A Q-Sort Historical Analysis Or the Learning Theories of Clark L. Hull and B

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 12-1973 A Q-Sort Historical Analysis or the Learning Theories of Clark L. Hull and B. F. Skinner Keith V. Syrja Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons Recommended Citation Syrja, Keith V., "A Q-Sort Historical Analysis or the Learning Theories of Clark L. Hull and B. F. Skinner" (1973). Master's Theses. 2699. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/2699 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Q-SORT HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OR THE LEARNING THEORIES OF CLARK L. HULL AND B. F. SKINNER by Keith V. Syrja A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1973 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ackno v*rl edgement s In writing this thesis, I am thankful for the advice, encouragement, and constructive criticism of Professors Paul T. Mountjoy, Chris Koronakos, and Bradley E. Huitema. I appreciated the efforts of Professor Berne Jacobs and his students at Kalamazoo College. I also thank as well many others at Western Michigan University for their kindly assistance. The intellectual training and experience I have gained in graduate study I am sure will be quite important and beneficial during my further graduate work. This gratitude nonetheless does not divorce me from sole responsibility for what is written here. Keith V. Syrja Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MASTERS THESIS M-5118 SYRJA, Keith Vincent A Q-SORT HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEARNING THEORIES OF CLARK L. HULL AND B. F. SKINNER. Western Michigan University, M.A., 1973 Psychology, experimental University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor, Michigan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER p^E I INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 II PROCEDURE........................................ 3 Subject Information.............................. 3 Method........................................... 3 III RESULTS.......................................... 9 IV DISCUSSION..................................... ... V SUMMARY............................................ 32 APPENDIX Q-Sort Statement List............................... 34 VI REFERENCES........................................ 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1. GROUP MEANS ..................................... 11 TABLE 2. SUBJECT AND GROUP RATIOS........................ 12 TABLE 3* IDENTITY TASK STATEMENT SUMMARY ....... 15 TABLE 4. VALIDITY TASK STATEMENT SUMMARY ................ 16 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction Principles of Behavior, 1943» and Behavior of Organisms, 1938, were selected as representative works in psychological history for Clark L. Hull and B. P. Skinner, respectively. Both were published at relatively the same time period. Each reflected the author's views of a system of psychology. There were of course differ ences. Whereas Behavior of Organisms marked a culmination of Skinner's experimental studies into a general theory from which he latter began to disengage, Principles of Behavior marked the beginning of Hull's attempt to quantitize a complete theory of psychology using behavioral postulates in a hypothetico-deductive approach. Before beginning this analysis the question do both these men (Hull, Skinner) actually have what can be con sidered as a theory of behavior, must be examined. While Hull's system is quite obviously theoretical in nature, Skinner’s position is sometimes regarded as too positiv- istic to be considered as an actual theory. However, using the criterion of Modern Learning Theory, Skinner's Behavior of Organisms is deemed to be sufficiently theoretical for its analysis. In Modern Learning Theory the term theory "denotes a conceptual apparatus mediating 1 with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scientific explanation and prediction in an empirical area." This is the function of any scientific theory although its form may differ to the extent that any one dimensional outline as put forward in Modern Learning Theory cannot he strictly adhered to for all theories. In this study then, both theories are examined. The results of this study hopefully reveal to some extent how these theories as they were formulated at these earlier times are still remembered and regarded today. Despite changes in these theories this subjective analysis will attempt to discover how proponents of the present day theories regard the earlier theories. The first hypothesis tested was that a group which had been exposed to both theorists in their courses would be able to identify Hullian statements more correctly than would a group which had been exposed in their courses only to Skinnerian theory. The second hypothesis tested was that a group which had only been exposed to Skinnerian theory would judge Hullian state ments as being less valid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Procedure Subject Information The subjects used comprised two groups. The first group included both sophomore and junior level under graduate psychology students from Kalamazoo College. The second group consisted of an equal number of graduate psychology students at Western Michigan University. A total of ten subjects were used. Subjects in the Kalamazoo College group had all taken one learning theory course which included sections on both Hull and Skinner, and also other related courses. Two subjects (#3 and #5) had even read parts of Principles of Behavior. The Western Michigan University subjects had taken a course in learning theory, but it was strongly oriented toward operant conditioning as were their other related courses. These subjects knew very little about Hullian theory. Method Each Q-sort Statement was typed separately on a slip of paper. The slips were thoroughly shuffled and given to the subject. As an aid in helping the experi menter classify these statements, a number from, a random number list was assigned to the back of each slip. There 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were a total of eighty statements, forty each of Hull and Skinner. About half of the statements of both theorists consisted of laws, principles, and theorems formulated in Hull's Principles of Behavior and Skinner's Behavior of Organisms. In one task the subject placed these slips in three piles, either "Skinner," "Hull," or "Don't Know," depending on whether he felt the statement to be that of Skinner, Hull, or that he wasn't sure. He was allowed to change his placements if he wished after he had sorted the statements. Each subject also

Load more