Results (
Indonesian) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
Historically, the notion of biological constraints on learning arose from Darwin’s (1859) thoughts onthe distinction between instincts (behaviors that required no experience) and habits (behaviors that requiredexperience), in terms of his theory of evolution by natural selection. Several discussions ensued betweenbiologists and psychologists about how instincts and habits related to one another. Peaking during the 1950sand 1960s, these discussions gave conceptual focus to much of the empirical work in both disciplines. On theside of psychology, such focus paved the way to the notion of biological constraints against a view that made itdifficult to smoothly integrate learning with Darwin’s theory.Biological constraints were widely discussed during the 1970s in relation to experimental research onassociative learning in Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning (e.g., see Bitterman, 1975; Hinde &Stevenson-Hinde, 1973; Rozin & Kalat, 1971; Seligman & Hager, 1972; Shettleworth, 1972)1. Not all theseauthors saw eye to eye on the topic, but they agreed on the need to reexamine a fundamental assumption of thatresearch that was challenged by evidence.The assumption in question stated that learning followed laws (or theories, principles, processes,explanations, or mechanisms) that were general across all stimuli, responses, reinforcers, and species. That isto say, the laws of learning were assumed to be independent of specific stimuli, responses, and reinforcers.There also was this notion that species differences in learning were theoretically less relevant than thesimilarities. The assumption can thus be called the generality assumption. It was challenged by evidence ofcertain systematic learning differences across stimuli, responses, reinforcers, and species. T
Being translated, please wait..
