Hi Jean-Marc: I perk up when I hear my name. You wrote:
(and I quote it yet again because you (collectively, not J-M) need it to decide whether to agree with me) > > I'm prepping a class with a text entitled, "Criminal Behavior: A > Psychosocial Approach", by Curt and Anne Bartol. On pp. 107-108, they > discuss Eysenck's theory of personality, and how it relates to criminal > behavior. There is a section on p. 109 where they mention that Eysenck > considered a certain type of learning as classical, but as far as I > know, the examples given fall uner Operant learning. > > Here's what I'm talking about: > > "To explain why more people do not become criminal, Eysenck contends > that classical conditioning has a stronger effect on most people than > instrumental learning. That is, most people behave themselves because > they have been classically conditioned during childhood about the rules > of society. That guiding light, superego, conscience, or whatever it is > that makes us feel uncomfortable before, during, and after a socially > and morally disapproved act is, according to Eysenck, a conditioned > reflex. He notes that in most families children are reprimanded or > punished for behavior that is against the social mores. Immediately > after engaging in a socially or morally frowned-on act, say, punching a > friend, a child finds that punishment quickly follows". > > In the last paragraph, the authors go on, after describing Pavlov's > experiment with dog: " Eysenck asserts that basically the same sequence > occurs in childhood - inappropriate behavior followed by reprimand. > [...] In essence, by punishing antisocial behavior numerous times, > parents, teachers, and others concerned with the upbringing of the > child, including his or her peers, perform the role of the Pavlovian > experimenter". As others have noted, classical conditioning often (always?) accompanies operant conditioning, and this may be what Eysenck is discussing. But I'm willing to bet that this textbook synopsis bears little resemblance to whatever Eysenck was trying to say. Jean-Marc is right: if students were previously clear on the concepts of classical and operant conditioning, this description would surely leave them confused (as it does me). In a case like this, the best strategy is to go back to the original. And if it turns out that serious harm is being done to what Eysenck really said (my prediction), then a cordial letter to the offending authors would be a good idea. They probably said that Pavlov used a bell too. Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
