Professor Efrain Azmitia: Contribution to Research

It was 1968 when I first joined Dr. Miller’s laboratory as a graduate student of Bruce McEwen. Dr. Miller’s laboratory was the first neuroscience laboratory I had encountered.  He had physiological psychologists (e.g., Ted Coons,  Jay Weiss, David Quartermain, George Wolff, John Winston, Leo DiCara, Bruce Pappas) and biological psychologist (e.g., Bruce McEwen, Eric Stone, Sara Leibowitz).  There were more researchers in his laboratory than in my college biology department. Every member seemed to have their own project but they were all influenced by the Dr. Miller, who strongly felt that the brain could be controlled when the behavior was understood.  No questions seemed too large to tackle, from conscious control of the autonomic system to quantifying the actions of LSD or dissecting the neuronal effects of stress.  This willingness to use science as a penetrating light into the unknown has remained with me through all the years of my research.  Dr Miller was not interested in testing someone else’s hypothesis, or following the latest trend, he saw the potential of neuroscience for understanding questions encountered in the real world.  This bold approach often met with failure as when the rats on LSD simply remained immobile and did not bar press to sounds or noises (expected to occur during hallucinations) as they had been conditioned to do so. But at least Dr Miller tried the interesting experiments and enjoyed when he succeeded, but was not discouraged when science was not ready to experimentally reveal one of its secrets.

 

I have three stories I love to tell about Dr. Miller.

(1) One friday evening I was in his office as he was preparing to go away for the weekend for a bit of a holiday.  He was packing his briefcase with papers, journals and books until it almost broke.  He said to me; “The more work I take with me, the less chance there is I will get to any of it.”

(2) He was notorious for not knowing names.  At his home he was having a fair-well party for his first graduate student at Rockefeller.  When it came time to give his speech, he looked around and admitted he did not remember his name! (3) Dr. Miller was completely bald. One day a postdoc, who had just shaved his head, came into his office while I was there, and asked Dr. Miller if he noticed anything different about him.  Dr. Miller looked up, and said, “Did you shave your beard?” I though it amusing since the post-doc never had a beard.

Posted in All site material | Leave a comment

Dr. Bob

Neal was a critical factor in my practice of internal medicine/nephrology. He taught me about the art of science, more so than I ever learned in medical school or subsequent training. I learned from him in my research with him the ” you’re right, but what else could it be” approach to medical problems. I, also, learned about statistics and could read a medical article and appreciate that the interpretation of statistics are too often at odds with reality. Yes, it was a privilege working and learning from him that significantly affected my approach to medicine. I shall always remember him, and indirectly, so shall my patients.    Dr. Bob

Posted in All site material | Leave a comment

List of Miller’s students

 

 

 

Graduate students

  • Aaronson, Inez (Y=Yale)
  • Agarie, Nariyuki (Y), OKINAWA
  • Auld, Frank (Y)
  • Azmitia, Efrain (R=Rockefeller)
  • Bailey, Clark J. (Y)
  • Banuazizi, Ali (Y)
  • Berkun, Mitchell M. (Y)
  • Birge, Jane S. (Y)
  • Bower, Gordon H. (Y)
  • Brown, Janet L. (Y)
  • Brown, Judson S. (Y)
  • Brucker, Bernard S. (NYU/R)
  • Bugelski, Richard (Y)
  • Burros, Raymond H. (Y)
  • Carmona, Alfredo (Y), CHILE
  • Chi, Carl (Y)
  • Conger, John J. (Y)
  • Coons, Edgar E. (Y)
  • Davis, Maritta (Y)
  • DeBold, Richard E. (Y)
  • Derrer, Douglas (Y)
  • Dworkin, Barry R. (R)
  • Egger, David M. (Y)
  • Feirstein, Alan R. (Y)
  • Ferguson, Elizabeth A. (Y)
  • Fields, Craig (R)
  • Fowler, Harry (Y)
  • Fromer, Robert (Y)
  • Gallistel, C. R. (Y)
  • Godbeer (now French), Elizabeth (Y)
  • Goldstein, Jacob (Y)
  • Grose, Robert F. (Y)
  • Grossman, Sebastian P. (Y)
  • Gwinn, Gordon T. (Y)
  • Hendry, Derek (Y)
  • Hutchinson, Ronald (Y)
  • Jensen, Donald D. (Y)
  • Karsh (now Hammond), Eileen (Y)
  • Kaufman (now Shapiro), Edna (Y)
  • Klebanoff, Seymour G. (Y)
  • Kohn, Martin (Y)
  • Kraeling (now Rutz), Doris (Y)
  • Krasne, Frank P. (Y)
  • Lawrence, Douglas H. (Y)
  • Linton (now Barr), Harriet (Y)
  • Mahl, George (Y)
  • Moltz (now Futterman), Sara Lee (Y)
  • Murray, Edward J. (Y)
  • Myers, Arlo K. (Y)
  • Nagaty, Mohamed O. (Y), KUWAIT
  • Nelson, Franklin (Y)
  • Novin, Donald (Y)
  • Porter, Lyman W. (Y)
  • Quadfosel (now Folsom), Angela (Y)
  • Roberts, Warren W. (Y)
  • Ruark, Margaret (Y)
  • Runyon, Richard (Y)
  • Sheffield, Fred E. (Y)
  • Sheffield, Virginia F. (Y)
  • Stone, (Steinbaum), Eric (Y,R)
  • Stricker, Edward M. (Y)
  • Trowill, Jay A. (Y)
  • Vertes, Robert P. (R)
  • Weiss, Jay M. (Y,R)
  • Wells, H. Herbert (Y)
  • Williams, Joanna Pozzi (Y)
  • Wolf, George (Y,R)
  • Zimbardo, Philip G. (Y)
Posted in All site material | Leave a comment

