Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In an article on the history of memory, Burnham writes that Plato, after referring to the block of wax in the mind of man, "calls it a 'waxen figment' and substitutes for it the figure of the aviary of all kinds of birds-'some flocking together apart from the rest, others in small groups, others solitary, flying anywhere and everywhere.' This receptacle is empty when we are young. The birds are kinds of knowledge. Learning is the process of capturing the birds and of detaining them in this enclosure." Something similar to Plato's figure of the aviary of birds may still be found in several modern writers, especially among the philosophers. Much has been written about the random character of psychological processes, as well as the casual behavior of animal spirits. Our results show that in the limited problem of serial association the learning process may be highly specific in nature.

6

In summarizing Herbart's views on serial association, Burnham declares that "A series of presentations is reproduecd in consciousness in the same order in which it was originally perceived, for this reason: each successive member of a series blends with all the other members of the series that are above the threshold of consciousness,' with an energy proportional to the vividness of the latter. For example, in series a, b, c, d, suppose that the presentive activity of b is at a maximum and a is sinking, when c appears: then c will combine closely with b, lightly with a. When d appears, the presentive activity of c is at a maximum, b is sinking, and a is fading from consciousness; consequently d combines closely with c, lightly with b, very lightly with a; conversely a, which combined closely with b, combined lightly with c, and very lightly with d. Hence, after the series has vanished for a time from consciousness, and the initial member is in some way reproduced, a recalls b with an energy greater than that with which it recalls c, and so on; thus the series is reproduced in its original order." & Our results agree with Herbart's proposition concerning the

W. H. Burnham, Memory, historically and experimentally considered, Amer. J. of Psychol., 1888-1889, 2, 40-43.

"Italics not in the original.

• Burnham, op. cit., p. 248.

order of reproduction, but we are doubtful about the process of "blending" and "combining." When the series a-b-c-d is well learned and then repeated a large number of times, the various items do not blend or fuse with each other. We have shown that there is an association from a to b, but none from b to a, and there is not even a slight tendency from a to c or from a to d. It is difficult to conceive of any two physical processes combining or blending with each other.10

Höffding formulated the law of association as follows: "For however many different sensations and ideas may come simultaneously, or in immediate succession, into our consciousness, they neither are nor remain quite separate. They are all embraced by one and the same consciousness, through whose activity they have arisen. The manner in which they act upon one another and are combined, is determined by the form and direction taken by the synthetic activity of consciousness at the given moment. On the other hand, they react, each one of them, upon the general condition of consciousness. Now when one of these sensations or ideas is renewed and brings the others with it, what really operates is the tendency to reawaken the general state, or the general activity, to which all these ideas belonged. The innermost basis of all association of ideas should thus be looked for in the unity which is present in every mental state and every mental activity, and which stamps all simple elements with a common characteristic. From this point of view the association between the parts and the whole would be the typical form of all association. This fundamental law of all association of ideas might be called the law of totality." 11 According to Hamilton's law of redintegration, "thoughts or mental activities having once formed parts of the same total thought or mental activity, tend ever after immediately to suggest each other." 12

Yaw

The results of our experiments are opposed to Höffding's law of totality and Hamilton's law of redintegration in so far as the statements of these authors have reference to wellSee M. Bentley, A critique of 'fusion,' Amer. J. of Psychol., 1903, 14, 60–72. 10 We are not concerned in the present study with perception.

" H. Höffding, Outlines of psychology, 1891, 126, 159–160.

12 See B. Edgell, Theories of memory, 1924, 83–90.

ordered serial association. After the series 1-2-3-4-5 has been learned and practised until the recitation is very smooth, item 3, for example, does not tend to call up the whole series of responses, as Höffding and Hamilton would say. Item 3 tends to call up item 4. Although 3 and 4 may be looked upon as contiguous stimuli, they do not tend to evoke a single joint response. Item 3 tends to evoke item 4, and 4 tends to evoke 5. Our study indicates that learning the series 1-2-3-4-5 does not in a strict sense result in the formation of a "higher unit." Item I evokes 2, 2 evokes 3, 3 evokes 4, etc., but 5 certainly does not tend to evoke 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. As far as well-ordered serial learning is concerned, we can subscribe to the claim made by Thorndike and Woodworth, in discussing the doctrine of transfer of training, that "The mind works in great detail." 13

