Pavlov's view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as it relates to theses concerning scientific change

Pavlov's position on the inheritance of acquired characteristics was used to test selected theses of Laudan et al. (1986) concerning scientific change. It was determined that, despite negative experimental findings, Pavlov continued to accept the possibility of the inheritance of acquired habits. This confirms the main thesis I that, once accepted, theories persist despite negative experimental evidence. Pavolv's adherence to the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics might possibly be explained by his early experiences. Adolescent readings of a popularized version of Darwin's theory, which included the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics, profoundly influenced Pavlov's subsequent intellectual life. Overwhelmed by the theory, as originally presented, Pavlov was unable to alter his views in light of contrary findings.     

Pavlov as a psychologist

American psychologists are informed on Pavlov’s work on conditional reflexes but not on the full development of his theory of higher nervous activity. This article shows that Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity dealt with concepts that concerned contemporary psychologists. Pavlov used the conditioning of the salivary reflex for methodological purposes. Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity encompassed overt behavior, neural processes, and the conscious experience. The strong Darwinian element of Pavlov’s theory, with its stress on the higher organisms’ adaptation, is described. With regard to learning, Pavlov, at the end of his scholarly career, proposed that although all learning involves the formation of associations, the organism’s adaptation to the environment is established through conditioning, but the accumulation of knowledge is established by trial and error.     

文化演化的认知视角——从个体社会学习出发探究文化动态性

文化演化是多学科共同关心的文化研究主题。文化演化的认知视角是心理学家切入该研究主题的一种方式, 它着眼于社会文化环境中的个体认知, 研究个体在社会学习过程中对文化信息的加工、改变、记忆与提取。文化演化的认知视角借用达尔文生物演化理论, 涉及文化传承、创新、选择三个子领域, 提出了文化演化的三原则: 遗传、变异、选择。文化传承的路径包括模仿和教导, 类型分为工具性与习俗性文化传承; 文化创新具有层次性, 人类特有的累积性文化演化建立在文化创新的基础之上, 体现了文化创新的代际传递; 基于行为生态学和人类认知机制的文化选择造成了文化信息的差异化适应。未来研究可以从研究概念、研究思路、研究方法三方面推进认知视角下的文化演化研究, 探索更高层次的文化创新, 扩展文化演化的前因变量, 结合新技术加深对文化演化的理解; 发挥文化演化对文化心理学研究的助推作用, 研究文化混搭、个性心理特征对文化演化的影响。     

Pavlov's position on the effects of decortication on conditional reflexes.

This paper examined D. Joravsky's (1989) hypothesis that I.P. Pavlov dogmatically refused to acknowledge that classical conditioning can be mediated by subcortical regions of the large cerebral hemispheres. Decortication literature from 1901 to 1936 was reviewed. The early studies available to Pavlov, who died in 1936, showed that decortication does not allow the establishment of new or retaining of old conditional reflexes (CRs). G.P. Zeleny?'s later experiments(1930) suggested that the establishment of primitive CRs in decorticated dogs was possible. Pavlov never denied this possibility but cautioned that Zeleny?'s experiments could have been methodologically flawed. Although Joravsky's original hypothesis on Pavlov's position on the relation between decortication and the establishment of CRs is by and large accepted, it must be stressed that Pavlov's theory of higher nervous activity was primarily concerned with the function of the brain in the higher organism's struggle for existence. Within this context the cortical, rather than subcortical, processes play the decisive role in the organism's adaptation to the changing external environment.     

Recent Russian Pavloviana

In recent years three books have appeared which contribute greatly to our knowledge of Pavlov’s life and work, and of the development of the laboratory in Leningrad which bears his name and his intellectual imprint. These works are (1) A volume of brief, highly personal comments on I. P. Pavlov (Kreps, 1967); (2) A collection of short biographies, pictures, and selective bibliographies of individuals who had worked with Pavlov (Kvasov and Fedotova-Grot, 1967); and (3) An outline of the history of the I. P. Pavlov Institute of Physiology which grew from a most unprepossessing laboratory, taken over by I. P. Pavlov in 1907, into a giant institution with a staff currently exceeding 1,000 (Lange, 1968).     