Niels Birbaumer: Paralysis, scoliosis and learning: a tribute to my friend Neal Miller

During the early seventies we read the first time about a curare experiment: completely paralyzed rats were able to learn in an operant learning situation to control different aspects of the physiology. These reports which later turned out to be unreplicable electrified us because they opened the door for learning treatment of medical diseases. I decided to meet the hero behind these experiments in person and travelled to New York and visited Neal in his lab at the Rockefeller University at 1st Avenue. I vividly recall this first formal meeting of a young researcher and behavior therapist from Vienna with one of the most famous psychologists of all times. It was a very friendly and warm encounter from the beginning. Neal  recalled his experience with psychoanalysis in Vienna during the early thirties and the simultaneous rise of the Nazi movement, antisemitism and all the other political illnesses which plague Vienna and Austria until today (I returned my Austrian passport after the Neo-Nazi party of Haider was accepted in the government during the 90ties). This first meeting with Neal was probably around 1972 or 1973. He showed me the lab and I saw different experimental set-ups for research on motivation (hunger and thirst), but nothing of the curare experiments. He told me that he couldn’t show the experiments to me on that day because the responsible graduate student wasn’t there. On the same day I met Barry Dworkin, at that time also a graduate student, who explained to me that they had some problems with the replication of the curare experiments and introduced me to another problem, namely the biofeedback treatment of scoliosis and kyphosis. Barry and I became lifelong friends since that day and published many papers on scoliosis and baroreceptor physiology and blood pressure learning over the years. It was Barry Dworkin who tried to replicate the curare experiments over many decades without success, but discovering many other new effects of learning, particularly classical conditioning on nerve firing. It was Barry Dworkin who in the late 80ties wrote the famous paper where he tried to explain the lack of replication and pointed out that “experimenter effects” may have caused the early success of these experiments. After several visits in these early days at Rockefeller and the beginning of an international cooperative project on the behavioral treatment of scoliosis and kyphosis which was later published in PNAS, Neal and Barry visited my laboratory at Tübingen and we organized a big international meeting on biofeedback and operant treatment of disease on the occasion of the 500th birthday of Tübingen University at a romantic medieval castle near Tübingen. The papers of this conference were published in a book edited by Birbaumer and Kimmel (Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. 1979). The fact that Neal’s name became associated so strongly with the failure of replication of the curare experiments and the lack of replicability of many biofeedback studies in general is very unfortunate because Neal’s work, particularly his book on psychotherapy is the foundation and the beginning of behavior therapy and experimentally based psychotherapy in general, now dominating psychological and psychiatric treatment all over the world. Neal’s motivation to write that book and to build an experimentally oriented psychotherapy was driven by his appalling experience with psychoanalysis and the psychoanalysts in Vienna: he started a self-analysis with Ferenci or one of the students of Ferenci during this year in Vienna and experienced the pseudo-logic and mystical drive concept as a trainee himself. Neal was one of the psychologically most healthy persons I ever met in my life and that was probably the basis of his sensitivity to the pathologizing theory and practice of psychoanalysis. Only a healthy mind can create such an intellectual wealth and scholarly productivity as the work of Neal Miller.
Below I cite the papers Neal Miller, Barry Dworkin and myself wrote or edited:

Birbaumer, N. & Kimmel, H. (Eds.) (1979). Biofeedback and Self-Regulation.  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

Birbaumer, N., Cevey, B., Dworkin, B. & Miller, N.E. (1984). Biofeedback in der Orthopädie [Biofeedback in orthopaedics].  Forschung. Mitteilungen der DFG.

