.3$. Eye-!o7e!ents and the phi pheno!enon. A'er. 4. (sy., )0, 232--)-. (euhaus, =. #+3*)$. E%peri!entelle >ntersuchung der &cheinbewegung. Ar. ges. (sy., E<, *+2-,24. Moffka, M. #+3*+$. Die =ahrneh!ung 7on 'ewegung. "n 9. 'ethe #Ed.$, $andb%. >or'. (ath. (hysio. 'erlin; &pringer. Moffka, M. #+3*2$. (rinciples of Cestalt psychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt, 'race. (eff, =. #+3*-$. 9 critical in7estigation of the 7isual apprehension of !o7e!ent. A'er. 4. (sy., )7, +-,.. Mohler, =. #+3*4$. +he place of !al#e in a world of facts. (ew Dork; Li7eright. Mohler, =. #+3,)$. 8yna'ics in psychology. (ew Dork; Li7eright. 'oring, E. <. #+3,.$. /ensation and perception in the history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. <raha!, C. #+32+$. Cisual perception. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. =endt, P. #+32.$. De7elop!ent of an eye ca!era for use with !otion pictures. (sy. 3ono., BB, no. **3. 'artley, &. #+324$. (rinciples of perception. (ew Dork; Farper. <raha!, C. #+3-*$. ?n so!e aspects of real and apparent 7isual !o7e!ent. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., <9, +)+3-+).2. Molers, P. #+3-*$. &o!e differences between real and apparent 7isual !o7e!ent. =is. .es., 9, +3+-.)-. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. Perception of !o7e!ent. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 9PPERCEP0"?(, D?C0R"(E ?1. &ee FER'9R05& D?C0R"(E ?1 9PPERCEP0"?(B =>(D05& 0FE?R"E&. 9PPR9"&9L 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(. &ee C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(. 9R"&0?0LE5& D?C0R"(E& 0FE?R"E&. 0he <reek philosopher 9ristotle #*4,-*.. '.c.$ was a student of Plato5s 9cade!y in 9thens, where he was schooled in the theory of ideas. 9ristotle argued that !an was a rational ani!al endowed with an innate capacity for attaining knowledge fro! sense perception #and G!e!ory associationsG$ and that knowledge is the result of

deduction of

,)

9R(?LD5& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&

uni7ersals and principles fro! perceptual infor!ation and not the reco7ering of innate ideas, as Plato taught. 9ristotle5s e'pirical !ethodology parallels his psychological theory when he ad7ocated the use of close obser7ation and ac curate classification of natural pheno!enaB he also for!ali@ed a syste! of de ducti7e propositional logic. 0he ter! Aristotelian is used to indicate the principle of careful deduction of scientific or personal knowledge fro! syste!atic obser7ations of natural e7ents. 9ristotle5s work e%erted an i!!ense influence on !edie7al philosophy, especially through &t. 0ho!as 9:uinas, on "sla!ic philosophy, and on the whole =estern intellectual and scientific tradition. "n the Hiddle 9ges, 9ristotle was referred to si!ply as Gthe Philosopher,G and the uncritical and religious acceptance of his doctrines was to ha!per the progress of science until the scientific re7olution of the si%teenth and se7enteenth cen turies. 9ristotle5s writings represented an enor!ous encyclopedic output o7er 7irtually e7ery field of knowledge; logic, !etaphysics, ethics, politics, rhetoric, poetry, biology, @oology, physics, and psychology #Huir, +33,B Reber, +332$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B FED?("&H, 0FE?RD L9= ?1B PLE9&>RE/ P9"(, D?C0R"(E 0FE?RD L9= ?1. RE1ERE(CE& Robertson, <. #+43-$. :le'ents of psychology. (ew Dork; &cribners. Haher, H. #+3))$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Long!ans, <reen. Foffding, F. #+3)4$. ;#tlines of psychology. London; Hac!illan. 9ristotle. #+3+)$. (hysiogno'ica. ?%ford; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 9ristotle. #+3,+a$. De ani!a #?n the soul$. "n R. HcMeon #Ed.$, +he basic wor%s of Aristotle. (ew Dork; Rando! Fouse. 9ristotle. #+3,+b$. De !e!oria et re!iniscentia #?n !e!ory and re!iniscence$. "n R. HcMeon #Ed.$, +he basic wor%s of Aristotle. (ew Dork; Rando! Fouse. 9ristotle. #+32.$. Physics. "n R. Futchins #Ed.$, Creat boo%s of the Western world. Col. 4. Chicago; Encyclopaedia 'ritannica. Huir, F. #Ed.$ #+33,$. ,aro#sse dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork; Larousse. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 9R(?LD5& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&. Hagda '. Arnold's theory of e'otions e!phasi@es the cogniti!e factors associated with e!otional beha7ior that in7ol7es a continuous se:uence of reaction and appraisal where a series of infor!ationprocessing steps takes place #9rnold, +32,, +3-), +36), +34,$. "n the first phase of processing, the indi7idual typically percei!es so!e e7ent, obEect, or person and is prepared to e7aluate it in a particular way; as Ggood,G which leads to approach beha7ior, as Gbad,G which leads to a7oidance beha7ior, or as Gindifferent,G which leads to ignoring the e7ent. 0he ne%t phase is appraisal, where the person decides whether what is happening will hurt, help, or ha7e no effect on hi! or her. 0he third and fourth phases are bodily change and e'otion, both of which typically occur at al!ost the sa!e ti!e. Phase fi7e is action; so!e indi7iduals in certain situations skip fro! the bodily changes in stage three and go directly to stage fi7e. 1or e%a!ple, if a

strange dog co!es

9&CF C?(1?RH"0D E11EC0

,+

running toward you with its teeth bared, you take rapid action and run away without thinking as epinephrine rushes into your syste!. =hen you reach safety, you beco!e aware of your heart pounding, and, at that ti!e, you e%perience the e'otion of fear. Arnold's theory assu!es that the entire appraisal se:uence takes place in an instant. 9rnold distinguishes a!ong a few basic e!otions that are si!ple reactions to the appraisal of basic situations; dislike, lo7e #liking$, a7ersion, despair, desire, anger, fear, hope, daring, sorrow, and Eoy. Fer theory stresses that the intuiti7e, spontaneous appraisal in an e!otional episode is sup ple!ented by a deliberate 7alue Eudg!ent, especially in adults, and it functions in the sa!e way that one5s sensory knowledge is co!ple!ented by cognitions. 9ccording to Arnold's cogniti!e theory, e!otions can be sociali@ed where social attitudes and custo!s influence one5s intuiti7e appraisal of e7ents, and where affecti!e 'e'ory preser7es one5s pre7ious encounters with intense e!otionarousing sti!uli #9rnold, +34,$. Affecti!e 'e'ory !ay account for !any of the Ginstincti7eG feelings one e%periences, such as i!!ediate dislikes or likes for so!ething or so!eone, reactions to fearful sti!uli that later beco!e phobias, preEudice connected with unresol7ed and unpleasant situations fro! the past, and e7en lo7e at first sight. &ee also C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(&B EH?0"?(&, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1B L9A9R>&5 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&B &CF9CF0ER/&"(<ER5& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&. RE1ERE(CE& 9rnold, H. #+32,$. 1eelings and e!otions as dyna!ic factors in personality integration. "n H. 9rnold J J. <asson #Eds.$, +he h#'an person. (ew Dork; Ronald Press. 9rnold, H. #+3-)$. :'otion and personality. (ew Dork; Colu!bia >ni7ersity Press. La@arus, R. #+3-4$. E!otions and adaptation. Conceptual and e!pirical relations. "n =. 9rnold #Ed.$, >ebras%a /y'posi#' of 3oti!ation. Col. +-. Lincoln; >ni7ersity of (ebraska Press. 9rnold, H. #+36)$. 5eelings and e'otions? +he ,oyola /y'posi#'. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 9rnold, H. #+34,$. 3e'ory and the brain. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. &trong!an, M. #+346$. +he psychology of e'otion. (ew Dork; =iley. 9rnold, H. #+33,$. Cogniti7e theories of e!otion. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 'au!, 9. #+33,$. E!otions. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 9R?>&9L 0FE?RD. &ee 9C0"C90"?( 9R?>&9L 0FE?RD. 9R?>&9L-C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(&. ?1 EH?0"?(. &ee C?<("0"CE

9&CF C?(1?RH"0D E11EC0. 0he 9!erican social psychologist &olo!on E. 9sch #+3)6-+332$ conducted a series of e%peri!ents where 9!erican college

students were asked to !ake Eudg!ents about the length of 7ertical lines. &e7en !ale students !ade these si!ple Eudg!ents out loud, one by one, in a group

,.

9&CF C?(1?RH"0D E11EC0

setting, but the si%th student in the se:uence was the only true subEect participant. 0he other students were 9sch5s acco!plices #called confederates), and, without the true subEect5s knowledge, on !any trials they all deliberately !ade the sa!e incorrect guess. 9sch5s results were interesting; e7en in this si!ple Eudg!ent task, only about one-fourth of the subEects co!pletely resisted the other students5 answers and !ade no errors. ?ther subEects followed the unan i!ous, but incorrect, opinion on e7ery trial, showing co!plete ac:uiescence to the group5s pressure. "n later debriefing sessions, the subEects greatly underes ti!ated their degree of confor'ity #9sch, +322, +32-$. &i!ilar e%peri!ents with 1rench, (orwegian, 9rabian, and 'ritish students supported 9sch5s findings with 9!erican subEects. 0he Asch effect, then, refers to the powerful influence of a unani!ous group and its decision on the beha7ior of an indi7idual that results in confor'ity to that group. onfor'ity, for better or worse, is defined as the tendency for people to adopt the beha7iors, attitudes, and 7alues of other !e!bers of a reference group #Ai!bardo J =eber, +33,$. "n subse:uent studies, group si@e and group unani!ity turned out to be key deter!inants of confor'ity #9sch, +32-$. 0he factor of gender, howe7er, does not see! to be a distinguishing factor in confor'ity #Eagly J Johnson, +33)B 'aron, +33.$. &o!e !i%ed results ha7e appeared in recent years concerning 9sch5s paradig! and !ake the Asch effect a topic of continued interest in current psychology #e.g., 9!ir, +34,B 1riend, Rafferty, J 'ra!el, +33)B Larsen, +33)$. &ee also 'D&09(DER "(0ERCE(0"?( E11EC0B DEC"&"?(H9M"(< 0FE?R"E&B DE"(D"C"D>90"?( 0FE?RDB <R?>P0F"(M PFE(?HE(?(. RE1ERE(CE& 9sch, &. #+3,)$. &tudies in the principles of Eudg!ents and attitudes. F. Deter!ination of Eudg!ents by group and by ego standards. 4. /oc. (sy., 0*, ,**-,-2. 9sch, &. #+3,-$. 1or!ing i!pressions of personality. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., )0, .24.3). 9sch, &. #+32+$. Effects of group pressure upon the !odification and distortion of Eudg!ent. "n F. <uet@kow #Ed.$, Cro#ps, leadership, and 'en. Pittsburgh; Carnegie. 9sch, &. #+32.$. /ocial psychology. (ew Dork; Prentice-Fall. 9sch, &. #+322$. ?pinions and social pressure. /ci. A'er., 019, *+-*2. Deutsch, H., J <erard, F. #+322$. 9 study of nor!ati7e and infor!ational social influences upon indi7idual Eudg!ent. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., <0, -.3--*-. 9sch, &. #+32-$. &tudies of independence and confor!ity. ". 9 !inority of one against a unani!ous !aEority. (sy. 3ono., E2, no. ,+-. Horris, =., J Hiller, R. #+362$. 0he effects of consensus-breaking and consensuspree!pting partners on reduction of confor!ity. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 00, .+2..*. Horris, =., Hiller, R., J &pangenberg, &. #+366$. 0he effects of dissenter position and task difficulty on confor!ity and response to conflict. 4. (ers., )<, .2+-.--. 9!ir, 0. #+34,$. 0he 9sch confor!ity effect; 9 study in Muwait. 4. /oc. Beh. @ (ers.,

0*, +46-+3). 0anford, &., J Penrod, &. #+34,$. &ocial influence !odel; 9 forward integration of research on !aEority and !inority influence processes. (sy. B#ll., 1<, +43-..2. Eagly, 9., J Johnson, '. #+33)$. <ender and leadership style; 9 !eta-analysis. (sy. B#ll., 027, .**-.2-.

9&&"H"L90"?(, L9= ?1

,*

1riend, R., Rafferty, D., J 'ra!el, D. #+33)$. 9 pu@@ling !isinterpretation of the 9sch Gconfor!ityG study. :#r. 4. /oc. (sy., *2, .3-,,. Larsen, M. #+33)$. 0he 9sch confor!ity e%peri!ent; Replication and transhistorical co!parisons. 4. /oc. Beh. @ (ers., <, +-*-+-4. 'aron, R. #+33.$. (sychology. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. Ai!bardo, P., J =eber, 9. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; FarperCollins. 9&F'D5& L9= ?1 REN>"&"0E C9R"E0D. "(1?RH90"?(-PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?RD. &ee "(1?RH90"?(

9&&"H"L90"?(, L9= ?1. 0he Go7erloadG ter! assi'ilation appears to be obsolete, as Eudged by its infre:uent use by writers of psychology te%tbooks today #cf; Piaget, +3-*$, although it does find !odern resuscitation in ter!s such as generaliGation and analogy #Reber, +332$. 0he law of assi'ilation states that when an indi7idual is in a new situation, he or she will beha7e in a way that is si!ilar to the way he or she did in si!ilar circu!stances in the past. =oodworth and &chlosberg #+3-2$ consider the ter! assi'ilation to be under the rubric of theory rather than of law. Fo7land #+32+$, howe7er, refers to the law of assi!ilation. Piaget #+3-*$ has e!ployed the ter! assi'ilation as a working descripti7e GfunctionsG ter! in his study of the de7elop!ent of intellectual co!petence in children, where assi'ilation is a functional !echanis! that preser7es cogniti7e structure and pro!otes integration and si!ilarity between the ele!ents or content of the structure. 0he ter! assi'ilation itself was introduced by ). Lauenstein #+3**$, who was a student of the <er!an-born 9!erican psychologist =olfgang Mohler. "n psychophysical e%peri!ents on hearing, where standard sti!uli were studied against interpolated sti!uli, Lauenstein obtained results on loudness that showed that e%peri!ental subEects Gassi!ilatedG or integrated standard sti!ulus GtracesG toward an interpolated sti!ulus in such a way that assi!ilation occurred upward toward a loud interpolated sti!ulus but downward toward a soft one #=oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$. "n hu!an learn-ing retention conte%ts, the ter! assi'ilation has been characteri@ed as a Glaw.G 0he law of assi'ilation, according to Can #+3.2$, states that Geach new sti!ulating condition tends to elicit the response which has been connected with si!ilar sti!ulating conditions in the past.G 0er!s related to assi'ilation in a learning retention conte%t #Fo7land, +32+$ are associati!e interference #when learning of a new association is !ade !ore difficult because of a prior association$ and associati!e facilitation #when learning of a new association is !ade easier due to a prior association$. Hore !odern substitutes for these latter two ter!s in the current 7ocabulary of psychologists are negati!e transfer of training and positi!e transfer of training, respecti7ely #cf; Reber, +332$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B <E(ER9L"A90"?(, PR"(C"PLE ?1B P"9<E05& 0FE?RD ?1 DECEL?PHE(09L &09<E&B 0R9(&1ER ?1 0R9"("(<, 0F?R(D"ME5& 0FE?RD ?1.

,, RE1ERE(CE&

9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1

Can, F. #+3.2$. (sychology? A st#dy of 'ental acti!ity. (ew Dork; Long!ans, <reen. ?rata, P. #+3.4$. +he theory of identical ele'ents, being a criti"#e of +horndi%e's theory of identical ele'ents and a re&interpretation of the proble' of transfer of training. Colu!bus; ?hio &tate >ni7ersity Press. Du!, L. #+3*+$. 9n e%peri!ental test of the law of assi!ilation. 4. :xp. (sy., 0), -44.. 'ruce, R. #+3**$. Conditions of transfer of training. 4. :xp. (sy., 0B, *,*-*-+. Lauenstein, ). #+3**$. 9nsat@ @u einer physiologischen 0heorie des Cergleichs and der Aeitfehler. (sy. 5orsch., 0E, +*)-+66. =oodworth, R. #+3*4$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. Fo7land, C. #+32+$. Fu!an learning and retention. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Piaget, 4. #+3-*$. +he origins of intelligence in children. (ew Dork; (orton. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1. L association, doctrine of L associationis!. 0he ter! association referred originally to an association of ideas and was used by the early <reeks in their philosophies. 1or e%a!ple, E!ped-odes #,32-,*2 '.c.$ belie7ed that the process of thinking was the creation and destruction of percepts that took place in the churning of blood in the heart after being carried fro! the sense organs by the bloodstrea!B Plato #,.6-*,6 '.c.$ enunciated a theory of learning based on association where recollection of si!ilar ideas was e!phasi@edB 9ristotle #*4,-*.. '.c.$ obser7ed that when a person thought of so!ething, it would re!ind that person of so!ething else, where one idea led to another idea in a !anner that the two ideas had so!e kind of relation, connection, or association. 9ristotle proposed in his essays on !e!ory #HcMeon, +3,+$ that three GrelationsG e%ist between ele!ents that lead to associations; contig#ity, si'ilarity, and contrast. 0ho!as Fobbes #+244-+-63$ was the first to suggest that 9ristotle5s GrelationsG could ser7e as an associationistic !odel of hu!an cognition #Reber, +332$. Later, John Locke #+-*.-+6),$ coined the phrase association of ideas #Locke, +6))$ and regarded associations as interruptions to rational ways of thinking ?ther eighteenth- and nineteenth-century philosophers transfor!ed the notion of the association of ideas into the syste!atic 7iewpoint called associationis'. Chief a!ong these 'ritish e!piricists or GassociationisticG philosophers were <eorge 'erkeley #+-42-+62*$, Da7id Fu!e #+6++-+66-$, Da7id Fartley #+6)2-+626$, Ja!es Hill #+66*+4*-$, John &tuart Hill #+4)--+46*$, 9le%ander 'ain #+4+4-+3)*$, and 0ho!as 'rown #+664-+4.)$. Fu!e reduced the !ind to the association of ideas and !aintained that the !ind contains either perceptions or their copies #GideasG$,

and ideas were glued together by two laws of association? si'ilarity and contig#ity. Fartley is usually recogni@ed as the founder of psychological associa&

9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1

,2

tionis', and he speculated on physiological laws of association between ner7e 7ibrations to e%plain the 'ental laws of association #Leahey, +33,$. 0he principle of associati!e learning was further refined by the Hills and 'ain, who de7eloped a type of psychological associationis! that !ade the association of ideas the central process of acting and thinking 1ro! this initial philosophical conte%t, the principle of association !o7ed toward an e!pirically researchable for! as de7eloped by 0ho!as 'rown in his secondary laws of association #=arren, +3.+B =oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2$; d#ration, li!eliness, fre"#ency, and recency. 0hese first four of 'rown5s secondary laws perhaps ha7e the !ost 7ital significance for associationis! #Hurphy J Mo7ach, +36.$. 0he other secondary laws include the concepts of Gfewer alternati7e associates,G Gconstitutional differences,G G7ariations in the sa!e indi7idual,G Gdi7ersities of state,G and Ghabits of lifeG #=arren, +3.+$. 'rown5s ter!inological approach per!itted casting the general laws of GsuggestionG into a for! that contained the concepts of the relati7e recency, fre:uency, and li7eliness of particular e%periences. 'rown5s e!phasis on e!otional and constitutional factors was also significant and contrasted with the associationists5 usual neglect of indi7idual differences #Hurphy J Mo7ach, +36.$. Har% and Filli% #+3-*, p. +)3$ show that of the three pri!ary principles-laws of association #contiguity, si!ilarity, and contrast$ the principle of contig#ity was the !ost popular a!ong the early writers, including 9ristotle, Fobbes, Locke, 'erkeley, Fu!e, Fartley, J. Hill, J. &. Hill, 'ain, and &pencer. 9t one ti!e, the notion of association was characteri@ed as G!ental che!istryG #J. &. Hill$, in which si!ple ideas could be linked to for! !ore co!ple% ideas. 0he deco!position of !ental life into ele!ents #si!ple ideas$ and the co!pounding of these ele!ents to for! co!ple% ideas subse:uently for!ed the core of the new scientific psychology #&chult@, +34+$. Fistorically noteworthy, also, in the ad7ance!ent of associationis' was the syste!atic research based on associationistic principles that was conducted by Fer!an Ebbinghaus #+42)-+3)3$, "7an Pa7lo7 #+4,3-+3*-$, and Edward L. 0horndike #+46,-+3,3$. Ebbinghaus constructed lists of Gnonsense syllablesG as learning !aterial and used hi!self o7er !any years as subEect #Gn L +G$ in his !e!ory studies #Ebbinghaus, +442$. Fe found that the !ore ti!es he repeated a list of syllables, the better his !e!ory of it, thus supporting 'rown5s law of fre"#ency. Ebbinghaus was also able to show that !e!ory was influenced by such factors as the nu!ber of syllables on the list and the ti!e between learning the list and ha7ing to recall the syllables (law of recency). &uch factors are still studied today in !e!ory research. "7an Pa7lo7, the Russian physiologist, is credited #along with Cladi!ir 'ekhtere7, +426-+3.6$ for shifting the kind of association studied fro! philosophical ideas to laboratory-based sti!u-lus/response connections. Pa7lo75s #and 'ekhtere75s$ prior research on the conditioned refle% helped to obEectify psychology as well as strengthen the concept of association #Pa7lo7, +3.6B 'ekhtere7, +3+*$. E. L. 0horndike #+434$ had de7eloped the !ost co!plete account up to that ti!e of psychological pheno!ena along associationistic lines #e.g., 0horndike5s, +3*+, connectionis'),

,-

9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1

and his syste! was considered the !ost appropriate representati7e of associa& tionis' in psychology #Har% J Filli%, +3-*$. Hore recently, in the twentieth century and under the influence of the beha7ioristic 7iewpoint #e.g., =atson, +3+3$, the laws of association beca!e the laws of learning, the law of fre"#ency beca!e the gradually rising learning cur7e, the law of si'ilarity beca!e the generali@ation gradient, and the law of contig#ity beca!e the te!poral relationship between unconditioned and conditioned sti!uli. Currently, the eighteenthcentury association concepts ha7e been re7i7ed so!ewhat with the ad7ent and de7elop!ent of the field of cogniti!e psychology, which considers !e!ory to be an associati7e network of ideas that are e!bedded in a co!ple% infor!ationprocessing syste! #e.g., 9nderson J 'ower, +36*$. "n its historical de7elop !ent, the principle of association was challenged by 7arious psychologists, especially by the <estalt psychologists who renounced it co!pletely #Leahey, +33,$. Fowe7er, !any associati!e laws were de7eloped during the history of the doctrine of associationis', and these principles ha7e been used often as hypotheses or as e%planatory concepts in psychology #PettiEohn, +34-$. Perhaps the !ost popular principle has been te'poral contig#ity #where things that occur close together in ti!e tend to beco!e associated with each other$. 0he other sur7i7ing associati!e laws deri7ing !ainly fro! 9ristotle5s GrelationsG and 'rown5s Gsecondary lawsG are !i!idness-clearness-intensity #the !ore 7i7id, li7ely, or intense the e%perience, the stronger the associati7e bond$B fre"#encyrepetition #things that occur repeatedly together tend to beco!e associated with each otherB cf; 3arbe's law, which is the generali@ation that in word association tasks the !ore fre"#ently a response occurs, the !ore rapidly it tends to occur, and where latency is in7ersely related to fre:uencyB Reber, +332B =ol!an, +36*$B recency #associations that are for!ed recently are easiest to recall$B si'& ilarity-rese'blance #aspects of ideas, sensations, or !o7e!ents that are si!ilar tend to beco!e associated with each other$B and contrast #when two contrary or opposing sensations or other !ental data are Eu%taposed, the contrary char acteristics are intensified, where gi7en the idea of one, the idea of its opposite tends to be recalled$ #=arren, +3*,$. =illia! Ja!es #+43), 7ol. +, p. 2)-$ stated a law of dissociation by !arying conco'itants as follows; G=hat is associated now with one thing and now with another tends to beco!e dissociated fro! either, and to grow into an obEect of abstract conte!plation of the !indG #cf; 0horndike, +3)6$. 0he difficulty with the associati!e laws, e7en though they !ay be :uite 7alid generally, is that all too often they ha7e been e%pected to assu!e an e%planatory role far beyond their capacities. 1or instance, the principle of contig#ity has been 7aluable in the area of learning theory, but it cannot account for all !ental e%periences and e7ents, !any of which ha7e e!otional or !oti7ational characteristics #PettiEohn, +34-$. 9lso, in recent years, the con cept of associationis' !ay ha7e lost so!e of its e%planatory power in the fields of cognition, perception, psycholinguistics, and de7elop!ental psychology because of the feeling that !ost cogniti7e processes are too co!ple% to sub !it to an analysis based si!ply on associati7e connections #Reber, +332$.

9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1

,6

(e7ertheless, the doctrine of the association of ideas and the concept of asso& ciation, along with their 7arious laws and principles, ha7e shown the!sel7es to be so!e of the !ost durable of psychological concepts, ha7ing !aintained an unbroken record of influence for o7er .,))) years fro! Plato to the present #cf; consistent citation of the association concept in introductory psychology te%t books for !ore than ++. yearsB Roeckelein, +33-$. &ee also <>0FR"E5& 0FE?RD ?1 'EF9C"?RB F>LL5& LE9R("(< 0FE?RDB 0F?R(D"ME5& L9= ?1 E11EC0B 0?LH9(5& 0FE?RDB LE9R("(< 0FE?R"E& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& Locke, J. #+6))$. :ssay concerning h#'an #nderstanding. London; Dent. &pencer, F. #+422$. (rinciples of psychology. London; =illia!s J (orgate. Ebbinghaus, F. #+442$. Aber das Cedachtnis. Leip@ig; Duncker. Ja!es, =. #+43)$. (rinciples of psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. Calkins, H. #+43-$. 9ssociation. (sy. .e!., 9, *.-,3. Robertson, <. #+43-$. :le'ents of psychology. (ew Dork; &cribners. 0horndike, E. L. #+434$. Ani'al intelligence. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. '. #+434$. An o#tline of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Calkins, H. #+3)2$. An introd#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0horndike, E. L. #+3)6$. +he ele'ents of psychology. (ew Dork; &eiler. 'ekhtere7, C. #+3+*$. ;bIe%ti!e (sychologie? oder (sychoreflexologie, die ,ehre !on den AssoGiationsreflexen. Leip@ig; 0eubner. =atson, J. '. #+3+3$. (sychology fro' the standpoint of a beha!iorist. Philadelphia; Lippincott. =arren, F. #+3.+$. 9 history of the association psychology. (ew Dork; &cribners. Pa7lo7, ". #+3.6$. onditioned reflexes. (ew Dork; Do7er. 0horndike, E. L. #+3*+$. $#'an learning. (ew Dork; 9ppleton. Robinson, E. #+3*.$. Association theory today. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. HcMeon, R. #Ed.$ #+3,+$. +he basic wor%s of Aristotle? 8e ani'a; 8e 'e'oria et re& 'iniscentia. (ew Dork; Rando! Fouse. Har%, H., J Filli%, =. #+3-*$. /yste's and theories in psychology. (ew Dork; Hc<rawFill. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Hurphy, <., J Mo7ach, J. #+36.$. $istorical introd#ction to 'odern psychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. 9nderson, J., J 'ower, <. #+36*$. $#'an associati!e 'e'ory. =ashington, DC; =inston. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. Rapaport, D. #+36,$. +he history of the concept of association of ideas. (ew Dork; "nternational >ni7ersities Press. &chult@, D. #+34+$. 9 history of 'odern psychology. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. PettiEohn, 0. #Ed.$ #+34-$. +he encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. <uilford, C0; Dushkin. Leahey, 0. #+33,$. 9ssociationis!. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

,4

9&&?C"90"CE C?(0"<>"0D 0FE?RD

Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. Roeckelein, J. #+33-$. Citation of laws and theories in te%tbooks across ++. years of psychology. (sy. .ep., E1, 363-334. 9&&?C"90"CE C?(0"<>"0D 0FE?RD. &ee 'EF9C"?RB RE"(1?RCEHE(0 0FE?RD. <>0FR"E5& 0FE?RD ?1

9&&?C"90"CE &F"10"(<, L9= ?1. ?ne of E. L. 0horndike5s #+46, +3,3$ !inor subsidiary laws to his law of effect that is si!ilar to "7an Pa7lo75s principle of sti'#l#s association and also bears so!e rese!blance to the conditioning principle of generaliGation. 0he law of associati!e shifting states that when two sti!uli are present, and one elicits a response, the other takes on the ability to elicit the sa!e response. 0his law beca!e a central a%io! to E. R. <uthrie5s contig#ity learning theory. 0horndike considered the general aspects of conditioning to be akin to associati7e shifting where the occurrence of a Gtrial-and-errorG process !ay not be necessary. 9n e%a!ple of associati!e shifting is the learning by a child to co!e to you when you call her or his na!e using different 7ariations #e.g., differences in tone, pronunciation, intensity, in flection, etc.$ of the na!e #and you subse:uently hug her or hi!$. 9ccording to 0horndike, the ancillary concepts of belongingness and satisfaction operate in associati!e shifting, but other scientists #e.g., Pa7lo7, +3.6$ regarded the ti!e relations between the sti!ulus/response e7ent to be solely ade:uate for estab lishing conditioned responses. &ee also 'EL?(<"(<(E&&, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1B E11EC0, L9= ?1B <E(ER9L"A90"?(, PR"(C"PLE ?1B <>0FR"E5& 0FE?RD ?1 'EF9C"?RB 0R9(&1ER ?1 0R9"("(<, 0F?R(D"ME5& 0FE?RD ?1. RE1ERE(CE& Pa7lo7, ". #+3.6$. onditioned reflexes. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 0ho!dike, E. L. #+3*.$. +he f#nda'entals of learning. (ew Dork; 0eachers College, Colu!bia >ni7ersity. <uthrie, E. R. #+3*2$. +he psychology of learning. (ew Dork; Farper. Meller, 1., J &choenfeld, =. #+32)$. (rinciples of psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. &pence, M. #+3--$. 0heoretical interpretations of learning. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Hurphy, <., J Mo7ach, J. #+36.$. $istorical introd#ction to 'odern psychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. 9009CFHE(0, PR"(C"PLE 9009CFHE(0 0FE?R"E&. ?1. &ee C>P'?9RD 0FE?RDB "(19(0

