ELSEVIER''''S DICTIONARY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES phần 5 ppsx

257 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 15, 102-120. GUDDEN’S LAW. In 1870, the German psychiatrist Johan Bernhard Aloys von Gud- den (1824-1886) enunciated this neurological degeneration principle/law which may be stated in several ways, but all carrying the same meaning: in the division of a nerve, degeneration in the proximal portion is toward the nerve cell; the degeneration of the proximal end of a divided nerve is cellulipetal; and lesions of the cerebral cortex do not result in an atrophying of peripheral nerves. See also NEURON/NEURAL/NERVE THEORY. REFERENCE Gudden, J. B. A. von (1870). Experimentale untesuchungen uber das peripher- ische und centrale nervensystem. Archiv fur Psychiatrie, 2, 1-24. GUILFORD’S STRUCTURE-OF-INTEL- LECT MODEL/THEORY. See INTELLI- GENCE, THEORIES/LAWS OF. GUPPY EFFECT. See FUZZY SET THEO- RY. GUSTATION/TASTE, THEORIES OF. In terms of evolutionary theory, when life moved from sea to land, the undifferentiated chemical receptor systems of taste and smell became differentiated and began to serve different functions where the taste system served as a “close-up” sense that provided the last check on the acceptability of food, and smell served as a useful “distance” sense, although it also retained an important function in dealing with food. The physical stimuli for the taste system are substances that can be dissolved in water and, as is common for physical stimuli, the amount of a chemical substance present is related to the intensity of the experienced taste (cf., A. Baradi & G. Bourne’s enzyme theory of taste). However, which properties result in the various different taste qualities is still unknown in detail, even though there are several guesses, such as the size of the substances’ individual molecules, how the mole- cule breaks apart when dissolved in water, or how molecules interact with cell membranes. Complete agreement on the basic dimensions of taste is still lacking, but there seems to be general agreement on at least four primary taste qualities [cf., H. Henning’s taste theory/taste pyramid, or Henning’s tetrahedron - a classification of tastes using a pyramid with a triangular base whose corners represent the primary tastes, named after the German psychologist Hans Henning (1885-1946)]: sweet, salty, sour, and bitter (L. Bartoshuk suggests a fifth quality: that of water). When considering the question of how taste quality is neurally coded, it was originally thought that there would be different receptors for different taste qualities. However, most receptor cells on the tongue seem to respond to all four of the basic kinds of taste stimuli but at different rates. One theory of taste, called the across-fiber pattern theory [formulated by the American psychologist Carl Pfaffmann (1913-1994)] holds that if the condition of various neural units having different stimulus-specific response rates is met, then the code for taste quality could be an across-fiber pattern of neural activity. According to this theory, unique taste fibers respond in a different pattern to each taste quality, even though all of the fibers respond to all taste inputs to some extent. Another theory of taste quality encod- ing, called the labeled-line theory of C. Pfaffmann, suggests that each taste fiber en- codes the intensity of a single basic taste quality. This theory states that to the extent that a stimulus activates the “sweet” fibers, for example, it tastes sweet, and to the extent that it activates the “bitter” fibers, it tastes bitter. The theory suggests, also, that “simple” stimuli could have a complex taste if they activate several types of fiber. The labeled-line theory is compatible with the across-fiber pattern theory except that in the former the code for taste quality is a profile across a few fiber types rather than a pattern across many thou- sands of unique fibers. Different gustatory fibers seem to be “tuned” to certain taste stimuli, much as auditory nerve fibers are tuned to certain sound frequencies. Such fibers respond most intensely to their “best” substances and less intensely to others. In the future, it may be possible to classify such taste fibers into a few classes, corresponding to the basic taste qualities. Although it is unknown at present whether labeled-lines exist along the entire 258 taste pathway, cortical neurons most respon- sive to the four basic tastes seem to be local- ized in different parts of the taste cortex. Also, it is likely that some recoding of the taste information takes place in the cortex, where specific cortical cells give an “on” or “off” response to different taste stimuli, much like the feature-specific cells in the visual cortex. See also EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; GARCIA EFFECT; OLFACTION/SMELL, THEORIES OF; VISION/ SIGHT, THEO- RIES OF. REFERENCES Henning, H. (1916). Die qualitatenreihe des geschmaks. Zeitschrift fur Psycho- logie, 74, 203-219. Lewis, D. (1948). Psychological scales of taste. Journal of Psychology, 26, 437-446, 517-524. Baradi, A., & Bourne, G. (1951). Localization of gustatory and olfactory enzymes in the rabbit, and the problems of taste and smell. Nature, 168, 977- 979. Pfaffmann, C. (1955). Gustatory nerve im- pulses in rat, cat, and rabbit. Journal of Neurophysiology, 18, 429-440. Plaffmann, C. (1965). De gustibus, American Psychologist, 20, 21-33. Bekesy, G. von (1966). Taste theories and the chemical stimulation of single papil- lae. Journal of Applied Physiology, 21, 