Dworkin, B., Miller, N.E., Dworkin, S., Birbaumer, N. , Brines, M., Jonas, S., Schwentker, E. & Graham, J. (1985). Behavioral method for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 82, 2493-2497.

Birbaumer, N., Dworkin, B., Elbert, T. & Rockstroh, B. (1987). Stimulation der Barorezeptoren erhöht die Schmerzschwelle bei Bluthochdruck [Stimulation of baroreceptors raises pain threshold in hypertensives]. In: Nutzinger u.a. (Eds.): Herzphobie [Heart phobia]. Ferdinand Enke Verlag,  pp. 92-102.

Larbig, W., Lutzenberger, W., Birbaumer, N., Rockstroh, B. & Dworkin, B. (1987). Barorezeptorenstimulation und Antinozizeption. Experimentelle Labor­unter­suchungen zum lernpsychologischen Entstehungsmodell der Hype­r­tonie [The stimulation of baroreceptors and antinociception. Experimental studies in the laboratory concerning the behavioral ideology of hypertension]. In: F. Lamprecht (Ed): Spezialisierung und Integration in Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie [Spezialisation and integration in psychosomatic medicine]. Heidelberg: Springer, 319-324.

Rockstroh, B., Dworkin, B., Lutzenberger, W., Larbig, W., Ernst, M., Elbert, T. & Birbaumer, N. (1988). The influence of baroreceptor activation on pain perception.  In: Elbert, T., Langosch, W., Steptoe, A., Vaitl, D. (Eds.): Behavioral Medicine of Cardiovascular Disorders, John Wiley & Sons,  49-60.

Rau, H., Schweizer, R., Zhuang, P., Pauli, P., Brody, S., Larbig, W., Heinle, H., Müller, M., Elbert, T., Dworkin, B. & Birbaumer, N. (1993). Cigarette smoking, blood lipids, and baroreceptor-modulated nociception. Psychopharma­cology, 110, 337-341.

Birbaumer, N., Flor, H., Cevey, B., Dworkin, B. & Miller, N.E. (1994). Behavioral treatment of scoliosis and kyphosis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 6, 623-628.

Dworkin, B.R., Elbert, T., Rau, H., Birbaumer, N., Pauli, P., Droste, C. & Brunia, C.H.M. (1994). Central effects of baroreceptor activation in humans: Attenuation of skeletal reflexes and pain perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 91, 6329-6333.

Elbert, T., Dworkin, B.R., Rau, H., Pauli, P., Birbaumer, N., Droste, C. & Brunia, C.H.M. (1994). Sensory effects of baroreceptor activation and perceived stress together predict long-term blood pressure elevations. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1(3), 215-228.

Posted in All site material | 1 Comment

A reading from Hall and Lindsey about S-R theory of personality

Introduction to S-R theory of personality

Posted in All site material | Leave a comment

An Overview of Neal Miller’s contributions

The most basic professional facts and themes of his life – which are elaborated upon elsewhere in this website – are as follows: He is ranked among the ten most eminent psychologists of the 20th Century and was personally awarded the coveted National Medal of Science by President Johnson in 1964.  He was highly influential as a learning theorist, neuroscientist, science statesman, educator, a proponent of the important contributions of animal research, and  and above all, a consummate experimentalist who functioned as a role model for his field.  He authored 8 books and over 276 articles and trained over 150 students and post-docs in research.

