Two Psychologies: Cognitive versus Contingency-Oriented

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1983

This article describes a new organization, the International Society of Ecological Psychology, and summarizes presentations from a May 1982 meeting. This organization primarily consists of experimental psychologists who study perceiving and acting (each broadly construed) with reference to one another and to the environment in which these activities have evolved. The organization is meant to be a forum denned by the issues and not denned by preferred solutions. Consequently, people from a variety of disciplines outside of psychology and subdisciplines within psychology are welcomed as important contributors. As an interdisciplinary group, the Society may be viewed as roughly complementary to cognitive science, since biology and physics are appealed to more frequently as allied disciplines than are computer science and linguistics. The seven talks presented here are concerned with visual perceiving of action (lifting weights), visual perceiving^or action (climbing stairs), theoretical challenges posed by the findings in the first two reports, lessons from studies, of visual and auditory imprinting, facial features of victims of child abuse, differences between "armchair" imagery and parallel tasks in a real environment, and differences between metaphor comprehension in isolation and in paragraph contexts. The third conference associated with the newly organized International Society of Ecological Psychology was held at Adelphi University on May 15, 1982.' Seven presentations were given and about 80 people attended. Orientation of the Society The Society primarily consists of experimental psychologists from several subfields who recognize that their work displays an ecological orientation. In keeping with the best traditions of psychology, the Society is a loosely federated group whose full scope and definition will emerge more by evolution than by design. The Society is not a monolithic movement but a forum for people who believe that they would benefit from sharing their knowledge with one another. Most people pri-, raarily identify with other subspecialties where their research fits in perfectly well. Despite a fair Robert Hoffman, Edward Cochran, David Gorfein, and their graduate students at Adelphi were responsible for arranging the meeting and are among those who took the first initiatives to organize the Society. Adelphi University provided the funds for the meeting. I thank Robert Shaw and Michael Turvey for paying careful attention to parts of a previous draft of this article and for offering helpful suggestions. Requests for reprints should be sent to

Ecological Psychology, 2000

I briefly trace the topics presented in the 4 symposium papers in a cyclic order. Sheena Rogers' (this issue) paper discussing an example of J. J. Gibson's sense of 'information' (the horizon ratio) and Eleanor J. Gibson's (this issue) paper discussing affordance learning bring together the 2 core concepts of ecological psychology (information and affordance). Robert Lickliter (this issue) and Gene C. Goldfield (this issue), along with E. J. Gibson, discuss skill development in context utilizing comparative psychology and human infant research. For the recent history that holds these topics together, the early contributions of E. B. Holt and J. J. Gibson are emphasized. As stated in the introduction by Rogers (this issue), the purpose of assembling these short reviews of empirical research was to illustrate the breadth and growth of the field of ecological psychology. Ed Reed organized the symposium but died before it was held (Mace, 1997). Sheena Rogers carried on with the plans so that the symposium could be held at the 1997 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association and then the papers printed here in revised form. To further illustrate the emergence of ecological psychology, I cite some noteworthy collections of articles presented in this journal. These include sets on (a) ergonomics or human factors psychology, organized by John Flach (1990); (b) comparative psychology, introduced by Owings and Coss (1991); (c) situating action (Costall & Leudar, 1996); (d) a diverse set from the third European workshop on ecological psychology (Guski & Heine, 1995); and (e) the special issue on visually controlled locomotion (Warren, 1998).

The Behavior Analyst, 1989

Behavioral biology and operant psychology have developed in parallel but separate paths since their origins in the 1930s. In the first three decades, both fields dealt with microscopic (or molecular) controlling variables and qualitative data. Since about 1960, both have primarily focused on macroscopic (or molar) controlling variables. Their shared interest in foraging in the 1 980s suggests a limited convergence beween biologists and psychologists in data, methods, and theories. We draw on accounts ofintertheoretic relations from the philosophy of science, including both interlevel theory and interfield theory, to understand this convergence. However, our greater emphasis on methods of data collection and analysis leads us to characterize the convergence as not only one of interfield theory but one of interfield science.

