Pavlov And Skinner: Two Lives In Science (An Introduction To B. F. Skinner's "Some Responses To The Stimulus 'Pavlov' ")

The sesquicentennial of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov's birth in September 1999 is being celebrated in Russia by a special issue of the Russian Journal of Physiology (the former I. M. Sechenov Physiological Journal, founded by Pavlov in 1917). The following article and the address by Skinner that it introduces are scheduled to appear in Russian translation in that special issue. Skinner's “Some Responses to the Stimulus ‘Pavlov’” was his presidential address to the Pavlovian Society of North America in 1966. The following article provides the context for Skinner's address by describing some ways in which Pavlov's research influenced Skinner's contributions.     

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.     

B.F. Skinner:

Skinner's non-intuitive discovery in the 1930s that response probability can be a function of not only temporal contiguity but also past consequences sparked fifty years of reaction ranging from high praise to scathing criticism and misunderstanding. Failures to distinguish between the work of Skinner and Pavlov and Watson account for some of the misunderstandings. Other criticisms stem from basic value differences. Whereas Skinner's scientific interest is in behavior per se, other psychologist are curious about inner processes. While Skinners' truth criterion is pragmatic, other psychologists hold correspondence theories of truth. Whereas Skinner is convinced that hypothetical constructs hinder scientific discovery, other psychologists are equally certain that they are essential. Skinner's eschewal of hypothetical constructs, however, has not prevented him form addressing complex behavior, as is widely believed. To the contrary, Skinner has formulated enough unexplored theories on the origin and maintenance of verbal behavior, concept development, problem solving, and creativity to keep theoreticians and empiricists occupied for decades.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

Pavlov's legacy to behavioral psychology,physiology, and psychiatry: A program about Pavlov

A program about Pavlov was held at the Countway Library as part of the “Leaders in American Medicine” series on 12 March 1980. A film (Pavlov Himself) was shown; it was produced by USSR Central Television and the Soviet Academy of Science and obtained from Films for the Humanities, P.O. Box 2053, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Three distinguished scholars discussed Pavlov's influence on psychology (Professor B. F. Skinner), physiology (Professor John Pappenheimer), and psychiatry (Dr. Peter Dews).     

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.     

B. F. Skinner, organism.

B. F. Skinner illustrated the power of behavior analysis by turning it upon his own behavior. This article considers parallels in the life and work of Charles Darwin and places Skinner's views on life and death in the context of his selectionist paradigm for psychology. The term organism plays a special role, and the account shows why B. F. Skinner might have regarded it as an appropriate title.     

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

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. This article was originally published inMinerva, vol. 29, no. 4 (Winter 1991). Published by permission ofMinerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 19 Nottingham Road, London SW17 7EA, and by permission of the Rockeller Archive Center, North Tarrytown, N.Y.     

The importance of I.P. Pavlov for the development of neuroscience.

By his experimental and theoretical work on the physiology and pathophysiology of the higher nervous activity I.P. Pavlov significantly influenced the development of Neuroscience. During the 1950 Pavlovian Conference in Moscow, Stalin and the Communist Party tried to dogmatize his and his pupils' fundamental theories. But the Pavlovian ideas were developed by his pupils in open discussions with representatives of other schools in a very creative way, opening the doors for a systemic approach to understanding the integrative functional systems of brain and behavior. Pavlov emphasized the high plasticity of the central nervous system, investigated the complex functional systems within the brain and between the organism and its environment, and designed models for pathological deviations of the higher nervous activity. During his last years, he freed himself from the strong deterministic view and characterized the organism and its environment as a self-organizing system.     

SKINNER AS SELF-MANAGER

B. F. Skinner was a remarkably productive, creative, and happy individual, in large part because of his expertise in self-management, a set of self-change skills that derive to some extent from his own scientific and theoretical work. Skinner's ardent defense of determinism appears to conflict with his views on self-control; although determinism can be reconciled with these views, we would be best served by dispensing with the “ism” and focusing instead on relevant data and data-driven theories. Contemporary research on self-control has diverged from Skinner's formulation in a number of ways, especially in focusing on cognition and choice. The extraordinary success Skinner had in applying self-management principles to his life should inspire us to take a closer look at the potential value such principles may have for society.     

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.     