900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he ter! attention is defined differently depending on the conte%ts in which it is used. "n a f#nctional sense, for e%a!ple, attention is defined generally as the process of focusing on

900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1

,3

certain portions of an e%perience so that the parts beco!e relati7ely !ore dis tincti7e. "n a beha!ioral conte%t #cf; beha7iorist school conte%t, where attention was reEected as a !ore traditional !entalistic conceptB =oodworth J &chlos-berg, +3-2$, attention is defined !ore precisely as an adEust!ent of the sensory apparatus that facilitates opti!al e%citation by a specific sti!ulus #or a co!ple% of sti!uli$ and inhibits the action of all other details #=arren, +3*,$. 9ttention !ay be conscious, in that so!e sti!ulus ele!ents are acti7ely selected out of the total input, e7en though there is no e%plicit awareness of the factors that cause the indi7idual to percei7e only so!e s!all part of the total sti!ulus co! ple% #Reber, +332$. Fistorically, <. 1. &tout #+4-)-+3,,$ considered attention to be GconationG #i.e., cra7ing, desire, or will$ insofar as it re:uired for its satisfaction fuller cogni@ance of its obEect #&tout, +43-, +434 +433$B and H. Haher #+3))$ distinguished between sensation and attention where sensation in7ol7es a passi!e faculty, and attention is the e%ercise of an acti!ity or the application of intellectual energy. 1or E. '. 0itchener #+4-6-+3.6$, the concept of attention was gi7en attributi7e status where it was nothing !ore nor less than that which changes in e%perience and where attentional shifts are due to the clarity or 7i7idness #GattensityG$ of the sensory processes #0itchener, +3)4, +3)3$. Hany early psychology te%tbook authors #who see!ed, generally, to use the ter! law :uite liberally and effusi7ely in Gnonpositi7isticG ways$ referred to the laws or theories of attention. 1or e%a!ple, 'uell #+3))$ listed si% laws of attention; intensity of the sti!ulus, curiosity, si@e, adaptation, !oti7e, and change. &eashore #+3.*$ listed +, laws of attention; tension, no7elty, intensity, action change, periodicity, ti!ing, rest, grouping, di7ision of energy, purpose, interest, effort, for!, and skill. Ebbinghaus #+3)4$ referred to the laws of practice, 'e'ory, and attention. Falleck #+432$, 'aldwin #+43,$, and 0itchener #+3.4$ described laws of attention Calkins #+3+-$ described eight theories of attention; acti7ity theory, !otor theory, negati7e theories, ele!ent theory, 'radley5s theory, inhibition theory, Ribot5s theory, and =undt5s theory. 'aldwin #+43,$, in addition to referring to the general law of attention, described $or&wicG's theory of attention and the spirit#al theories of reflex attention. Foffding #+3)4$ described ondillac's theory of attention; and =oodworth #+3.+$ referred to a theory of attention, as well as to the laws of attention. "n the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the structuralist and functionalist schools of psychology considered the topic of attention to be a core proble! in the field and e!phasi@ed different aspects of it. 1or instance, the structuralists 7iewed attention as a state of consciousness that consisted of increased concentration and sensory clearnessB they studied the conditions that !a%i!i@ed the clearness of a sensation. ?n the other hand, the functionalists focused on the selecti7e and 7olitional nature of attentionB they studied the !oti7ational state and acti7e functioning of the indi7idual #>rbina, +33,$. Recent e%peri!ental work on attention has focused on 7ariables #or Gproble!sG of attentionB =oodworth J &chlosberg, +3-2, Chap. ,$ such as sti!ulus intensity, distraction, shifts and fluctuations, sti!ulus duration, attention span, attentional 7alue of sti!uli

2)

900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1

in different sensory !odalities, locations, le7els of no7elty, te!poral relations of sti!uli as deter!iners of attention selecti7ity of attention #e.g., 'roadbent, +326, +324B 0reis!an, +3-), +3-,B Deutsch J Deutsch, +3-*B (ielsen J &ar-ason, +34+$, and the neurophysiological basis of attention #e.g., Fernande@-Peon, +3-+$. 9ttention !ay be controlled auto!atically #e.g., a loud sound captures one5s attention$, by instructions #e.g., Gpay attention to the red one o7er thereG$, or by the de!ands of a particular task #e.g., when dri7ing a car, the dri7er looks out for other cars, pedestrians, and road signs$. 9n indi7idual5s attentional !ech anis!s ser7e to enhance responsi7eness to certain sti!uli and to tune out irrel e7ant infor!ation #Carlson, +33)$. 9n interesting aspect of attention, called the coc%tail&party pheno'enon #Cherry, +32*B =ood J Cowan, +332$, refers to the ability to attend selecti7ely to a single person5s speech across a roo! and in the !idst of the co!peting speech of !any other people #such as at a noisy cocktail party$. 0hree possible f#nctions of attention ha7e been identified #Ai!bardo J =eber, +33,$; as a sensory filter #e.g., 'roadbent, +324$, as response selection #e.g., Dri7er J 0ipper, +343$, and as a gateway to consciousness #e.g., Car7er J &cheier, +34+$. Recent for!ali@ed theories of attention #<ray, +33,$ include 'roadbent5s #+324$ filter theory-'odel #where all sensory input is processed in parallel, initially in an auto!atic Gpreattenti7e co!part!ent,G and then so!e of it is selected to enter the Gattenti7e co!part!entG for further processingB this theory can account for a person5s ability to selecti7ely hear or see things based on physical distinctions and for a person5s failure to register the !eanings of unattended sti!uli$B late selection theories #e.g., &hiffrin J &chneider, +366B in this type of attention theory, the preattenti7e stage can process 7ery fa!iliar sti!uli for !eaning, and based on such processing, the selection can pass such sti!uli onto the attenti7e stage, where they beco!e conscious to the personB this theory can account for one5s ability to hear one5s own na!e in an unattended !essage or the ability to be influenced by the !eaning of a sti!ulus that is not consciously percei7ed$B and early&selection theories #e.g., 0reis!an5s, +3-3, at& tent#ation theory; these theories suggest that a great :uantity of infor!ation passes into the attenti7e stage and is analy@ed for !eaning at any of 7arious le7els of consciousness, but only so!e of the infor!ation is analy@ed at a le7el of consciousness that per!its the indi7idual to describe it$. Currently, research on the psychological, as well as the neurological, basis of attention continues unabated, and there are pro!ising connections between the e%peri!ental work on attention and the e7entual e%planation and understanding of 7arious psychopathological disorders such as hyperacti7ity, schi@ophrenia, and !ental retar dation #>rbina, +33,$. &ee also C?(D"LL9C5& 0FE?RD ?1 900E(0"?(B C"<"L9(CE, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& 'aldwin, J. #+43,$. $andboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. Falleck, R. #+432$. (sychology and psychic c#lt#re. (ew Dork; 9!erican 'ook.

900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1

2+

&tout, <. #+43-$. Analytic psychology. London; &onnenschein. &tout, <. #+434 +433$. A 'an#al of psychology. London; Cli7e. 'uell, C. #+3))$. :ssentials of psychology. 'oston; <inn. Haher, H. #+3))$. (sychology? :'pirical and rational. London; Long!ans, <reen. Ebbinghaus, F. #+3)4$. (sychology? An ele'entary textboo%. 'oston; Feath. Foffding, F. #+3)4$. ;#tlines of psychology. London; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. #+3)4$. ,ect#res on the experi'ental psychology of feeling and attention. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. #+3)3$. ,ect#res on the experi'ental psychology of the tho#ght processes. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Calkins, H. #+3+-$. An introd#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =oodworth, R. #+3.+$. (sychology? A st#dy of 'ental life. (ew Dork; Folt. &eashore, C. #+3.*$. 6ntrod#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. #+3.4$. 9 textboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. Cherry, E. #+32*$. &o!e e%peri!ents on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. 4. Aco#. /oc. A'er., *<, 362-363. 'roadbent, D. #+326$. 9 !echanical !odel for hu!an attention and i!!ediate !e!ory. (sy. .e!., B), .)2-.+2. 'roadbent, D. #+324$. (erception and co''#nication. (ew Dork; Perga!on Press. Horay, (. #+323$. 9ttention in dichotic listening; 9ffecti7e cues and the influence of instructions. H#ar. 4. :xp. (sy., 00, 2---). 0reis!an, 9. #+3-)$. Conte%tual cues in selecti7e listening. H#ar. 4. :xp. (sy., 0*, .,..,4. Fernande@-Peon, R. #+3-+$. Reticular !echanis!s of sensory control. "n =. Rosenblith #Ed.$, /ensory co''#nication. Ca!bridge; H"0 Press. Deutsch, 4., @ Deutsch, D. #+3-*$. 9ttention; &o!e theoretical considerations. (sy. .e!., E2, 4)-3). 0reis!an, 9. #+3-,$. &electi7e attention in !an. Brit. 3ed. B#ll., *2, +.-+-. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 0rabasso, 0., J 'ower, <. #+3-4$. Attention in learning? +heory and research. (ew Dork; =iley. 0reis!an, 9. #+3-3$. &trategies and !odels of selecti7e attention. (sy. .e!., EB, .4..33. HcMay, D. #+36*$. 9spects of the theory of co!prehension, !e!ory, and attention. H#ar. 4. :xp. (sy., *<, ..-,). Hackintosh, (. #+362$. 9 theory of attention; Cariations in the associability of sti!uli with reinforce!ent. (sy. .e!., 7*, .6--.34. (eisser, >., J 'ecklen, R. #+362$. &electi7e looking; 9ttending to 7isually significant e7ents. og. (sy., 6,,4)-,3,. Rabbitt, P., J Dornic, &. #Eds.$ #+362$. Attention and perfor'ance. London; 9cade!ic Press. (or!an, D. #+366$. 3e'ory and attention? An introd#ction to h#'an infor'ation processing. (ew Dork; =iley. &hiffrin, R., J &chneider, =. #+366$. Controlled and auto!atic infor!ation processing. F. Perceptual learning, auto!atic attending, and a general theory. (sy. .e!., 7), +.6-+3).

2.

900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1

Posner, H., &nyder, C., J Da7idson, '. #+34)$. 9ttention and the detection of signals. 4. :xp. (sy.? Cen., 021, +-)-+6,. Car7er, C., J &cheier, H. #+34+$. Attention and self&reg#lation? A control theory approach to h#'an beha!ior. (ew Dork; &pringer. (ielsen, L., J &arason, ". #+34+$. E!otion, personality, and selecti7e attention. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )0, 3,2-3-). Posner, H. #+34.$. Cu!ulati7e de7elop!ent of attentional theory. A'er. (sy., 9E, +-4+63. 'ecklen, R., J Cer7one, D. #+34*$. &electi7e looking and the noticing of une%pected e7ents. 3e'. @ og., 00, -)+--)4. Mahne!an, D., J 0reis!an, 9. #+34,$. Changing 7iews of attention and auto!aticity. "n R. Parasura!an J D. Da7ies #Eds.$, =arieties of attention. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Dri7er, 4., @ 0ipper, &. #+343$. ?n the nonselecti7ity of Gselecti7eG seeing; Contrasts between interference and pri!ing in selecti7e attention. 4. :xp. (sy.? $#'. (erc. @ (erf., 0<, *),-*+,. Carlson, (. #+33)$. (sychology? +he science of beha!ior. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. 9yres, 4. #+33,$. &electi7e attention. "n R. 4. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. <ray, P. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; =orth. >rbina, &. #+33,$. 9ttention. "n R. 4. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Ai!bardo, P., J =eber, 9. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; FarperCollins. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. =ood, (., J Cowan, (. #+332$. 0he cocktail party pheno!enon re7isited; 9ttention and !e!ory in the classic selecti7e listening procedure of Cherry #+32*$. 4. :xp. (sy.? Cen., 0*), .,*-.-..

900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he ter! attit#de !ay be defined as a learned predisposition #GsetG$ to e7aluate or react consistently in a particular !anner, either positi7ely or negati7ely, to certain persons, places, concepts, or things #=ol!an, +36*$. 0he concept of attit#de was first introduced for!ally in the field of sociology by =. ". 0ho!as and 1. Ananiecki in +3+4 #cf; 0ho!as J Ananiecki, +3.6$ and has co!e to be a core concept in the field of social psychology. 0he trico'ponent 'odel of attitude states that attitudes contain three ele!ents; affecti7e e7aluati7e, cogniti7e belief, and beha7ioral action conati7e. 0his !odel assu!es both that there is a tendency within indi7iduals to !aintain consistency a!ong the three co!ponents #9belson, 9ronson, Hc<uire, (ewco!b, Rosenberg, J 0annenbau!, +3-4B 'reckler, +34,$ and that, once for!ed, attitudes and the co!ponents beco!e functional by preparing the person for GunconflictedG action. ?f the three co!ponents, the !ost pro!inent is the affecti7e e7aluati7e #feeling$ di!ension, where !ost atte!pts at changing attitudes by persuasion are ai!ed at changing the e7aluati7e co!ponent #9E@en, +33,$. Psychologists in this field belie7e that a co!prehensi7e attit#de theory should be able to e%plain data in the fi7e areas of the co!!unication process that in7ol7e the so#rce #i.e., who initiates the co!!unication, and how credible is the person or institutionI$, the 'essage #i.e., what is the nature of the co!!unication, and does it in7ol7e fear tacticsI$, the channel #i.e.,

900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1

2*

how is the co!!unication trans!itted; face-to-face, tele7ision, newspaper, etc.I$, the recei!er #i.e., who is the target audience, and what is the le7el of recei7er intelligence, e!otion, and !oti7ation of the audienceI$, and the destination #i.e., what are the ti!e fra!e, goal, and purpose for change of the co! !unicationI$. >nfortunately, no single or unifying theory of attitudes is accepted by all scientists working in the field. 0here are o7er *) distinct theoretical for!ulations described in te%tbooks on attit#de theory #?stro!, +33,$. 0here are, howe7er, co!!on 7iews a!ong researchers concerning the notion that attitudes can be represented as an e7aluati7e disposition on a continuu! ranging fro! agree!ent to disagree!ent. =ithin these para!eters, four separate classes of attit#de theory can generally be identified; e!al#ati!e disposition-#ndifferen&tiated 7iewpoint #e.g., theories that e!ploy principles of reinforce!ent and clas sical conditioning$B set of beliefs #e.g., theories that suggest an a7eraging process across a person5s cognitions or beliefs to get an o7erall e7aluati7e disposition$B set of 'oti!ational forces #e.g., theories that e!phasi@e the !ore functional and enduring dispositions based on the person5s 7alues, needs, dri7es, and !oti7es$B and attit#de nonexistence #e.g., theories that approach the concept of attit#de as being a Gsocial fictionG and ad7ocate, instead, the e%a!ination of the processes of GselfperceptionG$. 0he ideal attit#de theory should also contain accounts of both the antecedents and the conse:uences of attitude for!ation, but !ost theoretical efforts are li!ited and ha7e concentrated only on the antecedent conditions #?stro!, +33,$. 0he following sa!ple of four syste!atic theories of attit#de change indicates the range of attit#de theories acknowledged by !ost social psychologists today #'ridge, +34-$; cogniti!e&consistency theories, infor'ation& processing 'odels-theories, f#nctional theories, and percept#al theories. 0he cogniti!e&consistency theories enco!pass the Gbalance,G Gcongruity,G Gdissonance,G and GprobabilisticG theories because they all assu!e that the person has an ac:uired learned dri7e to !aintain the opti!al consistency a!ong beliefs, and when inconsistency a!ong beliefs #or between attitudes and o7ert beha7ior$ occurs, the person will take action to a7oid or reduce the resultant state of tension #e.g., 1estinger, +326B Cooper J 1a@io, +34,$. Carious concepts of the GdissonanceG theory approach include Gpost-decisional dissonanceG #when a person !ust choose between two attracti7e alternati7es, and after the choice is !ade, the indi7idual rationali@es the decision by upgrading the features of the chosen alternati7e and downgrading the reEected alternati7e$, Gselecti7e e%posure to infor!ationG #persons !ay search out infor!ation that supports their beliefs and a7oid infor!ation that challenges the! in order to reduce dissonance$, and Gforced co!plianceG #the see!ingly parado%ical notion of dissonance theory that the less a person is paid to engage in a distasteful task, the !ore the task will be enEoyed$. 0he infor'ation&processing 'odels-theories suggest that successful attitude change through persuasion in7ol7es the fi7e se:uential processes of attention #get the target audience5s attention$, co!prehension #!ake argu!ents and e%pected beha7iors of the audience clear$, yielding #assess target audience5s consent$, retention #ensure that

2,

900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1

audience !aintains its decision until action is re:uired$, and action #ensure that audience is !oti7ated to act in accordance with the new attitude$ #Hc<uire, +342$. 9ccording to this approach, if this se:uence of processes is interrupted at any point, the e%pected attitude change will not occur. 0he f#nctional theories #e.g., Mat@, +3-)B Ferek, +34-, +346B &nyder J De'ono, +343$ assu!e that indi7iduals !aintain a particular attitude because it has adapti7e 7alue and ser7es so!e personal basic need. 0he f#nctional theories ha7e e%a!ined the Gauthoritarian personalityG #e.g., Christie J Jahoda, +32,B Rokeach, +3-), +3-4$ and ha7e been fa7ored by the psychoanalytically oriented theorists, who atte!pt to e%plain negati7e attitudes and preEudices in ter!s of past patterns of childhood sociali@ation. 0he percept#al theories argue that attitudes change in conEunction with indi7iduals5 self-perceptions, their perceptions of the en7iron!ent, and their own needs. 0his approach e!phasi@es the categories, fra!es of reference, and labels that indi7iduals use to organi@e their social en7iron!ent #e.g., 'e!, +36.B (ew!an J Layton, +34,$. 9 recent type of perceptual social cogniti7e theory called the theory of planned beha!ior #9E@en, +342, +33+$ proposes that the conscious intention to beha7e in a particular way depends on the person5s atti tude toward the beha7ior #i.e., the desire to act in that way or not$, subEecti7e nor! #i.e., the beliefs about what others would think about the action$, and percei7ed beha7ioral control #i.e., sensing one5s ability to carry out the action$. 0hus, according to this theory, people !ay percei7e barriers to beha7ing ac cording to their attitudes #<ray, +33,$. 9nother current cogniti7e theoretical approach concerns the use of persuasion to change attitudes and is called the elaboration li%elihood 'odel #Petty J Cacioppo, +34-$, which states that persuasion can occur in either of two distinct ways, depending on how i!portant or rele7ant the issues are to the indi7iduals who are the target of persuasion; 7ia a GcentralG route #where an Gi!portantG !essage is carefully processed, and degree of attitude change depends on the :uality of the argu!ents ad7anced$ and 7ia a GperceptualG route #where an Guni!portantG !essage is only casually processed, and degree of attitude change depends on the presence of persuasion cues such as the e%pertise or status of the persuaderB cf; he#ristic theory of pers#asion; &utherland, +33-$. 0he for!ulation of attit#de theories in psychology is an acti7e area in7ol7ing practical applications and conse:uences. Fowe7er, 7arious unresol7ed issues re!ain that are not yet well understood by attitude theorists. 9!ong these are the lack of knowledge concerning the sudden and intense e!otional arousal that attitudes !ay produce, the !anner in which attitudes can lead indi7iduals to !ake great personal sacrifices for their ideals and lo7ed ones, and the dyna!ics underlying the dra!atic attitude re7ersals that !ay occur in a person5s life #such as lo7e at first sight, religious con7ersion, etc.$ #?stro!, +33,$. "n psychology, the study of attitudes and the theories of attitude change reflect an o7erwhel!ing di7ersity of 7iewpoints and attitudes on the part of psychologists the!sel7es about the rele7ant processes in7ol7ed. 9s noted by Reber #+332, p. -2$, psychology regularly gets itself into stor!y definitional waters, no !ore so than when a ter! like attit#de is e%plored and where the do!ain of reference turns out to be !uch !ore co!ple% than origi-

900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1

22

nally anticipated. &ee also 900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RDB C?(1L"C0, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 1E&0"(<ER5& 0FE?RDB PREJ>D"CE, 0FE?R"E& ?1B RE"(1?RCEHE(0 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& 0ho!as, =., J Ananiecki, 1. #+3.6$. +he (olish peasant in :#rope and A'erica. (ew Dork; Mnopf. LaPiere, R. #+3*,$. 9ttitudes and actions. /ocial 5orces, 09, .*)-.*6. Feider, 1. #+3,-$. 9ttitudes and cogniti7e organi@ation. 4. (sy., *0, +)6-++.. Christie, R., J Jahoda, H. #Eds.$ #+32,$. /t#dies in the scope and 'ethod of the "a#& thoritarian personality." (ew Dork; 1ree Press. 1estinger, L. #+326$. 9 theory of cogniti!e dissonance. &tanford, C9; &tanford >ni7ersity Press. Mat@, D. #+3-)$. 0he functional approach to the study of attitudes. (#b. ;pin. H#ar., *), +-*-.),. Rokeach, H. #+3-)$. +he open and closed 'ind. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. Ca!pbell, D. #+3-*$. &ocial attitudes and other ac:uired beha7ioral dispositions. "n &. Moch #Ed.$, (sychology? A st#dy of a science. Col. -. (ew Dork; Hc<rawFill. (ewco!b, 0. #+3-*$. Persistence and repression of changed attitudes; Longrange studies. 4. /oc. 6ss., 01, *-+,. 1le!ing, D. #+3-6$. 9ttitude; 0he history of a concept. (erspecti!es in A'erican $istory, 0, .46-*-2. 9belson, R., 9ronson, E., Hc<uire, =., (ewco!b, 0., Rosenberg, H., J 0annenbau!, P. #Eds.$ #+3-4$. +heories of cogniti!e consistency? A so#rceboo%. Chicago; Rand-Hc(ally. <reenwald, 9., 'rock, 0., J ?stro!, 0. #Eds.$ #+3-4$. (sychological fo#ndations of attit#des. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Rokeach, H. #+3-4$. Beliefs, attit#des, and !al#es. &an 1rancisco; Jossey-'ass. =icker, 9. #+3-3$. 9ttitudes 7ersus actions; 0he relationship of 7erbal and o7ert beha7ioral responses to attitude obEects. 4. /oc. 6ss., *<, ,+-64. 'e!, D. #+36.$. &elf-perception theory. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. -. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 1ishbein, H., J 9E@en, ". #+362$. Belief, attit#de, intention, and beha!ior. Reading, H9; 9ddison-=esley. Regan, D., J 1a@io, R. #+366$. ?n the consistency between attitudes and beha7ior; Look to the !ethod of attitude for!ation. 4. :xp. /oc. (sy., 09, .4-,2. 9E@en, "., J 1ishbein, H. #+34)$. Anderstanding attit#des and predicting social beha!ior. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Cialdini, R., Petty, R., J Cacioppo, J. #+34+$. 9ttitude and attitude change. Ann. .e!. (sy., 9*, *26-,),. 'reckler, &. #+34,$. E!pirical 7alidation of affect, beha7ior, and cognition as distinct co!ponents of attitude. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )E, ++3+-+.)2. Cooper, 4., @ Croyle, R. #+34,$. 9ttitudes and attitude change. Ann. .e!. (sy., 9<, *32,.-. Cooper, 4., @ 1a@io, R. #+34,$. 9 new look at dissonance theory. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. +6. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic

Press. (ew!an, 4., @ Layton, '. #+34,$. ?7erEustification; 9 self-perception perspecti7e. (ers. /oc. (sy. B#ll., 02, ,+3-,.2.

2900R"'>0"?( 900"0>DE '??HER9(< E11EC0 900R"'>0"?( 900"0>DE '??HER9(< E11EC0. &ee 900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD. 9E@en, ". #+342$. 1ro! intentions to actions; 9 theory of planned beha7ior. "n J. Muhl J J. 'eck!ann #Eds.$, Action control? 5ro' cognition to beha!ior. Feidelberg; &pringer. Hc<uire, =. #+342$. 0he nature of attitudes and attitude change. "n <. Lind@ey J E. 9ronson #Eds.$, $andboo% of social psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; Rando! Fouse. 'ridge, R. #+34-$. 9ttitudes and attitude change. "n 0. PettiEohn #Ed.$, +he encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. <uilford, C0; Dushkin. 1rey, D. #+34-$. Recent research on selecti7e e%posure to infor!ation. Ad!. :xp. /oc. (sy., 01, ,+-4). Ferek, <. #+34-$. 0he instru!entality of attitudes; 0oward a neofunctional theory. 4. /oc. 6ss., )*, 33-++,. Petty, R., J Cacioppo, J. #+34-$. 0he elaboration likelihood !odel of persuasion. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. +3. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Chaiken, &., J &trangor, C. #+346$. 9ttitudes and attitude change. Ann. .e!. (sy., 97, 262--*). Ferek, <. #+346$. Can functions be !easuredI 9 new perspecti7e on the functional approach to attitudes. /oc. (sy. H#ar., <2, .42-*)*. 9belson, R. #+344$. Con7iction. A'er. (sy., )9, .-6-.62. 1a@io, R. #+343$. 9ttitude accessibility. "n H. Aanna #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. &nyder, H., J De'ono, M. #+343$. >nderstanding the functions of attitudes; Lessons fro! personality and social psychology. "n 9. Pratkanis, &. 'reckler, J 9. <reenwald #Eds.$, Attit#de str#ct#re and f#nction. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. 9lessio, J. #+33)$. 9 synthesis and for!ali@ation of Feiderian balance and social e%change theory. /ocial 5orces, B7, +.-6-+.4-. 0essor, 9., J &haffer, D. #+33)$. 9ttitude and attitude change. Ann. .e!. (sy., )0, ,632.*. 9E@en, ". #+33+$. 0he theory of planned beha7ior. ;rg. Beh. @ $#'. 8ec. (roc., <2, +63-.++. Cooper, 4., @ &cher, &. #+33+$. 9ctions and attitudes; 0he role of responsibility and a7ersi7e conse:uences in persuasion. "n 0. 'rock J &. &hariff #Eds.$, +he psychology of pers#asion. &an 1rancisco; 1ree!an. Johnson, '. #+33+$. "nsights about attitudes; Heta-analytic perspecti7es. (ers. /oc. (sy. B#ll., 6,.43-.33. Eagly, 9., J Chaiken, &. #+33*$. +he psychology of attit#des. ?rlando, 1L; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. ?lson, 4., @ Aanna, H. #+33*$. 9ttitudes and attitude change. Ann. .e!. (sy., )), ++6+2,. 9E@en, ". #+33,$. 9ttitudes. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. <ray, P. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; =orth. ?stro!, 0. #+33,$. 9ttitude theory. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. &utherland, &. #+33-$. +he international dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork;

Crossroad.