1-9. Schiffman, S. S., & Erickson, R. P. (1971). A psychophysical model for gustatory quality. Physiology and Behavior, 1, 617-633. Funakoshi, M., Kasahara, Y., Yamamoto, T., & Kawamura, Y. (1972). Taste cod- ing and central perception. In D. Schneider (Ed.), Olfaction and taste IV. Stuttgart: Wissenshaftliche Ver- lagsgesellschaft MBH. Bartoshuk, L. (1974). NaCl thresholds in man: Thresholds for water taste or NaCl taste? Journal of Comparative Phys- iological Psychology, 87, 310-325. Pfaffmann, C. (1974). Specificity of the sweet receptors of the squirrel monkey. Chemical Senses and Flavor, 1, 61- 67. Pfaffmann, C., Frank, M., & Norgren, R. (1979). Neural mechanisms and behavioral aspects of taste. Annual Re- view of Psychology, 30, 283-325. Rozin, P. (1982). “Taste-smell confusions” and the duality of the olfactory sense. Perception and Psychophys- ics, 31, 397-401. Erickson, R. P. (1985). Definitions: A matter of taste. In D. Pfaff (Ed.), Taste, olfaction, and the central nervous system. New York: Rockefeller Uni- versity Press. GUTHRIE’S THEORY OF BEHAVIOR. The American behavioral psychologist Edwin Ray Guthrie (1886-1959) formulated an ob- jective stimulus-response association psychology system (contiguous conditioning). Guth- rie’s one primary law of association or learning is devised around the contiguity (nearness) of cue and response; that is, a combination of stimuli that is accompanied by a movement will - on its recurrence - tend to be followed by that movement. In his one-trial learning theory, Guthrie proposed that learning may take place on a single trial, and improvement with practice represents the acquisition of simple/individual elements that make up more complex behaviors. In Guthrie’s approach, E. L. Thorndike’s concept of associative shifting (i.e., the shifting of a response to one stimulus onto another stimulus paired with it) is a central feature of his behavior theory. Guthrie did not accept, however, the more prominent law of effect as stated by Thorndike. Guthrie’s major emphasis on the single principle of associative/contiguity learning also separated him, on theoretical grounds, from Ivan Pavlov and the principles and procedures of “classical conditioning.” Pavlov criticized Guthrie for his solitary focus on the contiguity concept without concern for the many complexities of conditioning. In his extinction theory, Guthrie explained the phenomena of extinction and forgetting (weakening of behaviors) through the process of associative competition or interference where the learning of a different and incompatible response to the initial stimulus situation occurred. He suggested three methods that contribute to the weakening of behaviors: the toleration method, the exhaustion 259 (flooding) method, and the method of counter conditioning (cf., J. Wolpe’s modern technique of systematic desensitization that is based on Guthrie’s earlier methods). In Guth- rie’s theory, motives act to provide “maintaining stimuli” to keep the organism active until a goal is reached, and conduct is organized into sequences in which the individual makes plans and carries them out. Guthrie followed the lead of C. S. Sherrington and R. S. Woodworth in considering sequences of behavior as composed of preparatory responses followed by consummatory responses where these “anticipatory responses” are conditioned to maintaining stimuli. According to Guthrie, reward is a secondary principle and is effective because it removes the organism from the stimulating situation in which the “correct” response has been made. Reward does not strengthen the correct response but prevents its weakening because no new response can become attached to the cues that led to the correct response. The effects of punishment for learning are determined by what it causes the organism to do and suggests the principle that the best predictor of learning is the response that last occurred in the situation (cf., postremity principle - Guthrie’s notion that the organism always does what it last did in a given stimulus situation). When learning transfers to new situations, it is because of the common elements within the old and new, and when forgetting occurs, it is due to the learning of new responses that replace the old responses. Criticisms of Guthrie’s learning theory include uneasiness by some psychologists concerning Guthrie’s assured answers to all the problems of learning, where either the theory is extraordinarily inspired or it is not stated very precisely and, hence, it is not very sensitive to experimental data. In addition to circular reasoning in the theory, critics have suggested that the simplicity of Guthrie’s theory may be illusory, and that many reviews of Guthrie in the psychological literature have probably mistaken incomplete-ness for simplicity. Guthrie essentially was an associationist, at heart, with a strong behavioristic bias (e.g., in attempting to get rid of subjective terms, he referred to “inner speech” and “movement-produced stimuli” instead of the more mentalistic term “thinking”). Although the associationist tradition doubtless will con- tinue on, Guthrie’s particular version of it seems to have lost its appeal to succeeding generations of learning theorists. See also ASSOCIATION, LAWS/PRINCIPLES OF; ASSOCIATIVE SHIFTING, LAW OF; LEARNING THEORIES AND LAWS; PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONING PRINCI- PLES/LAWS/THEORIES; THORNDIKE’S LAW OF EFFECT; WOLPE’S THEORY/ TECHNIQUE OF RECIPROCAL INHIBI- TION. REFERENCES Sherrington, C. S. (1906). The integrative action of the nervous system. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Woodworth, R. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press. Guthrie, E. R. (1930). Conditioning as a principle of learning. Psychological Re- view, 37, 412-428. Pavlov, I. (1932). The reply of a physiologist to a psychologist. Psychological Re- view, 39, 91-127. Guthrie, E. R. (1934). Pavlov’s theory of conditioning. Psychological Review, 41, 199-206. Guthrie, E. R. (1934). Reward and punishment. Psychological Review, 41, 450-460. Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The psychology of learning. New York: Harper & Row. Guthrie, E. R. (1940). Association and the law of effect. Psychological Review, 47, 127-148. Seward, J. (1942). An experimental study of Guthrie’s theory of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 30, 247-256. O’Connor, V. (1946). Recency or effect? A critical analysis of Guthrie’s theory of learning. Harvard Educational Review, 16, 194-206. Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Hilgard’s critique of Guthrie. Psychological Review, 56, 284-291. GUYAU’S THEORY OF TIME. The French social philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau (1854-1888) shifted philosophical attention 260 from time as an a priori feature of the mind (as in Immanuel Kant’s approach) to a focus on the actual or empirical development of the concept of time, and to a theoretical view that relates time experience to human information- processing activities. Guyau maintained that time itself does not exist in the universe, but rather that time is a purely mental construction arising from the events that take place, and held that temporal experience is constructed based on the intensity, number, associations of stimuli as well as the attention paid to the stimuli, the extent of the differences between the stimuli, and the expectations called up by the stimuli. According to Guyau, acquiring the idea of time is an important functional adaptation to one’s environment, and is the result of a long process of evolution in a social context. In support of this theory, Guyau specifies five mechanisms that allow the individual to achieve the memory organization that is requi- site to temporal appreciation: schema formation, matching, spatial analogy, chunking, and narrative closure. Guyau’s theory of time holds that with more “images,” and more changes and more mental content, the experience of “duration” is lengthened. In this sense, Guyau regarded time not as an a priori condition, but as a consequence of one’s experience of the world, and the result of a long evolutionary history. According to Guyau, time essentially is a product of human imagination, memory, and will. Also, in Guyau’s view, even though one may use time and space to measure each other, nevertheless they are distinct ideas with their own characteristics; the idea of space originally developed before the idea of time. Guyau suggested that the idea of time arose when humans became conscious of their reactions toward pleasure and pain, and of the succession of muscular sensations associated with such reactions. Thus, Guyau held that the original source of the human idea of time is an accumulation of sensations that produces an internal perspective directed towards the future. See also FRAISSE’S THE- ORY OF TIME; MICHON’S MODEL OF TIME; ORNSTEIN’S THEORY OF TIME; TIME, THEORIES OF. REFERENCES Guyau, J M. (1890). La genese de l’idee de temps. Paris: Alcan. Michon, J., Pouthas, V., & Jackson, J. (1988). Guyau and the idea of time. Am- sterdam, Netherlands: North- Holland. 261 H HABIT/HABIT FORMATION, LAWS/ PRINCIPLES OF. The principle of habit may be defined as any instrumentally learned response that occurs with regularity and occurs in response to particular environmental events (cf., redundancy principle - states that there are frequent, established, and repetitive behavioral sequences that occur between individuals; for instance, greeting a person with the words “Good morning” every time you meet the same individual day after day). In some cases, the habit is connected to a number of frequently occurring stimuli whereas, in other cases, habits may be connected to stimuli that infrequently occur [cf., law of accommodation - accommodation is the determina- tion of a function as modified by the incorporation of new elements; a single case of such incorporation is an “accommodation,” and the generalization that the mind’s progress and growth occurs by such modifications is the law of accommodation. The true theory of accommodation dates from the French philosopher Rene Descartes in the 17 th century. J. M. Baldwin notes that as the concept of accommodation is the adaptive principle of “modification of type,” so the concept of habit is the principle of mental “conservation of type”]. The concept of habit/habit formation has a long history in psychology - Aristotle considered habit to be of basic importance in the development of one’s morality - where it originally referred only to motor or physical patterns of behavior (e.g., W. James and J. M. Baldwin), and has appeared most recently in the learning theories of C. L. Hull and K. W. Spence as a central term in their approaches where habit (“response tendency”) interacts with drive to produce behavior and where learning is considered to be the organization and accumulation of response habits. How- ever, currently, the concept of habit is given less attention because most psychologists today acknowledge that it is better defined in terms of operational definitions, processes of acquisition, and generalization, as well as other factors that directly influence habits, especially the role of various environmental cues in habit formation. When habit is defined within the context of personality psychology, it refers to a pattern of activity that has, through repetition, become fixed, automatic, and easily carried out. In this case, habit is close in meaning to the concept of trait (i.e., any enduring characteristic of an individual that may serve in the role of a theoretical en- tity as an explanation for the observed regu- larities or consistencies in behavior. When habit is defined within the context of ethology (i.e., the study of animal behavior), it usually refers to a pattern of action that is characteristic of a particular species of animal and where an innate or species-specific behavior pattern is implied (as opposed to a “learned” behavior). The term habit formation presents some semantic problems, historically, where it has often been used as a synonym for learning, but today most psychologists would avoid such an equivalency and insist, instead, that all learning is not merely the formation of habits. Also, the term formation is ambiguous because it may apply to the actual acquisition of a new habit or the novel use of a previously acquired habit. Thus, the principle of habit has served historically as a generally useful (i.e., covers a wide range of disciplines) concept throughout the development of the social and behavioral sciences, perhaps coming close to the overall influence and utility of other om- nibus terms such as adaptation, assimilation, association, accommodation, activation, and contiguity. See also ACCOMMODATION, LAW/PRINCIPLE OF; ACTIVATION/AR- OUSAL THEORY; ADAPTATION, PRIN- CIPLES/LAWS OF; ASSIMILATION, LAW OF; ASSOCIATION, LAWS/PRINCIPLES OF; CONTIGUITY, LAW OF; HULL’S LEARNING THEORY; LEARNING THEO- RIES/LAWS; SPENCE’S THEORY. REFERENCES James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Baldwin, J. M. (1894). Handbook of psychology. New York: Holt. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century. Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory con- 262 cerning the individual organism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Spence, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Spence, K. W. (1960). Behavior theory and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. HABITUATION, PRINCIPLE/LAW OF. The principle of habituation refers to the elimination of a response as a result of a con- tinuous exposure to the stimulus that originally elicited the response. Another term for habituation is negative adaptation. The concept of habituation has been used to refer both to an empirical result and to a hypothetical construct, depending on the context, character, and depth of its study. Factors such as injury, fatigue, adaptation, and drugs are not usually included under habituation, even though these variables may produce a decline in respon- siveness. An example of habituation is the orienting reflex response, which is an atten- tional response of an organism that functions to put it into a physical position or orientation whereby it is exposed optimally to the source of stimulation, such as a strange noise that alarms an animal, which then stops whatever its was doing, becomes motionless, and scans its surroundings in search of the sound source. After a few seconds, if there is no danger, the animal resumes its initial activity, perhaps eating behavior. If similar noises are made subsequently, and again not danger is present, the animal makes progressively weaker and shorter alerting responses whereupon habituation is said to have occurred to those types of noises. Distinctions have been made among the terms specific habituation, general habituation, and acclimatization/acclimation. Specific habituation is the localization or re- striction of a habitual response to a particular area or part of the body. General habituation is the change in one’s psychological or mental set that results in a generalized reduction in response to a repeated stimulus. The term acclimatization refers to the compensation that results over a period of time (days or weeks) in response to a complex of changes, and acclimation is the same type of adjustment but, in this case, only to a simple, or single, environmental condition. Also, the following characteristics have been associated with habituation: spontaneous recovery of an originally strong response will occur after a long enough absence of stimulation; habituation is faster when the evoking stimulus is given more frequently and regularly; habituation is slower when the eliciting stimulus is stronger, and near-threshold stimuli may not habituate; habituation is prolonged and spontaneous recovery is delayed when additional stimulation is given beyond the level that completely abolishes the original habituated response; habituation may generalize its effects to other, similar stimuli; “dishabituation” or restoration of an original response may occur when a stimulus is presented that is stronger (or, sometimes, weaker) than is customarily given; habituation will not occur if the eliciting stimulus is converted through conditioning into a signal of biological importance (such as pairing a click with a painful shock or with food). Various models have been proposed to explain the nature of the neural mechanisms involved in short-term habituation. For example, the synaptic depression model states that sensory input energizes the small interneurons located in the periphery of the brain stem re- ticular formation (BSFR) and, assuming that synaptic depression occurs in this region, these neurons then activate the neurons