 

In the first phase of his scientific career beginning around 1935, Miller had great success in showing parsimoniously that the same principles evident in instrumental learning and motivation were operative in problem solving and in Freudian and social phenomena, and that the applications of these principles had real-life clinical benefits.  Then starting around 1950 he took his research physiologically into the brain and the gut to examine two burning theoretical issues of the time: whether all drives (such as hunger) were learnable to the cues of a situation, as he had shown fear to be, and whether all rewards for strengthening a behavior depended upon there immediately following a reduction in the drive motivating that behavior.  The innovative techniques and the exciting findings that then copiously emerged from his laboratory bore upon the nature of appetite regulation, memory, brain circuits and neurotransmitter systems mediating feeding and reward, and upon the application of pharmacological techniques to investigate behavior and vice versa.  The recognition which all of this afforded Miller positioned him in 1969 to play a founding role in bridging together behavioral and physiological researchers interested in the brain into forming the Society for Neuroscience.  But beginning a few years beforehand he took advantage of an opportunity to pursue again his faith in parsimony, in this case that the same principles of reward operative in instrumental learning in the somatic nervous system would also under the right conditions result in instrumental learning in the autonomic nervous systems – the payoff, if true, being enormous for understanding the origins and treatment of psychosomatic illnesses.  But by around 1973 his laboratory’s efforts, initially auguring great promise, failed to show indisputably in the rat that autonomic increases or decreases of heart-rate in the somatically paralyzed rat could be instrumentally rewarded although evidence remained that autonomic regulation of blood pressure both in the normal and hemiplegic human may be brought under instrumental control.  As a side benefit, the sensitive biofeedback technology that had been developed to make consciously detectible otherwise subliminal physiological process was brought successfully to bear on the treatment of a number of medical ailments.  This early advocacy of the uses of the technology and the underlying learning principles involved resulted in Miller becoming widely credited as one of the founders of the field of biofeedback.  His focus on the role that behavioral factors at play in health issues broadened in the last stage of his research career to include: 1) these factors’ involvement in stress and the underlying physiological processes, 2) the role of behavioral interventions to overcome learned non-use that prevents much of the potential for recovery from stroke, and 3) the use of these interventions in the prevention or minimalization of motion-sickness in astronauts.  These involvements and, again, more broadly his advocacy of the analysis of behavioral factors as contributors to illness and health led to his being identified as a founding father of the fields of health psychology and behavioral medicine.

Posted in All site material, History | Leave a comment

Rockefeller University Obituaries

Neal Miller, a pioneer in thefield of neuroscience who in1965 received the U.S. NationalMedal of Science, the nation’shighest award for scientificachievement, died March 23 inHamden, Connecticut. Millerwas 92. He was a member ofthe Rockefeller faculty from1966 to 1988.Miller was best known for hisonce-unorthodox theory that thebody’s so-called “involuntary”functions, such as heart rate, canbe controlled in the same way asvoluntary functions. His researchchallenged the assumption thatvoluntary actions were the solefunctions under our control.Miller trained laboratory animalsand humans to control heartbeat,blood flow and other visceraland glandular activities, and heapplied his theories clinically tosuch disorders as hypotension,hypertension and scoliosis.He also made important contributionsto the fields of physiologicalpsychology and the evolution oflearning theory.His work influencedgenerations of researchers.Alfred E. Mirsky Professor BruceS. McEwen, head of the Haroldand Margaret Milliken HatchLaboratory of Neuroendocrinology,who began his Rockefeller careeras an assistant professor in Miller’slab, recalls his superb teachingabilities. “He strongly encouragedand supported me as a youngscientist in my studies of stressand sex hormone actions in thebrain, and his lab provided awonderful environment for meto learn about behavioral science.Neal was one of thefounders of behavioral medicineand strongly influenced me overthe years to apply basic researchknowledge about stress hormoneactions to a better understandingof human health and disease.”

Posted in All site material | Leave a comment

Biofeedback and Visceral Learning

We present one of Neal’s more influential articles regarding biofeedback.

Written in 1978, Neal defines biofeedback; then  deals with the question of which visceral responses can be affected by instrumental training.

View more documents from Helik Shemer.

Posted in All site material, Behavioral Medicine, Biofeedback | Comments Off on Biofeedback and Visceral Learning

APA The Neal Miller Lecture Program

The Neal Miller Lecture Program is an annual Science Directorate program developed by the Board of Scientific Affairs. Each year, one eminent scientist is selected to give a lecture dedicated to neuroscience and animal research at the APA Annual Convention. The board chose to create this program in honor of the renowned neuroscientist, Neal Miller, PhD, for his outstanding contributions to neuroscience and animal research in psychology. Dr. Miller accepted the invitation to deliver the first lecture in 1994.

