Psychology: Is It Applied Enough?

The question “Is psychology applied enough?” can be regarded in two ways. In the first place, it could refer to the distinction “pure versus applied science”, and the reproach that modern scientific experimental psychology has little to offer to the practitioner. It is argued that this distinction has lost much of its topicality in modern science, and certainly with respect to psychology. In this sense “applied psychology” is an outmoded notion. Secondly, it could refer to the question whether psychology is utilised enough in dealing with the great many pressing problems in modern society. And it is shown that this question cannot be answered in the affirmative. Too often psychological aspects of problems escape notice and too often potential psychological contributions are neglected in governmental and organisational decision‐making, also in cases where such a contribution would prove valuable indeed. A number of reasons for such a neglect are discussed and some ways of improvement are suggested. La question de savoir si la psychologie est suffisamment appliquée peut être abordée de deux façons. Elle peut d’abord renvoyer à la distinction entre science fondamentale et science appliquée et à la critique selon laquelle la psychologie expérimentale moderne a peu à offrir au praticien. Nous pensons que cette distinction a perdu beaucoup de son actualité, surtout en psychologie. Dans ces conditions, la « psychologie appliquée » est une notion désuète. Ensuite, cette question peut faire référence au fait de savoir si la psychologie est suffisamment exploitée dans le traitement des nombreux problèmes sociaux qu’il est urgent de résoudre. Il apparaît qu’il n’est pas possible de répondre par l’affirmative. Trop souvent, les dimensions psychologiques des problèmes passent inaperçues et les contributions potentielles de la psychologie sont négligées dans les décisions gouvernementales et organisationnelles, même quand cet apport serait manifestement précieux. On analyse les raisons de cette négligence et l’on suggère quelques pistes en vue d’une amélioration.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of reinforcement rate and changeover delay on time allocation in a three-alternative procedure

Pigeons were exposed to a continuous choice procedure where three alternatives alternated in a fixed, recycling order (ABCABC, etc.). Responses were reinforced according to independent variable-interval schedules. For three birds, the reinforcement rate for responses on alternative C was varied. For three other birds, the duration of the changeover delay after the changeover to C was varied. For both groups, the reinforcement rates and changeover delay durations associated with A and B were constant throughout the experiment. The time proportion at A relative to B increased as a function of the reinforcement rate for responses on C and decreased as a function of the duration of the changeover delay during C. The results show that the proportion of time spent at a variable-interval alternative of a continuous choice procedure is not completely determined by the reinforcement rates provided by the alternatives. The results support the assumption that time allocation is governed by delayed reinforcement of changeover behaviour.