Why do we call Hulls system hypothetical deductive system? Fractional Antedating Goal Response (r G) Habit family hierarchy Mowrers two-factor theory Decremental and incremental learning Sign learning Kenneth Spences latent learning Incentive motivation Frustration-competition theory of extinction Amsels frustration effect Molar behavior and purposive behaviorism Similarities between Tolman and Guthrie, on motivation reinforcement Cognitive maps and hypotheses Vicarious learning Learning vs. Hulls changes in moving from drive reduction to stimulus reduction.Postulate 12: The Probability That a Learned Response Will Be Made Is a Combined Function of SER, SOR,.Hypotheses are constantly being generated; some of them are supported by experimental outcomes, and some are not. The English grammar: or, the English tongue reduced to grammatical rules: ... Shapiro, Johanna, Karen Douglas, and Olivia de la Rocha. Nadeau“Antedating and Anchoring Vietnamese America: Toward a Vietnamese American Historiography.” Amerasia Journal, 29(1), 2003.When the experiments do not come out as predicted, the theory is weakened and must be revised.When an animal trained on a large reinforcer was shifted to a smaller reinforcer, its running speed went down.
He gathered material on aptitude testing whileteaching a course on the topic at the University of Wisconsin, and he published• Hull’s Approach to Theorizing• Major Theoretical Concepts• Major Differences Between Hull’s 19 Theories• Incentive Motivation (K)• Stimulus-Intensity Dynamism• Change from Drive Reduction to Drive Stimulus Reduction• Fractional Antedating Goal Response• The Habit Family Hierarchy• Hull’s Final System Summarized• Hull on Education• Evaluation of Hull’s Theory• Contributions• Criticisms• O.
Summary of the Symbols Used in Hull’s Theory D = drive SHR = habit strength SER = reaction potential = SHR * DIR = reactive inhibition SIR = conditioned inhibition SER = effective reaction potential = SHR * D - (IR SIR)SOR = oscillation effect SER = momentary effective reaction potential = SER - SOR. = [SHR * D - (IR SIR)] - SORSLR = the value that SER must exceed before a learned response can occur St R = reaction timep = response probabilityn = trials to extinction A = response amplitude MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HULL’S 19 THEORIESIncentive Motivation (K )In the 1943 version of his theory, Hull treated the magnitude of reinforcement as a learning variable: The greater the amount of reinforcement, the greater the amount of drive reduction, and thus the greater the increase in SHR.
and SLR In the early stages of training, that is, after only a few reinforced trials, SER will be very close to SLR, and therefore, because of the effects of SOR, a conditioned response will be elicited on some trials but not on others.
Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) for instance have as a major theme their gnawing sense of deja view in putting forward arguments which seemed conclusive against the Connectionism of Hebb, Osgood and Hull twenty or thirty years ago (p.49 e.g. Going further back they fear that adopting current connectionist premises will lead to a psychology not readily distinguishable from the worst of Hume and Berkeley (p. In agreeing with such critics of recent connectionism that it appears to recapitulate many earlier arguments I do not wish in general to imply that it is therefore necessarily mistaken: rather to suggest that, insofar as new connectionism has virtues, both the weaknesses and the strengths of earlier versions deserve re-examination. (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.
A particular issue which has yet to receive much attention from the new wave of its proponents is that of the practical implications of connectionism: as a paradigm of the acquisition of knowledge and behaviour change it could have something to say about techniques of psychotherapy and educational practice.