I n 1985 the author proposed a theoretical taxonomy of behaviour functions that followed the interbehavioural field model developed by J. R. Kantor. The formulation of the taxonomy is an attempt to overcome logical, conceptual, and empirical limitations in prevailing behavioural approaches, especially operant theory. A molar analysis of behaviour is provided. In this paper, the author summarizes the main concepts and assumptions of this taxonomy, and describes some of the relevant methodological preparations and experimental data. The proposed interbehavioural field taxonomy (IF) consists of a classification of stimulus-response functions that describe the structural relations of a given behaviour segment. A behaviour segment consists of an organism interacting with stimulus objects and other organisms in a given setting. The behaviour segment contrasting with traditional conditioning framework includes categories with different logical functions. These categories are: (1) the interactive history, (2) the situational factors, (3) the medium of contact, (4) the field boundaries, and (5) the distinctions between object/organism, stimulus/response, and the stimulus-response function. Five general research programs are presented by the author: (1) basic research on animal behaviour, (2) complex human behaviour, (3) behavioural development processes, (4) extension to natural and social settings, (5) conceptual and theoretical analysis. Several experimental and theoretical developments are presented.

The Behavior Analyst, 1994

A major schism in modem scientific psychology has occurred between behavior analysts and cognitive psychologists. The two groups speak in different languages, but the languages can be translated so that they are mutually understandable; when either language is translated into the other, similarities emerge from seeming differences. We draw an analogy between the basic units of behavior analysis (the operant and the establishing operation) and cognitive psychology (the production). We argue that both units describe behavior as a function of motivative and discriminative antecedents. In addition, the two perspectives account in analogous ways for ongoing changes in motivation and for control by verbal statements. Adherents of the two perspectives have experimentally analyzed some of the same problems and fashioned similar solutions for applied problems. We conclude that many of the commonly cited differences between the two perspectives are the result of misunderstanding, and that the real differences need not preclude communication and collaboration. The schism can be bridged.

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 2006

In 1955, Egon Brunswik presented a paper in which he argued that neglect of the environment and over emphasis of the organism was the major downfall of cognitive psychology. His critiques have largely been ignored and research is discussed that demonstrates the same organismic-asymmetry Brunswik detailed in 1955. This research is discussed in attribution terms since experimental psychologists make behavioral attributions. This organismicasymmetry has resulted in a body of research that is guilty of the fundamental attribution error. Brunswik's theory of representative design, proposed to address organismicasymmetry, is discussed and contrasted with calls for ecological validity. Although calls for ecological validity are well intentioned, they lack any systematic theory of the environment and fall significantly short of Brunswik's ideal.

1995

Cognitive and behavioral psychology have long debated the merits of cognitive causality in the explanation of human behavior. We argue, however, that cognitive causality must be understood in the context of the pre-analytic philosophical assumptions of the scientist, not merely as an empirical matter. Many of the issues that seemingly separate cognitive from behavioral positions cannot be answered by research. We briefly present Relational Frame Theory, which is a behavioral approach to language and cognition. RFT is not subject to the same criticisms made by Bandura of behavior analytic thinking. Finally, we describe some aspects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as an example of the applied implications of this contextual analysis of cognition.

Frontiers in Psychology

Ecological Psychology is an embodied, situated, and non-representational approach pioneered by J. J. Gibson and E. J. Gibson. This theory aims to offer a third way beyond cognitivism and behaviorism for understanding cognition. The theory started with the rejection of the premise of the poverty of the stimulus, the physicalist conception of the stimulus, and the passive character of the perceiver of mainstream theories of perception. On the contrary, the main principles of ecological psychology are the continuity of perception and action, the organism-environment system as unit of analysis, the study of affordances as the objects of perception, combined with an emphasis on perceptual learning and development. In this paper, first, we analyze the philosophical and psychological influences of ecological psychology: pragmatism, behaviorism, phenomenology, and Gestalt psychology. Second, we summarize the main concepts of the approach and their historical development following the academic biographies of the proponents. Finally, we highlight the most significant developments of this psychological tradition. We conclude that ecological psychology is one of the most innovative approaches in the psychological field, as it is reflected in its current influence in the contemporary embodied and situated cognitive sciences, where the notion of affordance and the work of E. J. Gibson and J. J. Gibson is considered as a historical antecedent.

Ecological Psychology, 1995

Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.