in the BSRF core, which then lead to cortical arousal (in higher-order mammals). Another model of habituation, called the match-mismatch model (Sokolov, 1963), states that a stimulus elicits a neural representation (”engram”) of itself in higher-order mammals that is relatively per- manent and where the neural consequences of subsequent stimuli are compared with the representation of the original alerting stimulus. In this case, if there is a match between the subsequent stimuli and the original stimulus, then no BSRF arousal occurs, and the result is habituation. The term sensitization is distinguished from habituation where the former refers to an initial increase in the habituated response after a stimulus has been repeatedly presented, and where the alerting response has first increased and then de- creased. The principle of sensitization has led to a good deal of empirical and theoretical 263 controversy regarding the equivalence of responses in different species, in the parts of the nervous system involved, and in the time frames for the sensitization and habituation processes. The principle of habituation within the context of neurophysiological research is being actively and vigorously pursued. See also ADAPTATION, PRINCIPLES AND LAWS OF; ATTENTION, LAWS/PRIN- CIPLES/THEORIES OF; DENERVATON, LAW OF; HABIT/HABIT FORMATION, LAWS/PRINCIPLES OF; MIND/MENTAL SET, LAW OF; VIGILANCE, THEORIES OF. REFERENCES Dodge, R. (1923). Habituation to rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy, 6, 1-35. Humphrey, G. (1930). Extinction and negative adaptation. Psychological Review, 37, 361-363. Sharpless, S., & Jasper, H. (1956). Habitua- tion of the arousal reaction. Brain, 79, 655-680. Sokolov, E. (1963). Higher neuron functions: The orienting reflex. Annual Review of Physiology, 25, 545-580. Thompson, R., & Spencer, W. (1966). Ha- bituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological Review, 173, 16-43. Mackworth, J. (1968). Vigilance, arousal, and habituation. Psychological Review, 75, 308-322. Groves, P., & Thompson, R. (1970). Habitua- tion: A dual process theory. Psycho- logical Review, 77, 419-450. HAECKEL’S GASTRAEA THEORY. See DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY. HAECKEL’S PROKARYOTIC THEORY. See DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY. HALO EFFECT. The halo effect (also called the atmosphere effect and halo error) is a person-perception phenomenon that refers to the tendency (favorable or unfavorable) to evaluate an individual high on many other traits because of a belief, or evidence, that the individual is high on one particular trait; that is, the rated trait seems to “spill over” onto other traits. The halo effect most often emerges as a bias on personal rating scales, but may also appear in the classroom (e.g., R. Nash, 1976). The effect was first reported in 1907 by the American psychologist Frederick L. Wells (1884-1964), and was first supported empirically by E. L. Thorndike in 1920. The halo effect/error is detrimental to rating systems because it masks the presence of individual variability across different rating scales. Many suggestions have been offered to control or counteract the effect. For example, rating all people on one trait before going on to the next, varying the anchors of the scale, pooling raters with equal knowledge, and giving intensive training to the raters (this technique appears to be the most effective). Related closely to the halo effect is the concept of the devil effect (also called the horns effect or reverse halo effect), where a rater evaluates an individual low on many traits because of a belief, or evidence, that the person is low on one trait that is assumed to be critical, or is an unwarranted extension of an overall negative impression of an individual based on specific attributes/traits. The halo effect and the devil effect usually increase to the degree that the rated characteristic is vague or difficult to measure. See also EX- PERIMENTER EFFECTS; PYGMALION EFFECT. REFERENCES Wells, F. L. (1907). A statistical study of liter- ary merit. Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy and Psychology, 16, 3; Archives of Psy- chology, No. 7. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error on psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29. Nash, R. (1976). Teacher expectations and pupil learning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. HAMILTON’S HYPOTHESIS OF SPACE. See BERKELEY’S THEORY OF VISUAL SPACE PERCEPTION. HAMILTON’S PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION/LAW OF LEAST RESISTANCE. See GESTALT THEORY/LAWS. 264 HANDEDNESS. See LATERALITY THEO- RIES; RIGHT-SHIFT THEORY. HARD/SOFT DETERMINISM, DOC- TRINE OF. See DETERMINISM, DOC- TRINE/THEORY OF. HARD-TO-GET EFFECT. See RECI- PROCITY OF LIKING EFFECT. HARDY-WEINBERG LAW. The English mathematician Godfrey H. Hardy (1877-1947) and the German physician Wilhelm Weinberg (1862-1937) independently formulated that principle in 1908. The Hardy-Weinberg law of population genetics states that the relative gene frequencies in a population remain stable from generation to generation under the conditions that mating occurs randomly and that selection, migration, and mutation do not occur. In other words, the Hardy-Weinberg law does not apply under five conditions: mutation, gene migration, genetic drift, nonrandom mating, and natural selection. The Hardy- Weinberg equilibrium [also called a balanced polymorphism, and the Castle-Hardy-Wein- berg equilibrium, named after The American biologist William Ernest Castle (1867-1962)] or