Neal Miller Lecturers 1994-2009

2009-Michael Meaney, PhD
2008- Klaus Miczek, PhD
2007-C. Sue Carter, PhD
2006-Bruce McEwen, PhD
2005-Lynn Nadel, PhD
2004-J. Bruce Overmier, PhD
2003-Edward Taub, PhD
2002-Elizabeth Gould, PhD
2001-Steven Maier, PhD
2000-Linda Bartoshuk, PhD
1999-Robert Ader, PhD
1998-Martha McClintock, PhD
1997-Joseph LeDoux, PhD
1996-Larry Squire, PhD
1995-Nancy Wexler, PhD
1994-Neal Miller, PhD

Posted in All site material, American Psychological Association | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Current Status & Evaluation

The following is an excerpt from the chapter, Stimulus-Response Theory, in Theories of Personality ( Hall, C.S. & Lindzey, G.,  1970).

Current Status and Evaluation

               The application of S-R learning principles to behavioral events outside the laboratory has mostly taken place during the last twenty-five or thirty years. In this interval a very large amount of relevant empirical research has been accumulated. Furthermore, several generations of able psychologists have been trained who possess the technical skill and theoretical conviction necessary to increase enormously the existing stock of such empirical evidence. Thus the recent past has witnessed not only an empirical boom in this area but also the appearance of a large number of individuals actively concerned with extending and modifying the concepts we have discussed. Altogether it seems clear that this brand of personality theory is supported by an unusually vigorous group of adherents, and contrary to the belief or wish of many cognitive and holistic theorists, there is little apparent danger that this theoretical school will vanish in the near future as a result of indifference.

                Our discussion of the theory and research of Dollard and Miller has made manifest a number of virtues. The major concepts within this theory are clearly expounded and customarily linked to certain classes of empirical events. There is a scarcity of vague allusion or appeal to intuition in the work of theses theorists. The hard-headed, positivistic reader will find much to admire in their writings. Moreover, this evident objectivity does not prevent many S-R learning theorist from being ready and eager to embrace a wide range of empirical phenomena with their conceptual tools. Although their formulations began in the laboratory they have shown no timidity about advancing with them upon the most complex of behavioral phenomena.

                A highly significant contribution of S-R theory to the personality scene is contained in the careful detail with which this position represents the learning process. Obviously the transformation of behavior as a result of experience is a crucial consideration for any adequate theory of personality, and yet many theories have largely overlooked this question or have brushed by it with a few stereotyped phrases. In this sense at least, S-R theory provides a model to be emulated by other theoretical positions.

                The readiness of Dollard and Miller to extract wisdom from social anthropology and clinical psychoanalysis represents, for many, another attractive feature of their particular position. They make more explicit use of socio-cultural variables than almost any of the other theories we have discussed and we have seen that their theory owes much to the impact of psychoanalysis. The readiness and sophistication with which socio-cultural variables are introduced in the theory may be related to the fact that this theory has been applied by cultural anthropologists more widely than any other theory of personality except psychoanalysis.

                This willingness to incorporate the hypotheses and speculations of other types of theories, such as psychoanalysis, while appealing to many inside as well as outside the learning group, has not found universal favor among those who advocate the application of learning principles to personality phenomena. Psychologists such as Wolpe and Eysenck, to say nothing of those who take the Skinnnerian approach, not only find little necessity for going beyond the principles established in the learning laboratory but may actively disagree with the views of more traditional personality theorists, particularly those of a psychoanalytic persuasion.

                Although divided on this issue, S-R theorists have characteristically emphasized the function of a theory as a guide to investigation and the necessity of submitting theoretical differences to experimental test. In these respects, members of this group have a definite superiority over most other personality theorists. In general, these theorists have a better sense of the nature and function of theory in an empirical discipline than any other group of personality theorists. In their writing, as compared with the writing of other theorists, there is less reification, less sterile argument over words, and more readiness to look at theories as sets of rules that are used only when they are demonstrably more useful than other sets of rules. This methodological sophistication is undoubtedly responsible for the relative explicitness and formal adequacy of these theories.

