Comparative Psychology
Stimulus Response, Defined
When talking about stimulus interpretation, the most predominant word that may easily catch the readers attention would be, stimulus. In talking under the laymans perspective, one may easily say that stimulus is an object of factor which greatly affects humans and animals thought and learning process. This is nevertheless correct, however, this is not even a pinch of the truth about it. B. F. Skinner can be easily considered as the most adept expert when talking about stimulus as a factor to learning and thinking. In talking about stimulus interpretation, it will be very significant to take note of the individual descriptions, explications and definitions of the involved concepts so as to give people a better grasp of the basic facts about the complex concept of stimulus interpretation. Skinner suggests that as significant as stimulus is to t he ideal of learning and understanding, the concept of response also plays an elemental role in this process. As for Skinner, the concepts stimulus and response always go hand-in-hand (Moyers, 1996). According to the psychology expert, each concept forms a causal relationship which is important to note in understanding the overall process of learning. Skinner specifically notes, stimulus and response have to be defined functionally and not merely as independent physical events stimulus is an environmental event that alters the probability of a response, while a response is a behavior whose probability is altered by a stimulus (Skinner, qtd. in Alexander Winne, 2006, pg.49).
Considering this, it appears clear that in the overall process of stimulus interpretation, both stimulus and response would have to play equally significant roles. In some ways, it can also be considered that these two concepts actually work as a pair, that would be impossible to be separated, as each of the two does reciprocal effects and alterations to each other.
The stimulus-response relation as well as the stimulus interpretation concept would fall under the ideal of cognition (Baron Kalsher, 1995). In psychology, a great extent of study has been exerted towards the attainment of a better understanding of human cognition. The collective term for these academic studies was then called, theories on cognition. In understanding what stimulus interpretation really is, it is best to know first that it falls under the more general ideal of learning or cognition. In years of scientific, psychological research, the term, cognition has had several explications and definitions as it would have to be explained under varying psychological perspectives. The process of stimulus interpretation has been categorized to also fall under the concept of cognition as it relates to a mental process that has something to do with the stimulus-response relation.
Cognitive tradition concentrates on the mental processes that mediate between inputs and outputs, between stimulus and response. Cognitive theories assume you have purposes and make choices and these theories deal with the mental processes that make your actions possible (Littlejohn, 2003, pg.100).
Given this, it is easier to see how stimulus interpretation actually relates to cognition, as how significant it is to the larger objective of understanding the human thought and learning process. Clearly stimulus interpretation forms similar roots with the stimulus-response concepts, which is cognition. However, in understanding human and animal stimulus response, it is insufficient to understand the cognitive aspect of stimulus alone rather, students will have to grasp what the psychological and neurological aspects of the interpretation is like.
In the study of psychology, students would always have to deal with causal relationships that involve independent and dependent factors or agents, or internal and external stimuli. Concepts like learning, behavior and impulse, all relate to these factors. Another thing that make all three similar is the need for interpretation. For the sake of laying out the terms simply, it could be assumed that an external agent will always have an altering effect on the internal agent. Or it could also be, the causal agent having an altering affect on the independent variable. In these relationships, a stimulus-response relation would always have to be present. It has always been the psychologists objective to monitor and understand that effects of the stimulus to the independent variable which eventually creates the response. And this is where the psychological process of interpretation comes in.
As what has been mentioned earlier, interpretation has always been a common process in the study of psychology. Meister (1999), gives a comprehensive explanation of what interpretation is and how it is usually being practiced in the field of psychology.
The interpretation of the input may be simple or difficult depending on the nature of the input and the interpretations that can be made of the input information. In the course of the interpretation, the interpreter constructs various hypotheses about what the input means and settles on one (Meister, 1999, pg.122-123)
This entails that interpretation involves a group of hypotheses or theories about the relevance or meaning of a particular response in the context of stimulus interpretation. In line with the objective of understanding the process of stimulus interpretation better, it is also important to note Meisters explanation that interpretation also relates to decision making especially with alternative solutions in cases where the input hypothesis becomes a problem (Meister, 1999, pg.123). In these scenarios, the author explains that what usually happens is that an an alternative response will be chosen and implemented, and the findings and observations on that particular response shall be executed and this will eventually bring forth a follow-up on the input stimuli which was previously observed.
Hence, the aforementioned information give sufficient basis and explanations as to what the general ideal of stimulus interpretation is like. However, in going back to the objective of this discussion, this does not mark a conclusion to this research. Humans and animals, considering the discrepancies in their physical, psychological and neurological forms may have varying ways in stimulus interpretation. Hence, the succeeding part of this discussion shall delve on differentiating human from animal form of stimulus interpretation.
Stimulus Interpretation in Humans
Behavior and learning have been two of the most studied aspects of the human psyche in the field of Psychology (Craighead Nemeroff, 2002). A lot of studies have been geared up towards the attainment of a better learning about the nature and processes involved in human behavior and learning. Apparently, one of the most discussed and one of the most perceivably interesting aspect of this branch is stimulus interpretation.