genetic equilibrium states that if two individuals - who are heterozygous (e.g., Bb) for a trait - are mated, it is found that 25-percent of their offspring are homozygous for the domi- nant allele (BB), 50-percent are heterozygous like their parents (Bb) and 25-percent are homozygous for the recessive allele (bb) and, thus, unlike their parents, express the recessive phenotype. Related terms in the area of population genetics include: the founder effect - the tendency for an isolated offshoot of a population to develop genetic differences from the parent population due to the distribution of “alleles” or “allelomorphs” (one of two or more alternative versions of a gene that can occupy a particular place on a chromosome where each is responsible for a different characteristic) in its founder members, not being perfectly representative of the distribution in the parent population; and genetic drift effect (also called random drift and non-Darwinian evolution) - the change in the relative frequencies of genes in a population resulting from neutral mutation, but not from natural selection. See also DARWIN’S EVOLUTION THEORY; EUGENICS, DOCTRINE OF; GALTON’S LAWS; MENDEL’S LAWS/PRINCIPLES; WEISMANN’S THE- ORY. REFERENCES Castle, W. E. (1903). The laws of Galton and Mendel and some laws governing race improvement by selection. Pro- ceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 35, 233-242. Hardy, G. H. (1908). Mendelian proportions in a mixed population. Science, 28, 49-50. Weinberg, W. (1908). Uber den nachweis der verebung beim menschen. Naturk in Wuttemberg, 64, 368-382. Stern, C. (1943). The Hardy-Weinberg law. Science, 97, 137-138. HARP THEORY. See AUDITION/HEAR- ING, THEORIES OF. HARTLEY’S THEORY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER. The English physician and philosopher David Hartley (1705-1757) defined laughter as a “nascent cry” where the first occasion of children’s laughter is based in surprise - momentary fear at first, and then becoming momentary joy as a result of the removal of the fear (e.g., in the case of tick- ling, a momentary pain and apprehension of pain is experienced with the immediate removal of that pain). According to Hartley, young children do not laugh aloud for some months after birth, and they have to learn to laugh as well as learn to control or abate their laughter; also, laughter - even in adults - is facilitated by the presence of other individuals who are laughing. Hartley’s observations on humor and laughter may not constitute a novel theory of humor, but they are of interest in the way they bring together the elements of tradi- tional humor theories, and for their approxi- mate speculations concerning the ethics, physiology, and sociology of humor. Hart- ley’s theory of humor/laughter makes contact with incongruity theory when he discusses surprise, inconsistencies, and improprieties as causes of laughter, and contact with relief theory when he notes that laughter sometimes results from the sudden dissipation of fear and 265 other negative emotions. It has been noted (Morreall, 1987) that Hartley develops an interesting theoretical approach via his notion of an element of “irrationality” to humor. That is, those people who are always looking for the humorous aspects of their experiences thereby disqualify themselves from the larger search for truth. Hartley’s nascent cry theory of laughter may be considered to be important because it represents the first scientific eluci- dation of the connection between fear or un- happiness and laughter. Also, Hartley was the pioneer in the formal scientific recording of the development of laughter in children; the only other observer on this issue before Hart- ley was the Roman naturalist Pliny (A.D. 23- 79) who informally, but specifically, stated in the 1 st century that the child’s first laugh takes place 40 days after birth. HUMOR, THEO- RIES OF; INCONGRUITY/INCONSISTEN- CY THEORIES OF HUMOR; RELIEF/TEN- SION-RELEASE THEORIES OF HUMOR/ LAUGHTER; SURPRISE THEORIES OF HUMOR. REFERENCES Hartley, D. (1749). Observations on man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations. London: Johnson. Morreall, J. (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany: State Uni- versity of New York Press. HARTRIDGE’S POLYCHROMATIC VI- SION THEORY. The British physiologist Hamilton Hartridge (1886-1976) proposed a polychromatic theory of vision in the late 1940s and early 1950s that was interpreted to be consistent with existing dominator- modulator concepts and factors of the human fovea (cf., R. Granit for an account of the relations of the dominator-modulator theory to the data of color vision). Hartridge’s theory is based on evidence - first observed by the Swedish physiologist Alarik Holmgren (1831- 1897) in 1884 and the German physiologist A. Fick in 1889 - that a small white stimulus moving slowly over the retina is seen as having different colors at different positions. Based on the results of a number of such ex- periments, Hartridge concluded that there are seven types of color receptors. Hartridge’s polychromatic theory postulates two kinds of units in addition to a tricolor unit of the single-receptor theory. One of these is called the “Y-B unit” and possesses receptors most re- sponsive to wavelengths for yellow and blue; the other unit is called the “R-BG-R unit” and contains two kinds of receptors responding most vigorously to wavelengths in the red and blue-green part of the color spectrum (the red receptors also have a secondary quality of being sensitive in the extreme violet part of the spectrum and is indicated