                In many ways S-R theory typifies an experimental, objective approach to human behavior. As such, it has been a prime critical target for the many psychologists who are convinced that an adequate understanding of human behavior must involve more than a slavish application of the experimental methods of physical science. These critics feel that although their personal theoretical positions may be vulnerable because they rest on empirical observation that is not adequately controlled, the observation, at least, are relevant to the events with which they purport to deal. In the case of S-R theory, the bulk of the careful investigation is not only concerned with simple instead of complex behavior, but more important, has often been carried out with an animal species that is phylogenetically far removed from and manifestly different in many crucial respects from the human organism. What good are rigor and careful specification in the experimental situation if the investigator is subsequently forced to make a tenuous assumption of phylogenetic continuity in order to apply his findings to important events? We have already seen that S-R theorists consider that learning principles established in laboratory studies of animals must be justified with experimental studies employing human subjects. Thus, there is an essential agreement here concerning the importance of coordinating research; the question becomes one of how much confidence can be placed in the theory until such studies are carried out in considerable quantity.

                A related criticism frequently leveled at learning theory approaches asserts that most of the positive features of this position, including its careful definitions, explicitness and wealth of research exist only when the theory is applied to animal behavior or very restricted domains of human behavior. As soon as the theory is applied to complex human behavior it is in the same situation as other theories of personality, with ad-hoc definitions, and reasoning by analogy, representing the rule instead of the exception. This criticism suggests that the rigor and relative formal adequacy of S-R theories are illusory as they exist only when their principles are applied within a very limited scope. Once a learning theory is generalized, concepts that were clear become ambiguous and definitions that were tight become flaccid.

                Perhaps the most important critical objection to S-R approaches if the assertion that they do not provide adequate prior specification of stimulus and response. Traditionally, learning theorists have been concerned almost exclusively with the process of learning and have not attempted to identify the stimuli occurring in the natural environment of the organisms they study or to develop a suitable taxonomy for these stimulus events. Further, these learning processes have been investigated in restricted, controlled, settings in which it is relatively simple to specify the stimuli eliciting observable behavior. The challenge to the personality theorist is to understand the human organism operating in his real-world environment and it can be cogently argued that if the psychologist cannot fully define the stimulus for behavior his task has barely begun. Roughly the same arguments can be made about the response. In fairness to Miller and Dollard it must be admitted that they are well aware of this problem. Miller, in a jocular vein, has suggested that S-R theory might better be labeled “hyphen theory” as it has had more to say about the connection between the stimulus and the response than about the connection between the stimulus or the response itself. Miller and Dollard have made attempts to overcome this deficiency, as have others, by specifying at least some of the social conditions under which human learning takes places in addition to the abstract principles governing that learning.

                Related to this criticism is the fact that S-R theory has remarkably little to say about the structures or acquisitions of personality, which is undoubtedly why many theorists have found psychoanalytic theory useful in their thinking and investigation. This objection also maintains that, with its preoccupation with the process of learning, S-R theory is only a partial theory and that the relatively stable components of personality are an essential element in any attempt to understand human behavior.

                Certainly the most frequently voiced criticisms of S-R theory point to the simplicity and molecularity of the position. Holists feel that this theory is the very essence of a segmental, fragmented and atomistic approach to behavior. They claim that so little of the context of behavior is seen that one cannot hope to understand or predict human behavior adequately. There is no appreciation of the importance of the whole and the patterning of the parts is overlooked in favor of their microscopic examination.  In these objections it is difficult to sort out the polemical and affective components from their legitimate intellectual accompaniment. In defense of learning theory, it is certainly clear that there is nothing in the S-R position to imply that variables must operate singly or in isolation. Interaction of variables is perfectly acceptable, so at least this degree of holism is congruent with S-R theory.

                Still other psychologists accuse S-R theorists of having neglected language and though processes and claim that their concepts are inadequate to explain the acquisition and development of these complex cognitive functions. Any acceptable theory of human learning, they contend, must incorporate these cognitive phenomena. Perhaps the core of all these objections is he conviction that the set of variables employed by the S-R theorists is too small and too ordinary to represent human behavior adequately. Again this is a matter of personal values. Whether progress will eventually stem most rapidly from a complex model that moves toward specificity and detail or a simple model that moves toward comprehensiveness and complexity is impossible to say at this time.

                In summary, S-R theory is a theoretical position that in many respects is singularly American. It is objective, functional, places much emphasis on empirical research and is only minimally concerned with the subjective and intuitive side of human behavior. As such it provides a striking contrast to many of the theories we have discussed that are deeply indebted to European psychology. Undoubtedly its tough-minded, empirical strengths have made and will continue to make unique contributions to this area of psychology.

Posted in Learning & Motivation | Leave a comment