900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD

26

900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD. 0he 9ustrian-9!erican psychologist 1rit@ Feider #+43--+344$ was pree!inent in the for!ulation of balance theory in the study of attitudes #i.e., people are !oti7ated to !aintain balance, har!ony, or Gcog niti7e consonanceG a!ong their attitudes, perceptions, and beliefsB Feider, +324B (ewco!b, +34+B cf; state of i!balance, dishar!ony, or Gcogniti7e dissonanceGB 1estinger, +326$ and of attrib#tion theory in the study of social perception that originated in social psychology and is a general approach for describing the ways indi7iduals use infor!ation to generate causal e%planations for beha7ior and e7ents #Feider, +324$. Feider argued that people continually !ake causal analyses about others5 beha7ior where the beha7ior is attributed either to dis& positions #internal factors or causes, such as one5s personality$ or to sit#ations #e%ternal factors or causes, such as one5s en7iron!ent$. 1or e%a!ple, is the other person5s o7ert hostility due to her or his aggressi7e personality (dispositional attrib#tion) or due to abuse and stress in that person5s en7iron!ent (sit#ational attrib#tion)? Feider suggested that instead of de7eloping theories of how people are supposed to act or think, psychologists should e%a!ine the personal theories #belief syste!s$ that ordinary people the!sel7es use as Gintuiti7e psycholo gistsG to assess the causes and effects of beha7ior #Ross, +366$. 9 prolific nu!ber of subtheories, hypotheses, effects, and principles relating to attrib#tion theory ha7e followed Feider5s initial for!ulations #cf; attrib#tion-attit#de boo'erang effect, which refers to a shift in attitude attributions that not only goes against what was intended but actually is in the opposite directionB Reber, +332$. =hile it is possible that an indi7idual !ay choose to !ake a sit#ational attrib#tion of another5s beha7ior, !ost people tend to be biased toward !aking dispositional attrib#tions. 0hus, there see!s to be a tendency to 7iew persons as origins of e7ents, and this leads !any indi7iduals to regard the needs, wishes, dispositions, skills, and !oti7es of others as responsible for both natural and social pheno!ena #Feider, +324B Hiso7ich, +34-$. 0his tendency of people to ignore the e%ternal circu!stantial causes of beha7ior and to e!phasi@e the internal personal-character causes is referred to as the f#nda'ental attrib#tion error #Ross, +366B or the o!erattrib#tion effect; 1ernald, +336$. 9ccording to the a#to'aticity hypothesis #<ilbert, +343$, such attributions to internal characteristics are auto!atic, while attributions to e%ternal causes are, by co!parison, !ore controlled. 9nother hypothesis concerning attribution theory, the c#lt#ral&nor' hypothesis #Jellison J <reen, +34+B Lee, Fallahan, J Fer@og, +33-$, states that the funda!ental attribution error #underesti!ating situational influences$ is at least partly learned fro! one5s larger culture. 1or e%a!ple, indi7iduals in a =estern culture, which e!phasi@es the idea that people are in charge of their own destinies, will learn to attribute beha7ior !ore to internal character than to e%ternal en7iron!ent. 0he actor&obser!er discrepancy is a concept in attribution theory that suggests that the funda!ental attribution error is less likely to occur when people !ake attributions about their own beha7ior than when they !ake attributions about others5 beha7iors #(isbett, Caputo, Le-gant, J Harecek, +36*$. Carious hypotheses ha7e been offered to e%plain the

24

900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD

actor&obser!er discrepancy? the %nowledge&across&sit#ations hypothesis states that people beco!e !ore sensiti@ed to the 7ariations in their own beha7ior because they ha7e seen the!sel7es in !any !ore situations than they ha7e seen others #&ande, <oethals, J Radloff, +344$B the !is#al&orientation hypothesis ste!s fro! the basic characteristic of 7isual perception that our eyes point outward, and, when we watch so!eone else5s beha7ior, our eyes are fi%ed on that person and, thereby, attribute internal causes to the person. ?n the other hand, when we oursel7es engage in beha7iors, we see the surrounding, e%ternal en 7iron!ent #not oursel7es$ and attribute e%ternal causes for our own beha7ior #&tor!s, +36*$. 0he correspondent inference theory #Jones J Da7is, +3-2$ is a syste!atic analysis of the processes described by Feider #+324$ and describes the situational factors that influence the appearance of e%ternal and internal attributions. 0his theory states, a!ong other things, that indi7iduals obser7e ac tions and effects produced by actions where such action/effect connections beco!e the basis for inferences about others5 beha7iors and intentions. =hen GknowledgeG and GabilityG intentions are attributed, an internal disposition is assu!ed to be the cause of the other person5s beha7ior. "n another case, the I#st&world hypothesis in attribution theory argues for the notion that people need to belie7e that the world is fair and that Eustice is ser7ed consistently, where bad people are punished, and good people are rewarded #Lerner, +34)$. 9 theory related to the idea that people attribute and infer internal dispositions concerning others5 beha7ior is the self& perception theory #'e!, +3-6, +36.$. 0his attribution theory proposes that indi7iduals use the sa!e infor!ation to !ake inferences about their own dispositional !akeup as they use to !ake inferences about others5. 0hus, according to this approach, we obser7e our own actions and subse:uently attribute those actions to e%ternal or internal causes, and in the absence of a reasonable e%ternal cause for our own beha7ior, we attribute our beha7ior to an internal cause. "n this way, for e%a!ple, a person de7elops attitudes about issues and e7ents by self-obser7ation of the opinions she or he e%presses. 9nother integrati7e theory of attribution processes has been for!ulated by Farold F. Melley #+36+, +36*$. Melley e!phasi@ed the idea that people often !ake causal attributions for e7ents under conditions of uncertainty, and he de7eloped a !odel of the logic that people !ight use to Eudge whether a specific beha7ior should be attributed to internal #personality-character$ causes or to e%ternal #en 7iron!ental$ causes. 9ccording to Melley5s !odel, before !aking an attribution #either internal or e%ternal$, one would ideally ask three :uestions about an-other5s beha7ior; #+$ "s it consistentI #.$ "s it consensual nor!ati7eI #*$ "s it distincti7eI "f the answer to #+$ is no, the attribution will probably be e%ternal. "f the answer to #+$ is yes, either an e%ternal or internal attribution will be !ade, depending on the answers to #.$ and #*$. "f the answer to both #+$ and #.$ is yes, the attribution will probably be e%ternal. "f the answers to #+$, #.$, and #*$ are yes, no, yes, respecti7ely, the attribution will probably be internal. "f the answers to #+$, #.$, and #*$ are yes, no, no, respecti7ely, the attribution will probably be a co!bination of both e%ternal and internal factors

900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD

23

#cf; Hc9rthur, +36.$. 9ccording to Melley #+36+$, a co!ariation-correlation principle is e!ployed when people infer the causes of e7ents, including the beha7ior of other people, by obser7ing whether two e7ents 7ary together or si!ply occur together #such as lightning and thunder$. "n this way, an effect is attributed to that condition that is present when the effect is present and that condition that is absent when the effect is absent. Melley also refers to the concepts of disco#nting principle #cf; Cha5s, +36+, disco#nting effect) and a#g& 'entation principle to describe the plausibility of internal 7ersus e%ternal causes in the assess!ent of another5s beha7ior. 8isco#nting is the tendency to reEect dispositional #internal$ factors as causes of a beha7ior when the beha7ior is apparently one that !ost people would perfor! under the e%isting circu! stances. A#g'enting is the tendency for one to increase acceptance of an internal dispositional cause when a potential e%ternal cause is also present. ?ccasionally, the attributional process !ay be biased in a way where one5s own personal goals, attitudes, and !oti7es disrupt a rational and syste!atic analysis of the causes of beha7ior. ?ne e%a!ple of this type of attributional bias is called the self&ser!ing bias #e.g., 9rkin, Cooper, J Moldit@, +34)$, which occurs when indi7iduals tend to take credit for their successes but deny responsibility for their failures. (u!erous studies ha7e been conducted to e%tend and refine attrib#tion theory #e.g., 1iske J 0aylor, +33+$, but they all atte!pt generally to e%a!ine the dyna!ics and conditions under which causal e%planations about others5 #and one5s own$ beha7iors are !ade. "n addition to social psychology, attrib#tion theory has been used as an e%planatory syste! or !odel in !any other areas of psychology, including the study of !arriage #'radbury J 1incha!, +33)$, spousal abuse #?7erholser J Holl, +33)$, cultural influence #Lee, Fallahan, J Fer@og, +33-$, achie7e!ent !oti7ation and e!otions #=einer, +34-$, and clinical depression #1letcher, 1itness, J 'la!pied, +33)$. &ee also 9CF"ECEHE(0 H?0"C90"?(, 0FE?RD ?1B 900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 1E&0"(<ER5& C?<("0"CE D"&&?(9(CE 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Cartwright, D., J Farary, 1. #+32-$. &tructural balance; 9 generali@ation of Feider5s theory. (sy. .e!., B9, .66-.3*. 1estinger, L. #+326$. A theory of cogniti!e dissonance. E7anston, "L; Row, Peterson. Feider, 1. #+324$. +he psychology of interpersonal relationships. (ew Dork; =iley. Jones, E., J Da7is, M. #+3-2$. 1ro! acts to dispositions; 0he attribution process in person perception. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'e!, D. #+3-6$. &elf-perception; 9n alternati7e interpretation of cogniti7e dissonance pheno!ena. (sy. .e!., E), +4*-.)). Cha, J. #+36+$. Clarity of the focal sti!ulus cue and the !ediation of two opposing

social perceptual effects. >npublished doctoral dissertation. >ni7ersity of California at Los 9ngeles Library.

-)

900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD

Melley, F. #+36+$. Attrib#tion in social interaction. Horristown, (J; <eneral Learning Press. 'ern, D. #+36.$. &elf-perception theory. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. -. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Hc9rthur, L. #+36.$. 0he how and what of why; &o!e deter!inants and conse:uences of causal attribution. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., **, +6+-+3*. Melley, F. #+36*$. 0he process of causal attribution. A'er. (sy., *7, +)6-+.4. (isbett, R., Caputo, C., Legant, P., J Harecek, J. #+36*$. 'eha7ior as seen by the actor and as seen by the obser7er. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., *E, +2,-+-,. &tor!s, H. #+36*$. Cideotape and the attribution process; Re7ersing actors5 and obser7ers5 points of 7iew. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., *E, +-2-+62. Ross, L. #+366$. 0he intuiti7e psychologist and his shortco!ings; Distortions in the attribution process. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psy& chology. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 9rkin, R., Cooper, F., J Moldit@, 0. #+34)$. 9 statistical re7iew of the literature concerning the self-ser7ing attribution bias in interpersonal influence situations. 4. (ers., )7, ,*2-,,4. Mruglanski, 9. #+34)$. Lay episte!ologic process and contents; 9nother look at attribution theory. (sy. .e!., 7E, 6)-46. Lerner, H. #+34)$. +he belief in a I#st world? A f#nda'ental del#sion. (ew Dork; Plenu!. Jellison, 4., @ <reen, J. #+34+$. 9 self-presentation approach to the funda!ental attribution error; 0he nor! of internality. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )2, -,*--,3. (ewco!b, 0. #+34+$. Feiderian balance as a group pheno!enon. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )2, 4-.-4-6. Hiso7ich, &. #+34-$. 9ttribution theory. "n 0. PettiEohn #Ed.$, +he encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. <uilford, C0; Dushkin. =einer, '. #+34-$. An attrib#tional theory of 'oti!ation and e'otion. (ew Dork; &pringer. &ande, <., <oethals, <., J Radloff, C. #+344$. Percei7ing one5s own traits and others5; 0he !ultifaceted self. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., <), +*-.). <ilbert, D. #+343$. 0hinking lightly about others; 9uto!atic co!ponents of the social inference process. "n J. >le!an J J. 'argh #Eds.$, Anintended tho#ght. (ew Dork; <uilford. 'radbury, 0., J 1incha!, 1. #+33)$. 9ttributions in !arriage; Re7iew and criti:ue. (sy. B#ll., 02E, *-**. 1letcher, <., 1itness, 4., @ 'la!pied, (. #+33)$. 0he link between attributions and happiness in close relationships; 0he roles of depression and e%planatory style. 4. /oc. lin. (sy., 1, .,*-.22. ?7erholser, 4., @ Holl, &. #+33)$. =ho5s to bla!e; 9ttributions regarding causality in spouse abuse. Beh. /ci. @ ,aw, 7, +)6-+.). 1iske, &., J 0aylor, &. #+33+$. /ocial cognition. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. Lee, 1., Fallahan, H., J Fer@og, 0. #+33-$. E%plaining real life e7ents; Fow culture and do!ain shape attributions. (ers. /oc. (sy. B#ll., **, 6*.-6,+. 1ernald, D. #+336$. (sychology. >pper &addle Ri7er, (J; Prentice-Fall.

9>D"0"?( FE9R"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1 AUBERTFLEISCHL PARADOX/PHENOMENON. 0FE?R"E& ?1.

-+ &ee C"&"?( &"<F0,

AUBERTFORSTER PHENOMENON/LAW. &ee C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?R"E& ?1. AUBERT PHENOMENON. &ee C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?R"E& ?1. AUDITION/HEARING, THEORIES OF. "n general, the a#dition theories atte!pt to e%plain how physical sound 7ibrations are transfor!ed into the neural i!pulses that are the basis of hearing #'ekesy J Rosenblith, +3,4B 'ekesy, +326$. Fistorically, there ha7e been fi!e #cf; Reber, +332, who cites two !aEor theories; place theory and periodicity theory) !aEor audition theories #=ol!an, +36*$; resonance-place theories, fre"#ency theories, !olley-periodicity theories, hydra#lic theories, and so#nd&pattern theories. 0he resonance theory of hearing, often called the $el'holtG theory #e.g., Fel!holt@, +4-*$, asserts that pitch is deter!ined by the place on the basilar !e!brane #i.e., a delicate !e!brane in the cochlea of the inner ear$ that is sti!ulated, where the short fibers are sensiti7e to high-pitched sounds, the long fibers are sensiti7e to low-pitched sounds, and the fibers in the !iddle of the !e!brane are attuned to sounds of !ediu! pitch. Loudness and tonal discri!inability are assu!ed to be deter!ined by the nu!ber of neurons acti7ated by the inco!ing sti!ulus. 0he resonance theory is known also as the harp theory, the place theory #cf; 'ekesy5s tra!eling&wa!e theory, which states that sounds of different fre:uencies set up different wa7e patterns in the cochlear fluidsB Ludel, +364$, and the piano theory #cf; 'ekesy5s, +3-), +3-6, argu!ent that this theory was incorrect because the basilar !e!brane fibers are not free to resonate like the strings of a piano with the sustaining pedal depressedB rather, the fibers are connected as if a sheet of light cloth were laid across the piano strings$. 0he fre"#ency theory of hearing #e.g., Rutherford, +44-$ holds that the basilar !e!brane in the ear responds as a whole entity to aural sti!uli and then trans!its the sti!uli to the brain for further analysis. Rutherford5s fre"#ency theory, often called the telephone theory, assu!es that the basilar !e!brane responds !uch like a telephone diaphrag! !echanis!. 0he !olley-periodicity theory of audition #e.g., =e7er J 'ray, +3*)a, b, +3*4B cf; =e7er5s, +3,3, co!bined resonance&!olley theory) !aintains that ner7e fibers of the basilar !e!brane respond in groups or G7olleys,G not in unison, which results in !ore trans!ission of aural i!pulses. 0hus, periodicity theory e!phasi@es the synchroni@ed firing of neurons and depends largely on the !olley principle, which proposes that groups of basilar !e!brane fibers work as s:uads and fire in synchroni@ed 7olleysB the !olley principle is necessary to this theory because the auditory ner7e follows signals only with fre:uencies up to *,)))-,,))) F@ #i.e., hert@, or cycles per second$. 0he We!erLBray effect refers to an aural potential that can be recorded using gross electrodes placed near the auditory ner7e of an ani!al. "t is !ade up of two separate potentials;

-.

9>D"0"?( FE9R"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1

one is the whole ner7e-action potential, and the other is the Gcochlear !icrophonic.G "t is interesting to note that if the changes in the electrical potentials are a!plified and fed through an ordinary telephone recei7er, one can actually understand words spoken through it into the ani!al5s ear #Reber, +332$. 0he hydra#lic theory of hearing #Heyer, +3)6, +3.4$ asserts that hearing is depen dent on the a!ount of basilar !e!brane in7ol7ed in the sensation of different tones. 0he so#nd & pattern theory #Ewald, +433, +3)*$ states that the sense of hearing is dependent on the pattern of 7ibration on the basilar !e!braneB this theory assu!es that different patterns of 7ibrations are i!posed on the basilar !e!brane by sti!uli of different co!ple%ities or pitches. 0he current 7iew of audition see!s to fa7or a for! of a!alga!ation of the place theory and the periodicity theory? for sti!uli below about *,))) F@, both place and periodicity co!bine, and for those fre:uencies abo7e this le7el, the place on the basilar !e!brane is probably the critical factor. 0he 7ariable of loudness see!s to be !ediated by the o7erall nu!ber of i!pulses arri7ing at the brain #cf; :gan effect Lthe loudness of speech in one ear is increased if noise is applied to the opposite earB Ausne, +346$. 0hus, in general, no one theory of audition hearing see!s ade:uate, perhaps because the sense of hearing is relati7ely co!ple% #Reber, +332$. &ee also FDDR9>L"C 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Fel!holt@, F. 7on #+4-*$. 8ie ,ehre !on den +one'pfind#ngen als physiologische Cr#n&dlage f#r die +heorie der 3#si%. 'raunschweig; =ieweg. Rutherford, E. #+44-$. 9 new theory of hearing. 4. Anat. (hysio., ,on., *0, +---+-4. Ewald, 4. #+433$. Aur Physiologie des Labyrinths. C". Eine neue Fortheorie. Ar. ges. (hysio., EB, +,6-+44. Ewald, 4. #+3)*$. Aur Physiologie des Labyrinths. C"". Die Er@eugung 7on &challbildern in der ca!er acustica. Ar. ges. (hysio., 19, ,42-2)). Heyer, H. #+3)6$. 9n introduction to the !echanics of the inner ear. Ani!ersity of 3isso#ri /t#dies, /cience /er!ices, *, no. +. Heyer, H. #+3.4$. 0he hydraulic principles go7erning the function of the cochlea. 4. Cen. (sy., +, .*3-.-2. =eyer, E., J 'ray, C. #+3*)a$. Present possibilities for auditory theory. (sy. .e!., 9E, *-2-*4). =eyer, E., J 'ray, C. #+3*)b$. 0he nature of acoustic response; 0he relation between sound fre:uency and fre:uency of i!pulses in the auditory ner7e. 4. :xp. (sy., 09, *6*-*46. &te7ens, &. &., J Da7is, F. #+3*4$. $earing? 6ts psychology and physiology. (ew Dork; =iley. =eyer, E., J 'ray, C. #+3*4$. Distortion in the ear as shown by the electrical responses of the cochlea. 4. Aco#. /oc. A'er., 1, ..6-.**. 'ekesy, <. 7on., J Rosenblith, =. #+3,4$. 0he early history of hearing/ ?bser7ations and theories. 4. Aco#. /oc. A'er., *2, 6.6-6,4. =eyer, E. #+3,3$. +heories of hearing. (ew Dork; =iley. Da7is, F. #+32+$. Psychophysiology of hearing and deafness. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

9C?"D9(CE FDP?0FE&"&

-*

'ekesy, <. 7on #+326$. 0he ear. /ci. A'er., 01E, ---64. 'ekesy, <. 7on #+3-)$. :xperi'ents in hearing. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. 'ekesy, <. 7on #+3-6$. /ensory inhibition. Princeton, (J; Princeton >ni7ersity Press. <ulick, =. #+36+$. $earing? (hysiology and psychophysics. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 0obias, J. #Ed.$ #+36.$. 5o#ndations of 'odern a#ditory theory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. Hoore, '. #+366$. 6ntrod#ction to the psychology of hearing. 'alti!ore; >ni7ersity Park Press. Carterette, E., J 1ried!an, H. #Eds.$ #+364$. $andboo% of perception. Col. ,; $earing. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Ludel, J. #+364$. 6ntrod#ction to sensory processes. &an 1rancisco; 1ree!an. Ausne, L. #+346$. :pony's in psychology. =estport, C0; <reenwood Press. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 9>1<9'E, L9= ?1 0FE. &ee H"(D HE(09L &E0, L9= ?1. 9><HE(090"?( PR"(C"PLE. &ee 900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD. 9>0?M"(E0"C E11EC0. &ee 9PP9RE(0 H?CEHE(0, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9>0?H90"C"0D FDP?0FE&"&. &ee 900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD. 9>0?0EL"C 0FE?RD. &ee PL9D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9C?"D9(CE FDP?0FE&"&. &ee P>("&FHE(0, 0FE?R"E& ?1.

B
'9ER C?( '9ER5& L9=. &ee REC9P"0>L90"?(, 0FE?RD L9= ?1. '9L9(CE, PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?RD ?1. &ee 900R"'>0"?( 1E&0"(<ER5& C?<("0"CE D"&&?(9(CE 0FE?RD. 0FE?RDB

'9LD="( E11EC0. 0he 9!erican de7elop!ental psychologist Ja!es Hark 'aldwin #+4-+-+3*,$ de7eloped a refined Darwinian genetic psychology #'ald win, +43,b, +3).$. 'aldwin5s chief goal was to e%plain the adapti7e correspon dence of !ental life and thoughts to !aterial things, which he argued e7ol7ed through the for!ation and transfor!ation of habits 7ia the interacting processes of assi!ilation and i!itation #'aldwin, +3)--+3++$. 'aldwin held a functional 7iew of !ind as sensori!otor process and e!phasi@ed the i!portance of intentional action as the !echanis! of selection in the de7elop!ent of !ental fac ulties. "n his approach, 'aldwin co!bined Darwinian and La!arckian ideas of e7olution to for!ulate his own sophisticated hypothesis of organic selection, which accounted for the course and direction of growth. 'aldwin5s notion of organic selection ca!e to be known as the Baldwin effect #'roughton, +33,$. 'aldwin also applied his !odel of intentional action to the !oral, religious, and social aspects of hu!an beha7ior where cycles of suggestion and i!itation were !echanis!s by which indi7iduals de7eloped socially, and where social progress was 7iewed as social selection along with the trans!ission and conser7ation of adapti7e 7alues. "n so!e of his writings, 'aldwin referred to nu!erous laws that occur in psychology. 1or e%a!ple, 'aldwin #+43,a$ described laws of ner7ous acco!!odation, habit, inheritance, e7olution, !oti7es, contradictory representation, re7ersion to type, !ental dyna!ogenesis, attention, and 7oluntary interest. 9lso, in another case #'aldwin, +3)-$, he referred to laws of i!agination, association, associati7e reproduction, correlation, preference in associations, identity in Eudg!ent, contiguity, contradiction, partial effect, sensation,

'9(D>R95& 0FE?RD

-2

passi7e i!agination, sufficient reason, habit, and thought. 0hus, 'aldwin, like !any other early psychologists who were schooled and grounded in 'ental philosophy, see!ed to de!onstrate a penchant for a rather generous, liberal, and nonrigorous use of the ter! law in describing 7arious psychological pheno!ena. &ee also 900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1B D9R="(5& EC?L>0"?( 0FE?RDB DD(9H?<E(E&"&, L9= ?1. RE1ERE(CE& 'aldwin, J. #+443-+43+$. $andboo% of psychology. . 7ols. (ew Dork; 9.H.&. Press. 'aldwin, J. #+43,a$. $andboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. 'aldwin, J. #+43,b$. 3ental de!elop'ent in the child and in the race. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 'aldwin, J. #+436a$. /ocial and ethical interpretations in 'ental de!elop'ent? A st#dy in social psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 'aldwin, J. #Ed.$ #+3)+-+3)2$. 8ictionary of philosophy and psychology. , 7ols. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 'aldwin, J. #+3).$. 8e!elop'ent and e!ol#tion. (ew Dork; 9.H.&. Press. 'aldwin, J. #+3)-$. $andboo% of psychology (/enses and intellect). (ew Dork; Folt. 'aldwin, J. #+3)--+3++$. +ho#ght and things. * 7ols. London; &wan, &onnenschein. 'roughton, J. #+33,$. Ja!es Hark 'aldwin. "n J. R. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. '9(D>R95& 0FE?RD. 0he Canadian-9!erican psychologist 9lbert 'an-dura #+3.2- $ is a proponent of social-cogniti!e learning theory, which atte!pts to e%plain hu!an beha7ior in ter!s of a reciprocal interaction between the three aspects of beha7ior, cognitions, and en7iron!ental e7ents. =hile social learning theory had its origins in the beha7iorally oriented writings of "7an Pa7lo7, J. '.=atson, and '. 1. &kinner #and in the work of J. Dollard and (. Hiller, M. Lewin, E. 0ol!an, <. F. Head, and F. &. &ulli7an$, 'andura is pree!inent #along with Julian Rotter, =alter Hischel, and 9rthur &taats$ in the for!ulation and application of social learning theory. 9ccording to Band#ra's theory #+3-3, +34-$, hu!ans learn to satisfy their needs, wishes, and desires by obser7ing the outco!es of beha7iors and e7ents, where the obser7ations lead to e%pectations about what will happen in the future and about one5s ability to perfor! beha7iors and to e%press e!otions. "ndi7iduals co!pare their beha7iors with those of others and !ake 7alue Eudg!ents about their own and others5 beha7iors. "n this way, according to social-cogniti!e theory, it is not si!ply the e%ternal conditions alone that deter!ine beha7ior #as e%tre!e beha7iorists !ight clai!$, but it is also the decisions one !akes based on one5s cognitions #GknowledgeG$ about the conditions. Band#ra's theory includes se7eral key concepts concerning the de7elop!ent of personal and social beha7iors, a!ong which are reciprocal deter'inationLthe idea that the person5s beha7ior and the social learning en7iron!ent continually influence each other in reciprocal waysB one learns beha7ior fro! interactions with other persons, and our beha7ior influences how other persons interact with us #'andura, +366b, +364$B

--

'9(D>R95& 0FE?RD

self & efficacy L the perception that one is capable of achie7ing one5s goals #'andura, +366a, +34.$B self & reg#lation L the process of cogniti7ely punishing and reinforcing one5s own beha7ior depending on whether or not it !eets one5s personal standards #'andura, +366b, +343$B 'odeling-obser!ational learning L a procedure in which an indi7idual obser7es another person perfor! so!e beha7 ior, notes the conse:uences of that beha7ior, and then atte!pts to i!itate that beha7ior #'andura J Jeffrey, +3*6B 'andura, Ross, J Ross, +3-*B 'andura, +3-4, +36+, +34-$B !icario#s p#nish'ent L the obser7ation of the punish!ent of a !odel5s beha7ior that results in the decrease of the probability of that sa!e beha7ior in the obser7erB and !icario#s reinforce'ent L the obser7ation of the reinforce!ent of a !odel5s beha7ior that results in the increase of the probability of that sa!e beha7ior in the obser7er #'andura, +3-2, +3-3, +36*$. 'andura5s essential research and theoretical for!ulations ha7e focused on obser7ational learning, the role of thought in establishing and !aintaining beha7ior, the ap plication of beha7ior principles and social learning to therapeutic conte%ts, and the ways in which children learn to be aggressi7e. &ee also 9<<RE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1B R?00ER5& &?C"9L LE9R("(< 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE&

'andura, 9., J Jeffrey, R. #+3*6$. Role of sy!bolic coding and rehearsal processes in obser7ational learning. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., *B, +..-+*). 'andura, 9., J =alters, R. #+323$. Adolescent aggression. (ew Dork; Ronald Press. 'andura, 9. #+3-+$. Psychotherapy as a learning process. (sy. B#ll., <7, +,*-+23. 'andura, 9., Ross, D., J Ross, &. #+3-*$. "!itation of fil!-!ediated aggressi7e !odels. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., BB, *-++. 'andura, 9., J =alters, R. #+3-*$. /ocial learning and personality de!elop'ent. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 'andura, 9. #+3-2$. Cicarious processes; 9 case of no-trial learning. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'andura, 9. #+3-4$. Hodeling approaches to the !odification of phobic disorders. "n R. Porter #Ed.$, +he role of learning in psychotherapy. London; Churchill. 'andura, 9. #+3-3$. (rinciples of beha!ior 'odification. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. 'andura, 9. #Ed.$ #+36+$. (sychological 'odeling? onflicting theories. Chicago; 9ldine-9therton. 'andura, 9. #+36*$. Aggression? A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 'andura, 9. #+36,$. 'eha7ior therapy and !odels of !an. A'er. (sy., *1, 423-4-3. 'andura, 9. #+366a$. &elf-efficacy; 0oward a unifying theory of beha7ioral change. (sy. .e!., 7), +3+-.+2. 'andura, 9. #+366b$. /ocial learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 'andura, 9. #+364$. 0he self-syste! in reciprocal deter!inis!. A'er. (sy., 99, *,,*24. 'andura, 9. #+34.$. &elf-efficacy !echanis! in hu!an agency. A'er. (sy., 9E,

+..-

+,6.

'9R(>H E11EC0

-6

'andura, 9. #+34-$. /ocial fo#ndations of tho#ght and action? A social cogniti!e theory. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. 'andura, 9. #+343$. Fu!an agency in social cogniti7e theory. A'er. (sy., )), ++62++4,.

'9R(>H E11EC0. 0he Barn#' effect-pheno'enon, na!ed after the 9!erican show!an, charlatan, and entrepreneur Phineas 0. 'arnu! #+4+)-+43+$, refers to the fact that a cle7erly worded GpersonalG description based on general, stereotyped state!ents will be readily accepted as an accurate self-description by !ost people #1orer, +3,3$. 0he Barn#' effect is behind the fakery of fortunetellers, astrologers, and !ind readers and has often conta!inated legiti!ate study of personality assess!ent #Reber, +332$. 0he effect is consistent with 'arnu!5s often-:uoted aphoris! G0here5s a sucker born e7ery !inute.G 'ar nu!, a circus show!an, knew that the for!ula for success was to Gha7e a little so!ething for e7erybodyG #Rathus, +33*$. 9n early study of the Barn#' effect #1orer, +3,3$ had a group of college students take a proEecti7e test on which they were gi7en subse:uent bogus feedback. "n fact, each student was gi7en the sa'e interpretation. "n general, the students each felt that these interpretations were accurate and fitted the! well. 0hus, the tendency to accept standard feed back of a 7ague, uni7ersalist nature is the Barn#' effect. ?ther studies also report that when the sa!e 7ague, positi7e, and flattering state!ents are gi7en to indi7iduals as a personali@ed horoscope, personality profile, or handwriting analysis, they belie7e the! to be accurate descriptions of the! personally #&nyder J &henkel, +362B 1rench, 1owler, HcCarthy, J Peers, +33+B cf; Layne, +363B Johnson, Cain, 1alke, Fay!an, J Perillo, +342$. &o!e researchers report that people are !ore willing to belie7e flattering state!ents about the!sel7es than state!ents that are scientifically accurate #e.g., 0hiriart, +33+$. Carious suggestions ha7e been offered by researchers to a7oid falling prey to the Barn#' effect, such as beware of all-purpose descriptions that could apply to anyone, beware of one5s own selecti7e perceptions, and resist undue flattery #=ade J 0a7ris, +33-$. &ee also PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?R"E&.
RE1ERE(CE& 1orer, '. #+3,3$. 0he fallacy of personal 7alidation; 9 classroo! de!onstration of gul libility. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., )), ++4-+.*. Fill, =. #+36)$. (sychology? (rinciples and proble's. Philadelphia; Lippincott. &nyder, C., J &henkel, R. #+362$. 0he P. 0. 'arnu! effect. (sy. +oday, 7, 2.-2,. Falperin, M., J &nyder, C. #+363$. Effects of enhanced psychological test feedback on treat!ent outco!e; 0herapeutic i!plications of the 'arnu! effect. 4. ons. @ lin. (sy., )E, +,)-+,-. Layne, C. #+363$. 0he 'arnu! effect; Rationality 7ersus gullibility. 4. ons. @ lin. (sy., )E, .+3-..+. Johnson, J., Cain, L., 1alke, 0., Fay!an, J., J Perillo, E. #+342$. 0he G'arnu! effectG re7isited; Cogniti7e and !oti7ational factors in the acceptance of personality de scriptions. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., )1, +*64-+*3+.

