Marx was more in the mainstream Hull-Spence S-O-R category; you wouldn't get a thorough grounding in Skinner from him. You are correct about Hullian theory -- that's why Skinner said 'I am not a learning theorist' -- he rejected the use of intervening variables.
Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] On Jul 26, 2010, at 6:34 AM, michael sylvester wrote: > > > PauL: I am more familiar with texts by Melvin Marx.I knew Marx at Mizzou in > the 70s Anyway I thought that Guthrie was more radical reducing all behavior > to reflexes.The reason why I placed Hull in the S-O-R category were his > formulations of habit strength(SHR) and Inhibition (Ir) which seemed to be > more like intervening variables. > I guess it is possible to explain these as micro-level reflex parameters. > Those Hullian concepts were further used by Dollard and Miller to explain > conflict behavior as drive.I guess drive gradients can also be perceived as a > degree of muscle strength. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3816 or send a blank email to leave-3816-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