In talking about stimulus interpretation in humans, it is important to first note that interpretation would have to be based on various platforms or manifestations such as behavior and learning. However, in years of psychological efforts of attaining an efficient way of interpreting human stimuli when it comes to studying behavior and learning, psychologists commonly found this process rather complicated. In line with making this process more comprehensible, the diagram below was formulated by Panksepp (2004).
Figure 1 Four Possible Ways of Viewing the Role of Affective Consciousness in the Generation of Adaptive Behaviors in Emotional Situations (Panskepp, 2004, pg.33)
As what can be observed from the illustration above, one of the primary factors involved in interpreting the manifestations of responses is emotion. This can also be considered as one of the most dominant difference between human and animal stimulus observation. The intervention of emotion in the scientific study of stimulus interpretation in humans falls under the affective neuroscience. Under this field, an expert by the name William James has contributed a helpful explanation as to how significant emotion is to the interpretation of human stimulus and response. The following statement has become one of the most popular declarations in the history of Psychology and Affective Neuroscience due to its perceived relevance to the study of stimulus interpretation the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact and our feeling of the same changes as they occur is emotion (Panskepp, 2004, pg.33). To explain this in a more understandable manner, humans have the tendency to manifest and emotion based on the expected reciprocity or response from a stimuli. For example, some people may feel frightful of huge fires not because they are afraid of the fire itself, but because they do not like the feeling or the act of escaping the fires and the smokes. Consequently, animals may have a different way of responding to emotions. Aside from this, the interpretation of human stimuli also involve several theories that may not completely apply to animals. An example of these theories is the theory on Accommodation and Divergence. This theory postulates that the tendency of humans to react on a given stimuli is based on two factors accommodation and divergence. When talking about accommodation, stimuli interpretation has to consider the tendency of humans to learn and respond to a stimuli through learning from peers (Littlejohn, 2003, pg.97). On the other hand, the theory of divergence says that humans also have the tendency to react my exaggerating their differences from their peers (Littlejohn, 2003, pg.97). This also illustrates how peers affect the stimulus interpretation and adaptation in humans. However, as what has been mentioned in the general objective of this discussion, aside from the human stimulus interpretation, the stimulus interpretation in animals also has to be covered. Thus, the succeeding discussion shall discuss the stimulus interpretation process in animals and differentiate it with that of humans.
Stimulus Interpretation in Animals
The most apparent difference between the study of human and animal stimulus interpretation can be the identified relation between neuroscience and psychology. How neuroscience and psychology relates to each other in this study is illustrated below.
Figure 1.2 The Relationship between Psychology and Neuroscience (Panskepp, 2004, pg.31)
Although less experiments are being conducted on humans given the ethical and human right-related considerations it is evident that more studies dwell on the study of stimulus interpretation on humans.
Dogs have been some of the most typical subjects and objects of neuroscientific experiments in line with the study of the difference between human and animal stimulus interpretation. When dealing with stimulus and response in dogs, the general finding is that, dogs most typical response to stimuli (like food stimuli for example) is to approach them (Pavlov, 1994, pg.309). Pavlov, an expert when it comes to stimulus and response experiments in dogs suggests, when this stimulus is within our animals reach, the latter tries to come in contact with it, especially by its mouth (Pavlov, 1994, pg.309). Apart from this, one of the most interesting aspects of studying dogs behavior is the aspect of memory and emotions. In one study conducted by Sherrington, it shows that dogs indeed have an emotion of disgust, which was discovered when some canines were showed pieces of dogs meat, supposedly as food. Marston summarizes the findings of Sherringtons experiment
Behavioristic evidences indicated that the dogs emotions remain unchanged. One animal was stimulated with dog-meat, a stimulus never applies to dog prior to operation. Evidences of what Sherrington calls disgust immediately appeared (Marston, 2008, pg.55).
This would entail that although dogs emotions may not be as dynamic as what humans emotions are, they nevertheless have a sense of what is irregular and unacceptable based on standards like identity or peer relationship this science is yet to verify. Considering this, it may also be possible that dogs also bear grudges whenever they are harmed since they have a way of telling what is disgusting from what is not. However as what is communicated earlier on, this is yet to be verified by more in-depth scientific experiments.
In dealing with the study of stimulus interpretation in animals, aside from emotions, one of the most significant aspect to cover has to be animals senses since these are what to be called the entry point of stimuli. A lot of experiments concerned in exploring and scientifically explicating animal senses have already been conducted through the years. However only a relative number from these experiments were able to contribute relevant findings and results. One of such experiments that contributed a lot in the general aim of understanding animal senses was that of P. Hatchet-Souplet, director of Paris, Frances Zoological Institute (Brown, 1963, pg.20). His experiment was directed towards the senses of smell, sight and hearing of dogs. In this experiment, a sponge with saturated with a strong odored fluid was strapped in a funnel and was placed over the nose of his subject a highly intelligent dog specie. While the funnel was strapped on the dogs nose, the experimenter commanded the dog to sit. After several commands, the dog eventually easily followed even before the complete command was uttered by the experimenter. The next step was to lower the amount of odored fluid from the sponge. When the fluids odor started to become fainter, it also became hard for the dog to follow the command. However, it took considerably numerous times before the dog totally stopped responding to the experimenters commands. This experiment showed that the sense of smell is really one of dogs sharpest senses (Brown, 1936, pg.20). Also, this experiment implied that dogs sense of smell as compared to humans are definitely more powerful and superior. This just entails that dogs responses to stimulus activated through the sense of smell have to be more abrupt.