Law of Contiguity.-According to William James, "When two elementary brain-processes have been active together or in immediate succession, one of them, on recurring, tends to propagate its excitement into the other." 14 In the series, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10, any two adjacent items, as, for example, 5 and 6, have been "active together or in immediate succession" a very large number of times. There is a strong association from 5 to 6, but none from 6 to 5. The law of contiguity, as it is stated by many writers, tells nothing about such an important matter as the direction of the association between the two responses. It is evident therefore that some other factor, such as the mechanism of learning, is highly significant besides the mere contiguity of the two responses. Some authors, especially physiologists, still speak of contiguity as the law of association; but some psychologists have recognized that it is perhaps only correct when stated negatively. If the law of contiguity is only true as a negative statement, then it is not a useful formulation of the law of the formation of associations. Everybody knows that if A and B are now connected there must have been some relation or other between them at

13 E. L. Thorndike and R. S. Woodworth, The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychol. Rev., 1901, 8, 247-261, 384-395, 553-564. See also Thorndike's The psychology of learning, 1913, 350-357. 14 W. James, The principles of psychology, vol. I, 1890, 566.

some time in the past. The law of contiguity ignores the very factors which are important in association, and obscures the important problem of the mechanism of learning. Some would say that associations are formed between successive rather than between simultaneous activities. It then becomes a question of how much time may elapse between the two responses; and the word "contiguity" begins to lose its meaning and whatever value it may have possessed.

Our results on backward association have the advantage in this connection of being very clear-cut and definite, and the implications for the older law of contiguity are unmistakable. If our negative conclusion in regard to backward association is justified, the law of contiguity must be rejected.15

Drainage Theory. Our results are in agreement with James' drainage theory 16 in so far as he meant to say that when a series of items is learned the associations are in the forward direction and between adjacent items. James said much more than this, however; and in another place he accepted Ebbinghaus's results on remote association.17

Law of Resolution. This law states that if a series of physiological states A-B-C-D is repeated several times, there is a tendency for condition A to pass at once to condition D.18 Jennings states that "It seems probable that the same series occurs as before, save that conditions B and C are now passed rapidly and in a modified way, so that they do not result in a reaction, but are resolved directly into D." 19 Most of the experimental data on serial learning shows of course that A is not followed by D; but the question may still remain as to whether there is not some tendency for this to occur. If the law of resolution obtains, it would be expected that the continued repetition of A-B-C-D would alter the relation between 15 Cf. W. McDougall, Physiological psychology, 1905, 118–139. 16 James, op. cit., vol. II, 1890, 579-592.

17 Op. cit., vol. I, 677-679. See also H. Cason, The physical basis of the conditioned response, Amer. J. of Psychol., 1925, 36, 371-393; G. T. Ladd and R. S. Woodworth, Elements of physiological psychology, 1911, 577-580, 611-625.

18 See H. S. Jennings, Behavior of the lower organisms, 1906, 289–292, 314–327, 333-335; E. L. Thorndike, The original nature of man, 1913, 185–192.

19 Op. cit., p. 290.

A and D, so that an association could, on a later occasion, be formed more easily from A to D. Our results show very clearly that these remote forward connections are not formed or strengthened. The continued repetition of A-B-C-D does not "decrease the resistance" from A to D, and it does not facilitate the later formation of an association from A to D.

The miscellaneous references given above have been selected partly at random, in order to show the relation between our results and several well-known concepts of association and learning. It should be apparent from our discussion that the mechanism of learning is a very important consideration.20 It may be admitted that the theory of remote association seems quite plausible from an a priori standpoint; and it is difficult to conceive of a physical mechanism which could take care of the very specific serial associations which we have described, especially when one considers the complexity of some learning situations.21

Ebbinghaus claimed that more than twice as much time is required to learn a series of 200 items than one of 100 items;22 and explanations have been offered partly in terms of the theory of remote association. It seems from our results, however, that if all of the conditions of learning could be kept quite constant and uniform-which of course is never possible -a series of 200 items would be learned in just about twice the time required for 100 items. The relative amount of material retained after a given interval of time should also be the same in the two cases.23

In all of the procedures which we employed an effort was made to limit the learning process to the formation of associa

20 In the learning situations which were involved in our experiments, "pleasure" really did not seem to "stamp in" the "successful" response! We have stated our views on the conditioned response elsewhere; and references to this theory of learning may be found in a general review of the literature by the writer in Psychol. Bull., 1925, 22, 445-472.

21 See K. Dunlap, The biological basis of the association of ideas and the development of perception, Psychobiol., 1920, 2, 29-53; J. B. Watson, Behavior, an introduction to comparative psychology, 1914, 251–276.

22 H. Ebbinghaus, op. cit., pp. 46–61.

" Cf. E. A. M. Gamble, A study in memorising various materials by the reconstruction method, Psychol. onog., 1909, 10 (no. 43), 59-89, 150-210.

« AnteriorContinuar »