Pavloviana in the USA: Archives of the history of American psychology,university of Akron

This paper represents one step in the effort to locate, examine, and make generally available archival materials related to the life and work of I. P. Pavlov and held outside the Soviet Union, in particular in the United States. The Archives of the History of American Psychology contain fairly extensive correspondence among American psychologists, with informative references to Pavlov, including letters written by K. S. Lashley, R. M. Yerkes, and J. B. Watson. References to Pavlov are also located in a variety of other sources, including reminiscenses of psychologists and R. M. Yerkes’“Obituary” of Pavlov written in 1916. Pictures of Pavlov and his close associates are reproduced from still photographs and motion picture films.     

Pavlovvs. Köhler

During the 1920s, I. P. Pavlov’s scholarly interests broadened to consider problem-solving. Distrusting Wolfgang Köhler’s Gestalt explanation of the problemsolving process and its interspecies aspects, Pavlov performed, from 1933 to 1936, a number of experiments, including a replication of Köhler’s building experiment, using chimpanzees as subjects. Confirming Köhler’s findings, Pavlov explained the problemsolving process in terms of unconditional reflexes and the establishment, by Pavlovian conditioning and the Thorndikian method of trial and error, of temporary neural connections identical, on the psychological level, to associations. In contrast to Köhler’s “structural” explanation, Pavlov emphasized the processes of analysis and synthesis. According to Pavlov insight is achieved progressively—as the result of the organism’s problem-solving behavior—contradicting Köhler’s thesis of a sudden subjective reorganization of the environmental situation. Pavlov explained interspecies differences among higher organisms in terms of the range of a species behavior, with the second signal system as the main distinguishing characteristic between human and nonhuman species.     

Hypnosis and inhibition as viewed by heidenhain and pavlov

About 1880, Rudolf Heidenhain, then Professor of Physiology and Histology at the University of Breslau, experimentally studied hypnotic phenomena. Heidenhain explained hypnosis physiologically, in terms of cortical inhibition. Subsequently, I. P. Pavlov, who in 1877 and again in 1884 was Heidenhain’s student at Breslau, encountered hypnotic phenomena during conditional reflex experiments. In 1910, Pavlov described hypnotic states and explained them (as had Heidenhain three decades earlier), in terms of partial inhibition of the cortex. As the concepts of inhibition and excitation are cornerstones of Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity, it is of historical interest to search for influences that led Pavlov to incorporate the concept of inhibition into his theory. It is most likely that Pavlov first encountered the concept of central inhibition in the 1860s when reading I. M. Sechenov’sThe Reflexes of the Brain (1863/1866) and that the importance of the concept was augmented by Heidenhain’s use of it in explaining hypnotic phenomena.     

Pavlov’s position on the effects of decortication on conditional reflexes

This paper examined D. Joravsky’s (1989) hypothesis that I.P. Pavlov dogmatically refused to acknowledge that classical conditioning can be mediated by subcortical regions of the large cerebral hemispheres. Decortication literature from 1901 to 1936 was reviewed. The early studies available to Pavlov, who died in 1936, showed that decortication does not allow the establishment of new or retaining of old conditional reflexes (CRs). G.P. Zelenyi’s later experiments(1930) suggested that the establishment of primitive CRs in decorticated dogs was possible. Pavlov never denied this possibility but cautioned that Zelenyi’s experiments could have been methodologically flawed. Although Joravsky’s original hypothesis on Pavlov’s position on the relation between decortication and the establishment of CRs is by and large accepted, it must be stressed that Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity was primarily concerned with the function of the brain in the higher organism’s struggle for existence. Within this context the cortical, rather than subcortical, processes play the decisive role in the organism’s adaptation to the changing external environment.     