Apart from this, the same experimenter also tried to figure out whether or not dogs recognize colors. A following experiment was conducted and this involved a disk with holes through which dogs can see different colors through colored films. A picture of a food morsel was shown behind a particular film color only. The canine eventually learned that food is only associated with that particular color, and as a result, the dog only pounced one that specific color is shown in the disk (Brown, 1936, pg.20). Hence, through this experiment, it can easily be deduced that dogs can indeed identify colors.
Lastly, the canines ability to perceive sound was also tested. A canine was conditioned to stand up from a lying-down position by the sound of a water droplet against a metal disk attached to a stand (Brown, 1936, pg.20). By using different disks with varying tonal qualities, the experimenter was able to gauge dogs ability to perceive different tones and pitches of sounds, and loudness as well. The dog was able to respond even from a very faint sound of a droplet. This proves that dogs have sharper hearing abilities as compared to humans (Brown, 1936, pg.20).
Furthermore, one remarkable feature in dealing with stimulus interpretation in dogs in their sociability and ability to rely on peers. The relationship of dogs to humans, for example, has already been seen as a universal connection. As it appears, every human being has the ability to pet dogs as if they were humans, and dogs on the hand, appear to have the highest tendency to be loyal to humans as their masters. Domestic dogs, have been proven to possess the highest ability to socialize (Jensen, 2007, pg.225). As compared to other animal species, dogs are seen with the most remarkable sociability. However, just like humans, dogs socialization appear to be a complex phenomenon as well. It may not be that easy and simple for dogs to identify certain people as their peers. This is because the identification of people as masters of peers for dogs is a process associated to their adaptation. Dogs are highly adaptable creatures (Jensen, 2007, pg.226). They can easily adapt to an environment regardless of where they were born. Part of this adaptation process in the perception of human being as constant features of that particular place. For example, a man who owns the house where a dog is in becomes a permanent fixture in that place in the eyes of a dog. Hence, the dog will eventually has to accept that man as a permanent part of its life. This is where the particular dog-human kind of friendship starts. It starts when the dog starts to adapt to the presence of that man in its environment. This is significant in studying stimulus interpretation in dogs, since dogs responses to certain stimuli may also vary based on dogs relationship with the people involved in a particular activity or event.
Generally, the study of animal cognition has been very difficult and tedious for animal psychologists over the years. However, in relation to the study of stimulus interpretation, their researches have brought forth several interesting findings that clearly differentiates animal cognition to humans. However, most of these finding as specie specific and cannot be generalized nor applied to other animal species. Pigeons for example,were found to possess the ability to record visual stimuli in motion cognitively, which eventually enables them ton solve future problems in the absence of visual stimuli (Panskepp, 2004, pg.31). This presents a clear and distinctive ability which humans lack. Moreover, wolf puppies were also found to respond differently to howl stimuli, based from varying amplitude, duration and frequency (Shalter, Fentress Young, 1977, pg.110). But apart from these specific findings on animal stimuli interpretation, more general findings on the similarity and difference of animal stimulus interpretation from that of humans were found in some studies. Schusterman and colleagues study for example, showed that animals brains have the possibility to enlarge and soon perform human like processes just like deciphering who is a friend and a foe. The authors suggest that animals brains are likely to evolve as human-like brains because of the adaptive value of some aspects of reasoning (Schusterman, Rechmuth Kastak, 2000, pg.1). Furthermore, animals that commonly habituate in social groups are more likely to not only individual members of their class or tribe, but also the relationship between these individual members. This was found to be possible through stimuli equivalence which was defined as a basis of classificatory behavior where in stimuli that are not perceptually similar may be classified together because of spatiatemporal or functional relationships (Schusterman, Rechmuth Kastak, 2000, pg.1). Moreover, the tendency of animals to respond to emotional stimuli also appears to be different. It was found that all mammals observe a common attitude towards emotional stimuli however, it was also found that humans tend to me more appreciative and affective of these stimuli as they have a more sophisticated psychological systems that appeal to these emotions (Eisenberg, 1966). On the other hand, though animals may respond to such kinds of stimuli, they tend to be more uncultured and raw in responding to these stimuli as their psychological systems as less intricate. This was also found to affect the tendency of animals to depend on peers when responding and learning from such stimuli.
After going through the abovementioned facts and figures, it can be safe to say that indeed the main reason and basis why humans and animals have varying ways of responding to stimuli is their physiological forms. Humans have tendencies that may be absent among animals, and animals may perform particular abilities that may lack in human behavior. All these fall under one explanation which is their neurological structure.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment