CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT
CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/bf03392559
复制
发表时间：
1991-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
SHERBURNE, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BUSKIST, W;NEWLAND, MC;SHERBURNE, T
行为实验分析的目的可以简单概括为——解释行为及其控制变量之间的关系。这项任务于 1938 年开始，当时斯金纳发表了他的《有机体行为》。从那时起，数以千计的使用非人类动物受试者的操作性实验和课堂/实验室演示已经证明了强化控制行为中的偶然性的力量（例如，Ferster＆Skinner，1957）。事实上，塑造、强化、惩罚和灭绝的基本原理都是通过在高度控制的实验室环境中仔细观察老鼠按下杠杆和鸽子啄食半透明圆盘而发现的。巴伦、佩罗内和加利齐奥现在提出了这些原理是否可以解释人类行为的问题。正如他们正确指出的那样，这个古老的问题源于斯金纳对人类行为的概念分析（例如，斯金纳，1953，1957），尽管他从未试图从经验上回答它。然而，那些做过实验的人发现，他们的结果通常与非人类动物实验的典型结果不同（有关评论，请参见 Baron & Galizio, 1983; Davey & Cullen, 1988; Weiner, 1983）。这种差异导致许多人指责三项偶然事件不足以解释人类行为，或者人类行为太复杂而无法在操作实验室中进行研究。这些说法很快就被巴伦等人巧妙地反驳了，他们认为传统的正确应用——
The desideratum of the experimental analysis of behavior can be summarized simply-to explain the relationships among behavior and its controlling variables. This task was inaugurated in 1938 when Skinner published his Behavior of Organisms. Since then, thousands of operant experiments and classroom/laboratory demonstrations using nonhuman animal subjects have testified to the power of the contingencies of reinforcement in controlling behavior (eg, Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Indeed, the basic prin-ciples ofshaping, reinforcement, punishment, and extinction were each discovered by carefully observing rats pressing levers and pigeons pecking translucent disks in highly controlled laboratory en-vironments.Baron, Perone, and Galizio now pose the question ofwhether these principles can explain human behavior. As they correctly point out, this old question originates in Skinner's conceptual analyses of human behavior (eg, Skinner, 1953, 1957), although he never attempted to answer it empirically. Those who have, though, have found that their results often do not resemble those typical of nonhuman animal experiments (for a review, see Baron & Galizio, 1983; Davey & Cullen, 1988; Weiner, 1983). Such discrepancies have led many to charge either that the three-term contingency is not adequate in explaining human behavior or that human action is simply too complex to be studied in the operant laboratory. These claims are quickly and deftly countered by Baron et al., who ar-gue that correct applications oftradition-