The impact of Pavlov on the psychology of learning in English-speaking countries

The translation of Pavlov's lectures (Pavlov, 1927) provided English-speaking psychologists with access to the full scope of Pavlov's research and theoretical ideas. The impact this had on their study of the psychology of learning can be assessed by examining influential books in this area. This reveals that Watson (1924) had been highly effective in promoting the misleading idea that Pavlov was a fellow S-R theorist. This assumption was not questioned by Tolman (1932), Hilgard and Marquis (1940) or by Hull (1943). However, this mistake was not made by Skinner (1938), who also provided the strongest arguments against Pavlov's belief that behavioral effects required explanation in terms of physiological processes. Post-1927 most learning research in the English-speaking countries continued to use instrumental, rather than Pavlovian, conditioning procedures. Nevertheless, many of the issues addressed by this research were ones that Pavlov had been the first to raise, so that his major influence can be seen as that of defining a research program for subsequent students of learning.     

Ivan Pavlov on communist dogmatism and the autonomy of science in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s. 1923.

On 25 September, 1923, two days before his 74th birthday, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov stood before a class of medical students assembled in the auditorium of his Alma Mater, the Military Medical Academy in Leningrad. Pavlov, the recipient of the Nobel prize in medicine in 1904 for his work in physiology, was about to address his first class of the new academic year, and, as was his custom, he had prepared his first lecture on a general theme. This was an especially significant address, however, for in it Pavlov reviewed the impressions he had gathered during his travels in Western Europe and the United States in the summer of 1923, and he criticised the prevailing ideology of Soviet communism by attacking the ideas of Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, then the leading expositor of Bolshevik Marxism. An English translation of the lecture is printed below.     

“What is this Genetics,Anyway?” Understandings of Genetics,Illness Causality and Inheritance Among British Pakistani Users of Genetic Services

Misconceptions about basic genetic concepts and inheritance patterns may be widespread in the general population. This paper investigates understandings of genetics, illness causality and inheritance among British Pakistanis referred to a UK genetics clinic. During participant observation of genetics clinic consultations and semi-structured interviews in Urdu or English in respondents’ homes, we identified an array of environmental, behavioral and spiritual understandings of the causes of medical and intellectual problems. Misconceptions about the location of genetic information in the body and of genetic mechanisms of inheritance were common, reflected the range of everyday theories observed for White British patients and included the belief that a child receives more genetic material from the father than the mother. Despite some participants’ conversational use of genetic terminology, some patients had assimilated genetic information in ways that conflict with genetic theory with potentially serious clinical consequences. Additionally, skepticism of genetic theories of illness reflected a rejection of a dominant discourse of genetic risk that stigmatizes cousin marriages. Patients referred to genetics clinics may not easily surrender their lay or personal theories about the causes of their own or their child’s condition and their understandings of genetic risk. Genetic counselors may need to identify, work with and at times challenge patients’ understandings of illness causality and inheritance.     

The politics of physiological psychology Ivan Pavlov’s suppressed defense of scientific freedom and its consequences

This statement, first presented at a plenary session of the Pavlovian Society on 9 October 1992, in Los Angeles, California, attempts to assess the recently released speech delivered by Ivan Pavlov in 1923, but publicly brought to light only in 1991, on the subject of “Communist Dogmatism and the Autonomy of Science.” This speech, noteworthy for the courage of the delivery under adverse circumstances no less than the contents of its remarks, compels a new estimate of the place of science in a totalitarian system boasting an ideology of physiological psychology. It also sheds new light on the Russian Nobel laureate and pioneer in the areas of behavior modification induced by the functions of the higher nervous system. These remarks take an in-depth view of American radical and Marxian appraisals — how they followed the Soviet lead in harnessing Pavlov to the Communist cause, and in attempting to discredit the work of Sigmund Freud. This lethal combination of Communist political needs and ideological proclivities served to rationalize the implementation of slave labor as work therapy during the Stalinist era. The linkage of Pavlov to Makarenko in education and Michurin in biology serves as a case study in the manufacture of tradition. The collapse of the Soviet system permits a recasting of the history of science and Pavlov’s place in Russian life. Such new conditions also provide a lesson in the distortive role of ideology in the evolution of modern science.     