-4 '9R0LE005& &CFEH909 0FE?RD 'ECM5& C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD 0FE?RD. &ee 'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 1rench, C., 1owler, H., HcCarthy, M., J Peers, D. #+33+$. 'elief in astrology; 9 test of the 'arnu! effect. /%eptical 6n"#irer, 0<, +---+6.. 0hiriart, P. #+33+$. 9cceptance of personality test results. /%eptical 6n"#irer, 0<, +-++-2. Rathus, &. #+33*$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. =ade, C., J 0a7ris, C. #+33-$. (sychology. (ew Dork; FarperCollins. '9R0LE005& &CFEH909 0FE?RD. 0he 'ritish psychologist 1rederic C. 'artlett #+44--+363$ proposed an ad!ittedly 7ague theory/the sche'ata theory of 'e'oryLas a way of in7alidating and repudiating the classical trace theory of 'e'ory #i.e., the hypothesi@ed !odification of neural tissue resulting fro! any for! of sti!ulation such as learning new !aterial$. 'artlett #+3*.$ stressed the constructi7e, o7er the reproducti7e, aspects of recall and adapted his sche'atic theory #based on the assu!ption that sche'ata are cogniti7e, !ental plans that are abstract guides for action, structures for interpreting and retrie7ing infor!ation, and organi@ed fra!eworks for sol7ing proble!s$ fro! Fenry Fead5s #+3.)$ work on neurology, sensation, and the cerebral corte%. >nfortunately, Bartlett's theory see!ed to be too speculati7e to gain wide ac ceptance in the psychological co!!unity #Aangwill, +33,$, e7en though it led !any people to think so!ewhat differently about the dyna!ics and nature of !e!ory #?ldfield J Aangwill, +3,*B Aangwill, +36.$. &ee also HEH?RD, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 0R9CE 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Fead, F. #+3.)$. /t#dies in ne#rology 66. London; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. Fead, F. #+3.-$. Aphasia and %indred disorders of speech. Ca!bridge, England; Ca!bridge >ni7ersity Press. 'artlett, 1. #+3*.$. .e'e'bering? A st#dy in experi'ental and social psychology. Ca!bridge, England; Ca!bridge >ni7ersity Press. ?ldfield, R., J Aangwill, ). #+3,*$. Fead5s concept of the sche!a and its application in conte!porary 'ritish psychology; Part """. 'artlett5s theory of !e!ory. Brit. 4. (sy., 99, ++*-+.3. 'artlett, 1. #+3,4$. Challenge to e%peri!ental psychology. "n (roceedings and (apers of the 0*th 6nternational ongress of (sychology at :dinb#rgh. Edinburgh; ?li7er J 'oyd. Aangwill, ). #+36.$. GRe!e!beringG re7isited. H#ar. 4. :xp. (sy., *), +.,-+*4. Aangwill, ). #+33,$. 1rederic C. 'artlett. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. '90E&?(5& C"'R90?RD 0FE?RD. &ee HE(DEL5& L9=& PR"(C"PLE&.

'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD

-3

'EF9C"?R 0FE?RD ?1 PERCEP0"?(. &ee PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he ter! beha!ior therapy originated in a hospital report by Lindsley, &kinner, and &olo!on #+32*$ that described their use of operant conditioning principles with psychotic patients. Later, La@arus #+324$ used the ter! in referring to =olpe5s application of the techni:ue of reciprocal inhibition to neurotic patients, and Eysenck #+323$ used beha!ior therapy to refer to the application of 'odern learning theory to neurotic patients5 beha7ior. 0he early usage of the ter! be& ha!ior therapy was linked consistently to learning theory #Mrasner, +33,$. "t was also called conditioning therapy, which had as its goal the eli!ination of unadapti7e beha7ior and the initiation and strengthening of adapti7e habits #=olpe, +3-3$. Mrasner #+36+$ asserts that +2 factors within psychology coalesced during the +32)s and +3-)s to create and for! the beha!ior therapy theoretical approach; the concept of beha!ioris' in e%peri!ental psychology #e.g., Mantor, +3-3$B instru!ental operant conditioning research #0horndike, +3*+B &kinner, +3*4$B the treat!ent procedure of reciprocal inhibition #=olpe, +324$B studies at Haudsley Fospital in London #Eysenck, +3-,$B the application of conditioning learning concepts to hu!an beha7ior proble!s in the >nited &tates fro! the +3.)s through the +32)sB learning theory interpretations of psychoanalysis #e.g., Dollard J Hiller, +32)$B use of Pa7lo7ian classical condition ing to e%plain and change both nor!al and de7iant beha7iorsB i!pact of concepts and research fro! social role learning and interactionis! in social psychology and sociology #e.g., Head, +3*,B Parsons, +3,3B Fo!ans, +3-+$B research in de7elop!ental child psychology e!phasi@ing !odeling and 7icarious learning #e.g., 'andura, +3-3, +36+$B for!ulation of social influence 7ariables and con cepts such as de!and characteristics, e%peri!enter bias, placebo, and hypnosisB de7elop!ent of the social learning 'odel as an alternati7e to the disease 'odel of beha7ior #e.g., >ll!an J Mrasner, +3-*$B dissatisfaction with, and criti:ues of, traditional psychotherapy and the psychoanalytic !odel #e.g., Eysenck, +32.B cf; <ross, +363$B ad7ance!ent of the idea of the clinical psychologist as GscientistpractitionerGB de7elop!ent in psychiatry of hu!an social interaction and en7iron!ental influences #e.g., &ulli7an, +32*$B and resurgence of utopian 7iews of social-en7iron!ental planning #e.g., &kinner, +3,4$. 0he unifying the!e in beha!ior therapy is its deri7ation fro! e!pirically based principles and procedures. 1our general types of beha!ior therapy ha7e been acknowledged by psychologists #Manfer J Phillips, +36)$; interacti7e, instigation, replication, and inter7ention therapiesB and fi7e different approaches in conte!porary beha!ior therapy are recogni@ed #Ma@din J =ilson, +364$; applied beha7ior analysis, neobeha7ioristic !ediational &-R !odel, social learning theory, !ulti!odal beha7ior therapy, and cogniti7e-beha7ior !odification. 9 nu!ber of specific beha7ior and cogniti7e therapies based on these principles and theories ha7e been de7eloped since the +3-)s, such as rational&e'oti!e therapy #Ellis, +36*$,

6)

'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD

cogniti!e therapy #'eck, +36,B 'eck is called the Gfather of cogniti7e therapyGB Reber, +332$, self&instr#ctional-stress inoc#lation #Heichenbau!, +366$, and co!ert 'odeling therapy #Cautela, +36+$. "t has been suggested that the 7arious challenges facing beha!ior-cogniti!e therapy theories today concerning their procedures and effecti7eness !ay best be !et by the use of a Gtechnical eclecticis!G #La@arus, +34+$, where there is a willingness to e!ploy appropriate techni:ues across the 7arious theoretical points of 7iew. Fowe7er, the specific !ethods used in the 7arious different beha!ior therapy theories all ha7e the co!!on attributes of scientific e%a!ination of beha7ior grounded in learning theory, including the control of appropriate 7ariables, the appreciation of data-based concepts, and the high regard for operational definitions of ter!s and replicability of results. 0he de7elop!ent of beha!ior therapy was not !onolithic in concept, theory, or practice, and its roots were wide and 7aried. 0hus, beha!ior therapy theory !ay best be characteri@ed, generally, as the application of the laws of !odern learning theory to all types of disorder, including indi7idual, situational, and en7iron!ental #1ranks, +33,$. &ee also 9'C 0FE?RDB '9(D>R95& 0FE?RDB &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RDB =?LPE5& 0FE?RD 0ECF("N>E ?1 REC"PR?C9L "(F"'"0"?(. RE1ERE(CE& 0horndike, E. #+3*+$. $#'an learning. (ew Dork; 9ppleton. Head, <. #+3*,$. 3ind, self, and society? 5ro' the standpoint of a social beha!iorist. Chicago; >ni7ersity of Chicago Press. &kinner, '. 1. #+3*4$. +he beha!ior of organis's? An experi'ental analysis. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century. &kinner, '. 1. #+3,4$. Walden two. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Parsons, 0. #+3,3$. +he str#ct#re of social action. <lencoe, "L; 1ree Press. Dollard, J., J Hiller, (. #+32)$. (ersonality and psychotherapy? An analysis in ter's of learning, thin%ing, and c#lt#re. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Eysenck, F. #+32.$. 0he effects of psychotherapy; 9n e7aluation. 4. ons. (sy., 0B, *+3*.,. Lindsley, )., &kinner, '. 1., J &olo!on, F. #+32*$. /t#dies in beha!ior therapy. =altha!, H9; Hetropolitan &tate Fospital. &ulli7an, F. &. #+32*$. +he interpersonal theory of psychiatry. (ew Dork; (orton. La@arus, 9. #+324$. (ew !ethods in psychotherapy; 9 case study. /. Afr. 3ed. 4., 99, --)---,. =olpe, J. #+324$. (sychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. &tanford, C9; &tanford >ni7ersity Press. Eysenck, F. #+323$. Learning theory and beha7iour therapy. 4. 3ent. /ci., 01<, -+62. Fo!ans, <. #+3-+$. /ocial beha!ior? 6ts ele'entary for's. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. >ll!an, L., J Mrasner, L. #+3-*$. ase st#dies in beha!ior 'odification. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Eysenck, F. #Ed.$ #+3-,$. :xperi'ents in beha!ior therapy? .eadings in 'odern

'ethods of 'ental disorders deri!ed fro' learning theory. ?%ford; Perga!on Press.

'EF9C"?R"&0 0FE?RD

6+

'andura, 9. #+3-3$. (rinciples of beha!ior 'odification. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Mantor, J. R. #+3-3$. +he scientific e!ol#tion of psychology. Chicago; Principia Press. =olpe, J. #+3-3$. +he practice of beha!ior therapy. (ew Dork; Perga!on Press. Manfer, 1., J Phillips, J. #+36)$. ,earning fo#ndations of beha!ior therapy. (ew Dork; =iley. 'andura, 9. #Ed.$ #+36+$. (sychological 'odeling? onflicting theories. Chicago; 9ldine9therton. Cautela, J. #+36+$. Co7ert conditioning. "n 9. Jacobs J L. &achs #Eds.$, +he psychology of pri!ate e!ents? (erspecti!es on co!ert response syste's. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Mrasner, L. #+36+$. 'eha7ior therapy. Ann. .e!. (sy., **, ,4*-2*.. Ellis, 9. #+36*$. Rational-e!oti7e therapy. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, #rrent psychotherapies. "tasca, "L; Peacock. 'eck, 9. #+36,$. ogniti!e therapy and the e'otional disorders. (ew Dork; "nternational >ni7ersities Press. Heichenbau!, D. #+366$. ogniti!e&beha!ior 'odification? An integrati!e approach. (ew Dork; Plenu!. Ma@din, 9., J =ilson, <. #+364$. :!al#ation of beha!ior therapy. Ca!bridge, H9; 'allinger. Ledwidge, '. #+364$. Cogniti7e beha7ior !odification; 9 step in the wrong direction. (sy. B#ll., 7<, *2*-*62. <ross, H. #+363$. +he psychological society. (ew Dork; &i!on J &chuster. Mendall, P., J Follon, &. #Eds.$ #+363$. ogniti!e beha!ioral inter!entions? +heory, research, and proced#res. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. La@arus, 9. #+34+$. 3#lti'odal theory. (ew Dork; <uilford Press. 1ranks, C. #+33,$. 'eha7ior therapy; Proble!s and issues. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Mrasner, L. #+33,$. 'eha7ior therapy. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

BEHAVIORAL CONTRAST EFFECT/PHENOMENON. &ee <E(ER9L"A90"?(, PR"(C"PLE ?1. BEHAVIORIST THEORY. Beha!iorist theory #Gbeha7ioris!G$ was the !ost significant !o7e!ent in e%peri!ental psychology fro! +3)) to about +362. "t was launched in +3+* by John '. =atson but had its origins in the work of "7an Pa7lo7 and E. L. 0horndike. Beha!iorist theory re!ains influential today in spite of !uch criticis! le7eled against it after about +3-) #Leahey, +34), +33,$. "n general, beha!iorist theory de7eloped as an alternati7e orientation toward studying and e%plaining an indi7idual5s conscious e%perience, and it originally reEected both the !ethods and tenets of 'entalis' #where the proper subEect !atter of psychology was purported to be the study of !ind, fa7oring the !ethod of introspection, or Glooking into one5s own e%perienceG$. "n John '. =atson5s #+3+*, +3+3, +3.2, +3.4$ classical approach, beha!iorist theory was for!ulated as a purely obEecti7e e%peri!ental branch of natural science

6.

'EF9C"?R"&0 0FE?RD

whose goal was the prediction and control of beha7ior, whose boundaries recogni@ed no di7iding line between !an and GlowerG ani!al, and which reEected concepts such as 'ind, conscio#sness, and introspection. Carious refor!ulations and 7ersions of =atson5s classical beha7iorist approach, called neobeha!iorist theory #or Gneobeha7ioris!G$, ha7e appeared in the twentieth century under the labels of for'al beha!ioris' #including logical beha!ioris' and p#rposi!ecogniti!e beha!ioris'), infor'al beha!ioris', and radical beha!ioris' #Leahey, +34), +33,$. 5or'al beha!iorist theory, under the influence of logical positi!is' #where propositions in science needed to be 7erified by e!pirical and obser7able !eans$, atte!pted to e%plain beha7ior in ter!s of a theory that consisted of operational definitions of concepts, processes, and e7ents both directly obser7ed and unobser7ed. 0he logical beha7ioris! of Clark L. Full #+3,*, +32.$, for !ulated in ter!s of a hypothetico&ded#cti!e learning theory, was the !ost syste!ati@ed theory of the for!al beha7iorists. 9nother 7ariation of the for!al beha7iorist theories was E. C. 0ol!an5s #+3*.$ p#rposi!e-cogniti!e beha!iorist theory, which reEected the highly !echanistic approach of =atson and Full and espoused the notion that organis!s are always acting to !o7e toward or away fro! so!e goal where their purpose is to learn about their en7iron!ents, not si!ply to respond to sti!uli. +ol'an's theory de7eloped the GinternalG concepts of p#rpose, cognition, cogniti!e 'aps, and expectancies as a way of e%plaining beha7ior. 6nfor'al beha!iorist theory, or liberaliGed sti'#l#s&response theory, for!ulated co7ert !ediating e7ents #called Gfractional, unobser7able re sponsesG$ between the initial sti!ulus and the final response in a learned beha7ior. "n this way, the co7ert beha7iors of !e!ory, thinking, language, and proble! sol7ing could be cast into beha!ior theory ter!s where the notion of the Gcentral !ediating responseG was a core concept #e.g., Hiller, +323$. .adical beha!iorist theory is closest of all the neobeha7iorist 7ariations to =atson5s classical theory. 0his approach proposed that whate7er cannot be obser7ed and !easured does not e%istB it also reEected the Gfu@@yG and ill-defined concepts in psychology such as 'ind, free will, personality, self, and feelings, e7en though it allowed an organis!5s Gpri7ate worldG to be studied scientifically #&kinner, +3*4, +32), +32*, +3-*, +36,B Mantor, +324$. 0he theoretical approach of the radical beha7iorists is the only type of beha!iorist theory that is e%erting a serious influence on !ainstrea! psychology today, while the other beha7iorist 7ariations ha7e passed into history. "t is possible that present-day cogniti7e psychology is a new for! of beha!iorist theory with historical roots in 0ol!an5s purposi7e cogniti7e psychology and Full5s logical beha7ioris!, and a new ter! #such as beha!ioralis'; cf; "ons, +366$ !ay be needed to co!bine the beha!iorist position with the cogniti!ist position, both of which co!!only reEect the notion of traditional !entalis! #Leahey, +33,B cf; Hiller, <alanter, J Pribra!, +3-)$. &ee also F>LL5& LE9R("(< 0FE?RDB &M"((ER5& 'EF9C"?R 0FE?RD ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RDB 0?LH9(5& 0FE?RD.

'ELL-H9<E(D"E L9= RE1ERE(CE& LaHettrie, J. #+6,4 +3-+$. 3an as 'achine. La&alle, "L; ?pen Court. =atson, J. '. #+3+*$. Psychology as the beha7iorist 7iews it. (sy. .e!., *2, +24-+66. =atson, J. '. #+3+3$. (sychology fro' the standpoint of a beha!iorist. Philadelphia; Lippincott. =atson, J. '. #+3.2$. Beha!ioris'. (ew Dork; (orton. =atson, J. '. #+3.4$. +he ways of beha!ioris'. (ew Dork; (orton. =atson, J. '., J HcDougall, =. #+3.3$. +he battle of beha!ioris'. (ew Dork; (orton. 0ol!an, E. C. #+3*.$. (#rposi!e beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century. &kinner, '. 1. #+3*4$. +he beha!ior of organis's? An experi'ental analysis. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century. Full, C. L. #+3,*$. (rinciples of beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. &kinner, '. 1. #+32)$. 9re theories of learning necessaryI (sy. .e!., <E, +3*-.+-. Full, C. L. #+32.$. A beha!ior syste'? An introd#ction to beha!ior theory concerning the indi!id#al organis'. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. &kinner, '. 1. #+32*$. /cience and h#'an beha!ior. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Mantor, J. R. #+324$. 6nterbeha!ioral psychology. 'loo!ington, "(; Principia Press. Hiller, (. #+323$. Liberali@ation of basic &-R concepts; E%tensions to conflict beha7ior, !oti7ation, and social learning. "n &. Moch #Ed.$, (sychology? A st#dy of a sci& ence. Col. .. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Hiller, <., <alanter, E., J Pribra!, M. #+3-)$. (lans and the str#ct#re of beha!ior. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. &kinner, '. 1. #+3-*$. 'eha7ioris! at fifty. /cience, 0)2, 32+-324. &kinner, '. 1. #+36,$. Abo#t beha!ioris'. (ew Dork; Mnopf. "ons, E. #+366$. Against beha!ioralis'. ?%ford, England; 'lackwell. Leahey, 0. #+34)$. A history of psychology? 3ain c#rrents in psychological tho#ght. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Mrasner, L. #+33,$. 'eha7ioris!; Fistory. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Leahey, 0. #+33,$. 'eha7ioris!. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

6*

'EME&D5& 0FE?RD. &ee 9>D"0"?( FE9R"(<, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 'ELL-H9<E(D"E L9=. 0his generali@ed principle initially described by the &cottish anato!ist, surgeon, and neurophysiological pioneer &ir Charles 'ell #+66,+4,.$ in +4++ was subse:uently restated independently #in +4+4$ by the 1rench physiologist 1rancois Hagendie #+64*-+422$. 0he BellL3agendie law states that the 7entral roots of the spinal ner7es ha7e !otor functions, while the dorsal roots of the spinal ner7es ha7e sensory functions. 'ell5s work in physiology was considered in his own ti!e as the !ost i!portant since =illia! Far7ey5s #+264-+-26$ disco7ery of the circulation of the blood in +-.4. 0he differentiation of the sensory and !otor ner7e functions had been known by the early <reek physician <alen #c. +*)-.))$, but this knowledge was lost by later physiologists who belie7ed that the ner7es functioned nondifferentially in trans!itting both sensory and !otor i!pulses. 'ell5s e%plorations of the sensori!otor

6,

'EL?(<"(<(E&&, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1

functions of the spinal ner7es triggered a bitter and prolonged priority dispute #i.e., who disco7ered the principle firstI$ with Hagendie. 9pparently, Hagendie did not know of 'ell5s disco7ery, which was published pri7ately in +4++ as a !onograph of only +)) copies. 0oday, both scientists are gi7en credit for the disco7ery known as the BellL3agendie law #'oring, +326B Lundin, +33,B Huir, +33,$. 0he disco7ery of the distinction between sensory and !otor ner7es in the BellL3agendie law pro7ided the basis for Harshall Fall5s #+63)-+426$ work in physiology on the refle% arc and refle% functions. 'ell5s e%peri!ental work led to the disco7ery of the long thoracic ner7e in the body na!ed Bell's ner!e. "n addition, the ter! Bell's palsy refers to 'ell5s de!onstration that lesions of the se7enth cranial ner7e could create facial paralysis. Hagendie5s work, on the other hand, was concerned with wide-ranging and co!prehensi7e studies in e%peri!ental physiology e%tending fro! the relationships between sensations and the ner7ous syste! to the relationships between intellect and the nu!ber of con7olutions in the brains of ani!als on different le7els of the phylogenetic scale. 0he BellL3agendie law was elaborated by later workers in physiology into the principle that conduction fro! cell to cell within the central ner7ous syste! occurs only in the direction fro! receptor to effector #=arren, +3*,$. &ee also (E>R?( (E>R9L (ERCE 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& 'ell, C. #+4++$. 6dea of a new anato'y of the brain. London; &trahan J Preston. Fall, H. #+4**$. ?n the refle% action of the !edulla oblongata and !edulla spinalis. (hil. +rans. .oy. /oc. ,on., 0*9, -*2---2. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. 'oring, E. <. #+326$. A history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. Lundin, R. #+33,$. &ir Charles 'ell. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Huir, F. #Ed.$ #+33,$. ,aro#sse dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork; Larousse. 'EL?(<"(<(E&&, L9= PR"(C"PLE ?1. 0his is one of E. L. 0horndike5s #+3*., +3*2$ accessory or secondary laws to his !ain law of effect, whereby the properties of one ite!, when closely related to the properties of another ite!, cause a bond to be for!ed easily between the two ite!s. 0his principle i!plicitly acknowledges the contributions !ade by the Cestalt theory and <estalt school in psychology #Moffka, +3*2B Mohler, +3,)$, especially when considering the <estaltists5 laws of percept#al organiGation, whereby so!e kinds of sti!uli see! to go together !ore naturally than others. 1or e%a!ple, first and last na!es presented together !ay be perceptually grouped or learned better than a set of first na!es only or a set of last na!es only. 0he principle of belongingness has been reacti7ated in recent work on learning, where the basic principles of classical and operant conditioning are inco!plete without so!e recognition of the relationship that e%ists between the ite!s to be associated and the specific properties of the organis! undergoing the learning e%perience #Re-

'ERMELED5& 0FE?RD ?1 C"&>9L &P9CE PERCEP0"?( ber, +332$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"CE &F"10"(<, L9= ?1B E11EC0, L9= ?1B <E&09L0 0FE?RD L9=&B PERCEP0>9L ?R<9("A90"?(, L9=& ?1B RE"(1?RCEHE(0, 0F?R(D"ME5& 0FE?RD ?1. RE1ERE(CE&

62

0ho!dike, E. L. #+3*.$. +he f#nda'entals of learning. (ew Dork; 0eachers College, Colu!bia >ni7ersity. Moffka, M. #+3*2$. +he principles of Cestalt psychology. (ew Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. 0ho!dike, E. L. #+3*2$. +he psychology of wants, interests, and attit#des. (ew Dork; 9ppleton. Cole, L. #+3*3$. Ceneral psychology. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Mohler, =. #+3,)$. 8yna'ics in psychology. (ew Dork; Li7eright. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. BEM'S SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY. &ee 900R"'>0"?( 0FE?RD. BENEKE'S DOCTRINE OF TRACES. &ee <E&09L0 0FE?RD L9=&. BERKELEY'S THEORY OF VISUAL SPACE PERCEPTION. "n +6)3, the "rish philosopher and theologian 'ishop <eorge 'erkeley #+-42-+62*$ argued for an e'piricist #e%perience$ position of 7ision and against a nati!ist #inborn$ ability of indi7iduals to Eudge distance #cf; <ibson J =alk, +3-)B =alk, +3--$. 'erkeley5s position on perceptual distance was that 7arious cues #such as the si@e of obEects encountered in one5s e%perience$ were learned pre7iously and that indi7iduals !ade the association between particular distances and the sen sations that arose fro! their eye !uscle !o7e!ents and positions. 0hus, Ber%eley's theory posited that the perception of distance was an act of Eudg!ent that was grounded in e%perience, and he described the e:ui7alents of what today are the secondary criteria or factors for appreciating 7isual space perception #such as aerial perspecti7e, interposition, and relati7e si@e$. 'erkeley also listed three pri'ary criteria for the appraisal of distance; #+$ the physical space between the pupils, which is changed by turning one5s eyes as an obEect approaches or re cedes #today this is called the cue of con!ergence); #.$ the GblurringG of obEects when they are too close to the eye #this factor is probably not 7alid today as a distance cue$B and #*$ the GstrainingG of the eye #the cue that today !ay be called acco''odation, in7ol7ing the adEust!ent of the shape of the lens of the eye to co!pensate for the distance of the obEect of focus fro! the retina$. 'oring #+326$ suggests that one !ust not be decei7ed about the e%tent of 'erkeley5s knowledge of 7isual space perception because he only 7aguely understood the !echanis! of the perception of distance. 'erkeley was correct essentially in two of his three pri'ary criteria, but he was a long way off fro! knowing about the physiology of con7ergence, corresponding points and the horopter theory #<raha!, +3-2$, and $el'holtG's theory of the physiology of acco!!odation.

6-

'ER(E5& &CR"P0 0FE?RD

9ccording to 'oring #+326$, 'erkeley !ade the :uestion of the perception of distance a !atter of sensation or idea when he e%e!plified the introspectionist5s context theory of the 7isual perception of distance, and, in so doing, 'erkeley generally anticipated the ideas of !odern associationis!. 'erkeley5s GsubEecti7e idealis!G #'oring, +326$ was influential in the historical de7elop!ent of the role of association in psychology as well as in ad7ancing argu!ents for e%periential factors in perception and against innate factors as the basis for 7ision #cf; $a'ilton's hypothesis of space; &pencer, +43.$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B EHHER05& L9=B PERCEP0"?( #". <E(ER9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B ="0M"(&5 PERCEP0"?( 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE&
'erkeley, <. #+6)3 +3,4$. Essay toward a new theory of 7ision. "n 9. Luce J 0. Jessop #Eds.$, +he wor%s of Ceorge Ber%eley, bishop of loyne. 0oronto; (elson. 'erkeley, <. #+6+) +32)$. A treatise concerning the principles of h#'an %nowledge. La&alle, "L; ?pen Court. 1raser, 9. #Ed.$ #+6,, +3)+$. +he wor%s of Ceorge Ber%eley. ?%ford; Clarendon Press. Ja!es, =. #+43)$. (rinciples of psychology. Col. .. (ew Dork; Folt. &pencer, F. #+43.$. +he principles of psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppleton. Ladd, <. #+434$. ;#tlines of descripti!e psychology. (ew Dork; &cribners. Haher, H. #+3))$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Long!ans, <reen. &!ith, (. #+3)2$. Halebranche5s theory of the perception of distance and !agnitude. Brit. 4. (sy., +, +3+-.),. 'oring, E. <. #+326$. A history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. <ibson, E., J =alk, R. #+3-)$. 0he 7isual cliff. /ci. A'er., *2*, -6-6+. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. Cisual space perception. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. Fochberg, J. #+3-2$. (erception. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. =alk, R. #+3--$. 0he de7elop!ent of depth perception in ani!als and infants. hild 8e!. 3ono., 90, no. 2.

BERNE'S SCRIPT THEORY. 0he Canadian-born 9!erican psychologist psychiatrist Eric L. 'erne #+3+)-+36)$ for!ulated his script theory concerning personality #ego$ de7elop!ent and relationships between indi7iduals #cf; 9dler5s, +3.6, +3*6, concept of lifestyle), which states that each person creates a life script early in life as a way of !eeting one5s needs, and it is usually carried out unknowingly. Berne's theory assu!es that indi7iduals de7elop one of four life positions; G"5! ?M, you5re ?M,G G"5! ?M, you5re not ?M,G G"5! not ?M, you5re ?M,G and G"5! not ?M, you5re not ?M,G and persons engage in ga!es to play out their life script in order to obtain GstrokingG #i.e., the attention and ti!e of other people$. 0he life position of G"5! not ?M, you5re ?MG #or the Gkick !eG life script$ indicates a !aladapti7e person who !ost likely suffers fro! depression. 0reating !aladapti7e indi7iduals in7ol7es e%planation of

'EA?LD/'R>CME E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?( F>E &F"10

66

the roles #Gga!esG$ people play and how they treat other people in those roles, and where interpersonal transactions are analy@ed #in transactional analysis; 'erne, +3-+$ concerning parent #P$, ad#lt #9$, and child #C$ roles. 9ccording to this once-popular approach #'erne, +3-,, +3--$, when a person5s P9C roles are positioned opposite another person5s P9C roles, and the lines of co!!unication or interaction between the! are crossed, the transaction is considered to be unhealthy. ?n the other hand, when the lines of co!!unication between two sets of aligned P9C roles are parallel, the interpersonal transaction is considered to be healthy. 9n e%a!ple of an unhealthy transaction is a patient5s G9G personality #or Gego stateG$ saying to a nurse5s G9G personality; G" think working in a hospital would be challenging,G but ha7ing the nurse5s GPG personality reply to the patient5s GCG personality by saying, GDou5re sick because you can5t cope with your proble!sG #a crossed interchange fro! GPG to GC,G crossing the G9G to G9G co!!unication line$. Berne's theory and the GP9CG concepts contain ob7ious si!ilarities to &ig!und 1reud5s #+3.), +3**$ tripartite personality theory concepts of id, ego, and s#perego, an accusation that 'erne denied #Peyser, +33,$. &ee also 9DLER5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB 1RE>D5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D.
RE1ERE(CE& 1reud, &. #+3.)$. A general introd#ction to psychoanalysis. (ew Dork; Pocket 'ooks. 9dler, 9. #+3.6$. (ractice and theory of indi!id#al psychology. (ew Dork; Fu!anities Press. 1reud, &. #+3**$. >ew introd#ctory lect#res on psychoanalysis. "n J. &trachey #0rans. J Ed.$, +he standard edition of the co'plete psychological wor%s of /ig'#nd 5re#d. Col. .). London; Fogarth Press. 9dler, 9. #+3*6$. Position in fa!ily constellation influences life style. 6nter. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 9, .++-..6. 'erne, E. #+3,3$. 0he nature of intuition. (sychiat. H#ar., *9, .)*-..-. 'erne, E. #+3-+$. +ransactional analysis in psychotherapy? A syste'atic indi!id#al and social psychiatry. (ew Dork; <ro7e Press. 'erne, E. #+3-,$. Ca'es people play? +he psychology of h#'an relationships. (ew Dork; <ro7e Press. 'erne, E. #+3--$. (rinciples of gro#p treat'ent. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 'erne, E. #+36.$. What do yo# say after yo# say hello? (ew Dork; <ro7e Press. Peyser, C. #+33,$. Eric L. 'erne. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

'EA?LD/'R>CME E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?( F>E &F"10. 0his pheno!enon is credited to the <er!an physicist Johann 'e@old #+4*6-+3)6$ and the <er!an physiologist Ernst 'rucke #+4+3-+43.$, who found that the hue of spectral colors of obEects changes with the le7el of illu!ination. 0he effect applies to bluish reds and bluish greens, where the reds and greens are percei7ed as bluer with increased illu!ination, and to yellowish reds and yellowish greens, where the reds and greens are percei7ed as yellower with

increased illu!ination. Fowe7er, the BeGoldLBr#c%e effect does not occur with the GpurerG reds,

64 '"CF90, L9= ?1 =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+343$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. &an Diego; 9cade!ic Press. Huir, F. #Ed.$ #+33,$. ,aro#sse dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork; Larousse. greens, blues, and yellows. 0he pheno!enon is usually obtained as an aspect of the negati7e afteri!age produced by retinal adaptation. &ee also 9D9P090"?(, PR"(C"PLE& L9=& ?1B 910ER-"H9<E L9=B C?L?R C"&"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& 'rucke, E. #+42+$. >ntersuchungen uber subEecti7e 1arben. (ogg. Ann. (hys. he'., 7), ,+4-,2.. 'rucke, E. #+44,$. =orles#ngen #ber (hysiologie. Col. .. Cienna; 'rau!ueller. Huller, <. E. #+3*)$. >ber die 1arben e!pfindungen. D. (sy., 0E&07, ,-, 2)4. 0roland, L. #+3*)$. (rinciples of psychophysiology. Col. .. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand. Purdy, D. #+3*+$. ?n the saturations and chro!atic thresholds of the spectral colours. Brit. 4. (sy., *0, .4*. Judd, D. #+32+$. 'asic correlates of the 7isual syste!. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. Color; Data and theories. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. &ha7er, M., J 0arpy, R. #+33*$. (sychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. '"CF90, L9= ?1. 0he 1rench physician, pathologist, and anato!ist Harie 1rancois Ka7ier 'ichat #+66+-+4).$ proposed the principle that there are two !ain body syste!s, which are in in7erse relationship, called the !egetati!e and the ani'al, with the 7egetati7e syste! pro7iding for assi!ilation and aug!entation of !ass and the ani!al syste! pro7iding for the transfor!ation of energy #=ol!an, +343$. 'ichat5s !ain contribution to !edicine and physiology was his perception that the di7erse organs of the body contain particular tissues or 'e'branes, and he described .+ such !e!branes, including connecti7e, !uscle, and ner7e tissues. 'ichat !aintained that in the case of disease in an organ, generally not the whole organ but only certain tissues are affected. 'ichat did not use the !icroscope, which he distrusted, so his tissue analysis did not include any acknowledg!ent of their cellular structure. 'ichat established the significance and centrality of the study of tissues #GhistologyG$, and his lasting i!portance lay in si!plifying anato!y and physiology by showing how the co!ple% structures of organs could be ascertained in ter!s of their ele!entary tissues #Huir, +33,$. 'ichat5s work, done with great intensity during the last years of his short life #he perfor!ed o7er -)) post!orte!s$, had !uch influence in !edical science, and he for!ed a bridge between the earlier organ pathology of <io7anni 'attista Horgagni #+-4.-+66+$ and the later cell pathology of Rudolf Ludwig Carl Circhow #+4.+-+3).$ #Hillar, Hillar, Hillar, J Hillar, +33-$. &ee also <E(ER9L &D&0EH& 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE&

'"R0F ?RDER 0FE?RD Hillar, D., Hillar, "., Hillar, J., J Hillar, H. #+33-$. +he a'bridge dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork; Ca!bridge >ni7ersity Press. BIEDERMAN'S RECOGNITION BY COMPONENTS THEORY. &ee P900ER( ?'JEC0 REC?<("0"?( 0FE?RD. BIG FIVE MODEL/THEORY OF PERSONALITY. &ee PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?R"E&.

63

BIOCHEMICAL THEORIES OF PERSONALITY. &ee P&DCF?P90F?L?<D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. BIOCHEMICAL/NEUROLOGICAL THEORIES OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. &ee &CF"A?PFRE("9, 0FE?R"E& ?1. BIOFEEDBACK, PRINCIPLE OF. &ee C?(0R?L &D&0EH& 0FE?RD. BIOGENETIC RECAPITULATION 0FE?RD L9= ?1. THEORY. &ee REC9P"0>L90"?(,

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, DOCTRINE OF. &ee D9R="(5& EC?L>0"?( 0FE?RD. BIRTH ORDER THEORY. =hile there has been a wealth of e!pirical research on birth order and its influence on personality #e.g., &a!pson, +3-2B 1orer, +366B Driscoll J Eckstein, +34.$, !ost of the results are restricted to isolated pheno!ena and inco!plete e%planations because of an absence of an underlying and co!prehensi7e theory of birth order #Driscoll J Eckstein, +33,$. Fowe7er, one of 9lfred 9dler5s !ost significant contributions to psychology has been his for!ulation of the relationship between birth order and personality de7elop!ent. 9dler #+3.6, +3*6$ hypothesi@ed that the child5s position in the fa!ily creates specific proble!s that are handled by fa!ilies generally in the sa!e way, and such birth order e%periences !ay re7eal a characteristic personality pattern for each ordinal birth position. 9ccording to 9dler, as the fa!ily group de7elops, different de!ands arise, and need-fulfill!ent is assigned to each child in order of birth. 0he style of coping is ne7er the sa!e for any two children as the situation changes. 9dler belie7ed that the needs that influence a specific lifestyle correspond to the child5s percei!ed birth order, where it isn5t the child5s nu!ber in order of successi7e births that influences her or his character, but the sit#ation into which she or he is born and the way in which it is interpreted. 0hus, according to 9dler and others #&hul!an J Hosak, +366$, Gpsychological positioningG is the !ost i!portant factor, where an indi7idual5s own s#bIecti!e psychological birth order perception is superordinate to !ere biological birth order. Research has indicated that personality differences e!erge in children,

4)

'"R0F ?RDER 0FE?RD

within a specific birth order group, relati7e to factors of absence or presence of a sibling, se% of the sibling, aspects of the parents5 relationship, age, fa!ily si@e, e%ceptional status, a7ailable roles, and relationships with the e%tended fa!ily #Eckstein, +34.$. "n distinguishing between idiographic and no'othetic laws as related to 9dler5s theory of birth order, Dink!eyer, Pew, and Dink!eyer #+363$ state that one !ay !ake general guesses about an indi7idual5s personality based upon ordinal position, where the guesses are based on no'othetic laws #such as youngest children tend to be. . . . , oldest children tend to be. . . . , etc.$, but the actual, specific case !ay be different depending on how the indi7idual percei7es the situation and what that person does about it #which are called idiographic laws). 0hus, no'othetic laws concerning the fa!ily constellation help in understanding the person5s idiographic laws or Glifestyle.G 0he !aEor re7iews of the literature concerning the influence of birth order on personality ha7e shown the rubrics of Gfirstborn,G G!iddle-born,G Gyoungest,G and Gonly childrenG to be the !ost co!!on and fre:uently used di7isions #e.g., =elch, +366B cf; &hul!an J Hosak, +366$. 0he assu!ption of birth order theory that birth order causes the different personality traits is false, and it would be erroneous to o7ergenerali@e or typecast a person on that basis #Driscoll J Eckstein, +33,$. 9dler5s approach, which e!phasi@ed the social deter!inants of personality and the predisposition of early influences to a faulty Glifestyle,G see!s to ha7e !erit for so!e psychologists where they belie7e that no two people de7elop in e%actly the sa!e way. &o!e persons stri7e for Gsuperiority,G so!e atte!pt to cope with Gbasic inferiority,G and one5s fa!ily constellation !ay intensify or !odify the child5s feelings in either case. 0he proble!s of birth order theory are nu!erous, and psychologists generally !ay be pessi!istic #e.g., &chooler, +36.$ or opti!istic #e.g., Driscoll J Eckstein, +33,$ concerning its long-range de7elop!ent and i!portance in e%plaining personality. &ee also 9D-LER5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB "D"?<R9PF"C (?H?0FE0"C L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& 9dler, 9. #+3.6$. (ractice and theory of indi!id#al psychology. (ew Dork; Fu!anities Press. 9dler, 9. #+3*6$. Position in fa!ily constellation influences life style. 6nter. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 9, .++-..6. &a!pson, E. #+3-2$. 0he study of ordinal position; 9ntecedents and conditions. "n '. Haher #Ed.$, (rogress in experi'ental personality research. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. HacDonald, 9. #+36+$. 'irth order and personality. 4. ons. @ lin. (sy., 9B, +6++6-. &chooler, C. #+36.$. 'irth order effects; (ot here not nowR (sy. B#ll., E7, +-++62. Mo, D. #+36*$. 'irth order and psychological needs. Acta (sy. +ai., 0<, -4-4). Cockell, E., 1elker, D., J Hiley, C. #+36*$. 'irth order literature +3-6-+36.. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., *1, *3-2*. Rosenblatt, P., J &koogberg, <. #+36,$. 'irth order in cross-cultural perspecti7e. 8e!. (sy., 02, ,4-2,.

'L?CM"(<, PFE(?HE(?( E11EC0 ?1

4+

1orer, L. #+366$. 'ibliography of birth order literature in the 6)5s. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 99, +..-+,+. &hul!an, '., J Hosak, F. #+366$. 'irth order and ordinal position; 0wo 9dlerian 7iews. 4. 6ndi!. (sy., 99, ++,-+.+. =elch, '. #+366$. 9 psychological study of only children. >npublished Ph.D. dissertation. >ni7ersity of (orth Carolina Library. Dink!eyer, D., Pew, =., J Dink!eyer, D. #+363$. Adlerian co#nseling and psycho& therapy. Honterey, C9; 'rooks Cole. Driscoll, R., J Eckstein, D. #+34.$. E!pirical studies of the relationship between birth order and personality. "n D. Eckstein #Ed.$, ,ife style? What it is and how to do it. Dubu:ue, "9; Mendall Funt. Eckstein, D. #+34.$. ,ife style? What it is and how to do it. Dubu:ue, "9; Mendall Funt. Driscoll, R., J Eckstein, D. #+33,$. 'irth order and personality. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. BLENDING, LAW OF. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. BLOCH'S LAW. &ee '>(&E(/R?&C?E L9=. BLOCKING, PHENOMENON/EFFECT OF. 0he pheno!enon of bloc%ing is an e%a!ple in the psychology of learning and conditioning that the te!poral contiguity alone between e7ents is not sufficient for an association to be for!ed between the!. 9lthough the bloc%ing effect was at one ti!e clai!ed by selecti!e attention theories #0rabasso J 'ower, +3-4$, Leon J. Ma!in #+3-4, +3-3$ first described the bloc%ing e%peri!ent where two groups of subEects are used. ?ne group is presented with a co!pound sti!ulus #called G9KG$ that is paired with an unconditioned sti!ulus #>C&$, such as a no%ious puff of air to the eye. 9 second group, before recei7ing an identical treat!ent, is gi7en pretraining during which the G9G co!ponent of the co!pound sti!ulus is paired with the >C& #air puff$. 1ollowing the G9K/>C&G pairing, the portion GKG of the co!pound sti!ulus is tested alone. "t is found that GKG is !ore likely to elicit a conditioned response #CR$, such as the eye blink, when the subEect did not ha7e prior training with the G9G co!ponent alone. 0he sti!ulus portion GKG of the co!pound sti!ulus was paired with the >C& #and, therefore, with the unconditioned response, >CR$ the sa!e nu!ber of ti!es in both groups. Contiguity between sti!ulus and response was established e:ually in both groups, and yet learning was not e:ual. 0he bloc%ing pheno'enon-effect indicates that there !ust be so!ething !ore to conditioning and learning than !ere sti!ulus/response con tiguity. 0hat is, if sti!ulus/response contiguity was a sufficient condition for learning to occur, then GKG should ha7e beco!e an e:ually effecti7e C& in both groups, which it did not #'ower J Filgard, +34+B Fouston, +34+$. 0hus, bloc%ing occurs when conditioning to a sti!ulus is attenuated, or Gblocked,G because that sti!ulus signals an outco!e that was pre7iously predicted by an other sti!ulus or cue. Ma!in5s #+3-4, +3-3$ interpretation of the bloc%ing effect

4.

'L?CM"(<, PFE(?HE(?( E11EC0 ?1

was that conditioning depends on the predictability of reinforce!ent such that sti!uli support learning only to the e%tent that the outco!es #that they signal$ are Gsurprising.G 0he first for!al !odel to use Ma!in5s idea of GsurpriseG was de7eloped by Rescorla and =agner #+36.$. 0heir !odel differed fro! pre 7ious theories by assu!ing that the associati7e strength of a C& decreases o7er trials because the >C& beco!es less effecti7e when it is signaled by a sti!ulus with increasingly greater associati7e strengthB thus, the >C& is reinforcing only to the e%tent that it is Gsurprising.G 0heories that ha7e followed the .escorlaL Wagner 'odel ha7e been distinguished on the basis of whether they focus at tention on the processing of the >C& or on the processing of the C&. 0he infor'ation &processing theory of =agner #+364$ focuses on the processing of the >C&B the attentional theory of Hackintosh #+362$ and research by Pearce and Fall #+34)$ focus on the processing of the C&. Fowe7er, none of the the ories as yet de7eloped can acco!!odate all the obser7ations that are !ade fro! the bloc%ing e%peri!ents, e7en though they ha7e sti!ulated !uch research in the field of learning and conditioning #Rickert, +33,$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B 900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1B "(1?RH90"?( "(1?RH90"?(-PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?R"E&B LE9R("(< 0FE?R"E& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE&
Ma!in, L. #+3-4$. G9ttention-likeG processes in classical conditioning. "n H. Jones #Ed.$, 3ia'i sy'posi#' on the prediction of beha!ior. Hia!i, 1L; >ni7ersity of Hia!i Press. 0rabasso, 0., J 'ower, <. #+3-4$. Attention in learning? +heory and research. (ew Dork; =iley. Ma!in, L. #+3-3$. Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. "n '. Ca!pbell J R. Church #Eds.$, (#nish'ent and a!ersi!e beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. Rescorla, R., J =agner, 9. #+36.$. 9 theory of Pa7lo7ian conditioning. Cariations in the effecti7eness of reinforce!ent and nonreinforce!ent. "n 9. 'lack J =. Pro-kasy #Eds.$, lassical conditioning. 66. #rrent research and theory. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. Hackintosh, (. #+362$. 9 theory of attention; Cariations in the associability of sti!uli with reinforce!ent. (sy. .e!., 7*, .6--.34. Cheafle, H., J Rudy, J. #+364$. 9nalysis of second-order odor-a7ersion conditioning in neonatal rats; "!plications for Ma!in5s blocking effect. 4. :xp. (sy.? Ani'. Beh. (roc., ), .*6-.,3. =agner, 9. #+364$. E%pectancies and the pri!ing of &0H. "n &. Fulse, F. 1owler, J =. Fonig #Eds.$, ogniti!e processes in ani'al beha!ior. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. Mohler, E., J 9yres, J. #+363$. 0he Ma!in blocking effect with 7ariable-duration C&s. Ani'. ,earn. Beh., 6,*,6-*2). Pearce, J., J Fall, <. #+34)$. 9 !odel for Pa7lo7ian learning; Cariations in the effecti7eness of conditioned but not of unconditioned sti!uli. (sy. .e!., 7E, 2*.-22.. 'ower, <., J Filgard, E. #+34+$. +heories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; PrenticeFall.

'R>CE E11EC0

4*

Fouston, J. #+34+$. 5#nda'entals of learning and 'e'ory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Rickert, E. #+33,$. 'locking. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. '?FR5& C?HPLEHE(09R"0D PR"(C"PLE. &ee C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?R"E& ?1. '?00?H->P PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?R"E&. Botto'&#p theories is a general ter! referring to the direction of processing of infor!ation in any gi7en aspect of percept#al or cogniti!e theory. 1or e%a!ple, in obIect perception theory, the analysis of obEects into parts is called botto'&#p processing because processing starts with basic units, and one5s perception is then built on the foundation laid by these units #<oldstein, +33-$. ?bEect perception is influenced not only by the nature of the units that !ake up obEects but also by the obser7er5s knowledge of the world #cf; top&down processing). "n cogniti!e theory, si!ilarly, botto'&#p processing refers to the deter!ination of a process pri!arily by the physical sti!ulus. 0he notion is that obser7ers deal with the infor!ation in a gi7en situation by beginning with the GrawG sti!ulus and then Gwork their way upG to the !ore abstract, cogniti7e operations #Reber, +332$. 0hus, taking sensory data into the perceptual syste! first by the receptors and then sending it upward for e%traction and analysis of rele7ant infor!ation is called botto'&#p processing or data&dri!en processing. &ensations of 7isual features and perceptions of organi@ed obEects are largely the result of botto'& #p processes #Ai!bardo J =eber, +33,$. &ee also "(1?RH90"?( "(1?RH90"?(-PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?RDB P900ER( ?'JEC0 REC?<("0"?( 0FE?RDB PERCEP0"?( #". <E(ER9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1B 0?P-D?=( PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?R"E&. RE1ERE(CE& Ai!bardo, P., J =eber, 9. #+33,$. (sychology. (ew Dork; FarperCollins. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. <oldstein, E. #+33-$. /ensation and perception. Pacific <ro7e, C9; 'rooks Cole. '?=D"0CF5& L9=. &ee H>LLER5& D?C0R"(E ?1 &PEC"1"C (ERCE E(ER<"E&. 'R9"(-1"ELD 0FE?RD. &ee 9PP9RE(0 H?CEHE(0, PR"(C"PLE& ?1. 'R?9D'E(05& 1"L0ER H?DEL. &ee 900E(0"?(, L9=& 0FE?R"E& ?1. 'R>CE E11EC0. 0his pheno!enon describes the influence of social odor co!!unication fro! one organis! to another, where a fe!ale !ouse that has !ated with one !ale will display a blockage of pregnancy #called the Br#ce effect) if she is e%posed to a strange !ale, or the odor of a strange !ale, a few

4,

'R>(ER5& 0FE?RD ?1 "(&0R>C0"?(

days later #Dewsbury, +33,$. 0he Br#ce effect was first obser7ed in !ice by Filda 'ruce, where the ter!ination of a pregnancy was brought about by sub stances in the urine of a 7irile !ale !ouse other than the one that i!pregnated the fe!ale. Fa7ing thus eli!inated the offspring of the other !ale, the ani!al was now able to i!pregnate the fe!ale hi!self and thus increase the likelihood of passing his own genes on to future generations #Reber, +332$. ?ther related che!ical signals that facilitate co!!unication a!ong !e!bers of a species are phero!ones and allo!ones #che!ical substances that signal within, and a!ong, a species !essages of se%ual recepti7ity, alar!, or territoriality$. 1e!ale rats e!it a !aternal phero!one that helps the offspring find the! #Leon, +36,$. 9lso, fe!ale rats that are housed near each other tend to ha7e estrous cycles that beco!e synchroni@ed o7er ti!eB a si!ilar !enstrual synchrony has been found between hu!an fe!ales who li7e together #<raha! J Hc<rew, +34)$. &ee also C?HH>("C90"?( 0FE?RDB ?L19C0"?( &HELL, 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& =ilson, E. #+3-*$. Phero!ones. /ci. A'er., *27, +))-++2. Leon, H. #+36,$. Haternal phero!one. (hys. Beh., 09, ,,+-,2*. &ebeok, 0. #Ed.$ #+366$. $ow ani'als co''#nicate. 'loo!ington; "ndiana >ni7ersity Press. &!ith, =. #+366$. +he beha!ior of co''#nicating. Ca!bridge; Far7ard >ni7ersity Press. 'rown, R. #+363$. Ha!!alian social odors; 9 critical re7iew. Ad!. /t#d. Beh., 02, +)*+-.. <raha!, C., J Hc<rew, =. #+34)$. Henstrual synchrony in fe!ale undergraduates li7ing on a coeducational ca!pus. (sychone#roendocrinology, <, .,2-.2.. Dewsbury, D. #+33,$. 9ni!al co!!unication. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. 'R>(ER5& 0FE?RD ?1 "(&0R>C0"?(. &ee 9L<?R"0FH"C-FE>R"&0"C 0FE?RD. 'R>(&="M5& PR?'9'"L"&0"C 1>(C0"?(9L"&H 0FE?RD. &ee PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1. '>(&E(-R?&C?E L9=. L 'loch5s law L reciprocity law. 0his generali@ed principle de7eloped by the <er!an che!ist and physicist Robert =ilhel! 'un sen #+4++-+433$ and the English che!ist &ir Fenry Enfield Roscoe #+4**-+3+2$ states that the absolute threshold for 7ision is a reciprocity relation and !ulti plicati7e function of the intensity and duration of the sti!ulus. 1or e%a!ple, a flash of light of short duration, presented to the eye under adaptation, pro7ides a gi7en effect that can be achie7ed by the reciprocal !anipulation of duration and lu!inance of the flash. 0his !eans that the gi7en effect !ay be produced by an intense flash that acts for a short ti!e or by a di! light that acts for a

'D&09(DER "(0ERCE(0"?( E11EC0

42

relati7ely long ti!e. 0his relationship, when applied to !any photoche!ical syste!s, is known as the B#nsenL.oscoe law #also called the photographic law when used in the conte%t of the effect of light on photographic e!ulsionB Ausne, +346$. 1or instance, when chlorine and hydrogen are co!bined in the presence of light, the e%tent of the photoche!ical action 7aries in7ersely with the distance fro! the light source and is directly proportional to its intensity. Fowe7er, when this relationship is applied to studies of hu!an 7ision, it is so!eti!es known as Bloch's law #<raha!, +3-2B 'artlett, +3-2$. Considerable confir!ing e7i dence has accrued o7er the years that 7erifies the applicability of Bloch's law for threshold deter!ination with durations of one !illisecond or longer #e.g., 'londel J Rey, +3++B Marn, +3*-$, and, as long as the area of sti!ulation is s!all, and the duration is not e%cessi7e, a further critical factor in the law is the total energy in7ol7ed in the sti!ulation for 7ery short durations #'rindley, +32.$. 9nother synony! for the B#nsenL.oscoe law is the reciprocity law, which states that response is deter!ined by the product of the intensity and duration of the sti!ulus, independently of the !agnitude of either one alone, and holds within rather narrow li!its for 7arious 7isual and other biological pheno!ena #cf; BrocaL/#lGer effect, also called Br#c%e effect and Brewster ef&fectLa flash of light appears brighter than a steady light of the sa!e intensityB Ausne, +346$. &ee also R"CC?5& P"PER5& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& 'loch, 9. #+442$. E%periences sur la 7ision. /oc. Bio. 3e'., (aris, 9E, ,3*-,32. 'londel, 9., J Rey, J. #+3++$. &ur la perception des lu!ieres bre7es a la li!ite de leur portee. 4. de (hys., +, 2*)-22). Fartline, F. #+3*,$. "ntensity and duration in the e%citation of single photoreceptor units. 4. ell. o'p. (hysio., <, ..3-.,6. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology. Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. Marn, F. #+3*-$. 9rea and the intensity-ti!e relation in the fo7ea. 4. Cen. (sy., 0), *-)*-3. 'rindley, <. #+32.$. 0he 'unsen-Roscoe law for the hu!an eye at 7ery short durations. 4. (hysio., 007, +*2-+*3. 'artlett, (. #+3-2$. 0hresholds as dependent on so!e energy relations and characteristics of the subEect. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. &o!e funda!ental data. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. Ausne, L. #+346$. :pony's in psychology. =estport, C0; <reenwood Press. Huir, F. #Ed.$ #+33,$. ,aro#sse dictionary of scientists. (ew Dork; Larousse. BYSTANDER INTERVENTION EFFECT. 0his pheno!enon !odel was described by 'ibb Latane and John Darley #+3-4, +36)$ and suggests that bystanders are engaged in a series of decisions, rather than a single decision, as whether to inter7ene or not in situations when help is needed by another person; #+$ the bystander !ust notice that so!ething is happeningB #.$ the bystander !ust in-

4-

'D&09(DER "(0ERCE(0"?( E11EC0

terpret the happening as an e!ergency e7entB #*$ the bystander !ust decide that she or he has a responsibility to beco!e in7ol7edB #,$ the bystander !ust decide on the for! of assistance to gi7e the G7icti!GB and #2$ the bystander !ust !ake a decision as to how to i!ple!ent the pre7ious decision. Research findings fro! the laboratory and field settings indicate the i!portance that social factors play in the bystander effect where the actions of others in the situation #such as passi7ity 7ersus acti7ity on the part of other onlookers$ !ay ser7e as cues to the bystander5s in7ol7e!ent. 0he bystander effect concerning Galtruis!,G Gpro-social beha7ior,G or Ghelping beha7iorG refers to the finding that the !ore people who are present when help is needed, the less likely any one of the! is to pro7ide assistance. E7en when a bystander interprets the e7ent to be an e!er gency, the presence of other people !ay help to Gdiffuse responsibilityG for taking any action. 1actors that relate to the bystander5s personality and de!ographic characteristics ha7e been found to pro7ide a poorer prediction of bystander beha7ior than do the particular features of the Ge!ergencyG situation #<reenberg, +33,$. &ee also 9LLP?R05& C?(1?RH"0D FDP?0FE&"&B DEC"&"?(H9M"(< 0FE?R"E&B DE"(D"C"D>90"?( 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE&
Latane, '., J Darley, J. #+3-4$. <roup inhibition of bystander inter7ention in e!ergencies. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., 02, .+2-..+. Latane, '., J Darley, J. #+36)$. +he #nresponsi!e bystander? Why doesn't he help? (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. 'ar-0al, D. #+36-$. (rosocial beha!ior? +heory and research. (ew Dork; Falsted. Eisenberg'erg, (. #+34.$. 8e!elop'ent of prosocial beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Do7idio, J. #+34,$. Felping beha7ior and altruis!; 9n e!pirical and conceptual o7er 7iew. "n L. 'erkowit@ #Ed.$, Ad!ances in experi'ental social psychology. Col. +6. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'ar-0al, D. #+33,$. Felping beha7ior. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. <reenberg, H. #+33,$. 'ystander in7ol7e!ent. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

C
C9(9L"A90"?( FDP?0FE&"&. &ee H>RPFD5& '"?&?C"9L 0FE?RD. C9((?( C9((?(-'9RD 0FE?RD. 0he 9!erican physiologist =alter '. Cannon #+46+-+3,2$ is gi7en the !aEor initial credit for this theory, and the 9!erican psychologist Philip 'ard #+434-+366$ is gi7en partial recognition for his research support in its de7elop!ent and refine!ent #Cannon, +3+2, +3.4, +3*.B 'ard, +3*,a, b, +32)$. 9nother na!e for this theory is the thala'ic theory of e!otion #Cannon, +3*+$. 0he annonLBard theory proposes that the integration of e!otional e%pressi7eness is controlled and directed by the thala!us, which sends rele7ant e%citation patterns to the corte% at the sa!e ti!e that the hypothala!us controls the beha7ior, and e!phasi@es the si!ultaneous arousal of both the central and autono!ic ner7ous syste!s. Cannon argued that the function of the autono!ic ner7ous syste! arousal was to prepare the organis! to deal with the i!!ediate e7ent / to fight or to flee, for e%a!ple. 9n e7ent that !ight cause har! generates arousal #an Ge!ergency responseG$, which prepares the indi7idual to cope with the e7ent. ?ther alternati7e na!es for the annonLBard theory, therefore, ha7e been the fight or flight theory and the e'ergency theory. 0he annonLBard theory was based on e7olutionary sur7i7al 7alue for the organis! where increased heart rate, respiration, and so on per!itted it to respond !ore :uickly and strongly and, thereby, increased its chances of sur7i7al. 0he annonLBard theory was a predo!inant opponent to the earlier 4a'esL,ange theory and argued that e!otionality results fro! a re!o7al of the inhibition that is nor!ally e%erted by the neocorte% upon the thala!us. 0he neocorte%, according to the Cannon/'ard approach, ordinarily suppresses the acti7ity of the thala!us, but if e!otion-eliciting sti!uli reach the corte%, i!pulses are sent downward and act to release the inhibitory influences. &ubse:uently, the thala!us signals the neocorte% to initiate the e!otional e%perience while it also signals the rest of the body to begin the pattern of beha7ior

44

C9((?( C9((?(-'9RD 0FE?RD

associated with the specific e!otion. 0he annon LBard theory would predict that the re!o7al of an ani!al5s thala!us in a laboratory procedure called GdecorticationG would reduce its e!otional hyperreacti7ity, but research showed this not to be the case. 0hus, the research findings did not confir! a key feature of the theory. Fowe7er, the annon LBard theory has been i!portant historically for two reasons; #+$ it focused attention on possible central ner7ous syste! structures that !ay handle e!otionalityB and #.$ it focused attention on the possible ways the neocorte% !ay interact with structures in the lower brain regions. 0oday, the Cannon/'ard idea of cortical-subcortical interaction and in7ol7e!ent in e!otionality is reflected in !odern e!otion theories. 0he diffi culty with the annon LBard theory was that it concentrated too hea7ily on the thala!us rather than the hypothala!us, and other physiological-beha7ioral re search showed that the hypothala!us see!s to do!inate e!otional beha7ior #Le7inthal, +34*$. &ee also EH?0"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1B J9HE&L9(<E L9(<E-J9HE& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&. RE1ERE(CE& Cannon, =. #+3+2$. Bodily changes in pain, h#nger, fear, and rage? An acco#nt of recent researches into the f#nction of e'otional excite'ent. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. Cannon, =. #+3.4$. 0he !echanis! of e!otional disturbance of bodily functions. >ew :ng. 4. 3ed., 017, 466-44,. Cannon, =. #+3*+$. 9gain the Ja!es-Lange and the thala!ic theories of e!otion. (sy. .e!., 97, .4+-.32. Cannon, =. #+3*.$. +he wisdo' of the body. (ew Dork; (orton. 'ard, P. #+3*,a$. E!otion; ". 0he neuro-hu!oral basis of e!otional reactions. "n C. Hurchison #Ed.$, $andb%. Cen. :xp. (sy. =orcester, H9; Clark >ni7ersity Press. 'ard, P. #+3*,b$. ?n e!otional e%pression after decortication with so!e re!arks on certain theoretical 7iews. (sy. .e!., )0, *)3-*.3,,.d "" +3. Cannon, =. #+3*-$. <ray5s obEecti7e theory of e!otion. (sy. .e!., )9, +))-+)-. Cannon, =., J Rosenblueth, 9. #+3*6$. A#tono'ic ne#ro&effector syste's. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Lashley, M. #+3*4$. 0he thala!us and e!otion. (sy. .e!., )<, ,.--+. 9rnold, H. #+3,2$. Physiological differentiation of e!otional states. (sy. .e!., <*, *2,4. Duffy, E. #+3,4$. Leeper5s G!oti7ational theory of e!otions.G (sy. .e!., <<, *.,-*.4. Leeper, R. #+3,4$. 9 !oti7ational theory of e!otion to replace Ge!otion as disorgani@ed response.G (sy. .e!., <<, 2-.+. =ebb, =. #+3,4$. 9 !oti7ational theory of e!otion. (sy. .e!., <<, *.3-**2. Cannon, =., J Rosenblueth, 9. #+3,3$. +he s#persensiti!ity of dener!ated str#ct#res? A law of dener!ation. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Doung, P. 0. #+3,3$. E!otion as disorgani@ed response/9 reply to Professor Leeper. (sy. .e!., <B, +4,-+3+. 'ard, P. #+32)$. Central ner7ous !echanis!s for the e%pression of anger. "n H. Rey!ert #Ed.$, +he second international sy'posi#' on feelings and e'otions. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill.