as the extra R in the symbol for the unit). Whereas R. Granit developed his theory from electrical re- cordings from the retina via microelectrodes, Hartridge obtained most of his evidence from sensory data that occurred when he studied the fovea, the periphery, and several levels of illumination as variables. The polychromatic theory has received little support, generally, because the problem arises of evaluating the influence of eye movements occurring during experimental trials and, also, a special specu- lation - called the cluster hypothesis - requires more empirical verification and validation. According to the cluster hypothesis of cone function, receptors of a given variety tend to group together in a “non-uniform distribution” where, at one retinal point, there may be a cluster of “dominators” and, at another point, some blue-sensitive receptors, and at still another point, some green-sensitive receptors. See also COLOR VISION, THEO- RIES/LAWS OF; DOMINATOR- MODULATOR THEORY; GRANIT’S COLOR VISION THEORY. REFERENCES Granit, R. (1947). Sensory mechanisms of the retina. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Hartridge, H. (1948). Recent advances in color vision. Science, 108, 395-404. Hartridge, H. (1949). Colours and how we see them. London: G. Bell & Sons. Hartridge, H. (1950). Recent advances in the physiology of vision. London: Chur- chill. HARVEY’S PRINCIPLE. See VISION/ SIGHT, THEORIES OF. HAUNTED SWING ILLUSION. See AP- PENDIX A. 266 HAWK-DOVE/CHICKEN GAME EF- FECTS. The English biologist John Maynard Smith (1920- ) and the American physicist and chemist George R. Price (1922-1975) empirically assessed the hawk-dove, or chicken, game as it relates to biology, conflict, and evolution [the “chicken game” was named and described by the Welsh philosopher Bertrand A. W. Russell (1872-1970) in 1959, but it may be traced as far back as the 8 th century B.C. to the Greek epic poet Homer and his reputed poem “The Iliad”]. The chicken game is a two-person strategic game, or a strategic model of “brinkmanship,” where - in its simplest version - two motorists speed towards each other, where each driver has the option of swerving to avoid a collision or to drive straight ahead. If both drivers swerve, the outcome is a draw with “second-best” payoffs going to each driver; if both persons drive straight ahead, they risk death and each re- ceives the “worst/fourth-best” payoff; but if one “chickens out” (i.e., is a “cowardly person”) by swerving and the other proceeds by driving straight on, then the swerver loses face and earns the “third-best” payoff, whereas the nonswerver wins a victory and earns the “best” payoff. In a biological context, the hawk-dove game states that the “hawk” strategy involves “escalated” fighting until the individual adopting it is forced to withdraw or its opponent gives up, and the “dove” strategy involves “conventional” fighting where the individual adopting it retreats before getting injured if its opponent causes an escalation in fighting. The highest payoff - in terms of evolution and Darwinian fitness - goes to the “hawk” strategy when going against a “dove,” the second-highest payoff goes to “dove” against “dove,” the third-highest payoff goes to “dove” against a “hawk,” and the lowest payoff goes to “hawk” against “hawk.” The evolutionarily stable strategy in these gaming scenarios/effects is a mixture of “hawk and dove” strategies. In the hawk-dove-retaliator game, which is an extension of the hawk-dove game, the additional strategy is available of fighting “conventionally” and escalating only if one’s adversary escalates. In this version, a “retaliator” typically plays “dove” but re- sponds to a “hawk” opponent by playing “hawk;” in this case, the evolutionarily stable strategy is that of the “retaliator” strategy. In another psychological two-person game called the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game - initially studied by the American mathematicians Al- bert W. Tucker (1905-1995) and Merrill M. Flood (1908- ), and the Polish-born American mathematician Melvin Dresher (1911-1992) - one finds the best-known “mixed motive” game (i.e., involving both competitive and cooperative aspects; cf., zero-sum games which are situations of complete competition between the players, and coordination games which are situations in which the possible decision combinations are given exactly the same preference-ordering by both players) in psychology, where each player has two choice alternatives, and each player’s welfare de- pends on the resultant combination of choices [cf., N-person Prisoner’s Dilemma - developed by the American psychologist Robyn M. Dawes (1936- ), the American mathematician Henry Hamburger (1940- ), and the American economist Thomas C. Schelling (1921- ) in 1973 - which is a generalization of the Pris- oner’s Dilemma Game that includes more than two players, and is an interactive multi-person social dilemma/decision game in which each player faces a choice between a cooperative strategy and a non-cooperative/defecting strategy]. The prototype situation/scenario for the two-player Prisoner’s Dilemma Game involves two prisoners held by the police for a particular crime. The police separate the two prisoners, and inform each of them that if he/she gives evidence against the other, he/she may go free. The prisoners are aware that if only one gives evidence, the other will receive the maximum penalty, but if both give evidence, each will receive a moderate sentence. However, if neither prisoner gives evidence, each will be tried on a minor charge with a money penalty and a very short prison sentence for each individual. Basically, both prisoners would prefer to go free, but if both give evidence, both will go to jail for a moderate number of years. On the other hand, opting for the minor charges by refusing to give evidence may result in the most severe penalty if the other person gives evidence. In this game, refusing to give evidence is defined as a cooperative response, because both parties must do so for the choice to give mutually beneficial [...]... Food intake as a mechanism of temperature regulation in rats Federation Proceedings, American Physiological Society, 7, 13 Kennedy, G (1 953 ) The role of depot fat in the hypothalamic control of food intake in the rat Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 140, 57 859 2 Stellar, E (1 954 ) The physiology of motivation Psychological Review, 61, 154 2 Mayer, J (1 955 ) Regulation of energy intake and the... 3 05- 3 35, 452 -492 Cattell, J McK (1886b) The time taken up by the cerebral operations, Mind, 11, 220-242, 377-392, 52 4 -53 8 Hick, W E (1 952 ) On the rate of gain of information Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26 Hyman, R (1 953 ) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188-196 277 Garner, W (1962) Uncertainty and structure as psychological. .. MODEL OF LETTER PERCEPTION; INTERFERENCE THEORIES OF FORGETTING; PERCEPTION (I AND II.), THEORIES OF; TOPDOWN PROCESSING THEORIES; WORDSUPERIORITY EFFECT REFERENCE Johnston, J C., & McClelland, J L (1980) Experimental tests of a hierarchical model of word identification Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 50 3 -52 4 HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY OF WORK MOTIVATION See WORK/CAREER/OCCUPATION, THEORIES. .. psychologic Psychological Inquiry, 2, 3 25- 338, 376-382 Walters, G D (2000) Beyond behavior: Construction of an overarching psychological theory of lifestyles Westport, CT: Praeger HISTORIC THEORIES OF ABNORMALITY See PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, THEORIES OF HOBBES’ PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes ( 158 8-1679), often referred to as the founder of British empiricism (cf., Locke’s psychological. .. behavior of young children Psychological Review, 45, 271-299 Tolman, E C (1938) The determiners of behavior at a choice point Psychological Review, 45, 1-41 Hull, C L (1943) Principles of behavior New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Meehl, P E., & MacCorquodale, K (1948) On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables Psychological Review, 55 , 951 07 Hull, C L (1 951 ) Essentials of. .. psychodynamic/psychoanalytical theories, social/cultural theories, superiority theories, incongruity theories, release-fromtension/restraint theories, ambivalence theories, biological/instinct/evolution theories, surprise theories, configurational theories, neoclassical theories, modern theories, conflict theories, dualistic theories, and semantic/ content analytical theories Humor may derive, also,... (Bergler, 1 956 ) - are listed in Appendix B See also APTE’S THEORY OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; APTER’S REVERSAL THEORY OF HUMOR; ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF HUMOR; BAIN’S THEORY OF HUMOR/ LAUGHTER; BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; BERGLER’S THEORY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER; BERGSON’S THEORY OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER; CICERO’S THEORY OF HUMOR; COGNITIVE THEORIES OF HUMOR; COGNITIVE AND PERCEPTUAL THEORIES OF HUMOR; COGNITIVE-SALIENCE... OF HUMOR; McDOUGALL’S THEORY OF HUMOR; MORREALL’S THEORY OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES OF HUMOR; NONPSYCHOANALYTIC HUMOR AND LAUGHTER THEORIES; ORING’S THEORY OF HUMOR; PIDDINGTON’S COMPENSATORY HUMOR THEORY; PLATO’S THEORY OF HUMOR; QUINTILIAN’S THEORY OF HUMOR; RAPP’S THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF LAUGHTER/HUMOR; RELIEF AND TENSIONRELEASE THEORIES OF HUMOR AND LAUGHTER; SANTAYANA’S THEORY OF. .. of Psychiatric Research, 8, 399-412 Rachlin, H (1971) On the tautology of the matching law Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 249- 251 Herrnstein, R J (1974) Formal properties of the matching law Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 159 -164 HERSEY-BLANCHARD SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY See LEADERSHIP, THEORIES OF HESS EFFECT See PERCEPTION (I GENERAL), THEORIES OF. .. LAUGHTER; HOBBES’ THEORY OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; HÖFFDING’S THEORY OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; HUTCHESON’S THEORY OF HUMOR; INCONGRUITY/ INCONSISTENCY THEORIES OF HUMOR; INNER EYE THEORY OF LAUGHTER; JOUBERT’S THEORY OF LAUGHTER/HUMOR; KIERKEGAARD’S THEORY OF HUMOR; KOESTLER’S THEORY OF HUMOR/LAUGHTER; LANGUAGE ORIGINS, THEORIES OF; LATTA’S COGNITIVE-SHIFT THEORY OF HUMOR; LUDOVICI’S THEORY OF LAUGHTER; MARTINEAU’S . Hurvich, L. (1 955 ). Some quantitative aspects of an opponent- colors theory. I. Chromatic responses and spectral saturation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 45, 54 6 -55 2. Jameson,. Studien, 3, 3 05- 3 35, 452 -492. Cattell, J. McK. (1886b). The time taken up by the cerebral operations, Mind, 11, 220-242, 377-392, 52 4 -53 8. Hick, W. E. (1 952 ). On the rate of gain of information days after birth. HUMOR, THEO- RIES OF; INCONGRUITY/INCONSISTEN- CY THEORIES OF HUMOR; RELIEF/TEN- SION-RELEASE THEORIES OF HUMOR/ LAUGHTER; SURPRISE THEORIES OF HUMOR. REFERENCES Hartley, D.

Định dạng
Số trang	72
Dung lượng	790,91 KB