The importance of I. P. Pavlov for the development of neuroscience

By his experimental and theoretical work on the physiology and pathophysiology of the higher nervous activity I.P. Pavlov significantly influenced the development of Neuroscience. During the 1950 Pavlovian Conference in Moscow, Stalin and the Communist Party tried to dogmatize his and his pupils’ fundamental theories. But the Pavlovian ideas were developed by his pupils in open discussions with representatives of other schools in a very creative way, opening the doors for a systemic approach to understanding the integrative functional systems of brain and behavior. Pavlov emphasized the high plasticity of the central nervous system investigated the complex functional systems within the brain and between the organism and its environment, and designed models for pathological deviations of the higher nervous activity. During his last years, he freed himself from the strong deterministic view and characterized the organism and its environment as a self-organizing system. Lecture at the Annual Meeting of the Pavlovian Society, November 1, 1998, Dusseldorf, Germany.     

Skinner and the rise of behavior modification and behavior therapy

Skinner is, without a doubt, one of the most predominant figures in the development of Behavior Modification and Behavior Therapy. Skinners' work is essential to the development of Behavior Modification and Behavior Therapy. Beginning with the social need for efficient psychotherapy, and after having generated a solid theoretical body of behavioral laws, Skinner indicated and also developed the appropriate path towards efficient interventions for unadaptive behavior. He developed a new theory regarding abnormal behavior (psychopathology), as well as a procedural model for evaluation (diagnosis) and intervention: "The functional analysis of behavior". His applications for this kind of work are pioneering and at the same time, he is the agglutinant figure of what we today call "Behavior Modification and/or Therapy". It is remarkable that a scientist could change the theories and practices of a discipline as radically as Skinner and his work did. His work, however, still has its limitations. The best way to acknowledge and pay tribute to Skinners' work is to overcome these limitations.     

Why Skinner is difficult

Skinner's views are commonly misrepresented. One reason for this difficulty is that changes in the way that Skinner formulated his views occurred in a gradual evolution over time throughout Skinner's career, and the changes and their significance were not as conspicuously marked as they might have been. Among these changes were a movement from a two-term necessity to a three-term contingency; a movement from discriminative stimulus to setting as the first term in his three-term contingency; and a movement from determinism to random variation as a foundational principle in his selectionist behaviorism. When not seen in their historical development over time, a sample reading of Skinner's views may readily result in misleading or inaccurate interpretations, particularly in respect to his later work. Seen in historical context, however, the accounts that survived after the changes Skinner made are well integrated in a selectionist theory of behavior.     

B. F. Skinner's technology of behavior in American life: from consumer culture to counterculture

From the 1940s through the 1970s, articles in popular magazines and newspapers presented B. F. Skinner in a wide array of guises, from educational revolutionary and utopian to totalitarian and fascist. Understanding these diverse, and often contradictory, portrayals requires a consideration of the social and political discourses in which they were embedded. In this paper, I suggest that reports of Skinner's work were influenced by a number of cultural categories, from the better living campaign of the 1950s, to the counterculture crusade of the late 1960s. Through this examination, a multifaceted rendering of Skinner's public image that takes into account the nature of his work, the context in which it was produced, and the culture in which it was received is revealed. I propose that the received view of Skinner as maligned behaviorist actually obscures the complexity of his relationship with psychology's public throughout this period.     

Behavioral inheritance: Past and present

This paper briefly reviews some of the work of Pavlov and his school as it bears on the problems of behavioral inheritance, especially in relation to their work on the inheritance of acquired conditioned responses in mice. The timeliness of Pavlov’s excursion into this area is stressed and the reasons for its lack of success explored. It seems likely that some form of selection was adventitiously involved. The nature of the difficulties inherent in the analysis of behavioral inheritance is outlined, and a program of work on psychogenetics in the rat, using the analytical methods of biometrical genetics, is described. Some of the findings obtained, both from bi-directional selection experiments for emotional elimination and for speed of escape-avoidance conditioning and from diallel crossing experiments for emotionality, are reviewed.     

Looking for Skinner and finding Freud

Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner are often seen as psychology's polar opposites. It seems this view is fallacious. Indeed, Freud and Skinner had many things in common, including basic assumptions shaped by positivism and determinism. More important, Skinner took a clear interest in psychoanalysis and wanted to be analyzed but was turned down. His views were influenced by Freud in many areas, such as dream symbolism, metaphor use, and defense mechanisms. Skinner drew direct parallels to Freud in his analyses of conscious versus unconscious control of behavior and of selection by consequences. He agreed with Freud regarding aspects of methodology and analyses of civilization. In his writings on human behavior, Skinner cited Freud more than any other author, and there is much clear evidence of Freud's impact on Skinner's thinking.