C9P9LD"5& 0FE?RD

43

Le7inthal, C. #+34*$. 6ntrod#ction to physiological psychology. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. C9P9LD"5& 0FE?RD. =ith the de7elop!ent in the conte!porary conception of reinforce'ent and the law of effect in the last .) years #e.g., Pre!ack, +3-2B 0i!berlake J 9llison, +36,B 0i!berlake, +34)$, there ha7e also been changes in the interpretation of the concepts of extinction and nonreward where a nu!ber of new hypotheses ha7e been proposed. 1or e%a!ple, E. J. Capaldi5s #+3--, +3-6$ se"#ential patterning theory of nonreward and the partial reinforce'ent extinction effect are refine!ents of two earlier hypotheses; the discri'ination- generaliGation hypothesis, which supposes that subEects will persist in responding as long as they cannot discri!inate the e%tinction series fro! a run of nonreinforce!ents e!bedded within the training series, and the sti'#l#s aftereffects hypothesis, which supposes that reward and nonreward e7ents on one trial set up distincti7e sti!ulus traces that persist o7er the intertrial inter7al and are part of the sti!ulus co!ple% at the ti!e the ne%t response occurs #&heffield, +3,3$. 0he sti'#l#s aftereffects hypothesis assu!es that during partial reinforce!ent training, persisting sti!ulus traces fro! nonreinforced trials beco!e conditioned to the ne%t response because of fre:uent reinforced trials following a nonreinforced trial, and lead to sti!uli arising during e%tinction which !aintains responding #'ower J Filgard, +34+$. apaldi's theory de7iates fro! the older aftereffects hypothesis concerning the ti!e decay of infor!ation about the reinforcing e7ent of the prior trial. 0he aftereffects hypothesis suggested that reward and nonreward e7ents set up relati7ely short-ter! sti!ulus traces that decay after a few !inutes, but this approach has no way to e%plain the partial reinforce'ent effects that ha7e been obtained with widely spaced trials #such as one trial e7ery ., hours$. apaldi's theory, on the other hand, assu!es that a trace of the prior reward or nonreward e7ent persists indefinitely until it is !odified or replaced by the ne%t e7ent to happen in the goal bo% of this situation. 1or Capaldi, the prior reward or nonreward sti!uli are now a7ailable in so!ething like a G!e!ory,G which is reacti7ated when the ani!al is placed back in the sti!ulus or testing situation. 0his G!e!oryG interpretation is so!ewhat !ore heuristic than the sti!ulus trace interpretation #'ower J Filgard, +34+$. Capaldi #+3-6$ uses his hypothesis to e%plain a wide range of different scheduling pheno!ena such as the accelerated e%tinction and relearning that occur in !ultiple blocks of e%tinction and ac:uisition trials, the effects of patterned schedules and their discri!ination, the effects of reward delay, the contrast effects in shifts of reward !agnitude, the effects of different intertrial inter7als, hu!an probability learning, and application to statistical learning theory #Mo-teskey, +36.$. 0here is current consensus a!ong researchers that apaldi's se& "#ential theory is the best one a7ailable for predicting e%tinction resistance produced by !ost reinforce!ent schedules. Fowe7er, a theoretical proble! that re!ains to be sol7ed is the co!bination of the se"#ential hypothesis with the concepts of frustrati7e reward and inhibition in order to produce a !ore general

3)

C9REER 0FE?R"E&

theory of e%tinction and nonreinforce!ent #'ower J Filgard, +34+$. &ee also 9H&EL5& FDP?0FE&"& 0FE?RDB PREH9CM5& PR"(C"PLE L9=B 0?LH9(5& 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& &heffield, C. #+3,3$. E%tinction as a function of partial reinforce!ent and distribution of practice. 4. :xp., (sy., 91, 2++-2.-. Heehl, P. #+32)$. ?n the circularity of the law of effect. (sy. B#ll., ,6,2.-62. &heffield, C. #+32)$. Resistance to e%tinction as a function of the distribution of e%tinction trials. 4. :xp. (sy., )2, *)2-*+*. Pre!ack, D. #+3-2$. Reinforce!ent theory. "n H. Jones #Ed.$, >ebras%a sy'posi#' on 'oti!ation. Lincoln; >ni7ersity of (ebraska Press. Capaldi, E. J. #+3--$. Partial reinforce!ent; 9n hypothesis of se:uential effects. (sy. .e!., E9, ,23-,66. Capaldi, E. J. #+3-6$. 9 se:uential hypothesis of instru!ental learning. "n M. &pence J J. &pence #Eds.$, +he psychology of learning and 'oti!ation? Ad!ances in research and theory. Col. +. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Leonard, D. #+3-3$. 9!ount and se:uence of reward in partial and continuous reinforce!ent. 4. o'p. (hysio. (sy., BE, .),-.++. Capaldi, E. 4., @ Capaldi, E. D. #+36)$. Hagnitude of partial reward, irregular reward schedules, and a .,/hour "0"; 9 test of se7eral hypotheses. 4. o'p. (hysio. (sy., E*, .)*-.)3. Moteskey, R. #+36.$. 9 sti!ulus sa!pling !odel of the partial reinforce!ent effect. (sy. .e!., E1, +-+-+6+. 0i!berlake, =., J 9llison, J. #+36,$. Response depri7ation; 9n e!pirical approach to instru!ental perfor!ance. (sy. .e!., 70, +,--+-,. 0i!berlake, =. #+34)$. 9 !olar e:uilibriu! theory of learned perfor!ance. "n <. 'ower #Ed.$, +he psychology of learning and 'oti!ation. Col. +,. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'ower, <., J Filgard, E. #+34+$. +heories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. C9REER 0FE?R"E&. &ee =?RM C9REER ?CC>P90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. C90ECF?L9H"(E FDP?0FE&"& 0FE?RD DEPRE&&"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. ?1 DEPRE&&"?(. &ee

C900ELL5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D. 0he 'ritish-born 9!erican psychologist Ray!ond 'ernard Cattell #+3)2/ $ de7eloped a co!prehensi7e theory of personality based on the statistical procedure of factor analysis intro duced by Charles &pear!an #+3),, +3.6$ and e%panded by L. L. 0hurstone #+3*+, +3,4$ in the for!ulation of !ultiple factor analysis. 0he factor analytic approach typically begins with a large nu!ber of scores deri7ed fro! tests, then applies a statistical techni:ue to such s#rface scores to deter!ine the underlying basic factors whose operation theoretically accounts for the 7ariation in the large

C900ELL5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

3+

nu!ber of initial scores. ?nce the basic factors are identified, the theorist can then de7elop ways of !easuring the factors in a !ore efficient !anner. 0hus, factor analysis is a procedure in which 7ariables !ay be for!ulated to account for the di7erse co!ple%ity of s#rface beha7iors #e.g., Far!an, +3-6$. Personality is defined by Cattell as Gthat which per!its a prediction of what a person will do in a gi7en situationG #Cattell, +32), p. .$ and is considered to be a co!ple% and differentiated structure of traits #G!ental structuresG inferred fro! obser7ed beha7ior$. Cattell distinguishes between the concepts of s#rface traits Lcl#sters of o7ert 7ariables that ha7e co!!on aspects, such as a syndro!e of beha7iors/ and so#rce traits /underlying 7ariables that deter!ine surface 7ariables, such as physiological and te!pera!ental factorsB between en!iron'ental&'old traits / traits resulting fro! e%ternal en7iron!ental conditions/and constit#tional traits /traits resulting fro! internal hereditary conditionsB and between dyna'ic traits Lwhich set the person into action toward so!e goalLability traits L effecti!eness of the person in reaching a goal / and te'pera'ent traits / constitutional response aspects such as energy, speed, and e!otional reacti7ity. Cattell identified +- bipolar personality factors #i.e., source traits of the core personality) that are deri7ed fro! testing protocols such as a person5s life record and self-rating :uestionnaires; outgoing-reser7ed, !ore intelligent-less intelligent, stable-e!otional, asserti7e-hu!ble, happy-go-lucky/sober, conscientiouse%pedient, 7entureso!e-shy, tender-!inded/tough-!inded, suspicious-trusting, i!aginati7e-practical, shrewd-forthright, apprehensi7e-placid, conser7ati7ee%peri!enting, group-dependent/self-sufficient, uncontrolled-controlled, and rela%ed-tense #Cattell, +3--B Cattell, Eber, J 0atsuoka, +364B Cattell, +33)$. 'ased on the pre!ise that personality !ay be described in ter!s of ability, te!pera!ent, and other types of traits, Cattell de7eloped a specification e"#ation that i!plies a !ultidi!ensional representation of the indi7idual within a gi7en psychological situation to yield a predicted response. &uch specification e:ua tions ha7e practical applications in settings such as e!ploy!ent screening sit uations and in acade!ic achie7e!ent conte%ts #Cattell, +326$. 0he i!portant dyna'ic traits in attell's theory are GattitudesG #obser7able or !easurable e%pression of one5s dyna!ic structure$B GergsG #biologically based dri7esB cf; HcDougall, +3)4$B and Gsenti!entsG #en7iron!ental-!old, ac:uired attitude structures$. 9 dyna'ic lattice is Cattell5s #pictorial$ representation of the interrelationships a!ong the dyna'ic traits and for!s a pattern of GsubsidiationG where, generally, attitudes are subsidiary to senti!ents, senti!ents are subsidiary to ergs, and ergs are the basic dri7ing forces in the personality. ?ne of the !ost i!portant of Cattell5s Gsenti!entsG is the G!asterG senti!ent of self&senti'ent, which is si!ilar to 1reud5s concepts of ego and s#perego and <. 9llport5s concept of ego and has the crucial role of integrating the different aspects of the personality #Cattell, +3--$. Cattell has proposed that a useful way of assessing the degree of conflict that a person !ay ha7e in a specific situation is to state the specification e"#ation that e%presses the in7ol7e!ent of the person5s ergs and senti!ents in a gi7en course of action. Carious other concepts in at&

3.

C900ELL5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0D

tell's theory #e.g., states, roles, sets) ha7e been described #Cattell, +3-*a$ and ha7e been in7estigated, also, by the factor analytic techni:ue. Cattell de7eloped an interesting !ethod for assessing the relati7e weight of genetic and en7iron!ental factors in traits called '#ltiple abstract !ariance analyses (3A=A) #Cat-tell, +3-)$ where initial results showed negati7e correlations between heredity and en7iron!ental factors. Cattell interpreted this result as e7idence for a law of coercion to the biosocial 'ean, which refers to the tendency for en7iron!ental influences to oppose the syste!atic e%pression of genetic 7ariation #e.g., when parents re:uire that their two different children beha7e in the sa!e way, e7en though one child is outgoing, and the other one is bashful$. Cattell has e%tended his concepts of traits fro! his personality theory to descriptions of group beha7ior #called syntality; Cattell, +3,4$, including the beha7ior of nations #Cattell, +3,3B Cattell J <orsuch, +3-2$. E7aluations and re7iews of Cattell5s work ha7e indicated a !i%ture of both ad!iration and uneasiness #cf; &ells, +323B 'ecker, +3-)B <ordon, +3--$. attell's personality theory !ay not be popular in the sense that &. 1reud5s, C. Rogers5, F. &. &ulli7an5s, <. 9llport5s, or F. Hurray5s theories ha7e been popular, but it has attracted an acti7e band of adherents, !any of who! appreciate the widespread e!pirical grounding and econo!y of factor analytic for!ulations that his theory contains #Fall J Lind-@ey, +364$. &ee also PER&?(9L"0D 0FE?R"E&. RE1ERE(CE& &pear!an, C. #+3),$. G<eneral intelligenceG obEecti7ely deter!ined and !easured. A'er. 4. (sy., 0<, .)+-.3*. HcDougall, =. #+3)4$. An introd#ction to social psychology. 'oston; Luce. &pear!an, C. #+3.6$. Abilities of 'an. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0hurstone, L. #+3*+$. Hultiple factor analysis. (sy. .e!., 97, ,)--,.6. Cattell, R., J Luborsky, L. #+3,6$. Personality factors in response to hu!or. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., )*, ,).-,.+. Cattell, R. #+3,4$. Concepts and !ethods in the !easure!ent of group syntality. (sy. .e!., <<, ,4--*. 0hurstone, L. #+3,4$. Psychological i!plications of factor analysis. A'er. (sy., 9, ,).,)4. Cattell, R. #+3,3$. 0he di!ensions of culture patterns by factori@ation of national character. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., )), ,,*-,-3. Cattell, R. #+32)$. (ersonality? A syste'atic, theoretical, and fact#al st#dy. (ew Dork; Hc<raw-Fill. Cattell, R., J &tice, <. #+32,$. 1our for!ulae for selecting leaders on the basis of personality. $#'. .el., 6,,3*-2)6. Cattell, R. #+326$. (ersonality and 'oti!ation? /tr#ct#re and 'eas#re'ent. (ew

Dork; Farcourt 'race Jo7ano7ich. &ells, &. #+323$. &tructured !easure!ent of personality and !oti7ation; 9 re7iew of contributions of Ray!ond '. Cattell. 4. lin. (sy., 0<, *-.+. 'ecker, =. #+3-)$. 0he !atching of beha7ior rating and :uestionnaire personality factors. (sy. B#ll., <E, .)+-.+..

CF?H&MD5& P&DCF?L"(<>"&0"C 0FE?RD

3*

Cattell, R. #+3-)$. 0he !ultiple abstract 7ariance analysis e:uations and solutions; 1or nature-nurture research on continuous 7ariables. (sy. .e!., BE, *2*-*6.. Cattell, R. #+3-*a$. Personality, role, !ood, and situation-perception; 9 unifying theory of !odulators. (sy. .e!., E2, +-+4. Cattell, R. #+3-*b$. 0heory of fluid and crystalli@ed intelligence; 9 critical e%peri!ent. 4. :d. (sy., <), +-... Cattell, R. #+3-,$. (ersonality and social psychology. &an Diego; Mnapp. Cattell, R., J <orsuch, R. #+3-2$. 0he definition and !easure!ent of national !orale and !orality. 4. /oc. (sy., BE, 66-3-. Cattell, R. #+3--$. +he scientific analysis of personality. Chicago; 9ldine. Cattell, R., J 0atro, D. #+3--$. 0he personality factors, obEecti7ely !easured, which distinguish psychotics fro! nor!als. Beh. .es. +her., ), *3-2+. <ordon, 4. #+3--$. 9rchetypical, <er!anic, factorial, brilliant and contradictory. on& te'p. (sy., 00, .*--.*4. Far!an, F. #+3-6$. 3odern factor analysis. Chicago; >ni7ersity of Chicago Press. Cattell, R. #+36+$. Abilities? +heir str#ct#re, growth, and action. 'oston; Foughton Hifflin. Cattell, R., Eber, F., J 0atsuoka, H. #+364$. $andboo% for the /ixteen (ersonality 5actor H#estionnaire (0B(5). Cha!paign, "L; "nstitute for Personality and 9bility 0esting. Fall, C., J Lind@ey, <. #+364$. +heories of personality. (ew Dork; =iley. Cattell, R. #+363-+34)$. (ersonality and learning theory. (ew Dork; &pringer. Cattell, R. #+33)$. 9d7ances in Cattellian personality theory. "n L. Per7in #Ed.$, $and& boo% of personality? +heory and research. (ew Dork; <uilford Press. CELL ASSEMBLY THEORY. &ee PERCEP0"?( #"". C?HP9R90"CE 9PPR9"&9L$, 0FE?R"E& ?1. CHAINING, LAW OF. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R 0FE?RD. CHANCE, LAWS OF. LAW. &ee &ee PR?'9'"L"0D C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?RD L9=&. 0FE?R"E& ?1.

CHARPENTIER'S

CHEMICAL PROFILE THEORY. &ee F>(<ER, 0FE?R"E& ?1. CHOICE, THEORY PRE1ERE(CE. OF. &ee DEH'ER-E9RL 0FE?RD ?1 CF?"CE

CHOMSKY'S PSYCHOLINGUISTIC THEORY. 0he 9!erican psychologist, linguist, and philosopher (oa! 97ra! Cho!sky #+3.4/ $ for!ulated a theory of psycholing#istics that 7iews language as genetically deter!ined where it de7elops in ways si!ilar to other bodily organs #Cho!sky, +326, +3-,, +3-2, +3--, +3-4, +36., +34)$. 9ccording to Cho!sky5s pro!inent theory, the hu!an

3,

CF?H&MD5& P&DCF?L"(<>"&0"C 0FE?RD

brain is preprogra!!ed by a cogniti7e !echanis! called the lang#age ac"#i& sition de!ice (,A8), which allows indi7iduals to generate gra!!atically correct sentences in a uni7ersal or culture-free !anner. Cho!sky belie7es that hu!ans ha7e an innate capacity for understanding and e!itting language beha7iors. ?nly hu!ans ha7e language ac:uisition capabilities #a Gspecies-specificG feature$, and all hu!an languages share a co!!on logical structure #a Gspecies-unifor!G feature$. Cho!sky5s conceptuali@ation of a transfor'ational generati!e gra'& 'ar (+CC) is an i!portant ad7ance!ent o7er the older 7iewpoint of language ac:uisition known as phase&str#ct#re gra''ars #i.e., a for!al syste! for analy@ing the structure of a sentence by assigning labels, such as noun, noun phrase, 7erb, etc. to parts of the sentence$. 0ransfor!ational gra!!ar is grounded in the hypothesi@ation of se7eral necessary co!ponents #Reber, +332$; se'antics/the rules for G!eaningGB deep str#ct#reLthe representation of underlying G!eaningGB transfor'ational de!iationLthe rules for !apping deep structures on a s#rface str#ct#re #i.e., consistency of the se:uence of ele!ents, such as phone!es, syllables, words, phrases, and sentences that constitute a written or spoken !essage$B and phonologicalLthe rules for pro7iding the appropriate sound patterns, or phonetic sounds, of the language. 0hus, based on his intro duction of the i!portant distinction between deep and s#rface structure #Cho!-sky, +326, +3-2$ into psycholinguistics, Cho!sky5s +CC is a syste! that integrates both the deep #logical$ and the surface #phonetic$ structure of lan guage. ho's%y's theory of lang#age ac"#isition has been challenged !ost notably by proponents of beha7ioris! #e g , &kinner, +326$ and the beha7ioristic 7iewpoint concerning 7erbal learning #cf; 'ower J Filgard, +34+$. 9ccording to the beha7ioristic approach, children learn to talk through the processes of classical and operant conditioning. 0his approach helps to e%plain why one child !ay be !ore skilled in the use of language than another child. Cho!sky5s cogniti7ist approach, on the other hand, helps to e%plain why children all o7er the world follow si!ilar or in7ariant se:uences of language de7elop!ent #cf; Cho!sky, +323$. =hile both the beha7iorist and the cogniti7ist 7iewpoints can account for so!e of the data of language ac:uisition, a third perspecti7e e!phasi@es the GinteractionG between infant and caregi7er, between one person and another, and between the person and the en7iron!ent as the heart of language learning #'runer, +366B 'erger, +33,B cf; ne#roling#istic theory, La!en-della, +363B Faynie, +33,B and se'iotic theory, Percy, +3-+B Nuagliano, +33,$. Cho!sky5s notions concerning transfor!ational gra!!ar, although they re7olutioni@ed the field of linguistics, ha7e not pro7ided all the answers to the !any proble!s of language ac:uisition. Psychologists, while !aintaining !any of Cho!sky5s ideas, ha7e !o7ed on to new concerns #Fouston, +34+$. &ee also &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RDB =F?R1/&9P"R FDP?0FE&"& 0FE?RD.

CLECER F9(& E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?( RE1ERE(CE&

32

Cho!sky, (. #+326$. /yntactic str#ct#res. 0he Fague; Houton. &kinner, '. 1. #+326$. =erbal beha!ior. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. Cho!sky, (. #+323$. 9 re7iew of &kinner5s GCerbal 'eha7ior,G ,ang#age, 9<, .--24. Percy, =. #+3-+$. 0he sy!bolic structure of interpersonal processes. (sychiatry, *), *32.. Cygotsky, L. #+3-.$. +ho#ght and lang#age. Ca!bridge; H.".0. Press. Cho!sky, (. #+3-,$. #rrent iss#es in ling#istic theory. 0he Fague; Houton. Cho!sky, (. #+3-2$. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Ca!bridge; H.".0. Press. Cho!sky, (. #+3--$. +opics in the theory of generati!e gra''ar. 0he Fague; Houton. &!ith, 1., J Hiller, <. #Eds.$ #+3--$. +he genesis of lang#age? A psycholing#istic ap& proach. Ca!bridge; H.".0. Press. Cho!sky, (. #+3-4$. ,ang#age and the 'ind. (ew Dork; Farcourt, 'race, J =orld. Hc(eill, D. #+36)$. +he ac"#isition of lang#age? +he st#dy of de!elop'ental psycholin&g#istics. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. Cho!sky, (. #+36.$. /t#dies on se'antics in generati!e gra''ar. 0he Fague; Houton. Dale, P. #+36.$. ,ang#age de!elop'ent? /tr#ct#re and f#nction. (ew Dork; Folt. 'runer, J. #+366$. Early social interaction and language ac:uisition. "n F. &chaffer #Ed.$, /t#dies in 'otherLinfant interaction. London; 9cade!ic Press. DeCilliers, J., J DeCilliers, P. #+364$. ,ang#age ac"#isition. Ca!bridge; Far7ard >ni7ersity Press. La!endella, J. #+363$. (eurolinguistics. Ann. .e!. Anthro., 7, *6*-*3+. Cho!sky, (. #+34)$. .#les and representations. (ew Dork; Colu!bia >ni7ersity Press. 'ower, <., J Filgard, E. #+34+$. +heories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; PrenticeFall. Fouston, J. #+34+$. 5#nda'entals of learning and 'e'ory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'erger, M. #+33,$. Language de7elop!ent. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Faynie, (. #+33,$. (eurolinguistics. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Nuagliano, 9. #+33,$. &igns and sy!bols. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. &iguan, H. #+33,$. Psycholinguistics. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. CL9&&"C9L C?(D"0"?("(<, L9=& ?1. &ee P9CL?C"9( C?(D"0"?("(< PR"(C"PLE& L9=& 0FE?R"E&. CL9&&"C9L &0RE(<0F 0FE?RD. &ee DEC"&"?(-H9M"(< 0FE?R"E&. CL9&&"C9L 0FE?RD ?1 &E(&?RD D"&CR"H"(90"?(. &ee (E>R9L N>9(0>H 0FE?RD. CLECER F9(& E11EC0 PFE(?HE(?(. Fans was the na!e of a GtalentedG horse, a!ong the world-fa!ous Elberfeld horses of <er!any, that was trained by =ilhel! 7on ?sten of 'erlin #'lock, +3),B Pfungst, +3++B =arren,

3-

CL?&>RE, PR"(C"PLE ?1

+3*,B Rosenthal, +3-2$. Fans5 talent was his ability to perfor! so!e rather re!arkable !ental tasks such as addition, subtraction, di7ision, !ultiplication, obtaining s:uare roots, and spelling 7arious words. 9fter !any people were thoroughly !ystified by Fans5 abilities, the <er!an psychologist ?skar Pfungst tested Fans and ulti!ately disco7ered that the horse was actually perfor!ing and sol7ing his !athe!atical and !ental proble!s by responding to subtle and totally unintentional, 7ery tiny 7isual cues that were pro7ided by 7on ?sten #such as the :uestioner5s bending forward slightly after presenting the horse with a proble! and bending backward and upward slightly when the correct tap of the hoof was reached$. 0hat is, the horse5s !ethod was to Gcount upG to the answer of a proble! by sta!ping his hoof the re:uired nu!ber of ti!es. Fans GknewG when to stop sta!ping by taking his cues fro! the hu!ans around hi! who unconsciously responded with changes in breathing patterns and bodily positions. 0hus, Fans was si!ply responding to 7isual cues that were, to hi!, the GstartG and GstopG signals for hoof tapping. 0he ter! le!er $ans effectK pheno'enon has co!e to stand for co!!unication that is trans!itted through slight, unintentional, non7erbal cues. Prior to Pfungst5s #+3++$ work, such cues had not been reported in the scientific research literature, yet today they are recogni@ed as unconscious signals in posture, gesture, and 7ocal tone e!itted by indi7iduals e7en as they speak their language #9!bady J Rosenthal, +33., +33*B &cheflen, +3-,$. 0he le!er $ans effect !ay be an i!portant concern in psychological e%peri!ents where the e%peri!enter5s e%pectations, hopes, habits, and personal characteristics can influence, unwittingly, the outco!e of a research in7estigation #Rosenthal, +36-$. &uch conditions of unintentional cuing are also called experi'enter effects, experi'enter bias, .osenthal effect, or 8er Jl#ge $ans #Reber, +332$. &ee also EKPER"HE(0ER E11EC0&. RE1ERE(CE& 'lock, P. #+3),$. Der Mluge Fans. Berliner +ageblatt, 9ugust +2, p. +. Pfungst, ). #+3++$. +he horse of 3r. !on ;sten. C. Rahn #0rans.$. (ew Dork; Folt. =arren, F. #Ed.$ #+3*,$. 8ictionary of psychology Ca!bridge, H9; Foughton Hifflin. &cheflen, 9. #+3-,$. 0he significance of posture in co!!unication syste!s. (sychiatry, *E, *+--**+. Rosenthal, R. #Ed.$ #+3-2$. le!er $ans? +he horse of 3r. !on ;sten. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Rosenthal, R. #+36-$. :xperi'enter effects in beha!ioral research. (ew Dork; 9ppleton-Century-Crofts. 9!bady, (., J Rosenthal, R. #+33.$. 0hin slices of e%pressi7e beha7ior as predictors of interpersonal conse:uences; 9 !eta-analysis. (sy. B#ll., 000, .2--.6,. 9!bady, (., J Rosenthal, R. #+33*$. Falf a !inute; Predicting teacher e7aluations fro! thin slices of non7erbal beha7ior and physical attracti7eness. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., B), ,*+-,,+. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. CL?&>RE, PR"(C"PLE ?1. &ee <E&09L0 0FE?RD L9=&.

C?D"(< 0FE?R"E& C?CM09"L-P9R0D PFE(?HE(?(. C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1. &ee 900E(0"?(,

36 L9=& PR"(-

C?D"(< 0FE?R"E&. "n general, a code is a syste! of sy!bols or signals representing infor!ation. E%a!ples of codes are se!aphore signals, !agnetic fields on a recording tape, spoken English, written <er!an, and the electrical @eroes and ones in a co!puter5s !e!ory chip. 9s long as one knows the rules of a code, a !essage can be con7erted fro! one !ediu! to another without losing any infor!ation. 9lthough the precise rules that sensory syste!s use to trans!it infor!ation to the brain are not known, it is known that they take two for!s #Carlson, +33)$; anato'ical coding #acti7ity of particular neurons$ and te'poral coding #ti!e or rate of neuron firing$. 0he ter! coding is used in !any content areas of psychology when e%a!ining and describing 7arious aspects of sti!uli and responses. "n sensation, the sensory organs collect en7iron!ental physical energies as input and prepare the sti!uli for the ne%t process, called transd#ction of the sti!ulus energy into neural i!pulse for!, after which coding occurs at higher neural centers. "n this way, sti!ulus infor!ation is translated or coded into the different aspects of sensation that are e%periences. &o!e of the coded infor!ation concerns the factors of sti!ulus intensity #e.g., a loud 7ersus a :uiet sound$ and sti!ulus :uality #e.g., a high pitch 7ersus a low pitch sound$. Coding occurs in the processing of certain kinds of 7isual infor!ation, but indi7iduals also ha7e a 7erbal GchannelG for processing infor!ation contained in words and ideas. Pai7io #+34., +33+$ refers to the process of coding infor!ation by both 7isual and 7erbal !eans as a d#al& coding syste' or theory. Coding is used also in the area of cogniti7e psychology to describe the !echanis!s of !e!ory where concepts such as Gencoding,G Grecoding,G Gdecoding,G Gchunks,G GsubEecti7e units,G Gfunctional sti!uli,G and Gcoding responsesG are described, and where coding processes and responses need not be conscious or reportable #e.g., Helton J Hartin, +36.$. "n one case, the encoding specificity hypothesis-principle refers to the generali@ation that the initial encoding #i.e., the process of choosing the infor!ation to be retained and transfor!ing that infor!ation into a for! that can be sa7ed$ of learned !aterial will reflect the influence of the conte%t in which the learning took place #0ul7ing J 0ho!son, +36*B 'ower J Filgard, +34+B Reber, +332$. "n ter!s of ter!inological analysis and e%peri!ental !ethodology, the pheno!enon of coding is a construct that is defined by con!erging operations #<arner, Fake, J Eriksen, +32-$ where it is 7iewed as a syste! for representing thoughts of any type, including sche!ata, propositions, concepts, percepts, ideas, i!ages, seg!ents, features, and GknowingG responses. 0hus, there are !any attributes to sti!uli, and not all of the! are in7ol7ed in e7ery !e!ory, action, or thought, but cortical regions pro7ide the neural coding processes necessary to register one5s e%periences #9nderson, +33,$. &ee also (E>R?( (E>R9L (ERCE 0FE?RDB "(-1?RH90"?( "(1?RH90"?(-PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?RDB HEH?RD, 0FE?R"E& ?1.

