Literature DB >> 15157981

Molar and molecular views of choice.

William M Baum1.   

Abstract

The molar and molecular views of behavior are not different theories or levels of analysis; they are different paradigms. The molecular paradigm views behavior as composed of discrete units (responses) occurring at moments in time and strung together in chains to make up complex performances. The discrete pieces are held together as a result of association by contiguity. The molecular view has a long history both in early thought about reflexes and in associationism, and, although it was helpful to getting a science of behavior started, it has outlived its usefulness. The molar view stems from a conviction that behavior is continuous, as argued by John Dewey, Gestalt psychologists, Karl Lashley, and others. The molar paradigm views behavior as inherently extended in time and composed of activities that have integrated parts. In the molar paradigm, activities vary in their scale of organization--i.e., as to whether they are local or extended--and behavior may be controlled sometimes by short-term relations and sometimes by long-term relations. Applied to choice, the molar paradigm rests on two simple principles: (a) all behavior constitutes choice; and (b) all activities take time. Equivalence between choice and behavior occurs because every situation contains more than one alternative activity. The principle that behavior takes time refers not simply to any notion of response duration, but to the necessity that identifying one action or another requires a sample extended in time. The molecular paradigm's momentary responses are inferred from extended samples in retrospect. In this sense, momentary responses constitute abstractions, whereas extended activities constitute concrete particulars. Explanations conceived within the molecular paradigm invariably involve hypothetical constructs, because they require causes to be contiguous with responses. Explanations conceived within the molar paradigm retain direct contact with observable variables.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15157981     DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  9 in total

1.  Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction, and contingency.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Behaviorism, private events, and the molar view of behavior.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2011

3.  No need for private events in a science of behavior: response to commentaries.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2011

Review 4.  Behavior analysis and ecological psychology: past, present, and future. a review of Harry Heft's Ecological Psychology in context.

Authors:  Edward K Morris
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Optimal indolence: a normative microscopic approach to work and leisure.

Authors:  Ritwik K Niyogi; Yannick-Andre Breton; Rebecca B Solomon; Kent Conover; Peter Shizgal; Peter Dayan
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Dynamics of choice: a tutorial.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  What Counts as Behavior? The Molar Multiscale View.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2013

8.  Relations between Description and Experimentation in the Metacontingency Enterprise: An Interbehavioral Analysis.

Authors:  Will Fleming; Linda J Hayes
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2021-05-19

Review 9.  Quantifying reinforcement value and demand for psychoactive substances in humans.

Authors:  Adrienne J Heinz; Todd C Lilje; Jon D Kassel; Harriet de Wit
Journal:  Curr Drug Abuse Rev       Date:  2012-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.