A note on Skinner and Pavlov's physiology

These short notes describe the way in which Skinner considers and resolves his differences with Pavlov in the question of the relation between psychology and physiology as forms of knowledge. After establishing his viewpoint in the general epistemological issue, Skinner is concerned about linking his study of behavior to the work of Pavlov, who considered it to be of a physiological nature. Skinner contrasts Pavlov's empirical and theoretical work and characterizes the latter in terms of the notion of the "Conceptual Nervous System."     

Pavlov and the Pavlovians in the laboratory

The general character of the Pavlovians and their role in the experimental investigation of conditioned reflexes is discussed. From 1897 to 1936, Ivan P. Pavlov had at least 146 co-workers and he was closely involved in their experimental work. The social background, nationality, and gender of the Pavlovians are described together with the daily routine in the laboratories. It is pointed out that, despite Pavlov's authoritarian style, the Pavlovians characterized him as the epitome of a scholar and an admirable human being. It is concluded that the work in the laboratories was truly a cooperative effort between Pavlov and his co-workers.     

Effect of Person

The role of the experimenter in the behavioral study, although recognized by Darwin, Pavlov, psychiatrists and others, has not been adequately evaluated in terms of the quantitative measures of the CR. Our study in this paper concerns especially the cardiac changes induced by “Person” in normal and pathological animals—monkey, dog, cat, opossum, guinea pig and rabbit. Owing to the greater sensitivity of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, these are more reliable and delicate measures than the usual somatic muscular ones. The Person can be used as an unconditional stimulus on the basis of which conditional reflexes are formed. Person has an especially pronounced effect on neurotic animals—shown often in a more pronounced way in the cardiorespiratory responses than in the more superficial behavioral ones. This Effect of Person may provide insights into the production of neurosis as well as some of the beneficial effects of therapy, e.g., the personal factor of the therapist.     

B. F. Skinner's Science and Human Behavior: its antecedents and its consequences

Skinner's Science and Human Behavior marked a transition from a treatment of behavior that took physics as its reference science to one that emphasized behavior as a fundamental part of the subject matter of biology. The book includes what may be Skinner's earliest statement about the similarity of operant selection to Darwinian natural selection in phylogeny. Other major topics discussed in the book included multiple causation, private events, the self, and social contingencies. Among the important antecedents were Skinner's own Behavior of Organisms and Keller & Schoenfeld's Pincinples of Psychology. Current developments in education, behavioral economics, and some behavior therapies can be attributed at least in part to Skinner's seminal work. The effective behavioral analysis of governmental and religious systems will probably depend on elaborations of our understanding of verbal behavior.     

Effect of person

The role of the experimenter in the behavioral study, although recognized by Darwin, Pavlov, psychiatrists and others, has not been adequately evaluated in terms of the quantitative measures of the CR. Our study in this paper concerns especially the cardiac changes induced by “Person” in normal and pathological animals—monkey, dog, cat, opossum, guinea pig and rabbit. Owing to the greater sensitivity of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, these are more reliable and delicate measures than the usual somatic muscular ones. The Person can be used as an unconditional stimulus on the basis of which conditional reflexes are formed. Person has an especially pronounced effect on neurotic animals—shown often in a more pronounced way in the cardio-respiratory responses than in the more superficial behavioral ones. This Effect of Person may provide insights into the production of neurosis as well as some of the beneficial effects of therapy, e.g., the personal factor of the therapist. Reprinted from Conditional Reflex, Vol. 1, No. 1, January–March 1966     

A comparative analysis of the conditional reflex discoveries of pavlov and Twitmyer,and the birth of a paradigm

Research on conditional reflex (CR) in Pavlov’s Physiological Laboratory has preceded Twitmyer’s work on conditioning at the University of Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 years. The events in Pavlov’s laboratory lead toward the postulation of a new paradigm that rejected the Cartesians conceptualization of the reflex as a mechanistic response to stimuli by replacing it with the Darwinian notion of the organism’s adaptation to the environmental conditions. The Pavlovian paradigm rejected the Wundtian method in favor of the objective, conditional reflex method.