34 RE1ERE(CE&

C?<("0"CE 9L<E'R9 0FE?RD

<arner, =., Fake, F., J Eriksen, C. #+32-$. ?perationis! and the concept of perception. (sy. .e!., B9, +,3-+23. &ternberg, &. #+3--$. Figh speed scanning in hu!an !e!ory. /cience, 0<9, -2.--2,. =ickens, D. #+36)$. Encoding categories of words; 9n e!pirical approach to !eaning. (sy. .e!., 66,+-+2. Helton, 9., J Hartin, E. #Eds.$ #+36.$. oding processes in h#'an 'e'ory. =ashington, DC; =inston. 0ul7ing, E., J 0ho!son, D. #+36*$. Encoding specificity and retrie7al processes in episodic !e!ory. (sy. .e!., 72, *2.-*6*. >ttal, =. #+36*$. +he psychology of sensory coding. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. 9nderson, J., J 'ower, <. #+36,$. 9 propositional theory of recognition !e!ory. 3e'. @ og., *, ,)-,+.. DeCalois, R., J DeCalois, M. #+362$. (eural coding of color. "n E. Carterette J H. 1ried!an #Eds.$, $andboo% of perception. Col. 2. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 9nderson, (. #+34+$. 5o#ndations of infor'ation integration theory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 'ower, <., J Filgard, E. #+34+$. +heories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Pai7io, 9. #+34.$. 0he e!pirical case for dual coding. "n J. Duille #Ed.$, 6'agery, cognition, and 'e'ory. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. Carlson, (. #+33)$. (sychology? +he science of beha!ior. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. Pai7io, 9. #+33+$. Dual coding theory; Retrospect and current status. an. 4. (sy., )<, .22-.46. 9nderson, (. #+33,$. Coding. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. <oldstein, E. #+33-$. /ensation and perception. Pacific <ro7e, C9; 'rooks Cole.

C?<("0"CE 9L<E'R9 0FE?RD. &ee "HPRE&&"?( 1?RH90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. C?<("0"CE EH?0"?(. 9PPR9"&9L 0FE?RD. &ee C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1

C?<("0"CE &0DLE H?DEL&. Magan, Hoss, and &igel #+3-*$ define the construct of cogniti!e learning style as the relati7ely stable indi7idual preferences for perceptual and conceptual organi@ation and categori@ation of the e%ternal en7iron!ent #cf; the early laws-principles of abstraction; Hoore, +3+)B 0itchener, +3+2B 1ree!an, +3*3$. 0he ter! cogniti!e style has been introduced and reintroduced into the psychological literature o7er a period of ti!e e%tending back to the <er!an psychologists at the turn of the century #Faynie, +33,$. 'ecause cogniti!e style deals with :ualitati7e, rather than :uantitati7e, differences and di!ensions and is concerned with beha7ior and preference, it is 7alue-free and resists !oral Eudg!ents. 9 nu!ber of cogniti!e style 'odels #or learning styles) on a di!ensional continuu! basis ha7e been for!ulated and

C?<("0"CE &0DLE H?DEL&

33

include the following factors #Roeckelein, +34)B Faynie, +33,$; field independ ence 7ersus field dependenceB scanning 7ersus focusingB broad 7ersus narrow categori@ingB le7eling 7ersus sharpeningB constricted 7ersus fle%ible controlB tolerance 7ersus intolerance for incongruityB i!pulsi7e 7ersus reflecti7e respondingB analytic 7ersus nonanalytic conceptuali@ing stylesB risk-taking 7ersus cautiousB percepti7e 7ersus recepti7eB syste!atic 7ersus intuiti7eB and cogniti7e co!ple%ity 7ersus si!plicity. "n general, a person5s cogniti!e style !ay be deter!ined by the way she or he assesses her or his surroundings, seeks out !eanings, and beco!es infor!ed. "n particular, a battery of tests concerning preferences for different ways of learning !ay be gi7en to indi7iduals, and results can be interpreted to produce a G!apG of the !any ways each person seeks !eaning, such as preferences for theoretical sy!bolic input, :ualitati7e code input, !odalities of inference, and cultural deter!inants 0hus, a cogniti!e 'ap describes each person5s cogniti!e style by relating score results on about two do@en ele!ents where the resultant !ap indicates a preferred or opti!al learning en7iron!ent. ogniti!e style 'apping is a diagnostic testing progra! useful for educational planning and !ay be used to identify and !a%i!i@e an indi7idual5s strengths in a learning setting #Fill, +36*$. ogniti!e style is represented in obser7able beha7iors where inconsistencies !ay occur in the choice of particular beha7iors to be e%a!ined Carious researchers ha7e de7eloped !easuring instru!ents to elicit specific beha7iors for analy@ing a person5s cog& niti!e style, but it has been found that so!e !easures of cogniti!e style do not correlate highly with other !easures #Coop J &igel, +36+$. 0he philosophy behind cogniti!e style 'odels and cogniti!e style 'apping is that indi7iduals learn in di7erse and uni:ue ways, and no single educational !ethod can ser7e e7eryone in an e:ual or opti!al fashion #1erguson, +34)$. &ee also MELLD5& PER&?(9L C?(&0R>C0 0FE?RDB P"9<E05& 0FE?RD ?1 DECEL?PHE(09L &09<E&. RE1ERE(CE& Hoore, 0. #+3+)$. 0he process of abstraction. Ani!. alif. (#b. (sy., +, 6*+36. 0itchener, E. #+3+2$. A beginner's psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 1ree!an, E. #+3*3$. (rinciples of general psychology. (ew Dork; Folt. 'ieri, J. #+322$. Cogniti7e co!ple%ity-si!plicity and predicti7e beha7iors. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., <0, .-*-.-4. Magan, J., Hoss, F., J &igel, ". #+3-*$. 0he psychological significance of styles of conceptuali@ation. "n 4. =right J 4. Magan #Eds.$, Basic cogniti!e processes in children. 3onograph of the /ociety for .esearch in hild 8e!elop'ent. (o. .4, 6*-++.. 'runer, 4. #+3-,$. 0he course of cogniti7e thought. A'er. (sy., 01, +-+2. Crockett, =. #+3-2$. Cogniti7e co!ple%ity and i!pression for!ation. "n '. Haher #Ed.$, (rogress in experi'ental personality research. Col. .. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Hiller, 9. #+3-3$. 9!ount of infor!ation and sti!ulus 7alence as deter!inants of cogniti7e co!ple%ity. 4. (ers., 9E, +,+-+26.

+))

C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(&

Coop, R., J &igel, ". #+36+$. Cogniti7e style; "!plications for learning and instruction. (sychology in the /chools, 7, +2.-+-+. Fill, J. #+36*$. +he ed#cational sciences. 'loo!field Fills, H"; ?akland Co!!unity College Press. Mreitler, F., J Mreitler, &. #+36-$. ogniti!e orientation and beha!ior. (ew Dork; &pringer. 1erguson, H. #+34)$. +he A"#arian conspiracy? (ersonal and social transfor'ations in the 0172s. Los 9ngeles; 0archer. Roeckelein, J. #+34)$. (sychology? +heory and practice. Dubu:ue, "9; Mendall Funt. Entwistle, (. #+34+$. /tyles of learning and teaching. (ew Dork; =iley. Faynie, (. #+33,$. Cogniti7e learning styles. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(&. ogniti!e theory of e'otion is a general ter! for a relati7ely recent class of theories of e!otion that 7iew the cogniti7e interpretation and appraisal of e!otional sti!uli fro! both inside and outside the body to be the !aEor e7ent in e!otions. ogniti!e theories ha7e a long history, going back to the early <reek philosophers #9rnold, +33,$. 9ristotle #*4,-*.. 'E.$ suggested that hu!ans and ani!als can !ake sensory e7aluations of things as being good or bad for the! where the e7aluation in7ol7es the arousal of e!otions #9ristotle, +3,+$B 0ho!as 9:uinas #+..2-+.6,$ agreed with 9ristotle in his e%planation of the arousal of e!otions. Rene Descartes #+23--+-2)$ belie7ed that all e!otions are aroused directly through e%citation of Gani!al spiritsG or by arousal of innate refle% actions in co!bination with physiological changes that are necessary for the organis!5s sur7i7al #Descartes, +-2)$B Charles Darwin #+4)3-+44.$ essentially shared Descartes5 notion of e!otions #Darwin, +46.$. Later, =illia! Ja!es #+4,.-+3+)$ and Carl Lange #+4*,-+3))$ re7ersed the classical, intuiti7e, or co!!onsense 7iew that e!otion produces bodily changes by arguing that bodily changes occur after the perception of the arousing e7ent where one5s sensation of the bodily changes is the e!otion #Ja!es, +43)$. &ig!und 1reud #+42--+3*3$ concei7ed of e!otions as an Gaffect changeG of the twin dri7es of lo7e and aggression, and fear as the reli7ing of the birth trau!a #1reud, +3**$. 9lfred 9dler #+46)-+3*6$, reEecting 1reud5s concept of libido as the source of all !oti7ation, accounted for hu!an !oti7ation and e!otion in ter!s of a desire for power #9dler, +3.6$. Carl Jung #+462-+3-+$ proposed that feelings are a kind of psychological function different fro! intellectual Eudg!ent that is so!ewhat si!ilar in nature to the ideas of 9ristotle and 9:uinas #Jung, +3.+$. Jung5s insistence on feeling as a rational Eudg!ent function !akes hi! the first !odern cogniti!e theorist of feelingB howe7er, Jung did not connect the Gfeeling functionG with e!otion, which he 7iewed as an irrational pheno!enon arising fro! the unconscious #9rnold, +33,$. =ith the appearance of the school of beha7ioris! #=atson, +3+3$, where internal concepts such as feeling and e!otion were considered to be too !entalistic, the topic of e!otion was either subordinated to !oti7ation or al!ost co!pletely lost in the sti!ulus/response paradig! of the beha7iorists. 'etween

C?<("0"CE 0FE?R"E& ?1 EH?0"?(&

+)+

the +3.)s and the +32)s, the topic of e!otion see!s to ha7e been abandoned in psychology, e7en as a chapter heading. 'y the +32)s and +3-)s, howe7er, theorists #e.g., Melly, +322B Polanyi, +3-,$ began to return to the intuiti7e idea that a situation !ust be interpreted in so!e way before it can instigate an e!o tion. 9rnold #+32,$ introduced the concept of appraisal into acade!ic psychology where e!otion was defined as a felt action tendency toward things that are intuiti7ely appraised as good for oneself or away fro! things that are ap praised as bad, and where a pattern of physiological changes is organi@ed around particular types of approach or withdrawal. 9rnold #+3-)$ suggested that e!o tions depend not only on intuiti7e appraisals of things as Ggood or bad for !eG but also on the appraisal of potential actions as suitable or unsuitable. "t is interesting to note how so!e of the early writers in psychology anticipated the !odern notion of cogniti!e theory in e!otions. 1or instance, Pillsbury #+3+4, p. .6.$ states that Gall e!otions ha7e an instincti7e basisB !o7e!ents in e!otional e%pression are the outco!e of instinct. &o true is this, that the e!otion is defined as the conscio#s side of instinctG #italics added$. "n a later edition of the sa!e book, Pillsbury #+3.-, p. *)2$ ascribes this idea of e!otion as the conscio#s side of instinct to both John Dewey and =illia! HcDougall. 9s used today, the cogniti!e theory of e'otions is regarded often as a single theory #e.g., Le7enthal J 0o!arken, +34-B 1riEda, +344B La@arus, +33+$, e7en though a nu!ber of different in7estigators o7er !any years ha7e contributed 7arious aspects and refine!ents to the theory. 1or e%a!ple, 9rnold #+3-)$, Ellis #+3-.$, and &chachter and &inger #+3-.$ ha7e been pro!inent in the de7elop!ent of the cogniti!e theory of e'otions and collecti7ely propose, in general, that there are two steps in the process of cogniti7e interpretation of an e!otional episode; #+$ the interpretation and appraisal of sti!uli fro! the e%ternal en7iron!ent and #.$ the interpretation and appraisal of sti!uli fro! the internal autono!ic arousal syste!. &ee also 9'C 0FE?RDB 9C0"C90"?( 9R?>&9L 0FE?RDB 9DLER5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB 9R(?LD5& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&B EH?0"?(&, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1B 1RE>D5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB J9HE&/L9(<E L9(<E/ J9HE& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&B J>(<5& 0FE?RD ?1 PER&?(9L"0DB MELLD5& PER&?(9L C?(&0R>C0 0FE?RDB L9A9R>&5 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&B &CF9CF0ER-&"(<ER5& 0FE?RD ?1 EH?0"?(&B A9J?(C5& 9R?>&9L 9(D C?(1L>E(CE 0FE?R"E&. RE1ERE(CE& Descartes, R. #+-2)$. ,es passions de l'a'e. Paris; Loyson. Darwin, C. #+46.$. +he expression of the e'otions in 'an and ani'als. Chicago; >ni7ersity of Chicago Press. Ja!es, =. #+43)$. (rinciples of psychology. (ew Dork; Folt.

Pillsbury, =. #+3+4$. +he essentials of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. =atson, J. #+3+3$. (sychology fro' the standpoint of a beha!iorist. Philadelphia; Lippincott.

+).

C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1

Jung, C. #+3.+$. (sychological types. Princeton, (J; Princeton >ni7ersity Press. Pillsbury, =. #+3.-$. +he essentials of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 9dler, 9. #+3.6$. (ractice and theory of indi!id#al psychology. (ew Dork; Fu!anities Press. 1reud, &. #+3**$. (ew introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. "n +he standard edition of the co'plete psychological wor%s of /ig'#nd 5re#d. Col. ... London; Fogarth Press. 9ristotle. #+3,+$. De ani!a #?n the soul$. "n R. HcMeon #Ed.$, +he basic wor%s of Aristotle. (ew Dork; Rando! Fouse. 0ho!as 9:uinas. #+32+$. o''entary of /t. +ho'as A"#inas. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. 9rnold, H. #+32,$. 1eelings and e!otions as dyna!ic factors in personality integration. "n H. 9rnold J J. <asson #Eds.$, +he h#'an person. (ew Dork; Ronald Press. Melly, <. #+322$. +he psychology of personal constr#cts. (ew Dork; (orton. 9rnold, H. #+3-)$. :'otion and personality. (ew Dork; Colu!bia >ni7ersity Press. Ellis, 9. #+3-.$. .eason and e'otion in psychotherapy. (ew Dork; Lyle &tuart. &chachter, &., J &inger, J. #+3-.$. Cogniti7e, social, and physiological deter!inants of e!otional state. (sy. .e!., B1, *63-*33. Polanyi, H. #+3-,$. (ersonal %nowledge. (ew Dork; Farper J Row. La@arus, R. #+34,$. ?n the pri!acy of cognition. A'er. (sy., 91, ++6-+.*. Le7enthal, F., J 0o!arken, 9. #+34-$. E!otion; 0oday5s proble!. Ann. .e!. (sy, 9E, 2-2--+). 1riEda, (. #+344$. 0he laws of e!otion. A'er. (sy., )9, *,3-*26. La@arus, R. #+33+$. :'otion and adaptation. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 9rnold, H. #+33,$. Cogniti7e theories of e!otion. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley.

C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. &ee 'EF9C"?R 0FER9PD C?<("0"CE 0FER9PD, 0FE?R"E& ?1. C?L?R H"K"(<, PR"(C"PLE& ?1. &ee C?L?R H"K0>RE, L9=& 0FE?RD ?1. C?L?R H"K0>RE, L9=& 0FE?RD ?1. L additi7e color !i%ture, principles of. L subtracti7e color !i%ture, principles of. L color !i%ing, principles of. 0he colors of obEects in the en7iron!ent are deter!ined by pig!ents that are che!icals on the obEects5 surface that absorb so!e wa7elengths of light and, conse:uently, pre7ent those wa7elengths of light fro! being reflected. 9lso, different pig!ents per!it different wa7elengths to be reflected. 1or e%a!ple, a pig!ent that absorbs short and !ediu! wa7elengths of light appears to be GredG because only long #GredG$ wa7elengths are reflectedB a pig!ent that per!its only short wa7elengths to be reflected appears to be GblueGB and a pig!ent that per!its only !ediu! wa7elengths to be reflected appears to be GyellowG or Ggreen.G =hen all wa7elengths are reflected e:ually by a pig!ent, one gets the e%perience of Gwhite,G Ggray,G or Gblack,G depending on whether the relati7e a!ount of light reflected is high #GwhiteG$, !ediu! #GgrayG$, or low

C?L?R H"K0>RE, L9=& 0FE?RD ?1

+)*

#GblackG$. 0he ter! additi!e color 'ixing refers to the !i%ture of colored lights, while the ter! s#btracti!e color 'ixing refers to the !i%ture of pig'ents #such as paints$. /#btracti!e color 'ixing occurs when pig!ents create the perception of color by GsubtractingG #i.e., absorbing$ so!e of the light wa7es that would otherwise be reflected to the eye. 1or instance, if a blue pig!ent #which absorbs long wa7elengths of light$ is !i%ed with a yellow pig!ent #which absorbs short wa7elengths of light$, only the !ediu!-length wa7es will be reflected, and the resultant !i%ture will be percei7ed as Ggreen.G 9!ateur painters, working with pig!ents, e%perience s#btracti!e color 'ixing when they !i% all of the paints on the palette together, with the result of a !uddy GbrownG or GblackG color. "n this case, the painter Gsubtracts outG all of the wa7elengths by !i%ing all of the pig!ents together. Additi!e color 'ixing, on the other hand, describes the results of !i%ing colored lights together. 1or e%a!ple, shining a blue light together with red and green-yellow lights on the sa!e spot on a white screen reflects the !i%ed lights back and gi7es the perception of a GwhiteG light. 0wo general laws of ad& diti!e color 'ixing, known to scientists as early as the eighteenth century #e.g., (ewton, +6),$, are called the three&pri'aries law and the law of co'ple'entar& ity. 0he three pri'aries law states that three different wa7elengths of light #the Gpri!ariesG$ can be used to !atch any color that the eye can see, if they are !i%ed in the proper proportions. 0he Gpri!ariesG can be any three wa7elengths as long as each one is taken fro! the three types of wa7elengths; one fro! the long-wa7e end #GredG$ of the spectru!, one fro! the !ediu!-wa7e #Ggreen,G GgreenyellowG$ end, and one fro! the short-wa7e #Gblue,G G7ioletG$ end of the 7isible spectru!. 0he law of co'ple'entarity states that pairs #Gco!ple!entsG$ of wa7elengths of light can be reflected so that, when they are added to gether, they gi7e the 7isual sensation of a GwhiteG light. 9n i!portant subfield in the area of color 7ision and color !i%ture is called colori'etry, which is the science that ai!s at specifying and reproducing colors as a result of !easure!ent. Colori!eters !ay be of three types; #+$ color filter sa!ples for e!pirical co!parisonB #.$ !onochro!atic colori!eters that !atch colors with a !i%ture of !onochro!atic and white lightsB and #*$ trichro!atic colori!eters in which a !atch is effected by a !i%ture of three colors #"llingworth, +33+$. &ee also 9'-(ED5& L9=B C?L?R C"&"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1B <R9&&H9((5& L9=&B (E=0?(5& L9= PR"(C"PLE& ?1 C?L?R H"K0>REB C"&"?( &"<F0, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& (ewton, ". #+6),$. ;ptic%s. London; &!ith. <rass!ann, F. #+42*$. Aur 0heorie der 1arben!ischung. (ogg. Ann. (hysi%., 71, -3. Judd, C. #+3)6$. (sychology? Ceneral introd#ction. (ew Dork; &cribners. Mulpe, ). #+3)3$. ;#tlines of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. 0itchener, E. #+3.4$. A textboo% of psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. ?&9 Co!!ittee on Colori!etry. #+3,*$. 0he concept of color. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., 99,

2,,.

+),

C?L?R C"&"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1

?&9 Co!!ittee on Colori!etry. #+3,,$. 0he psychophysics of color. 4. ;pt. /oc. A'er., 9), .,-, .2,-.22. Judd, D. #+32+$. 'asic correlates of the 7isual sti!ulus. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Hueller, C. #+3-2$. /ensory psychology. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. =oodworth, R., J &chlosberg, F. #+3-2$. :xperi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Carlson, (. #+33)$. (sychology? +he science of beha!ior. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. "llingworth, C. #Ed.$ #+33+$. +he (eng#in dictionary of physics. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

COLOR VISION, THEORIES/LAWS OF. 0he concept of color is a psychological #subEecti7e$ e%perience or sensation that is associated with the presence of a physical light source and depends on three aspects of the actual physical energy; intensity #GbrightnessG$, wa7elength #GhueG$, and purity #GsaturationG$. Host hu!ans see the shorter 7isible wa7elengths #GhuesG$ of the electro!agnetic radiation spectru! as GbluishG #about ,4) nano!eters, or n'); the !ediu! wa7elengths as GgreenishG #about 2+) n') and GyellowishG #about 24) n'); and the longer wa7elengths as GreddishG #about 6)) n'). 0he ter! chro'atic refers to sti!uli that ha7e all three of these aspects #and ha7e color), while the ter! achro'atic refers to sti!uli that ha7e only the GbrightnessG aspect #and are Gwhite-gray-blackG$. 0ypically, the better theories of color !ision can account for se7eral pheno!ena; #+$ the pri'ary colors #Guni:ue huesG$ of Gblue,G Ggreen,G Gyellow,G and GredGB #.$ the co'ple'entary colors #i.e., any of the colors that are opposite to each other on the color wheel and when additi7ely !i%ed produce an achro!atic gray$ and their influence in afteri!ages and contrast effectsB #*$ the laws of color 'ixt#re; and #,$ the different sy!pto!s of 7arious types of color blindness #e.g., protanopes, deuteranopes, tritan-opesB cf; $orner's law, which is the genetic principle that the !ost co!!on for! of color blindness, red-green, is trans!itted fro! !ale to !ale through unaffected fe!alesB Reber, +332B cf; Jonig's theory, +436B Calkins, +3)2$. =heeler #+3.3$ described a nu!ber of !inor theories of color !ision, such as those by Cenable, &chan@, and 1orbes. 9nother early writer #Reid, +3*4$ listed the laws #cf; theories) of color !ision as adapting, color !i%ture, contrast, and induction. Jirsch'ann's law of contrast #+43+$ is the principle that the contrast is proportional to the logarith! of the saturation of the contrast-inducing color #<raha! J 'rown, +3-2$. Judd #+32+$ su!!ari@ed a few of the better-known 7isual theories, citing their funda!ental colors and their chief li!itations; Fo#ngL$el'holtG three co'ponents theory #red, green, 7iolet$ /fails to e%plain dichro!atic 7ision and color perceptions of protanopes #red-color deficiency$ and deuteranopes #green-color deficiency$B do'inator&'od#lator theory #Glate-MonigG theoryB red, green, 7iolet$ /fails to e%plain color perceptions of protan-opes and deuteranopesB ,addL5ran%lin three co'ponents theory #Gearly MonigG theoryB red, green, blue$/i!plies that the blue function has a negati7e lu!i-

C?L?R C"&"?(, 0FE?R"E& L9=& ?1 Mirsch!ann, 9. #+43+$. >ber die :uantitati7en Cerhaltnisse des si!ultanen Felligkeits-und 1arben-Contrastes. (hil. /t#d., B, ,+6-,3+.

+)2

nosity for nor!als and deuteranopes and a positi7e lu!inosity for protanopesB $ering opponent colors theory #red-green, yellow-blue, white-black$ / fails to gi7e an account of protanopia and tritanopia #blue-light deficiency$B !on Jries& /chrodinger Gone theory #red, green blueB and green-red, blue-yellow, whiteblack$ /i!plies that the blue function has a negati7e lu!inosity for nor!als and deuteranopes and a positi7e lu!inosity for protanopes, and fails to account for tritanopiaB Ada's Gone theory #red, green, 7ioletB red, green, blueB red-green, blue-yellow, white-black$ / e%planations of protanopia and tritanopia are based on other Ge%traG or GsubsidiaryG assu!ptionsB 3#ller Gone theory #red, green, 7ioletB red-green, yellow-blue, white-black$/i!plausible e%planation of protanopic lu!inosity. "t is a well-accepted fact that the cones and rods of the retina are the i!!ediate organs of 7ision and that they contain substances, or !i%tures of substances, that absorb radiant energy falling on these receptors. "n turn, the receptors respond by initiating ner7e i!pulses that go to the fibers of the optic ner7e. "t is also well established that the response of the rods is due to a pho toche!ical substance called rhodopsin #Fecht J =illia!s, +3..$, but the substances gi7ing the cones their precise spectral characteristics are still being researched, as well as the co!binations of cone responses that produce i!pulses in the optic ner7e. Recent theories of the underlying !echanis!s !ediating color 7ision feature a !erger of two accounts that were initially considered to be in conflict #1obes, +33,$. ?ne approach, the trichro'atic theory of 0ho!as Doung and Fer!ann 7on Fel!holt@, stressed the relati7e acti7ity of cones that are !a%i!ally sensiti7e to red, blue, or green. 0he other approach, the opponent& process theory of Ewald Fering, Leo Fur7ich, and Dorothea Ja!eson, consid ered red-green as well as blue-yellow to be antagonistic processes. 0hese two accounts ha7e been reconciled now so that the trichro'atic theory describes acti7ity at the GlowerG receptor le7el, and the opponent&process theory describes integration e7ents at the GhigherG le7el of neural organi@ation. 9 current theory of color !ision, the retinex theory, for!ulated by the 9!erican sensory psychologist Edwin Ferbert Land #+3)3/ $, !aintains the e%istence of three sep arate 7isual syste!s #Gretine%esG$ where one is responsi7e pri!arily to longwa7elength light, one to !oderate-wa7elength light, and the third to shortwa7elength light. Each syste! is represented as an analog to a black-and-white picture taken through a particular filter with each one producing !a%i!u! acti7ity in response to red, green, and blue light for the long-, !oderate-, and short-wa7elength retine%es respecti7ely #Land, +323B <raha! J 'rown, +3-2B Reber, +332$. &ee also C?L?R H"K0>RE, L9=& 0FE?RD ?1B FECF05& C?L?R C"&"?( 0FE?RDB FER"(</F>RC"CF-J9HE&?( C?L?R C"&"?( 0FE?RDB L9DD-1R9(ML"( 1R9(ML"( C?L?R C"&"?( 0FE?RDB D?>(</FELHF?L0A C?L?R C"&"?( 0FE?RD.

RE1ERE(CE&

+)-

C?HH>("C90"?( 0FE?RD

Monig, 9. #+436$. >ber 'laublindheit. /itG#ngsberichte A%ade'ie der Wissenschaffen, Berlin. Calkins, H. #+3)2$. An introd#ction to psychology. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Fecht, &., J =illia!s, R. #+3..$. 0he 7isibility of !onochro!atic radiation and the absorption spectru! of 7isual purple. 4. Cen. (hysio., <, +. =heeler, R. #+3.3$. +he science of psychology? An introd#ctory st#dy. (ew Dork; Crowell. Reid, 9. #+3*4$. :le'ents of psychology. (ew Dork; Prentice-Fall. Judd, D. #+32+$. 'asic correlates of the 7isual syste!. "n &. &. &te7ens #Ed.$, $andb%. :xp. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Dartnall, F. #+326$. +he !is#al pig'ents. (ew Dork; =iley. Land, E. #+323$. Color 7ision and the natural i!age. (roc. >at. Acad. /ci., )<, ++2-+.3B -*---,,. Rushton, =. #+3-.$. =is#al pig'ents in 'an. London; Li7erpool >ni7ersity Press. Hac(ichol, E. #+3-,$. Retinal !echanis!s of color 7ision. =is. .es., ), ++3-+**. <raha!, C. #+3-2$. Color; Data and theories. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. <raha!, C., J 'rown, J. #+3-2$. Color contrast and color appearances; 'rightness constancy and color constancy. "n C. <raha! #Ed.$, =ision and !is#al perception. (ew Dork; =iley. =ys@ecki, <., J &tiles, =. #+3-6$. olor science? oncepts and 'ethods, "#antitati!e data and for'#las. (ew Dork; =iley. Hichael, C. #+3-3$. Retinal processing of 7isual i!ages. /ci. A'er., **2, +),-++,. &y!posiu! on (ew De7elop!ents in the &tudy of Color Cision #+3-3$. (roc. >at. Acad. /ci., )<, 43-++2. 'oynton, R. #+36+$. Color 7ision. "n J. Mling J L. Riggs #Eds.$, Woodworth and /chlos& berg's experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. <eldard, 1. #+36.$. +he h#'an senses. (ew Dork; =iley. (athans, J., 0ho!as, P., Diantandia, R., Eddy, 0., &hows, D., J Fogness, D. #+34-$. Holecular genetics of inherited 7ariations in hu!an color 7ision. /cience, *9*, .)*-.+). 1obes, J. #+33,$. Color 7ision. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

C?HH>("C90"?( 0FE?RD. "n broad ter!s, co''#nication refers to the trans!ission of so!ething fro! one location to another where the GthingG that is trans!itted !ay be a !essage, a signal, a !eaning, and so on, and where both the trans!itter and the recei7er !ust share a co!!on code so that the !eaning of infor!ation contained in the !essage !ay be interpreted without error #Reber, +332$. o''#nication theory is the process whereby one syste! influences another syste! by regulation of the trans!itted signals #=ol!an, +36*$. "n psychology, co''#nication theory has pro7en useful in de7eloping !odels of interpersonal interaction, !e!ory processes, language, and physiological functions. 0he general co''#nication process consists of fi7e steps #&hannon J =ea7er, +3,3$; #+$ the sourceB #.$ the trans!itterB #*$ the channelB #,$ the source of potential noiseB and #2$ the recei7er #cf; the social psychological

C?HH>("C90"?( 0FE?RD

+)6

analysis of persuasion in7ol7ing the basic ele!ents of source, !essage, and audienceB Fo7land, Janis, J Melley, +32*$. 0he channel !ay alter a certain a!ount and type of data where the translation of data into a for! acceptable to the channel #coding$ and the re7erse process for use by the recei7er #decoding$ are critical proble!s in the analysis and design of co!!unication syste!s. 0he concept of noise is defined as the origin of errors in trans!ission where the signal recei7ed by the recei7er is a function of the original signal plus noise #cf; the concept of noise in signal detection theory; <reen J &wets, +3--$. 0he co''#nication 'odel proposed by &hannon and =ea7er #+3,3$ in7ites !athe!atical analysis and :uantitati7e !easure!ents of the concepts of infor!ation, channel capacity, error reduction, redundancy, and efficiency of coding syste!s. 0his approach allows analyses to be !ade of co!!unication processes in different areas of in7estigation fro! !olecular genetics to literary criticis! #'ack, +33,$. Co!!unication in the social sciences !ay be di7ided into interpersonal 7ersus !ass co!!unication categories. "n interpersonal co!!unication, the re cei7er can respond i!!ediately and create a network of se7eral co!!unication chains, while in !ass co!!unication each trans!ission link is largely separated. 0he theoretical approaches in the study of interpersonal co!!unication are de pendent on particular !ethods of research, e%peri!ents, obser7ation, or field study. 0wo !odels theories that e!phasi@e the type of !essage in the co!!unication process are those of 'ales #+32)$ and Chapple #+3,3$. 'ales #+32)$ de7eloped +. for!al categories for describing the co!!unication interaction process occurring a!ong !e!bers in s!all groups. 'y co!bining so!e of the +. categories in certain ways, 'ales was able to define and elaborate 7arious subsets of co!!unication interaction Gcli!ates,G as well as to identify prob le!s of co!!unication, e7aluation, control, decision !aking, tension reduction, and reintegration. Chapple5s #+3,3$ !odel is !ore abstract than 'ales5 syste! and !easures only the a!ount of talking, o7erlap, and lengths of contradiction. 'oth 'ales5 and Chapple5s approaches a7oid any !ention of co!!unication content per se. "n other theoretical approaches, howe7er, such as the e%peri !ental approach to !easuring co!!unication, the actual co!!unication processes are inferred fro! !easure!ent of the conditions and the effect of the process #e.g., 'a7elas, +32+B Lea7itt, +32+$. &o!e e%peri!ental approaches !ay control infor!al social co!!unication processes by instruction and inputs by the e%peri!enter with outco!es !easured 7ia :uestionnaires or Eoint actions by the group !e!bers #e.g., 1estinger, +32)B 1estinger, &chachter, J 'ack, +32)B cf; GactualG co!!unication se:uences, <ri!shaw, +34+$. 0heories and studies of interpersonal co!!unication ha7e focused also on the practical aspects of co!!unication, such as inti!acy and co!!unication #e.g., <ott!an J Mrokoff, +343B Long J 9ndrews, +33)$, and on effecti7e co!!unication #e.g., <oldstein J <illia!, +33)B Fartgro7e-1reile, +33)$. "t has been recogni@ed that the !ethod of field obser7ation and analysis of interpersonal co!!unication is a relati7ely weak approach/without a good theory to guide data collection/due to the paucity of results relati7e to the large technical apparatus necessary to

+)4

C?HH>("C90"?( 0FE?RD

collect data #'ack, +33,$. ?n the other hand, the theoretical work of so!e in7estigators has succeeded in bridging the gap between the interpersonal and the !ass co!!unication approaches #e.g., Mat@ J La@arsfeld5s, +322, two&step theory of co''#nications; Lerner5s, +324, societal progress theory; HcLuan5s, +3-., co''#nication theory; Mlapp5s, +364, sociological theory of co''#nication). 0hus, co''#nication theory includes a nu!ber of disciplines where each focuses on a nu!ber of different factors. Lin #+36*$ outlines three ap proaches to the study of both 7erbal and non7erbal co!!unication; the di'ensional approach #delineates specific co!ponents of co!!unication, including a source, a !essage, a channel, and a recei7er where there is typically a two-way e%change of co!!unication$B the process approach #focuses on the internal and e%ternal dyna!ics of the sender and recei7er of a !essage$B and the f#nctional approach #studies the functions and purposes of co!!unication, including syn-tactics Pstructural ele!entsQ, se!antics P!eaningsQ, and prag!atics Ppractical conse:uences of co!!unicationQ$. 1isher #+364$ described four !aEor Gper specti7esG on the study of co!!unication; 'echanistic #physical ele!ents of co!!unication, including the trans!ission and reception of !essages along a linear !odel$B psychological #a beha7ioristic conceptuali@ation of co!!unication, including concepts such as sti!ulus field, sensory inputs, e!itted responses, reinforce!ent, and processing of cogniti7e-beha7ioral e7ents$B interactional #a hu!anistic orientation where co!!unication focuses on the de7elop!ent of one5s potential 7ia social interaction, including concepts such as self, social roles, cultural sy!bols, self-understanding, and self-disclosure$B and prag'atic #focuses on outco!es and conse:uences of co!!unication, especially as de7eloped in the field of psychotherapy$. 9pparently, no !atter what particular theoretical perspecti7e, approach, or direction one takes, !ost in7estigators of co!!unication subscribe to the principle that an indi7idual cannot not co!!unicate. E7en without 7erbal signals, people would e!it an infinite 7ariety and nu!ber of non7erbal beha7iors that essentially co!!unicate !ean ing #'aron, +33,$. &ee also 900"0>DE 900"0>DE CF9(<E, 0FE?R"E& ?1B C?D"(< 0FE?R"E&B "(1?RH90"?( "(1?RH90"?(/PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?RDB &"<(9L DE0EC0"?( 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Chapple, E. #+3,3$. 0he interaction chronograph; "ts e7olution and present applications. (ersonnel, *<, .32-*)6. &hannon, C., J =ea7er, =. #+3,3$. +he 'athe'atical theory of co''#nication. >rbana; >ni7ersity of "llinois Press. 'ales, R. #+32)$. 6nteraction process analysis? A 'ethod for the st#dy of s'all gro#ps. Reading, H9; 9ddison-=esley. 1estinger, L. #+32)$. "nfor!al social co!!unication. (sy. .e!., <E, .6+-.4.. 1estinger, L., &chachter, &., J 'ack, M. #+32)$. /ocial press#res in infor'al gro#ps? A st#dy of h#'an factors in ho#sing. (ew Dork; Farper. 'a7elas, 9. #+32+$. Co!!unication patterns in task-oriented groups. "n D. Lerner J F. Laswell #Eds.$, +he policy sciences. &tanford, C9; &tanford >ni7ersity

Press.

C?HPLEHE(09RD (EED&, 0FE?RD ?1

+)3

Lea7itt, F. #+32+$. &o!e effects of certain co!!unication patterns on group perfor!ance. 4. Abn. /oc. (sy., )B, *4-2). Fo7land, C., Janis, "., J Melley, F. #+32*$. o''#nication and pers#asion? (sycholog& ical st#dies of opinion changes. (ew Fa7en, C0; Dale >ni7ersity Press. Mat@, E., J La@arsfeld, P. #+322$. (ersonal infl#ence? +he part played by people in the flow of 'ass co''#nications. <lencoe, "L; 1ree Press. Lerner, D. #+324$. +he passing of traditional society. <lencoe, "L; 1ree Press. HcLuan, H. #+3-.$. +he C#tenberg galaxy. 0oronto; >ni7ersity of 0oronto Press. <reen, D., J &wets, J. #+3--$. /ignal detection theory and psychophysics. (ew Dork; =iley. 'orden, <. #+36+$. An introd#ction to h#'an co''#nication theory. Dubu:ue, "9; 'rown. Lin, (. #+36*$. +he st#dy of h#'an co''#nication. (ew Dork; 'obbs-Herrill. Hiller, <. #Ed.$ #+36*$. o''#nication, lang#age, and 'eaning? (sychological per& specti!es. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. 1isher, '. #+364$. (erspecti!es on h#'an co''#nication. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Mlapp, ). #+364$. ;pening and closing. Ca!bridge, England; Ca!bridge >ni7ersity Press. <ri!shaw, 9. #+34+$. 0alk and social control. "n H. Rosenberg J R. 0urner #Eds.$, /ocial psychology. (ew Dork; 'asic 'ooks. <ott!an, J., J Mrokoff, L. #+343$. Harital interaction and satisfaction; 9 longitudinal 7iew. 4. ons. lin. (sy., <E, ,6-2.. <oldstein, "., J <illia!, P. #+33)$. 0raining syste! issues in the year .))). A'er. (sy., )<, +*,-+,*. Fartgro7e-1reile, J. #+33)$. ;rganiGations, co''#nication, and c#lt#re. &t. Paul, H(; =est. Long, E., J 9ndrews, D. #+33)$. Perspecti7e taking as a predictor of !arital adEust!ent. 4. (ers. /oc. (sy., <1, +.--+*+. 'ack, M. #+33,$. Co!!unication processes. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. 'aron, 9. #+33,$. Co!!unication theory. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. C?HP9R90"CE J>D<HE(0, C?HP9R90"CE J>D<HE(0. L9= ?1. &ee 0F>R&0?(E5& L9= ?1

C?HP90"'"L"0D, L9= ?1. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C-"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. C?HPE(&90?RD 0FE?RD ?1 DRE9H"(<. &ee DRE9H 0FE?RD. C?HPE 0E(CE 0FE?RD. &ee PL9D, 0FE?R"E& ?1. C?HPLEHE(09RD (EED&, 0FE?RD ?1. &ee L?CE, 0FE?R"E& ?1.

++)

C?HPLEHE(09RD ?D?R&, L9= ?1

C?HPLEHE(09RD ?D?R&, L9= ?1. &ee ?L19C0"?( &HELL, 0FE?R"E& ?1. C?HP?(E(0"9L REC?CERD, PR"(C"PLE ?1. &ee P900ER( ?'-JEC0 REC?<("0"?( 0FE?RD. C?H0E5& L9=. 0he 1rench philosopher and sociologist 9uguste Co!te #+634+426$ initially belonged to the 1rench philosophical !o7e!ent of 'aterialis' #which 7iewed hu!ans as !achines$ but subse:uently founded another !o7e!ent called positi!is'. 9ccording to Co!te5s positi!istic approach, the only knowledge that is 7alid is obser7able and obEecti7e knowledge. "ntrospec tion, which focused on the inner analysis of conscious e%perience, was reEected co!pletely. Concerning the e7olution of thought, Co!te belie7ed that indi7id uals passed through three stages, called o'te's law of three stages #Carlson, +33*$; the theological, the !etaphysical, and the positi7istic, with the last being the basis for scientific thought. Co!te considered the psychology of his ti!e #which e!phasi@ed the subEecti7e analysis of one5s consciousness 7ia the intro specti7e !ethod$ to be the last phase of theology. Co!te argued that science itself was a !atter of description, prediction, and control, and the good scientist should a7oid gi7ing e%planations to pheno!ena, particularly if there are unob ser7able entities in7ol7ed. Postulation of unseen causes was regarded as a dan gerous relapse into religion or !etaphysical superstition #Leahey, +33,b$. &ince the ti!e of Co!te, positi!ists ha7e organi@ed the sciences hierarchically fro! the oldest and !ost basic #i.e., physics$ up to the science of social planners #i.e., sociology$. Each science is held to be reducible to the ne%t lower le7el, with the o7erall effect that all sciences are, in principle, branches of physics #cf; Roeckelein, +336$. Co!te5s approach had a strong influence on the social the ories of his ti!e. Fe stressed that hu!ans !ust rely on direct e%perience in a dyna!ic society where the ai! of society #GsociologyG$ should be to re!o7e the study of social factors fro! the influence of the theological and !etaphysical stages of thought. Co!te belie7ed that pheno!ena in the social sciences !ay be e%a!ined and e7aluated with the sa!e criteria as used in disco7ering scientific laws in the natural sciences. Co!te5s notions ha7e had a strong i!pact on !odern beha7ioris!, and so!e psychologists consider Co!te to ha7e been the first beha7iorist #Lundin, +33,$. 0oday, there is another type of positi!is', inspired by Co!te5s original notion, called logical positi!is' #e.g., Carnap J Horris, +3,4$, which holds that the basic data of e%perience are the operations of scientific obser7ation, and which led historically to the i!portant prescriptions in science called operationis' and operational definitions #'ridg!an, +3.6B 'oring, +326B cf; 'ridg!an, +323B Leahey, +34)$. &ee also 'EF9C"?R"&0 0FE?RD. RE1ERE(CE& Co!te, 9. #+42*$. +he positi!e philosophy. London; 'ell. Hartineau, F. #+42*$. o'te's positi!e philosophy. London; Chap!an.

C?(CEP0 LE9R("(< C?(CEP0 1?RH90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1

+++

'ridg!an, P. #+3.6$. +he logic of 'odern physics. (ew Dork; Hac!illan. Carnap, R., J Horris, C. #Eds.$ #+3,4$. 6nternational encyclopedia of #nified science. Chicago; >ni7ersity of Chicago Press. 'oring, E. <. #+326$. A history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. 'ridg!an, P. #+323$. +he way things are. Ca!bridge; Far7ard >ni7ersity Press. &uppe, 1. #+36,$. +he str#ct#re of scientific theories. >rbana; >ni7ersity of "llinois Press. Leahey, 0. #+34)$. 0he !yth of operationis!. 4. 3ind @ Beh., 0, +.6-+,*. Carlson, (. #+33*$. (sychology? +he science of beha!ior. 'oston; 9llyn J 'acon. Leahey, 0. #+33,a$. ?perationalis!. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Leahey, 0. #+33,b$. Positi7is!. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Lundin, R. #+33,$. 9uguste Co!te. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Roeckelein, J. #+336$. Psychology a!ong the sciences; Co!parisons of nu!bers of theories and laws cited in te%tbooks. (sy. .ep., 72, +*+-+,+. C?(CEP0 LE9R("(< C?(CEP0 1?RH90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 9 concept !ay be defined as a sy!bol or group of sy!bols that stands for a class of obEects or e7ents that possess co!!on properties. 0hus, tree is a concept because it is a sy!bol that stands for a larger group of obEects, all of which possess co!!on characteristics #e.g., a trunk, branches, lea7es, etc.$. Host words, with the e%ception of proper nouns that refer to only a single obEect, are concepts. Concepts !ay be non7erbal as well as 7erbalB for instance, infants can ha7e a concept of 'other long before they ha7e achie7ed language skills. 0he power of using concepts is that they help indi7iduals to think efficiently because they free one fro! ha7ing to create a uni:ue label for each new instance of an obEect or e7ent. 0he ter! concept for'ation refers to the proble!-sol7ing process one goes through to ac:uire concepts. Learning psychologists are interested particularly in understanding how indi7iduals, both hu!an and nonhu!an, learn to identify obEects or e7ents as e%a!ples of specific concepts #Fouston, +34+$. 0he ter!s concept for'ation and concept learning are often used synony!ously to refer to the process of abstraction of a :uality, property, or set of features that can be taken to represent a conceptB howe7er, there is considerable latitude in actual usage. 0he literature in cogniti!e psychology abounds with synony!ous ter!s that ha7e been introduced to refer to these processes; concept ac:uisition, concept de7elop!ent, concept disco7ery, concept identification, concept use, concept attain!ent, concept construction, and concept induction. 0here see!s to be little agree!ent about ter!inology in this area of concept learning-concept for'ation, and the !ost useful counsel is careful reading and critical reflection #Reber, +332$. &e7eral theories ha7e atte!pted to account for the processes operating in concept learning-concept for'ation. 0he beha!iorist, or sti'#l#sLresponse, theory of concept learning was supported by Clark Full #+3.)$. 9lthough !any of the subEects in Full5s e%peri!ents on concept learning were able to learn the tasks, none of the! were able to e%plain GhowG they were classifying sy!bols and obEects into different categories. Full was i!pressed by subEects5 inabilities to describe their perfor!ance and e!phasi@ed the i!por-

++.

C?(CEP0 LE9R("(< C?(CEP0 1?RH90"?(, 0FE?R"E& ?1

tance of analy@ing indi7iduals5 beha7ior and not their introspecti7e accounts of beha7ior. 0hus, the beha7iorist 7iewpoint was ad7anced by Full5s work. "ntro spection was dee!ed unscientific, and speculations about what goes on Ginside one5s headG during concept learning were a7oided. ?ther theories are based on !ore cogniti!e notions, howe7er, such as the assu!ption that people try to Gsol7eG concepts by !aking up hypotheses or tentati7e guesses and then testing these hypotheses #'ourne, Do!inowski, J Loftus, +363B Hatlin, +33,$. 'runer, <oodnow, and 9ustin #+32-$ proposed that people use strategies in order to learn concepts, where strategy was defined as an orderly !ethod for !aking decisions that allows people to sol7e the concept accurately and :uickly without ta%ing their reasoning skills or !e!ories. Le7ine #+362$ for!ulated a concept learning theory that suggested subEects begin a concept for!ation task with a subset of hypotheses, one of which is the GworkingG hypothesisB if their feed back on the tasks is consistent with the working hypothesis, subEects retained that hypothesis, and if the feedback was inconsistent, they shifted their e!phasis to a different working hypothesis that was selected fro! the original subset. 9nother theoretical approach is offered by 'ower and 0rabasso #+3-,$ and 0rabasso and 'ower #+3-4$, who argue that concept learning occurs in an all&or&none fashion, and is contrasted with the incre'ental position, which argues that learning takes place gradually o7er a series of trials. 9ccording to the findings of 'ower and 0rabasso, it appears that concept learning !ay at least so!e ti!es occur in a fashion rese!bling an all-or-none process, but a final answer with respect to the ade:uacy of the all-or-none conception !ust wait for further e%peri!entation #Fouston, +34+$. ?ther approaches in e%plaining concept learn ing in7ol7e the use of ter!s and procedures such as decision trees #e.g., Funt, Harin, J &tone, +3--$, prototype ac"#isition #e.g., Posner, +36*B Rosch J Lloyd, +364$, ani'als' concept for'ation #e.g., Fulse, 1owler, J Fonig, +364$, r#le learning and co'plexity #e.g., 9nglin, +366B 1odor, +362$, infor'ation&processing theories #e.g., Funt, +3-.$, "#antitati!e-'athe'atical theories #e.g., 'ourne J Restle, +323$, abstracting ability #e.g., ?sgood, +32*$, and 'edia&tional theories and c#e&selection 'odels #e.g., Mling J Riggs, +36+$. &ee also "(1?RH90"?( "(1?RH90"?(-PR?CE&&"(< 0FE?RDB LE9R("(< 0FE?R"E& L9=&. RE1ERE(CE& Full, C. #+3.)$. Nuantitati7e aspects of the e7olution of concepts. (sy. 3ono., *7, no. +.*. Fo7land, C. #+32.$. 9 Gco!!unication analysisG of concept learning. (sy. .e!., <1, ,-+-,6.. ?sgood, C. #+32*$. 3ethod and theory in experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; ?%ford >ni7ersity Press. 'runer, J., <oodnow, J., J 9ustin, <. #+32-$. A st#dy of thin%ing. (ew Dork; =iley. 'ourne, L., J Restle, 1. #+323$. Hathe!atical theory of concept identification. (sy. .e!., BB, .64-.3-.

C?(D"LL9C5& 0FE?RD ?1 900E(0"?(

++*

Funt, E. #+3-.$. oncept learning? An infor'ation&processing proble'. (ew Dork; =iley. 'ower, <., J 0rabasso, 0. #+3-,$. Concept identification. "n R. 9tkinson #Ed.$, /t#dies in 'athe'atical psychology. &tanford, C9; &tanford >ni7ersity Press. Funt, E., Hann, J., J &tone, P. #+3--$. :xperi'ents in ind#ction. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Mlaus!eier, F., J Farris, C. #Eds.$ #+3--$. Analyses of concept learning. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. 0rabasso, 0., J 'ower, <. #+3-4$. Attention in learning. (ew Dork; =iley. Piaget, J. #+36)$. Piaget5s theory. "n P. Hussen #Ed.$, ar'ichael's 'an#al of child psychology. (ew Dork; =iley. Mling, J., J Riggs, L. #Eds.$ #+36+$. Woodworth and /chlosberg's experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; Folt, Rinehart, J =inston. Posner, H. #+36*$. ognition? An introd#ction. <len7iew, "L; &cott, 1ores!an. 1odor, J. #+362$. +he lang#age of tho#ght. (ew Dork; Crowell. Le7ine, H. #+362$. A cogniti!e theory of learning. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. 9nglin, J. #+366$. Word, obIect, and concept#al de!elop'ent. (ew Dork; (orton. Fulse, &., 1owler, F., J Fonig, =. #+364$. ogniti!e processes in ani'al beha!ior. Fillsdale, (J; Erlbau!. Rosch, E., J Lloyd, '. #Eds.$ #+364$. ognition and categoriGation. Fillsdale, (J; Erl-bau!. 'ourne, L., Do!inowski, R., J Loftus, E. #+363$. ogniti!e processes. Englewood Cliffs, (J; Prentice-Fall. Mlaus!eier, F. #+34)$. ,earning and teaching process concepts? A strategy for testing applications of theory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Fouston, J. #+34+$. 5#nda'entals of learning and 'e'ory. (ew Dork; 9cade!ic Press. Mlaus!eier, F. #+33,$. Conceptual learning and de7elop!ent. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Hatlin, H. #+33,$. Concept learning. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks.

C?(D"LL9C5& 0FE?RD ?1 900E(0"?(. 0he 1rench philosopher Etienne 'onnot de Condillac #+6+2-+64)$ successfully transported John Locke5s !ethod and theory of e!piricis! fro! England to 1rance. 0he theory of e!piricis! states that all knowledge co!es fro! e%perience, while the 'ethod of e!piricis! ad7ocates the collection and e7aluation of data where e%peri!entation is e!phasi@ed, and induction 7ia obser7ation is ad7ocated o7er deduction fro! theoretical constructs #Reber, +332$. Condillac reacted against Descartes5 theory of innate ideas, Halebranche5s fac#lties, and Leibnit@5s theory of the 'onad #'oring, +326$. "n +62,, Condillac presented his fa!ous analogy or parable of the sentient stat#e to e!phasi@e that the whole of !ental life can be deri7ed in e%perience fro! sensation alone. ?ne is asked to i!agine a statue that is endowed with only a single sense, such as the si!ple sense of s!ell. 0he statue s!ells a rose #where the statue is a rose for the ti!e being because there is nothing else to its e%istence than this odor$ and is, thereby, said to be attending to the odor. 0hus, one !ay see how attention co!es into !ental life; the first

++, C?(D"0"?("(< ?1 0DPE R, L9= ?1 C?(D"0"?("(< ?1 0DPE &, L9= ?1. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE 'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD. odor goes, and another odor co!esB then the first returns, and the statue knows that what was can co!e againB that is G!e!ory.G =hen what was recurs with what is, the statue !ay be said to be co!paring; one odor is pleasant, another odor is unpleasant. 9lso, in the inherent 7alues of the odors, the statue learns of desire and a7ersion. "n like fashion, Eudg!ent, discern!ent, i!agination, and other sorts of abstract notions were represented by Condillac as possible of de7elop!ent in e%perience with only a single sense as the !ediu!. Later, the addition of other senses would still further enhance the statue5s capacities. 0hus, the essential point of Condillac5s stat#e analogy is that all !ental life, including attention, can be deri7ed fro! sensory e%perience, and if a statue were endowed with only a single sense, it could de7elop all the !ental processes currently possessed by hu!ans #=ol!an, +36*$. Condillac argued that the su! total of all hu!an !ental processes would de7elop without any need to presuppose the laws of association, and 7ariations in the :uality of sensations would necessarily produce all the :ualities that were needed for hu!an co!prehension #Lundin, +33,$. Condillac5s brand of sensational e!piricis! e7entually failed because it was too si!ple; it was difficult to reduce the !ind to sensory e%perience alone. 0he nineteenth-century 1rench writers felt that Condillac5s approach was too coldB twentieth-century psychologists could not ignore the GwholeG person and tended to stress the notion that analysis without synthesis is open to failure in theori@ing #'oring, +326$. Fowe7er, on the positi7e side, Condillac fostered the e'pirical attitude, which had a strong i!pact on the !o7e!ent of 1rench !a terialis!, and, like John Locke, he adopted a philosophical approach and strat egy that pro7ided the basis for de7elop!ent of the natural sciences #Lundin, +33,$. &ee also 9&&?C"90"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& ?1B 900E(0"?(, L9=& PR"(C"PLE& 0FE?R"E& ?1. RE1ERE(CE& Condillac, E. #+6,- +36,$. :ssay on the origin of h#'an %nowledge. (ew Dork; 9H&. Condillac, E. #+62, +3*)$. +reatise on sensations. Los 9ngeles; >ni7ersity of &outhern California Press. Foffding, F. #+3)4$. ;#tlines of psychology. London; Hac!illan. 'oring, E. <. #+326$. 9 history of experi'ental psychology. (ew Dork; 9ppletonCentury-Crofts. =ol!an, '. #Ed.$ #+36*$. 8ictionary of beha!ioral science. (ew Dork; Can (ostrand Reinhold. Lundin, R. #+33,$. Etienne 'onnot de Condillac. "n R. J. Corsini #Ed.$, :ncy. (sy. (ew Dork; =iley. Reber, 9. #+332$. +he (eng#in dictionary of psychology. (ew Dork; Penguin 'ooks. C?(D"0"?("(< ?1 0DPE R, L9= ?1. &ee &M"((ER5& DE&CR"P0"CE

'EF9C"?R ?PER9(0 C?(D"0"?("(< 0FE?RD.

C?(1L"C0, 0FE?R"E& ?1

++2

C?(1L"C0, 0FE?R"E& ?1. 0he ter! conflict is an e%tre!ely broad concept used to refer to any situation where there are !utually antagonistic e7ents, !o ti7es, beha7iors, i!pulses, or purposes #Reber, +332$. "n the area of learning and !oti7ation psychology, Hiller #+3,,$, Hiller and Hurray #+32.$, and Hiller #+323$ de7eloped a precise for!ulation of conflict theory based on so!e preli!inary ideas of Lewin #+3*2$. 9ccording to Lewin #+3*+$ and Hiller #+3,,$, there are four !aEor types of conflicts in7ol7ing GapproachG and Ga7oidanceG beha7ioral tendencies; approach&approachLsit#ation in which the person !ust choose between two positi7e goals of the sa!e 7alueB a!oidance&a!oidance / the person !ust choose between two negati7e outco!es of appro%i!ately e:ual 7alueB approach&a!oidanceLcirc#'stances where achie7ing a positi7e goal will produce a negati7e outco!e as wellB and do#ble-'#ltiple approach&a!oidance /the person is re:uired to choose between two or !ore alternati7es, each of which contains both positi7e and negati7e conse:uences. 0he concept of a'bi!alence #i.e., !i%ed positi7e and negati7e feelings concerning obEects, people, or e7ents$ is a central characteristic of approach&a!oidance conflicts and is usually translated into Gpartial approachG #Hiller, +3,,$. =ithin Hiller5s #+3,,$ conflict paradig!, Epstein J 1en@ #+3-2$ and Epstein #+34.$ ha7e de!onstrated the stressfulness of conflicts in their studies of parachute Eu!pers. 0he sy!pathetic autono!ic arousal reaction of the Eu!pers rose dra!atically to a peak at the !o!ent of the Eu!p, then returned to nor!al le7els i!!ediately after they landed. "n the area of social conflict #e.g., Pruitt, +34-$, the study of conflict is an interdisciplinary enterprise, in7ol7ing sociologists, political scientists, ga!e theorists, and social psychologists. &o!e psychologists ha7e 7iewed conflict as a !anifestation of indi7idual aggression that is usually attributed to frustrations e%perienced by the personB others see conflict as arising fro! i!ages that persons or groups ha7e of one another #e.g., in the !utual perception of threat$. During the late +3,)s and early +32)s, conflict theorists began to study e!pirically the social pheno!ena of cooperation and co'petition #9lcock, +33,$. 0he ter!s cooperation and co'petition refer to collaborati7e effort and ri7alry, respecti7ely, concerning !utually desired goals or the !eans of achie7ing indi7idual or !utual goals. "n a GpureG cooperation situation #e.g., Deutsch, +32)$, the goal of one indi7idual can be reached only if the other !e!bers also attain their goals. "n the case of GpureG co!petition, a person5s goals can be attained only if the others do not attain theirs. Fowe7er, the e%tre!es of pure cooperation and pure co!petition are rarely encountered in realistic conte%ts, and !ost situations are a blend of both types. ?ne theoretical approach #(eu!ann J Horgenstern, +3,6$ used 'athe'atical ga'es and 'odels to describe the beha7ior of GrationalG indi7iduals in situations of interdependence. ?ther approaches study laboratory interactions of bargaining situations #e.g., &iegel J 1ouraker, +3-)$, prisoner's dile''a ga'es #e.g., Rapoport J Cha!!ah, +3-2B cf; Pruitt J Mi!!el, +366$, loco'otion ga'es #e.g., Deutsch J Mrauss, +3-)$, and realistic field scenarios #e.g., &herif, Far7ey, =hite, Food, J &herif, +3-+$. "n general, psychological research shows that cooperati7e acti7ity !ost likely